# SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

Same sex marriage is constitutional.

Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 26, 2015)

Gonna be a lot of unhappy faggot-haters around here...


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

I just saw the news on this and was going to post a link.  You beat me to it.

This is GREAT news!!

I liked one bit in the article:
"*Anthony Kennedy, a conservative justice who has broken with his ideological colleagues to author several decisions expanding rights for LGBT people, again sided with the court’s four liberals to strike down the state bans. The majority ruled that preventing same-sex people from marrying violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law and that the states were unable to put forth a compelling reason to withhold that right from people."

from:  Supreme Court affirms right to gay marriage *


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Gonna be a lot of unhappy faggot-haters around here...



They will get over it or they will just be unhappy.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.

Where chaos rules; nations fail.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> 
> Where chaos rules; nations fail.



How does it effect straight marriage at all?   And please be specific.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Breaking news.

Links later, am traveling.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


EDIT:

Links:

Same-Sex Marriage Supreme Court Rules in Favor President Obama Calls It Victory for America - ABC News

Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage - CBS News

Landmark Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide - NBC News

Supreme Court rules states must allow same-sex marriage - CNNPolitics.com

Supreme Court Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states Fox News

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states in stunning 5-4 decision - Washington Times

Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry - The Washington Post

Obama Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Reaffirmed America s Founding Principles - Daniel Doherty

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/u...ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage Nationwide

John Roberts Gay Rights Advocates Have Lost Forever With SCOTUS Decision

Also a big story in the German media today as well:

Ehe f r alle in den USA landesweit legalisiert Unsere Liebe ist gleichberechtigt tagesschau.de

Homoehe in den USA Obama Gro er Schritt Richtung Gleichberechtigung - heute-Nachrichten

Historische Entscheidung Supreme Court legalisiert Homo-Ehe in allen Bundesstaaten - N24.de

US-Gericht legalisiert Homo-Ehe in allen Bundesstaaten - DIE WELT


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

ruled 5-4 !!!

Watch heads explode!!

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

Bad week to be Con.
There will be an abundance of " hell in a handbasket" posts to follow.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

So they can be pretend married? LMAO


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

What a great week this is turning out to be.

Not just one, but TWO major reasons for wingnuts to cry into their Gadsen flags.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> ...


 
It doesn't.  It's just is something that is allowed or legalized in the mainstream that will, over time, deteriorate the strength of our Country.  Why?  Because it's not Godly.  In this world God is our only protection.  Men think entirely too much of themselves....


----------



## Dana7360 (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> ruled 5-4 !!!
> 
> Watch heads explode!!
> 
> Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide





I just read the article on USA Today.

We all expected this ruling and it will be fun to watch the homophobes heads explode.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

Now they can start on polygamy and lowering that pesky age of consent.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

What wonderful news! Prepare yourself for some serious pearl clutching drama from the anti-gay marriage folks.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Links to be found at all major news outlets. Would be interesting to read all 9 decisions.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 26, 2015)

As I said in my own thread, "Swell. Now I can marry a man in Missouri...Anbd then be evicted from my apartment of 16 years, fired from a job, and refused employment at a new job while living under a freeway in a cardboard box with my new husband."


----------



## AquaAthena (Jun 26, 2015)

Who thought it wouldn't pass?  This is the most liberal court since 1969.  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-surprising-move-leftward.html?abt=0002&abg=1



*JOHN ROBERTS ON GAY RULING: 

'If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it'*


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

*Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*

Follow  your leaders thumpers
Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.

(if you don't know what NAMBLA is I'll be happy to inform you..)


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion wrote into it, protections for those who have religious objections.  

Oh this is going to be a fun one.


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 26, 2015)

Great news for humanity!


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> So they can be pretend married? LMAO




Its all over for you thumper


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

The meltdowns are rolling in.

That moon bat where are my keyes had an epic one already...today is a great day


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> 
> (if you don't know what NAMBLA is I'll be happy to inform you..)



North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes according to South Park


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kennedy. Represents a TECHTONIC shift in juristic thinking in the USA.

In, 2004, incumbent Pres. Bush ran on a platform advocating a constitutional amendment to ban SSM. Now, such an amendment would be a very, very heavy lift.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

*Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*

Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> 
> Follow  your leaders thumpers
> Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO



An Aussie couple said they would divorce if SSM passed. They also said they would have children out of wedlock. So, they're willing to live in sin and crank out bastards. 

But - my congratulations to the happy couples across the country. 

Really really GREAT news.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 26, 2015)

(starts as thunder rolls overhead)

Probably just a coincidence.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> 
> (if you don't know what NAMBLA is I'll be happy to inform you..)


You are a hateful, sick fuck.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> 
> Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO


 
There are a lot of self-professed Christian's out there .... beware or wolves in sheep's clothing....


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> ruled 5-4 !!!
> 
> Watch heads explode!!
> 
> Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


It's about time!


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> ...


 
I'm a realistic person with open eyes. You are the hateful one... look what you just typed...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

And the timing of the decision, on a Friday, means that the weekend politalk circuit will be quite busy. Expect John McCain on the Sunday talking heads circus.


Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## The VOR (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Breaking news.
> 
> Links later, am traveling.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


Nutter heads are exploding all over the country.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> ...


And there are a lot of those claiming to be Christian who are hateful, ignorant and everything not Christian.  You, for example.


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 26, 2015)

'Strap-Ons' for everyone! Yippee!.........


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


You compare adults who want to enter into a loving, committed relationship to pedophiles; to adults who prey on children.  How can anything be more hateful than that, you sick fuck?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> 
> Follow  your leaders thumpers
> Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO





LOL!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

The VOR said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Breaking news.
> ...


Quite possibly.

Pacific Trade Pact
Obamacare
Gay Marriage
Confederate battle flag under heavy scrutiny.

All in one week.

BOOM!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

If you don't like Marriage Equality, don't marry someone of your own sex.  I no longer have time to debate "silly" with opponents.  Get over it or not.  I don't care.


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 26, 2015)

NaziCon nutters are having a really bad week.


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> So they can be pretend married? LMAO


That's denial.

The first of the five stages of grief.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

So who is surprised this court who consistently pisses on the constitution pisses on it once more? Not me. Now all you homosexuals can now start doing what your progressives masters want of you and start suing churches and kill more freedoms..... Fucking retards.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

B. Kidd said:


> 'Strap-Ons' for everyone! Yippee!.........



And strapless wedding gowns for the bri....er groom? The whatever


----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2015)

Can't states just interpret this ruling to mean whatever they want?  That's the precedent now.  Words don't really have meaning.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> 
> Follow  your leaders thumpers
> Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO



What a hate filled little homunculus


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> So they can be pretend married? LMAO




Did the white confederate jebus not hear your prayers?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > So they can be pretend married? LMAO
> ...



Old timer, I've said all along let the mental midgets get married, normal people know it's fake. Now go bother someone that takes your rants serious because I don't


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 
Acceptability of damaging and unnatural behavior as a way of slowly creeping in..... please don't call me hateful again... you look silly saying that and then proving your own hatred in return....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 26, 2015)

I would like to take this time to congratulate the gay folks on this decision.  Please step away from the authoritarians who are pissing into the wind and take this time to celebrate liberty!


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > So they can be pretend married? LMAO
> ...



The first stage is anger, dickweed. The response the majority had over yesterdays SCOTUS decision.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Jun 26, 2015)

The amount of butthurt from the right is just delicious!


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Lakhota said:


> Great news for humanity!


 
If humanity's goal is to fail, I agree with you


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 26, 2015)

Leweman said:


> Can't states just interpret this ruling to mean whatever they want?  That's the precedent now.  Words don't really have meaning.



Right. SCOTUS meant to say that states can interpreted it however they need to


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > So they can be pretend married? LMAO
> ...





Oh man, this is a fun thread!


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

Kennedy wrote in protections for religious objections so this is going to be a fun ride.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

B. Kidd said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Settle down.

*The five stages*, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance are a part of the framework that makes up our learning to live with the one we lost. They are tools to help us frame and identify what we may be feeling


----------



## AquaAthena (Jun 26, 2015)

Lakhota said:


> NaziCon nutters are having a really bad week.



No, not really. We are still in afterglow from the shellacking the Democratic Party took in the last election. RED....everywhere.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 26, 2015)

Divorce rate among heterosexual Protestant Christians is about 60%. 

Now, with gays allowed to marry, some of whom are likely also Protestants, expect that divorce rate to soar.  What their religious objections were really about I bet.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

Umm....retard argument debunked: a goat cant consent to a legal contract.

Derp derp derp

You fail


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?


We hope you and your husband (or goat) to be will be happy fella.


----------



## Diana1180 (Jun 26, 2015)

Its a good day.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> ruled 5-4 !!!
> 
> Watch heads explode!!
> 
> Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

Liberals 2: Conservative 0.

 If this does not lead to a mass exodus of Cons headed for other shores, then we will simply have to get the court to invalidate Texas Anti-abortion laws....


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> So they can be pretend married? LMAO


Just like YOUR pretend marriage.  Woot!


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...


He was wrong and I proved it.

You might want to read again...what you edited from my quote!

*The five stages*, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance are a part of the framework that makes up our learning to live with the one we lost. They are tools to help us frame and identify what we may be feeling


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Kubler-Ross model stated those feelings can occur in any order, Einstein. And, you are proven wrong.....what else is new.....?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> 
> Follow  your leaders thumpers
> Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO


Can we see it on youtube or payperview?


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

B. Kidd said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...


Then why did you say that anger was the second step you brainless ass hat?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


I have no hate for you.  I pity folks like you who turn the beauty of religious faith as a justification to hate.  And, despite your hollow denials, you do hate gay people.  You compare them to pedophiles.  Don't you hate pedophiles?  You claim that allowing people you never met and never will meet to marry will destroy the country.  You don't hate those who work to destroy the nation?  I pity you and am proud that the nation has turned away from your particular kind of hate.  Pretty soon, folks like you will be looked upon as we look upon racists today.  The nation moves ahead and leaves sick, twisted folks like you to wallow in your hatred.  The nation will be stronger because of this, in part, because it will weaken the influence of folks like you who hold your decidedly un-Christian views.  Oh, and, you are a hateful person.  Perhaps if you had some love in your life you wouldn't be.


----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2015)

I guess 5 unelected officials out of 300 million people making this decision is the way to go.  haha.  I'm actually for Gay Marriage but feel like this should be a law voted on or an amendment should be passed.  Supreme Court has waaaaaay too much power for who they are.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

I wish my marriages had been "pretend". They would have been a lot cheaper.


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> ...





bodecea said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> ...




Hopefully it will take place all over jeusland in thumper churches this sunday , On broadcast TV


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Go drink your Metamucil old timer and cease bothering me. Worthless troll


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Leweman said:


> Can't states just interpret this ruling to mean whatever they want?  That's the precedent now.  Words don't really have meaning.



yes, they can't force a state to do something. that's what these people don't get.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

AquaAthena said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > NaziCon nutters are having a really bad week.
> ...


That makes about as much sense as Democrats basking in the afterglow of the shellacking Obama gave to Republicans after 2008 and 2012.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



What would YOU know about normal people?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

This should have been expected.  Once a culture starts on the road to depravity, it doesn't stop until the end.   Celebrate perversion.  But you don't have to let it into your personal life.  There is nothing in this decision that requires association.


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...


That's anger, the second of the five stages of grief


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

This thread is going to be as much fun as yesterday's ACA thread!


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



It was the second emotion mentioned in the Kubler-Ross model, but not necessarily the second emotion in the experience of grief an' loss, idjit.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Closer than I thought it would be

Did Scalia throw a hissy fit again?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

What will be funny will be reading the comments on here praising Robert's wise dissent from the same folks calling him a liberal stooge for Obama on the Obamacare decision threads.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > Can't states just interpret this ruling to mean whatever they want?  That's the precedent now.  Words don't really have meaning.
> ...



Ever heard of Brown v. B. of Ed.?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

I just hope to hell that this doesn't bring back disco and The Villiage People....


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...



lol


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

B. Kidd said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...


Just keep digging


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Umm....retard argument debunked: a goat cant consent to a legal contract.
> 
> Derp derp derp
> 
> You fail


Can't give consent?  It's only a matter of a liberal court to judge it's okay.  They said a State cannot prevent anyone from getting married to whatever they want.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



You're becoming annoying, I don't care if two mentally ill people want to be pretend married. It makes no difference to me. so feel free to marry your boyfriend. It's obvious you're gay


----------



## Anathema (Jun 26, 2015)

After the last 24 hours and 2 rulings by the SCOTUS; America is DEAD. May the Gods have mercy on the souls of every single American citizen for allowing this to happen. We are all doomed.


----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > Can't states just interpret this ruling to mean whatever they want?  That's the precedent now.  Words don't really have meaning.
> ...


