Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 19:30
VIEWED: 17791
PAGE 10 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
You don't read very well, do you ?
Well, truth be told, you don't WRITE very well, either. You never actually answered my question. By your "textbook definition" of marriage, am I married or not, in your book? I've got a wife, I'm male, she's female, yet we joined together and did not have children.
So are we now required to be "unmarried" from each other? Is there a civil or religious ceremony for that? Will there be cake? Last time there was cake.
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT, MORON, I DID ANSWER YOUR FUCKING STUPID ASS QUESTION. RE- READ MY POST, AND IF YOU STILL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, if you had two neurons to rub together- which you apparently don't- you'd notice that we cross-posted.
committing to each other and resulting in children.- Rapo
So infertile people can't marry, and lonely widows and widowers can't remarry? This just keeps getting better'n better.-Signy
You don't read very well, do you ?-Rapo
But what you seem to be saying is that old people, people who use birth control (including having their tubes tied/ snipped), and couples who KNOW they are infertile can get still marry (in your book) because a miracle could happen? Because there is still a one-in-a-billion chance that they might have a baby?
And you say that you're not religious....
BWAH!
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's the intentional obtuseness of you two's idiotic replies which is so damn bewildering. I make the point as clear for anyone w/ 1/ 100th a brain to comprehend, yet you continue w/ the sad lunacy.
Which is what makes you a fucking moron as well. Congrats.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap:
"Ooh yeah. Gays have no " rights " to marry, what so ever."
Rue:
Loving v Virginia
Supreme Court ruling
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" ...”
***************************************************************
Eh Rap ? Wrong, yet again.
I just thought I'd repost this since you seemed to skip over it. Unless, of course you're claiming that gays aren't people ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Rap:
"Ooh yeah. Gays have no " rights " to marry, what so ever."
Rue:
Loving v Virginia
Supreme Court ruling
“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" ...”
***************************************************************
Eh Rap ? Wrong, yet again.
I just thought I'd repost this since you seemed to skip over it. Unless, of course you're claiming that gays aren't people ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
Marriage means 1 man + 1 woman. dork.
Gays CAN marry the opposite sex, just as anyone else can. EXACT same rights, pal.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And all this time you've been claiming it's not a right. Now that it's been shown to be a BASIC HUMAN right, you've shifted to some definition of marriage which doesn't exist in federal law.
Find me that federal definition. Go, boy ! Fetch !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And all this time you've been claiming it's not a right. Now that it's been shown to be a BASIC HUMAN right, you've shifted to some definition of marriage which doesn't exist in federal law.
Find me that federal definition. Go, boy ! Fetch !
***************************************************************
Don't have to, the various states already voted on it.
Deal w/ it.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, Federal Definition?
One Hundred Fourth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six
An Act
To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:
`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Don't have to, the various states already voted on it."
Well, you're argument was that it wasn't a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. I've shown that it is under the US constitution. So now you're backing away from your own argument ? In other words - you're wrong yet again ?
***************************************************************
So, when did you become a religious fanatic ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to, the various states already voted on it.
Deal w/ it.
Well, as long as it was put to a vote, taking away rights is okay.
Lets see how you stick to that position if someone suggests voting away the rights of a straight white christian.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME