Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

[southwind]

So now you want to talk about morals? Who's morals do you want to use? Yours I assume? Not sure I'm comfortable with using someones morals who is infatuated with animal sex.

What is it with you and bestiality? Do you have something you want to share with the class?

Whats wrong with talking about morals and your lack of them ! I'm saying going down one road, sometimes, leads to another, which apparently you don't have a problem with !

 

[Dog Wonder]

Whats wrong with talking about morals and your lack of them !

Do you have to flaunt your multiple perversities.

 

[Force Majeure]

Whats wrong with talking about morals and your lack of them ! I'm saying going down one road, sometimes, leads to another, which apparently you don't have a problem with !

Your road leads to sex with animals?

This Ms Tree has made a point of consent. Do you understand that?

 

[Ms Tree]

Whats wrong with talking about morals and your lack of them ! I'm saying going down one road, sometimes, leads to another, which apparently you don't have a problem with !

I have no morals? Exactly what are you basing this assumption on? Your statement asside from not having a shred of evidence to support it denies a basic tenant of law as indicated by Force.

Im used to you spouting off all the time but I would have thought that after so many years you would learn to look stuff you by now so you would not make a fool of your self when ever you put electrons to screen.

The mere idea of you talking about morality is laughable. You talk about morality in the same breath that you talk about depriving rights to a group you disslike. Does anyone else see the irony there? By the way, ade you in any way concered abot the possibility of that same "rational" being used to deny you rights when you are no longer in the majority?

 

[Ms Tree]

Your road leads to sex with animals?

This Ms Tree has made a point of consent. Do you understand that?

I have brought up the premise of consent countless times. The idea is far beyond his grasp.

I am amazed that the right wingers here at some point or another all seems to go down that same rabbit hole when all their other arguments fail. The equivalent of a dieing pwrsons last breath.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Your road leads to sex with animals?

This Ms Tree has made a point of consent. Do you understand that?

Given his war on women, obsession with perversities, and personal hygiene, the possibility of anyone giving consent is remote.

 

[southwind]

Your road leads to sex with animals?

This Ms Tree has made a point of consent. Do you understand that?

Never said "MY" road leads to sex with animals, a libtards though.................?

 

[delldude]

Your road leads to sex with animals?

This Ms Tree has made a point of consent. Do you understand that?

 

Whether bestiality will take precedence on the agenda before pedophilia remains to be seen. Two things are clear: (1) until progressives encounter serious resistance, they will always keep pushing the envelope further; and (2) nothing is so disgusting, diseased, insane, unholy, perverted, pernicious, or vile that moonbats will not insist that we revere it and demonize those who refuse.
http://moonbattery.com/?p=33090
 

 

[eolesen]

Consider where the narratives have gone... 
 
In the 1970's, it was free love...
 
In the 80's it was all about acceptance of the gay lifestyle.
 
In the 90's, it became all about gay pride.
 
In the 2000's, it was gay equality.
 
Now that those battles are over, the narrative has moved to the gender confused..  California just signed into law an act which allows gender confused high school boys to use the girls' locker room, simply because this week they associate with being a girl...
 
Go ahead and laugh, but the equal protection clause will certainly continue to be stretched, and some of the lines that have been redrawn may wind up being redrawn yet again.
 
While I'm less worried about NAMBLA's agenda being the next shoe to drop, it wouldn't shock me to see someone move to decriminalize polygamy, or push towards other forms of group marriage.  There's already tacit tolerance of polygamy in some parts of the country where law enforcement looks the other way as long as child abuse isn't going on.  Certainly, it's a historic practice in multiple religions and cultures....
 
I'm sure bestiality is safe for now --- both the Sierra Club and PETA would probably have issues with that, and that would confuse liberals far too much.

 

[Dog Wonder]

I thought the 60's was free love? E you need to move back to the 50's.

 

[Ms Tree]

Consider where the narratives have gone... 
 
In the 1970's, it was free love...
 
In the 80's it was all about acceptance of the gay lifestyle.
 
In the 90's, it became all about gay pride.
 
In the 2000's, it was gay equality.
 