 
Yeah they can because they can take their money away.  The only alternative for after that is to keep its resources in state, which at some point would lead to succession and then to a civil war.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> have no hate for you. I pity folks like you who turn the beauty of religious faith as a justification to hate. And, despite your hollow denials, you do hate gay people. You compare them to pedophiles. Don't you hate pedophiles? You claim that allowing people you never met and never will meet to marry will destroy the country. You don't hate those who work to destroy the nation? I pity you and am proud that the nation has turned away from your particular kind of hate. Pretty soon, folks like you will be looked upon as we look upon racists today. The nation moves ahead and leaves sick, twisted folks like you to wallow in your hatred. The nation will be stronger because of this, in part, because it will weaken the influence of folks like you who hold your decidedly un-Christian views. Oh, and, you are a hateful person. Perhaps if you had some love in your life you wouldn't be.


 
I'm not full of hate.  I love people and this country and don't like what is happening to it.

Furthermore, I did NOT draw a comparison.  I merely said it gave NAMBLA hope.   You see what you want to see or read into it what you want to read into it -- which is unfortunate -- because you don't see the floodgates that are being opened......

Try to keep an open mind....


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > ruled 5-4 !!!
> ...


Guess what now a state has to recognize your union.... Congrats... Fucking shame you had to piss on MY FREEDOMS to get it.


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



^^^^^^

Helped write the Obamacare decision yesterday where words don't matter............


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Great news for humanity!
> ...



Fail?
The failure is allowing the idea of separate but equal to persist in our culture. This is a great step foreward.
There have always been gay folks there will always be gay folks. Gay folks have always coupled and always will.  Officially granting  them legal equality doesn't change anything for anyone but them.The two guys who live down the street still live down the street. Only now they can be a whole and complete family under the law.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

B. Kidd said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


 
The latest polls showed 61% of the US favored SSM.  So I would say anger is not going to be the response of the majority.


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Sure I am

Only I'm not, and if I were, it's not a problem now


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



I think you are, your posts reek of gayness, I bet you're sitting in your chiffon gown typing away. LMAO


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

Leweman said:


> I guess 5 unelected officials out of 300 million people making this decision is the way to go.  haha.  I'm actually for Gay Marriage but feel like this should be a law voted on or an amendment should be passed.  Supreme Court has waaaaaay too much power for who they are.



How do you feel about Heller v. District of Columbia - also a 5-4 decision - and the two 5-4 decisions repealing campaign finance reform?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> This should have been expected.  Once a culture starts on the road to depravity, it doesn't stop until the end.   Celebrate perversion.  But you don't have to let it into your personal life.  There is nothing in this decision that requires association.


 
Very true. Nobody is forcing you to associate with gays or approve of their marriage

You are still free to hate as much as you like


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

Sucks to lose righties.

Try and get something out of your traumatic loss.

Re-examine the constitutionality of your positions


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...




Such anger


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Umm....retard argument debunked: a goat cant consent to a legal contract.
> ...


No, they didnt. You obviously cant read, or are a liar. 

Probably both though, with a mix of mild retardation not knowing an animal cannot consent to a legal contract.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

should be a hell of show


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > I guess 5 unelected officials out of 300 million people making this decision is the way to go.  haha.  I'm actually for Gay Marriage but feel like this should be a law voted on or an amendment should be passed.  Supreme Court has waaaaaay too much power for who they are.
> ...


 
or the 5-4 decision that elected Bush?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > B. Kidd said:
> ...





Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!  You lose!


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 26, 2015)

This will be interesting the next few years when the Social Conservatives discover their close minded way of thinking is no longer accepted in this country.

You will have red meat states like Tejas and Bama ( Texas and Alabama ) that will try to defy the court ruling, but in the end Same sex couples will be able to be treated equal as they should be.

Now it make me wonder what will be the Social Conservatives next victim they will focus on seeing they can no longer discriminate against someone because of their religion, sex, race or sexual preference?

It also make wonder how many of those Social Conservatives will finally come out of the closet and admit they had a gay thought and liked it?


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


There is no way your laughing right now.

You're furious, and hurt, and you're just grieving


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...


The state has to recognize that union, you don't.   There is nothing in this decision that requires individual recognition or association.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?


 
Are they a state?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 26, 2015)

Did they approve polygamy? If not, why the hypocrisy?


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> should be a hell of show




Your wedding picture?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Go bother someone else you decrepit old thing. You're looking for a fight and I'm not interested. Scram, asshole


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...


 
What freedom did you lose?

The freedom to stop gays from marrying?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

Anathema said:


> After the last 24 hours and 2 rulings by the SCOTUS; America is DEAD. May the Gods have mercy on the souls of every single American citizen for allowing this to happen. We are all doomed.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


 
Bad week for you isn't it?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...




