T1B

War Wagon wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I know several Ukrainians...

from your days as a porn star, no doubt.

Best friend's wife and her cohorts.

I've never worked in porn, although a couple of chicks I nailed... at the same time, did in fact nickname me "Pornstar."

I'm fucking gifted.

A 7 page thread about a gay guy? I'm concerned about you guys.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:The Bible is an extremely dangerous text. It discourages independent thought, which stunts intellectual development.

Isaac Newton didn't hear this.

Jsc wrote:Both of you lack an understanding of the Constitution.

Is there anything left of it?


The robes can tell me that it's fine for a woman to kill the baby growing in her womb.
The robes can tell me that the marriage standard God established in Genesis 2:24 is obsolete.

I don't believe them.


Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun."
He was pretty wise.

The robes are doing what humans have always done.


Ephesians 2:1-3 (speaking to the believer)
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath

You don't have to believe what the robes have to say about the bible. When it comes to the Constitution, why don't you check out what Thomas Jefferson said & wrote about using religion to establish legal standards.

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

"State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808

And most importantly....

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

88....stick that in your "the framers never said or intended anything like that" pipe.

That video was as dumb as I imagined it would be.


- You may not kill the baby (except in some "rare" circumstances) growing inside your womb.
- Marriage takes one man and one woman.

It hardly takes "The Church" taking over the government to come up with those things, Diego.

If you just go back to before Roe v. Wade, you have it.

I don't recall "The Church" owning the government at that time.

poptart wrote:Isaac Newton didn't hear this.

ah the old "some smart guy believed so it's obviously true" argument from authority.....Newton believed in alchemy as well, which we know is utter non-sense.....brilliant scientist, but his belief in god is no more relevant than yours.....

if he were alive today, I sincerely doubt he'd be have the same religious stance as he did in the late 1600's

Jsc810 wrote:You would fail the constitutional law bar exam in any state if you tried to claim that the Constitution doesn't prohibit states from establishing a religion. You simply are not describing our government, maybe that is how you want it to be, but that is not how it actually is. And you know that.

Or maybe you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. One the primary functions of the Establishment Clause was to prohibit the national government from interference with existing established religions.

Your sole argument rests on judicial opinions which are subject to change on a whim.

mvscal wrote: Your sole argument rests on judicial opinions which are subject to change on a whim.

Ok mvckkkal,
Why don't you pull the black cock from your ass and tell us what the 14th Am. means.

88 wrote: You do not understand my take (or are refusing to acknowledge it). Again, I am an athiest and do not want the United States to establish an official religion or use religious texts as the basis for its laws. But I also understand that there was no such prohibition on the individual States at the time the Constitution was ratified. Thus, to state that the Constitution prohibits an individual State from establishing an official religion is absurd, inasmuch as official churches were common at the time the Constitution was ratified by the States. That was my point.

Times and the Law changed you stupid assfucking moron. Try mixing in a Con law class.

poptart wrote:Isaac Newton didn't hear this.

The Amish heard it loud and clear.

Jsc810 wrote:88's view would be changing the entire concept of judicial review, even if Marbury v Madison (1803) was reversed I still don't think you could come to his conclusion.

The concept of judicial review is just another opinion subject to reversal.

He's not even considering Amendments to the Constitution to be a part of the Constitution!

Or maybe he simply doesn't share the opinion that the due process clause of the 14th incorporates the Bill of Rights in toto.

Jsc wrote:The video cited from the parts of the Bible that you don't like and try to interpret away.

But those parts are still there, whether you like them or not.

So much for your "the Bible mandates marriage as one man and one woman" argument.

As stated previously, the Bible shows us ALL manner of human behavior.
It sure doesn't mean that God established or sanctioned the behavior we see.
In fact, the behavior all came about because of man's separation from God.

We're clearly shown the marriage that God established for us on the sixth day of creation.
And Jesus verified the standard, as recorded in Matthew.

Your video is extremely silly.

Dinsdale wrote:I've never worked in porn, although a couple of chicks I nailed... at the same time...

Let me guess...they were both blonde and from "the" Ukraine.

pics, or it didn't happen.

trev wrote:A 7 page thread about a gay guy? I'm concerned about you guys.

These jerks are on a roll. I called this one to go 12 pages. Faggotry at its best.

War Wagon wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I've never worked in porn, although a couple of chicks I nailed... at the same time...

Let me guess...they were both blonde and from "the" Ukraine.

pics, or it didn't happen.

Better than any shit you have made up lately though.

88 wrote:When did the People decide that there is a Constitutional right to abortion or same sex marriage etc.?

Marriage, legally speaking, is a contract licensed and regulated by the state of issue. The federal errr national government has no say in the matter. If the people of a state through their elected representatives or ballot initiative choose to recognize gay marriage, that is their perogative. The vice versa is also true.

