Obama: "I think same sex couples should be abe to get married
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
That graph left out: earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, pestilence, another holocaust (apparently we're responsible for the first one), tornadoes, goat fucking, Aunt Hettie's hemorrhoids, and causing little Jimmy to like pastels. I left something out... hmm.. I'll think of it later.
edit: I remember now. We're definitely responsible for Santorum. We're sorry.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
impeccable fabric selection. you left out impeccable fabric selection.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Oh please. That's innate. Like breathing.
I don't have to go back and read a thing, you just need to comprehend what you posted above, you made an argument against yourself. I'm telling you, this is like arguing football with my wife! LMAO
For someone bringing up the US Constitution and its amendments, you sure don't know much about it.
But then again, that would only apply to people who really give a fuck what you think, am I right?
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Do you get the same results arguing with your wife? Has she scheduled an MRI yet?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so, the equal protection clause clearly and demonstrably refers to "any person within its (the state's) jurisdiction", but according to you, the equal protection clause refers to "the equal rights of state governments".
i know cats and dogs smarter than you. hell, i bet my chickens are smarter than you.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
It matters because now you want to change the definition from one chosen by Christians of the modern era, you know the one that ignore the bible where marriage was about ownership and polygamy was common.
The odd thing is that many of them seem fine with given gays all of the rights but calling it something else. All of this brouhaha over perceived ownership of a fucking word. Seriously, so many of these people think it's okay to restrict rights because gays want to use the same word to describe their bond?
"any person within its (the state's) jurisdiction"
What part of "states jurisdiction" are you not understanding?
The equal protection clause refers to laws implemented by the governments of the states.
It is not by its terms applicable to the federal government.
Did your chickens pass the California bar exam?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
finally, you said something not completely ridiculous.
yes, the equal protection clause does refer to laws implemented by the governments of the states. what it says it that any person under the jurisdiction of those states must be protected by those laws equally.
since one group of people (heterosexuals) can marry, and another group of people (homosexuals) can't marry, it is clear as day that the persons under the jurisdiction of those laws are not being equally protected.
agreed?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if you did, they could surely.
Gays can still get married, they just have to get married to someone of the opposite sex. A gay guy can still marry a straight woman, and I bet plenty have. Hell why not just have all the gay men marry the gay women then swap partners forever? Then you can be gayly married to the opposite sex but still take it in the ass from Bob whenever you want.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so bob is married to linda, and don is married to michelle, but michelle and linda are really a couple and bob and don are really a couple. bob and don and michelle and linda enjoy none of the benefits and protections that don and michelle do or that bob and linda do and have to live a lie.
whereas jack and jill can just go out, get married, not live a lie, and enjoy all the benefits and protections of marriage that don and bob and linda and michelle don't get.
and you call that equal protection of the law?
i had no idea michelle bachmann logic was so appealing to otherwise seemingly intelligent people.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
if gays can get married, but only to someone of the opposite sex, then gays really can't get married, can they?
the definition of homosexuality is attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex.
it's really a fascinating thing to watch people make this enormously idiotic argument.
Can you name some of the big benefits that gays are missing out on? The not having to testify against your mate is probably not a big factor.
And in most states the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, what part of this were you not able to grasp?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
all it takes is one example for it to not be equal protection of the law. but suppose bob or don or linda or michelle are in the military, then their spousal benefits go to the person they are married to, not their partner. whereas jack and jill have no such problem. plus, jack and jill were not forced to order russian brides or post ads on craigslist for a few years until they were able to set up their perfect four way sham marriage.
tell me, do you honestly think the michelle bachmann argument, that gays have equal rights because they too can marry opposite sex partners, is equal protection under the law? or are you just devil's advocating me tonight?