Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
What discrimination are you referring to?
Athiests Obviously Believe in SOMETHING!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
What discrimination are you referring to?
The function of the state is not to enforce the use of certain dictionaries. Your argument is absurd. The legal definition is the only one that is relevant here and it cannot be based on discrimination that does not serve a valid state purpose. I am telling you right now, your argument will not fly. You can claim you are right and the court is just bunch of stupid-heads all you like. But unless your side comes up with something less absurd, in a hurry, you are going to lose.
I have explained several times. Why should I keep going over it? Read the opinions.
Once more... It is discrimination based on gender. There is no reason why a man should be able to marry a woman while a woman cannot marry a woman. See Loving. Further, different classes of marriage amount to a form of invidious racism, see Loving and Lawrence.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Then what? Then we'll have to amend the fucking Constitution! It is no more discriminatory against homosexuals as it is pedophiles or people who like fucking goats! Marriage is the union of a man and woman, doesn't matter what kind of sex they have! You want to RE-FUCKING-DEFINE it, so as to include HOMOSEXUALS! IF we did that, we would have to also allow polygamists the right to marry multiple partners, and their partners would have to be given "equal protection" and not discriminated against, so they would have to be allowed to also marry multiple partners! Age of consent could be challenged, and we might have to let child molesters marry kids! It's a lot of fucking unintended consequences from this stupidity, but you don't fucking look past the head of your immoral cock, so you don't give a shit!
Again with that. You've tried and failed, but tell us how you have not again.
Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
Laws against marrying a child serve a valid state interest in protecting children as they are not judged competent of consenting to a marriage contract. You can't marry a goat or hold it to any conditions under a marriage contract. Your slippery slope is retarded. You just keep repeating the same old ignorant shit and as I have told you repeatedly the logical tests will not lead to such things. Read the opinions.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Does this sound familiar??
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You fucking retard, you just asked me "THEN WHAT?" After informing me that Gay Marriage would be made law of the land! I fucking answered you! Then you trot out a 2006 bill that was attempted and failed, in an environment where Gay Marriage was NOT the law of the land, and you somehow think, in your retard brain, that it's valid? Once you have succeeded in making Gay Marriage the law of the land, the PEOPLE will rise up and fucking DEMAND a Constitutional amendment, and the NEXT attempt will NOT fail! You don't want to believe that? FINE! --Try it and see, mutherfuck!
You have already established that laws can be changed, words can be changed, entire concepts can be changed... altered to conform to our whims and sexual desires! There are already nitwit retards like you, in our fucking schools, handing out condoms to 7th-graders, and teaching kindergartners about boys and girls with "two mommys!" The boundaries of "age of consent" are already being challenged, minors no longer have to obtain parental permission to have an abortion.... and you want to sit here with a fucking straight face, and tell me that I am being paranoid about a slippery slope that just isn't possible? You are FUCKING INSANE!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Does this sound familiar??
As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation law.
Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Get off my fucking thread you goddamn retard!
Well it took you pinheads over 300 posts and two days to successfully divert another thread into a debate on Gay Marriage! Stringy, you failed miserably at discrediting human spirituality, with you mind-numbing idiocy about how Atheists can have morals without spirituality, then you blow it all out of the water by demonstrating how devoid of morality you are! PRICELESS!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Try arguing against this, you dimwit.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF “TRADITIONAL” MARRIAGE:
THEN AND NOW
Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage Arguments against Interracial Marriage in 2000 from 1948 to 1967THEN AND NOW
*The first examples are used to argue against same sex marriages and the second examples are ones used to argue against interracial marriages*
1. Same-sex marriage runs counter to God's plan:
“If God had intended for same-sex couples to marry, he would have made Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve.”
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. Interracial marriage runs counter to God's plan:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3 (1967))
1. Same-sex relationships are “unnatural” and “unhealthy.”
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”
(Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that Court's decision striking down a state law ban on interracial marriage in
Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))
1. Homosexuals are “perverted” and “abominable.”
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. Persons wishing to enter into interracial marriages come from the “dregs of society.”
(Source: Advocates in favor of California's ban on interracial marriage, quoted in Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 25)
1. If we allow “gay marriage,” then the next thing you know we'll have brothers and sisters wanting to marry each other, or demands for legalization of polygamous marriages.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. “[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
2. “The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
2. “[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same
footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument
transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage)
1. Gay people are free to marry just like anyone else, as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2.“Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
1. Same-sex marriage would precipitate the breakdown of society.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. “Civilized society has the power of self-preservation, and, marriage being the foundation of such society, most of the states in which the Negro forms an element of any note have enacted laws inhibiting intermarriage between the white and black races.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
2. Interracial marriages would be a “calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
(Source: Tennessee Supreme Court, quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19,1996)
1. Same-sex couples cannot biologically conceive children together, and therefore can't satisfy the goals of marriage.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. “When people of the same race marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, . . . and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”
(Source: A judge in a Missouri case, quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19,1996)
1. The founders of Vermont would never have supported same-sex marriage.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. “[A]t the very time the Constitution of the United States was being formulated, miscegenation was considered inimical to the public good and was frowned upon by the colonies, and continued to be so regarded and prohibited in states having any substantial admixture of population at the time the 14th amendment was adopted.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
1. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would degrade “traditional” heterosexual marriages.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”
(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19, 1996)
1. Advocates of same-sex marriage are urging the Legislature to take a step that no state in the country has ever taken. Why should Vermont be
the first?
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. “
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 35 (Shenk, J. dissenting))
1. Gay people should not be allowed to marry because [in the United States] they suffer a higher incidence of AIDS than heterosexuals.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. Racial intermarriage should not be allowed because of the physical inferiority and higher incidence of certain diseases among certain races, such as sickle-cell anemia among African Americans.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 23-24 and n.5 (summarizing the State's argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))
1. Same-sex marriages have adverse effects on the parties' children, and those children are apt to suffer stigma.
(Source: Vermont House and Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings, 1/25/00, 2/1/00)
2. “It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage)
LOL
It was not I that started this thread to prove something and failed. Also, I was not attempting to discredit human spirituality. I simply pointed out that it is not needed for morality. I proved my point fine and what exactly did I do to show I was devoid of morality? Oh I expressed disagreement with your irrational Christian morality...errr... I mean the one God dictated to you in the shower.
Your roommate in the asylum, nAHZi, turned the discussion to gay marriage. You commented several times, before this. Why? Maybe you wanted to cover your ass whooping, but we can get back to it at any time.
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
If you'll go back and re-read his post, you'll see that his response was to me.
He's scared of me.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
There was no ass whooping, I surgically removed yours, and handed it to you before you even knew the procedure was being done.
Yes... you spent about a page and a half explaining how Atheists can have morals without a spiritual foundation, because they base them on "reason!" Then you end up showing us where this non-spiritual "reasoned morality" of yours brings us! I think it is brilliant, and a wonderful way to wind up the thread!
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yet, I made you look like a blithering fool, ignorant of the legal origins and meanings of nice sounding phrases you think apply to your point, but don't. Like "separate but equal" does not apply, because nothing is actually separate.