Now that those battles are over, the narrative has moved to the gender confused..  California just signed into law an act which allows gender confused high school boys to use the girls' locker room, simply because this week they associate with being a girl...
 
Go ahead and laugh, but the equal protection clause will certainly continue to be stretched, and some of the lines that have been redrawn may wind up being redrawn yet again.
 
While I'm less worried about NAMBLA's agenda being the next shoe to drop, it wouldn't shock me to see someone move to decriminalize polygamy, or push towards other forms of group marriage.  There's already tacit tolerance of polygamy in some parts of the country where law enforcement looks the other way as long as child abuse isn't going on.  Certainly, it's a historic practice in multiple religions and cultures....
 
I'm sure bestiality is safe for now --- both the Sierra Club and PETA would probably have issues with that, and that would confuse liberals far too much.

My my  where to start.
 
You think the battles for acceptance of gays and equality for gays is over?  When did that happen?  I'll be sure to let my gay friends know that they can stop fighting.... as soon as they stop laughing.
 
Since you said that the 14th "continues to be stretched" I can only interpret that to mean that you do not believe the equal protection clause does not apply to same sex marriage.  On what legal concept do you base that?
 
Also, what legal argument do you have against polygamy?  
 
You're going with the animal BS too?  You really think someone is going to get rid of the consent laws entirely?  

 

[southwind]

I have no morals? Exactly what are you basing this assumption on? Your statement asside from not having a shred of evidence to support it denies a basic tenant of law as indicated by Force.

Im used to you spouting off all the time but I would have thought that after so many years you would learn to look stuff you by now so you would not make a fool of your self when ever you put electrons to screen.

The mere idea of you talking about morality is laughable. You talk about morality in the same breath that you talk about depriving rights to a group you disslike. Does anyone else see the irony there? By the way, ade you in any way concered abot the possibility of that same "rational" being used to deny you rights when you are no longer in the majority?
 
All I'm saying, which apparently you can't comprehend is, since you don't have a problem with 2 gay people getting married, there rights and all, you shouldn't have a problem with Dog marrying his dog, you know, his rights and all that !

 

[eolesen]

My my  where to start.
 
You think the battles for acceptance of gays and equality for gays is over?  When did that happen?  I'll be sure to let my gay friends know that they can stop fighting.... as soon as they stop laughing.
 
Since you said that the 14th "continues to be stretched" I can only interpret that to mean that you do not believe the equal protection clause does not apply to same sex marriage.  On what legal concept do you base that?
 
Also, what legal argument do you have against polygamy?  
 
You're going with the animal BS too?  You really think someone is going to get rid of the consent laws entirely?

Laugh if you will, Twig, but the fact is that acceptance today is a far cry from where it was 20 years ago. Just look at the makeup of network TV -- every show has at least one gay character, just like every show had at least one black character in the 70's... It's accepted. Not universally, but it's well beyond the point of being a minority view.

I absolutely have no problem with equality on a secular basis.

What I take issue with is that marriage is a religious sacrament that's been borrowed/seized for civil purposes. Simply getting a license from the State isn't a marriage, certainly not in the historical definition any more than me jumping the broom at our wedding would have made me black. It's a different level of commitment and expectation, one I wouldn't expect you to understand.

You're the big fan of separation of church & state, right? Perhaps it's time to focus less on inscriptions that say "In God We Trust" or a replica of the Ten Commandments, and spend a little more time getting the term marriage removed and substituted by civil partnership in the tax code, health care laws, etc.

You don't have to follow my or any other faith, but the First doesn't give you the right to steal from religion for secular purposes.

And no, I really don't expect you to understand the difference. That would require actually understanding and exploring faith to a deeper level than you apparently did before your realization that you are the center of your world.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

If ya would have left the last sentence out of your post, it would have been better received...by me anyway.

 

[Ms Tree]

All I'm saying, which apparently you can't comprehend is, since you don't have a problem with 2 gay people getting married, there rights and all, you shouldn't have a problem with Dog marrying his dog, you know, his rights and all that !

I know I am going to regret asking but how in the world do you equate to himans getting married and animals wbo do not have the legal right to concent? An animal has no rights under the COTUS.