"Whites" need only apply!

[peejay 327]

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Only 50 years ago interracial marriages were deemed outside of "what is culturally acceptable or societal norm". It wasn't until the courts got involved that all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States were removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

Are you for real? What does race have to do with something that is not biologically correct? Do you know the difference? What next? Inter-species marriages? Where do you draw the line?

Double for you too!

Back in the day, this country thought inter-racial relationships and breeding of mongrel children was considered not natural or biologically correct. Maybe your history book is missing a few pages?

Keep digging.

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement.

OMFG, where are the cameras??? Am I being punk'd???? seriously!!

I just want to ask 1 question, just one

U own a passport???

Only punks can get punked.

P.S.: I have held a valid US passport for 15+ years.

[IAMX 3,055]

you stated that, "when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman."

I was just letting you know how by your definition, your marriage was actually against what was defined by the vast majority of America and if it wasn't for the SCOTUS many of us, yourself included, would not have been able to marry the one person we love so much.

Join the 20th century. Maybe the 21st someday.

QFT.

[HAL 9000 96]

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Only 50 years ago interracial marriages were deemed outside of "what is culturally acceptable or societal norm". It wasn't until the courts got involved that all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States were removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

Are you for real? What does race have to do with something that is not biologically correct? Do you know the difference? What next? Inter-species marriages? Where do you draw the line?

Double for you too!

Slip slip slip

Who are you to assign value to the biology of other people's choices? Get over it already unless you'd like to come out of somewhere.

Gee, I'm just sh*tting all over myselfI'm so impressed. I bow to your superiority. . Have you ever been to Possum Kingdom, Cut and Shoot, or Lukenbach? No? Then you ain't traveled everywhere have ya?

Some Depends may help

you are not the first B)

* COMPUTERIZED ROFL *

Homosexual marriage is no more of a right than is plural marriage or marriage between close family members. Society at large deems what is culturally acceptable or societal norm. So far, when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

Only 50 years ago interracial marriages were deemed outside of "what is culturally acceptable or societal norm". It wasn't until the courts got involved that all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States were removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

Are you for real? What does race have to do with something that is not biologically correct? Do you know the difference? What next? Inter-species marriages? Where do you draw the line?

Double for you too!

Back in the day, this country thought inter-racial relationships and breeding of mongrel children was considered not natural or biologically correct. Maybe your history book is missing a few pages?

Keep digging.

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement.

Ahhh the old 1 + 1 = 3 argument. Priceless, carry on.

[peejay 327]

you stated that, "when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman."

I was just letting you know how by your definition, your marriage was actually against what was defined by the vast majority of America and if it wasn't for the SCOTUS many of us, yourself included, would not have been able to marry the one person we love so much.

Join the 20th century. Maybe the 21st someday.

QFT.

Isn't it already the 21st century? I joined it already. Severakl years ago. But I don't know what realm many of you live in. Most people don't live there.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Ohhhh ohhh

Somebody else's calvary just arriveeeed, somebody text'd his/her friendssssss

Waiting for the dynamic duo to make an entrance

Edited November 21, 2008 by TävôLuDô

[HAL 9000 96]

If it wasn't for the US Supreme Court stepping in, BY YOUR LOGIC, your marriage and that of many people on this site would be outside of what is culturally acceptable or a societal norm (act was actually a felony) and should not have taken place.

peejay's marriage would not fall foul of miscegenation laws

Does that fact upset you?

no

i am correcting the record, they don't know. we've posted to each other a lot so just filling in the noobies.

Should I be ashamed?

Just to get the record straight...did you marry within your own race? Does it really make a #### to this debate about homosexual marriage?

And...just to set the record straight...there are no miscegenation laws in the USA presently.

As is the same argument about drawing lines in the legal sand. Slip slip slip.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement argument.

Who the hell told you marriage is a breeding arrangement???? What century do you live in? WOW.

Time for you to go find the last brain cell... it escaped when you sneezed.

[IAMX 3,055]

you stated that, "when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman."

I was just letting you know how by your definition, your marriage was actually against what was defined by the vast majority of America and if it wasn't for the SCOTUS many of us, yourself included, would not have been able to marry the one person we love so much.

Join the 20th century. Maybe the 21st someday.

QFT.

Isn't it already the 21st century? I joined it already. Severakl years ago. But I don't know what realm many of you live in. Most people don't live there.

Where did all your claims go?

Claims of no precedent?

Claims of biological status of homosexuality?

Claims of the requirement of breeding to marry?

Got any more claims of no value that you refuse to back up?

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

Somebody else's calvary just arriveeeed,

calvary is where jesus was crucified. cavalry is the guys on horses

[Chica Yeyé 41]

P.S.: I have held a valid US passport for 15+ years.

Only 15 years??????? OMFG you are getting funnier by the post . How old are you again? I've had a passport since I was 5. Am now 37, that makes it what? 32 years with a passport.

Keep digging, we enjoy that.

[HAL 9000 96]

you stated that, "when the states hold referendums that define what marriage is, the definition in the vast majority of America is that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman."

I was just letting you know how by your definition, your marriage was actually against what was defined by the vast majority of America and if it wasn't for the SCOTUS many of us, yourself included, would not have been able to marry the one person we love so much.

Join the 20th century. Maybe the 21st someday.

QFT.

Isn't it already the 21st century? I joined it already. Severakl years ago. But I don't know what realm many of you live in. Most people don't live there.

Where did all your claims go?

Claims of no precedent?

Claims of biological status of homosexuality?

Claims of the requirement of breeding to marry?

Got any more claims of no value that you refuse to back up?

And even in the face of actual, modern genetics that point to some degree that some of the factors of homosexuality are indeed genetic in origin... flies in the face of idiotic logic held by archaic notions of definitions of correct that slide off slopes all too easily.

[peejay 327]

So...since when have homosexuals been capable of breeding? There is no comparison, but you seem to delude yourself thatr there is somehow a comparison. The truth is...there is no comparison. Time to find another arguement argument.

Who the hell told you marriage is a breeding arrangement???? What century do you live in? WOW.

Time for you to go find the last brain cell... it escaped when you sneezed.

When fools run out of ammo in their debate...they always resort to juvenile insults. Hint, hint!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Devil's Advocate

A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

So if gay marriage is 'ok' because the purpose of marriage is not procreation, then what other forms of marriage become 'ok'?

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Somebody else's calvary just arriveeeed,

calvary is where jesus was crucified. cavalry is the guys on horses

anything else you want to add to the discussion or it was just a quick cameo? Don't like the fact that we are being mean to your little friend do you??

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

Devil's Advocate

A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

So if gay marriage is 'ok' because the purpose of marriage is not procreation, then what other forms of marriage become 'ok'?