The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Sanctified religious marriage remains unchanged.

Secular is not sanctified religious.

Religion does no belong in the secular government.

Why wouldn't civil unions have sufficed?

This alters the definition of marriage. The S Ct did not limit marriage to 2 humans. Could a threesome now marry?

What about the polygamy scenario?

1) Who cares. No one really. The only thing you do is change the spelling and the pronunciation of the word for the common government endorsed contract. A totally non-substantive issue.

2) Civil unions for all and no secular marriage by government would be fine. It would simply never pass. Real layers are pragmatists. Bigots worry about what words are used to describe a function.

The question is whether the federal government can have a law that defines a marriage is between a man and a woman. I personally believe a marriage can be only between a man and a woman. But it's an easy call, DOMA is a violation of the constitution.

I have no problem with homosexuals having civil unions and the legal status associated with married couples.

Some real lawyers are pragmatists, some are idealists, some are everything in between.

A lawyer is a person who, lacking a better idea, went to law school. A judge is a lawyer who knows a politician.

Why alter the historic definition of marriage?

Probably everybody thinks civil unions would preserve the rights of gays, but altering the concept of marriage is sorta like burning the flag -- the point is simply to stick a thumb in the eye of conventional society.

A real marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays.............will only be playing house. Gay marriage contributes nothing to society or the human race.

"Why alter the historic definition of marriage?"-johnforbes

What is it about all you conservatives that insist that polygamy is the preferred definition of marriage?
After all, for thousands of years, across many cultures, marriage has historically been between on man and as many women as he wants. This is still the case in many cultures today.
Historically, at no time has marriage been universally accepted as being solely heterosexual monogamy.

"Probably everybody thinks civil unions would preserve the rights of gays,..."-johnforbes

As any real lawyer knows, separate but equal was repudiated in the U.S. back in 1954.
And since the 14th amendment is the law of the land and there's nothing you dumb schmucks can do about it, equal protection is here to stay.
Civil unions can never be "equal" to marriage as long as the government refuses to enforce equality in taxation, survivors' benefits, veterans benefits, etc. that the Feds are currently refusing to provide to civil unions,(and which conservatives hypocritically don't want the government to provide) proving they are legally not equal at all.
And if they truly were equal, the law wouldn't need two names for the same thing, now would it?
Why don't we make gays get a "froogie license" if they want to drive? We could say a "froogie license" is equal to a drivers license so no one should care, right?

So why does johnforbes pretend he has a problem with altering the "historic definition" of marriage now when he has no problem with doing so when Utah wanted to join the union back in 1895 as historically compliant polygamists?

"...altering the concept of marriage is sorta like burning the flag -- the point is simply to stick a thumb in the eye of conventional society."-johnforbes

^^^^^Now that's simply gross ignorance.
All it demonstrates is that you haven't the foggiest idea about the true issues involved.
Hell, them Negroes had their own schools. They just wanted to stick a thumb is the eye of conventional society, right forbes?

"Gays.............will only be playing house. Gay marriage contributes nothing to society or the human race."-sillydaddy

^^^^^What a clown.
Sillydaddy believes no heterosexual menopausal woman should be allowed to marry since the marriage couldn't produce any genetic children. He also thinks infertile heterosexual men shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should heterosexual women who have had a hysterectomy. They would only be playing house.

Obviously such marriages would contribute nothing to society or the human race.
Geeesh....

The anti-equality, anti-decency group always plays a game that is so obviously self contradictory6 and based on a self serving delusional myopic view of history. That is the central key of the pseudo-conservative mind. Self delusion and malice towards others in others to preserve special privileges that serve only to stroke their weak little egos.

Wrong!

In 1895, I logged on and vigorously protested.

Modems were made of wood back then, so it took a bit longer. Also, data transmission back then was by pony express.

But I was very active politically in 1895.

So johnforbes couldn't refute a single point I made about him. :lol:



No need to thank me for the legal lessons, johnforbes.

Son, I finished law school before you were born.

You made a few valid points, some silly ones, and the whole not worth a response.

"Obviously such marriages would contribute nothing to society or the human race.
Geeesh...."

Clown, your're pointing out what may be illnesses or physical disabilities..........Are you then saying that homosexuality is an illness, a disability, a sickness ??! Then I agree with you!

The bigots do self identify and demonstrate their bigotry so clearly. It's amazing how much these bigots hate the idea of AMERICA, FREEDOM, EQUALITY, and OPPORTUNITY in every aspect of American life and government.

"... your're pointing out what may be illnesses or physical disabilities..."-sillydaddy

Sillydaddy, menopause is neither an illness nor disability. It's normal and natural.

But the point is, whether or not you consider it an illness to be gay, you can't deny civil rights equal protection under the law using illness as an excuse.
Yes, even you will be allowed to be married when you're a worthless, sick, doddering old fool.

Wait a minute, that's right now, isn't it.
I guess you prove my point for me.

"Son, I finished law school before you were born."-johnforbes

That's an outright lie, you old fop.


"You made a few valid points, some silly ones, and the whole not worth a response."-johnforbes

Yet you did reply, didn't you?
You just couldn't argue your blatantly frivolous position, counselor.
Verdict for the Clownkicker.

There's nothing remarkable about a person attending law school. Many morons, and some bright people, have done so.

Tens of thousands of practicing and non-practicing lawyers litter the D.C. area.

Nothing could be more commonplace.

Even a silly kid on the Internet, who dreams of kicking things, should be able to grasp that.

Clown, it is my opinion that homosexuals engage in deviant, unnatural behavior........I can not agree that such behavior should be protected by law.

It's amazing how much these bigots hate the idea of AMERICA, FREEDOM, EQUALITY, and OPPORTUNITY in every aspect of American life and government

Nah, some of just don't it's decent or natural for men to butt fuck each and suck each others dicks. If that makes me a bigot then so be it, that's my right, I want no part of your world dude.

The bigots do self identify and as always they have no justification other than their bigotry.

Yes, johnforbes, we all agree you're as commonplace as they come.

But I didn't say anything about you not going to law school.
What I said is that you lied about finishing before I was born, if you can read your own writing that I clearly quoted.

That would put you well into your 80's.
You're not.
You must be one of those moron lawyers you were talking about.
Or perhaps just one of the dishonest shyster type.
But I noticed you still could not refute a single point I made.

You say I'm not worth a response, but you keep responding without saying anything relevant on the topic.

"Clown, it is my opinion that homosexuals engage in deviant, unnatural behavior........I can not agree that such behavior should be protected by law."-sillydaddy

First of all, marriage is not defined by sexual behaviors, and gay marriage is no more about sex than straight marriage is. You needn't be married to have sex, and you needn't have sex to be married.
Many straight people marry and never have sex.
Many straight people marry and engage in blow jobs and anal sex and hand jobs; the stuff you consider deviant and unnatural.
But you don't want to stop those deviant heteros from marrying for the same behavior, which makes you a hypocrite.

But most of all, marriage is not about 'protecting' any particular behavior.
If you got married so that your sex with your wife would be 'protected' somehow, then you're a first class idiot.
And if you only got married so that you could have children with your girlfriend, then you're clueless about the real world.

And if you got married so that you could have children with your girlfriend, then you're clueless about the real world.

Yes, that is distasteful to guys who like to butt fuck other guys and suck their dicks. Gays understand the real world, those who enjoy sex with the opposite sex are sick bigots, they must conform.

I've was posting on the Internet in 1895.

My favorite year online was 1900, when breakthroughs from Mendel, Freud, and Planck appeared in English.

^^^^^^And johnforbes opts for the "moron lawyer" classification.

Obama preaches gay rights in Senegal............they told him to go fuck himself !

The bigots do self identify and as always they have no justification other than their bigotry.

Obama preaches gay rights in Senegal............they told him to go fuck himself

He also brought up how slaves were shipped to America. That also pissed them off after all it was a time in history when smart black Africans were culling out their low intelligence blacks and selling them for shipment to America as slaves. They not only got rid of their riff raff they also made some money.

Obama bids fair to become more of a fool than Jimmy Carter.

Maybe, but he'll never reach the depths of W's foolishness.

More drivel from the faux.

The neocon clowns can't get over gayness.

Why do you clowns really care what people do in private anyway. Just give it up already.

:lol:

elklindo69 wrote:The question is whether the federal government can have a law that defines a marriage is between a man and a woman. I personally believe a marriage can be only between a man and a woman. But it's an easy call, DOMA is a violation of the constitution.

I have no problem with homosexuals having civil unions and the legal status associated with married couples.

And yet you and other liberals complained when I stated that we should remove the word "Marriage" from all laws and replace it with "Union"....

More sophistry from liar leroy.

Sure, as I have said before, start the everyone has a civil union. no one has a civil marriage movement. I will support you. Let us all know how far you get.

Or is this simply just more of your pure diversion and non-substantive bullshit???

We all know.

Leroy wrote:

elklindo69 wrote:The question is whether the federal government can have a law that defines a marriage is between a man and a woman. I personally believe a marriage can be only between a man and a woman. But it's an easy call, DOMA is a violation of the constitution.

I have no problem with homosexuals having civil unions and the legal status associated with married couples.

And yet you and other liberals complained when I stated that we should remove the word "Marriage" from all laws and replace it with "Union"....

?????????????????????