Abortion, IMO, is an inarguable violation of the 5th and 14th amendments guaranteeing due process in reference to the deprivation of life. Need an abortion? Show cause and get a court order. Privacy is not even remotely germane to the issue unless, of course, you are prepared to argue that I might legally inject you with a saline solution, jab an ice pick into your skull and dismember you with chainsaw so long as this activity occurs "in private."

mvscal wrote:

88 wrote:When did the People decide that there is a Constitutional right to abortion or same sex marriage etc.?

Marriage, legally speaking, is a contract licensed and regulated by the state of issue. The federal errr national government has no say in the matter. If the people of a state through their elected representatives or ballot initiative choose to recognize gay marriage, that is their perogative. The vice versa is also true.

Wrong answer, stupid.

Social Security & veterans benefits are given out to the spouses of those who quality. Since those are federal benefits, states cannot deny citizens of those benefits - popular vote or not.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

mvscal wrote:

88 wrote:When did the People decide that there is a Constitutional right to abortion or same sex marriage etc.?

Marriage, legally speaking, is a contract licensed and regulated by the state of issue. The federal errr national government has no say in the matter. If the people of a state through their elected representatives or ballot initiative choose to recognize gay marriage, that is their perogative. The vice versa is also true.

Wrong answer, stupid.

Social Security & veterans benefits are given out to the spouses of those who quality. Since those are federal benefits, states cannot deny citizens of those benefits - popular vote or not.

If you don't qualify as a spouse, then you don't qualify for the benefits. Benefits are not rights and they are not privileges. You do make a legitimate point, though. Veterans benefits and social security are not paid by the states. That would appear to give Congress some regulatory authority reference those payments. So, if Congress were to pass some form of legislation regarding marriage, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

mvscal wrote:The federal errr national government has no say in the matter.

Bravo. At least for the terminology. The rest of your post sounded like it was typed by a guy with a Black cock in his ass.

88,
Here is a partial list of things not mentioned in the US Constitution.

Nuclear power
The Internet
Bell peppers
TNT
Cocaine
Hookers
Killing a mail carrier
The NFL
Stupid hillbillies
R2487
Airplanes
ICBMs
18 wheelers
Your mama
Hitler
Alaska
Puppies, harmless dead puppies.

Don't forget annoying midget lawyers with balck cock obsessions.

88 wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:88's view would be changing the entire concept of judicial review, even if Marbury v Madison (1803) was reversed I still don't think you could come to his conclusion. He's not even considering Amendments to the Constitution to be a part of the Constitution! His take is so far from reality that he has to be trolling.

You make me sad. Here is the relevant text of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What in that text repeals a State's right to establish an official religion? What part of that text addresses marriage, which is solely a matter of State law?

It's not solely a matter of State law when federal rights & privileges are abridged. Are you saying that Ohio can take away benefits afforded to you by the federal government?

The better view is that the People should make these decisions, and not have them dictated to them by an oligarchy. Don't you find it troubling that for many years, the Constitution was amended to address new issue, but it has not been amended in recent years because an all-powerful court simply makes those decisions now for the People? Don't you trust your fellow citizens to make the laws they agrees live under by majority rule? Why are you afraid of freedom and democracy?

So if Ohio voters wanted to racially segregate their schools, you'd be ok with Brown v. Board of Education being overturned by popular vote? After all, the constitution doesn't mention what schools kids go to...

Diego in Seattle wrote:“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

Rack this statement.

The trouble with libtard is that they conveniently ignore the 'civil' part of the statement 'This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.'

They will fight to their last breath to stand up to a religious tyrant, then just lay there and take it in the ass like a good little bitch when a civil tyrant does the same.

Jsc810 wrote:88's view of the Constitution is more tortured than pop's selective interpretation of the Bible.

88 wrote:No, your view of the Constitution is tortured.

Wow, legalese IKYABWAI. And no KC representation, either.

Smackie Chan wrote:Wow, legalese IKYABWAI. And no KC representation, either.

Because I'm not reading all that.

I did, however, chime in a page 6. But 88 is much better at this than I.

Jsc, you just made 88's point.

Judges have decided marriage is a right. You point to 14 SCOTUS decisions.


Further if marriage is a right, which I don't agree it is even between one man and one woman, the the courts should support plural marriage. As long as all parties to the marriage enters into it of their own free will and marriage is a right, why are they denied?

Also, if marriage is a right why can't that weird cat lady down the street from you allowed to marry her cat? Granted sexual relations are not possible, but it isn't possible in many allowed marriages today either.

If marriage is a right, no one can deny it then even if it doesn't agree with your tastes or norms.

