Gore sexual assualt Follow

I know it's a bit back, but the ignorance here rubs me wrong, so here's your answer:

...because you can't impose something that's willfully entered into? Common law marriages require both parties to hold themselves to the public as married. It's not like the gub'ment comes down, thwacks two people with a stick and says, "HA! You're married!"

So, the answer to your question is: Same sex couples can't have a common law marriage in their state if it doesn't recognize gay marriage normally.

A married man and his wife may engage in **** sex 3 times a day if they want. Nobody questions it. Surely you don't think two men kissing is what spreads the disease, so it must be the ****, right? So why is it so perfectly acceptable for a man/woman couple to engage in it in the privacy of their own home, but not two men?

Do explain.

Hehehehe

Recessive genes? The only exaggeration I can imagine is the odds of of occurrence or the odds of any single defect among many occurring. The outcomes range from mild to quite debilitating, though. And I swear we've had this exact exchange before.

Ah yes, incest. For one generation, it's not a problem. Over many generations, we end up with Charles II of Spain. Fortunately for that particular lineage, he was impotent, and the line died out. You can say they inbred themselves to death.

Cat,



And how many generations does it take for homosexuals to die out?

I want to see the Gore sex poodle video...apparently it's out there. Wonder if this woman will be murdered before it can come out?

And you liberals wanted this guy to be president.

I don't know, we've been puttin' it in poopers for many a millennium.

Not exclusively. You can stick it in a pooper a thousand times but all it takes is one vjayjay to make more gay.

You've shown that you don't understand what a homonym is. The "marriage" defined in the California legal code is not the same "marriage" which someone has a fundamental right to. If tomorrow, the California state legislature were to create a new law defining a state benefit for diabetics which they unfortunately labeled "life", and set prerequisites on what you must do to qualify for "life", would you argue that since you have a fundamental "right to life" that it's a violation of your rights for you not to qualify for the state status of the same name?

That would be silly. And so is your entire argument.


A marriage is an agreement between two people to share their lives together. This agreement may be formalized in some manner, perhaps via a contract which can be legally enforceable. The state could then further define a specific marriage contract which, if entered into and other conditions are met, would grant the couple benefits. When we speak of the "right to marry", we're talking about the first type. Certainly, that was the issue in Loving v Virginia. It was actually a felony for the couple to live together as a married couple, even absent any "official" marriage documents. We might even extend that right to include the right to formalize the agreement with a contract and say that if the state bars someone from entering into said contract that this violated their "right to marry".


But only the most obtuse would suggest that the only way to enjoy a right to marry is if you are not just allowed to enter into a specific marriage contract, but are also rewarded by the state for doing so. This is the huge glaring flaw in the argument most of you are making. Marriage is not the benefits. It's the relationship itself. If the state bars you from having the relationship, then your right to marry is being infringed. Failing to reward you is *not* a violation of your rights. Why is this so hard to understand?

Of course it is. Or rather, state recognized legal marriage is. What do you think the legal findings (including a fundamental right to marriage) were about? Telling the couples they could just do a happy dance and call themselves married and that would be good enough?

Funny that you can type so many words and just be wrong throughout the entire thing.