dolfan 0 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 The accent and the fact that I think it'd be easier to get into his pants.Providing that is something that you'd be into.Bonus of the trip: I worked some magic and convinced enough people that a lazy raft ride down the river would be lame and we convinced the organization to front the extra cash to let a separate group of us do the whitewater trip on the river. It wasn't ultra-intense but I've never been on any whitewater trip so it was pretty damn fun. Class 3 and 4 rapids if that means anything to anybody, our guide said Class 6 is guaranteed death. It was really fun. Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 So my "play nice" may have been simplified and the amendment was applied many times before BVBoE. But is has been applied to things enumerated in the Constitution - voting, juries, education, is the right to marriage in the constitution anywhere?Next question is if they succeed in getting a "marriage amendment" in the constitution will you then say that people who are fighting for gay marriage are fighting against the constitution?What I'm saying is this.State laws, nor state admendments, do NOT supercede the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember we had a little war about States rights. remember that?And the exact quote is, "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."It plainly says person. Not man or women or black or white or gay or any combination thereof. As for your question. I support the document as written. If there is a debate in this country to amend this document, so be it. But that's not what they are doing. They are doing whatever they can to subvert what's written in the document. I say let's have the debate in this country. Whoever wins, wins. I could care less, doesn't affect me. But, when they stop trying to subvert the document by coming up with all these mealy mouthed arguements, States Rights (that's been already decided) Definitions (person is pretty well defined now) then they are attacking the constitution. Link to post Share on other sites
renaedawn 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Providing that is something that you'd be into.Have I given the impression that I'm not interested in getting in your pants? Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 State laws, nor state admendments, do NOT supercede the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember we had a little war about States rights. remember that?No shit! That's not the argument.And the exact quote is, "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."It plainly says person. Not man or women or black or white or gay or any combination thereof. As for your question. I support the document as written. If there is a debate in this country to amend this document, so be it. But that's not what they are doing. They are doing whatever they can to subvert what's written in the document. I say let's have the debate in this country. Whoever wins, wins. I could care less, doesn't affect me. But, when they stop trying to subvert the document by coming up with all these mealy mouthed arguements, States Rights (that's been already decided) Definitions (person is pretty well defined now) then they are attacking the constitution.The question is whether marriage is a privilege or immunity, life, liberty, or property? Is the definition of marriage the joining of a man and a woman in a legal bond?No person is being denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. What they are asking for is very different. They want to change the definition of marriage. Link to post Share on other sites
Painter567 0 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Providing that is something that you'd be into.Bonus of the trip: I worked some magic and convinced enough people that a lazy raft ride down the river would be lame and we convinced the organization to front the extra cash to let a separate group of us do the whitewater trip on the river. It wasn't ultra-intense but I've never been on any whitewater trip so it was pretty damn fun. Class 3 and 4 rapids if that means anything to anybody, our guide said Class 6 is guaranteed death. It was really fun.The last 2 years I have gone in CO, it has been Class 3. I love doing that.I posted a pic in here before. Link to post Share on other sites
Nikki_N 17 Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share Posted May 30, 2008 Providing that is something that you'd be into.That was a hilarious song. Link to post Share on other sites
renaedawn 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 That was a hilarious song.Goddammit. How'd I not get that? Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 The question is whether marriage is a privilege or immunity, life, liberty, or property? Is the definition of marriage the joining of a man and a woman in a legal bond?No person is being denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. What they are asking for is very different. They want to change the definition of marriage.I answered your question! Take the answer or not. But this convo is now over because you cannot see what I'm saying. I have NO desire to debate what marriage is or isn't. The State of California's Supreme Court agrees with me. So would the Supreme Court of the United States of America, I believe.In this case. California made a law. It was overturned. As it should be. Done!That's all the argument that should exist on the issue! Which was my original premise! Now, if you want to debate what marriage is or is not. I will not do that. I would just hope that you have that arguement within the guise of changing the constitution or not. Anything else is just pointless. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I answered your question! Take the answer or not. But this convo is now over because you cannot see what I'm saying. I have NO desire to debate what marriage is or isn't. The State of California's Supreme Court agrees with me. So would the Supreme Court of the United States of America, I believe.In this case. California made a law. It was overturned. As it should be. Done!That's all the argument that should exist on the issue! Which was my original premise! Now, if you want to debate what marriage is or is not. I will not do that. I would just hope that you have that arguement within the guise of changing the constitution or not. Anything else is just pointless.You state what you believe the US Supreme Court would rule on marriage so you are debating what marriage is. And your whole point it mute because the whole California thing had nothing to do with the US Constitution. It was a state supreme court ruling on a state law being against the state constitution. Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 You state what you believe the US Supreme Court would rule on marriage so you are debating what marriage is. And your whole point it mute because the whole California thing had nothing to do with the US Constitution. It was a state supreme court ruling on a state law being against the state constitution.if you aren't gonna read my points, don't argue.I did say that I believed the state constitution had a similar provision therefore the rulingHow I believe the US Supreme Court would rule is based on similar premise. To follow the US Constitution as written.This conversation is moot. To have a conversation, people need to listen, since we are writing, I think it's a fair to substitute reading for listening.OUT! Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 if you aren't gonna read my points, don't argue.I did say that I believed the state constitution had a similar provision therefore the rulingHow I believe the US Supreme Court would rule is based on similar premise. To follow the US Constitution as written.This conversation is moot. To have a conversation, people need to listen, since we are writing, I think it's a fair to substitute reading for listening.OUT!Don't be a fucking girl! OOOO your not listening to me, waaaaaa waaaaa.You are saying the constitution is cut and dry on the issue, I am saying it isn't.I ask you questions about your point because you have yet to prove your argument to me, and you act like Renae (sorry Renae) Link to post Share on other sites
tall0n 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Don't be a fucking girl! OOOO your not listening to me, waaaaaa waaaaa.You are saying the constitution is cut and dry on the issue, I am saying it isn't.I ask you questions about your point because you have yet to prove your argument to me, and you act like Renae (sorry Renae)Don't be a fucking idiot! Oooooo I can't argue with you so I'm gonna try to reverse the heat! waaa. waaaaaa.I explained my points. If you can't understand them, that's not my problem! I have no further need nor desire to explain anymore more. Link to post Share on other sites
renaedawn 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Don't be a fucking girl! OOOO your not listening to me, waaaaaa waaaaa.You are saying the constitution is cut and dry on the issue, I am saying it isn't.I ask you questions about your point because you have yet to prove your argument to me, and you act like Renae (sorry Renae)What the motherfuck did I do? Link to post Share on other sites
renaedawn 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Oh, and by the way, it's a good thing I know you like me. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 You said And the exact quote is, "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."It plainly says person. Not man or women or black or white or gay or any combination thereof. I asked this question specifically about the text you posted.The question is whether marriage is a privilege or immunity, life, liberty, or property? Is the definition of marriage the joining of a man and a woman in a legal bond? You answered by sayingI answered your question!But you didn't. It is important to your argument. The question goes to whether or not marriage is specifically mentioned or defined in the constitution, and if the clause applies. I don't think it does.Everything that the amendment has been applied to are specific rights that are in the constitution. I am as strong on defending the constitution as you are (it's the only reason I will be voting for McCain) but this whole constitutional argument has a long way to go before it's settled so there is nothing to defend yet. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Oh, and by the way, it's a good thing I know you like me.Shut up Prettyface! Link to post Share on other sites
jeff_536 3 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 That was a hilarious song. Goddammit. How'd I not get that?I posted the whole fucking song you goddamn whores. Link to post Share on other sites
Nikki_N 17 Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share Posted May 30, 2008 Goddammit. How'd I not get that?It's not BS or Tool?You state what you believe the US Supreme Court would rule on marriage so you are debating what marriage is. And your whole point it mute because the whole California thing had nothing to do with the US Constitution. It was a state supreme court ruling on a state law being against the state constitution.It's like a cow's opinion...if you aren't gonna read my points, don't argue.I did say that I believed the state constitution had a similar provision therefore the rulingHow I believe the US Supreme Court would rule is based on similar premise. To follow the US Constitution as written.This conversation is moot. To have a conversation, people need to listen, since we are writing, I think it's a fair to substitute reading for listening.OUT!it's moo.I posted the whole fucking song you goddamn whores.I didn't comment? It was a damn funny song. I need this show on dvd, due to my lack of cable. Link to post Share on other sites
rocksquid 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 THREE WEEKS!can't get here fast enough.good evening folks, catching up. Link to post Share on other sites
renaedawn 1 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I posted the whole fucking song you goddamn whores.Exactly. Like yesterday. So how could I not fucking get that? Link to post Share on other sites
rocksquid 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Hello lamp post what ya knowing, I've come to watch your lamp light glowingFeelin' Groovy. Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 RIP Spent many happy hours laughing my ass off to him on the Carol Burnett show.Good SpeedNow do that voodoo that you do so well! Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Feelin' Groovy.I can always count on you. Link to post Share on other sites
booyaga 0 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 YOU'RE ALL GAY CUZ YOU'RE ARGUING 'BOUT GAYS....GO SUCK EACH OTHER'S CAWK AND GET IT OVER WITH Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now