Marriage isn't required for life, nor is it required for Liberty, nor must you have it to be happy.

But again you make 88's point. The justices have decided it is a right.


Ok, so the cat can't give consent in the traditional sense but then neither can two severely mentally challenged individuals. All they know is they enjoy each others company and want to spend more time together. Plenty of severely challenged people marry without traditional consent.

Some states also limit marriage among these individuals, but if marriage is a right how can you prevent them from exercising this right?

And if you allow marriage between these individuals who haven't given consent in the traditional sense, then how can you prevent the cat lady from marrying her cat? The cat shows affection, doesn't leave the home despite opportunities, etc.

Left Seater wrote:Marriage isn't required for life, nor is it required for Liberty, nor must you have it to be happy.

But again you make 88's point. The justices have decided it is a right.


Ok, so the cat can't give consent in the traditional sense but then neither can two severely mentally challenged individuals. All they know is they enjoy each others company and want to spend more time together. Plenty of severely challenged people marry without traditional consent.

Some states also limit marriage among these individuals, but if marriage is a right how can you prevent them from exercising this right?

And if you allow marriage between these individuals who haven't given consent in the traditional sense, then how can you prevent the cat lady from marrying her cat? The cat shows affection, doesn't leave the home despite opportunities, etc.

Left Behinder...just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Typical no take and only insults from you.

Left Seater wrote:Typical no take and only insults from you.

When you resort to arguments about people marrying animals there's not much to respond to. Stupidity of that magnitude doesn't deserve a response.

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Typical no take and only insults from you.

When you resort to arguments about people marrying animals there's not much to respond to. Stupidity of that magnitude doesn't deserve a response.

Would you feel better if 5 guys in robes said it was a Constitutional right to marry a cat?

Any person with two brain cells to rub together knows that even one robe ain't going to vote like that or even offer a suggestion that a person has a right to marry an animal. Hell, even mvscal knows that.

You really are super slow. So much so that I am wondering if you are special needs yourself.

I put the cat lady out there for a reason and Jsc gave me the response I was expecting, consent. I then pointed out how some people can't give consent yet they still are allowed to marry. That throws his consent arguement out the window. So we are now back to trying to define marriage and what is allowed and what isn't.

He says 1 man 1 woman, or 1 man and 1 man, or 1 woman and 1 woman, or 1 man and 3 women all have a right to marriage. What are the rules?

Left Seater wrote:You really are super slow. So much so that I am wondering if you are special needs yourself.

You needn't wonder.

Left Seater wrote:You really are super slow. So much so that I am wondering if you are special needs yourself.

I put the cat lady out there for a reason and Jsc gave me the response I was expecting, consent. I then pointed out how some people can't give consent yet they still are allowed to marry. That throws his consent arguement out the window. So we are now back to trying to define marriage and what is allowed and what isn't.

He says 1 man 1 woman, or 1 man and 1 man, or 1 woman and 1 woman, or 1 man and 3 women all have a right to marriage. What are the rules?

Jsc beat me by seconds. Any additional banal arguments for us?

War Wagon wrote:

Left Seater wrote:You really are super slow. So much so that I am wondering if you are special needs yourself.

You needn't wonder.

A KC imbecile calling me out like that is like Spray calling out someone as fat.

Don't you have a Promise Breakers meeting to go to or something?

Jsc, if marriage is a right how can Louisiana or any other state deny that right? Furthermore, if marriage is a right like you claim then how can states treat it differently? How can Alaska treat it differently than Iowa or Virginia? How is that any different than what is happening now regarding same sex marriage?


Diego, not surprised you are riding Jsc's coat tails. Go back to the union clubhouse.

Jsc810 wrote:
Lefty, rights, even constitutional ones, are not absolute.

Of course not. I am sure the framers of the Constitution made sure that they could be twisted in which every way the political leanings of that person saw fit. A baseline set of rights should not be absolute or set in stone. That would make liberal pukes like yourself unable to twist and spin them which ever way you wanted to to achieve your desired outcome.

Diego in Seattle wrote:calling me out like that...

"like that"? Did it hurt your feewings? Apparently so. Good, it was meant to, as well as confirm LS suspicions.

It wasn't calling you out, more a statement of fact.

You're not worth the effort of an actual call out. But you shouldn't be surprised when something "like that" happens after the many times you've nipped at my ankles.

I know it's the weekend, but don't you have a preschool to stake out?

There are lots of constitutionally legal reasons that you can yell fire in a crowded theater. It's on fire. You are an actor and it's your line. You are the only non deaf person in the theater and you know it. What you can't do is yell fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic.
Sounds like you and 88 need to retake con law.

Question: What type of threads does PEDO in Seattle respond to?

Take your time.