Tell her to go clean her pigsty trailer!


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?


 
No.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> ruled 5-4 !!!
> 
> Watch heads explode!!
> 
> Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


 yea guno ,

Can I be your best man?

Don't cry to me though when it don't work out.

I was trying to tell you he was not the one for you.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


The puzzling thing is why the fuck are you not angry? The SCOTUS just pissed on the constitution twice in a week...Homosexual marriage delusion was going to happen no matter what but they allowed their stupid asses to be used to further destroy our country.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> ...



Yes there are.   But since the US Constitution does not allow a national religion, what Christianity thinks about gay marriage is irrelevant.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> The VOR said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Don't forget the catastrophic natural disasters coming soon to a neighborhood near you. The writing on the wall has been visible the past 6 1/2 years and will now be etched in flaming letters. God help this sick, sorry, depraved country. I pray that Sodom and Gomorrah be visited upon this nation with the harhest punishment. I'm ready to go.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

Let's celebrate!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

Anathema said:


> After the last 24 hours and 2 rulings by the SCOTUS; America is DEAD. May the Gods have mercy on the souls of every single American citizen for allowing this to happen. We are all doomed.



The next ruling should be on the right to die.  Objections to it has allowed pain and suffering in terminally ill patients to go on and on, one more self serving and callous disregard for others by the people who profit from the god industry.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

For those of you who oppose this ruling

How does it affect your life?


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 26, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Cool, you now get the traditional American losers' response...........


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I'm having way too much fun watching you twist


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...



What freedom have you lost with this court ruling?

My bet you can not name one but I will give you the chance to point out the suppose freedom you lost in this ruling...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 26, 2015)

Congrats OP, now you can finally get married. 

Can I be your best man?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



I live in a gated community, trash like you is stopped at the gate.


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

B. Kidd said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


That's anger, the second "emotion" within the five stages of grief


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Meet ignore. You lose


----------



## Ravi (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > The VOR said:
> ...


Why, are you going to try to have sex with an angel?


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> So who is surprised this court who consistently pisses on the constitution pisses on it once more? Not me. Now all you homosexuals can now start doing what your progressives masters want of you and start suing churches and kill more freedoms..... Fucking retards.


Care for a Con-federate flag crying towel?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?



It is probably a good idea not to go there, in view of the history of priests, boys, pedephilia, etc.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...




Sure you do!


----------



## Carla_Danger (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...





Haha, Toxicmedia wins!


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
Is that what they call Mental Hospitals now?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > have no hate for you. I pity folks like you who turn the beauty of religious faith as a justification to hate. And, despite your hollow denials, you do hate gay people. You compare them to pedophiles. Don't you hate pedophiles? You claim that allowing people you never met and never will meet to marry will destroy the country. You don't hate those who work to destroy the nation? I pity you and am proud that the nation has turned away from your particular kind of hate. Pretty soon, folks like you will be looked upon as we look upon racists today. The nation moves ahead and leaves sick, twisted folks like you to wallow in your hatred. The nation will be stronger because of this, in part, because it will weaken the influence of folks like you who hold your decidedly un-Christian views. Oh, and, you are a hateful person. Perhaps if you had some love in your life you wouldn't be.
> ...


You did draw that comparison.  I have read similar posts by you in the past.  You want to back off now, fine.  I am sure the floodgates argument was made 50 years ago when Loving was decided.  It was ignorant then and remains an ignorant argument.  What I see is you claiming that because gay people are now allowed to enter into committed relationships, the country will suffer.  That is hate in its most basic form.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...


Light your faith and you can light the world!


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




Such butt hurt


----------



## B. Kidd (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Carry on Lieutenant............


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Closer than I thought it would be
> 
> Did Scalia throw a hissy fit again?


I wonder if he made up some more words.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


My individual freedom of choice and religion. Also my states right to make its own decisions.... Fucking shame you are too ignorant to understand.


----------



## 007 (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> ruled 5-4 !!!
> 
> Watch heads explode!!
> 
> Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


GLORY DAYS... now the pedophiles can start pushing their agenda in earnest. 

Shouldn't be too long and nothing will be taboo or out of bounds. Hell women are flocking to the zoo in Japan to see a "HUNKY APE," so the beastiality crowd is going to want marry animals here pretty quick too.

Morals? pfft... c'moooooon... morals are so... YESTERDAY. ANYTHING GOES NOW... YIPEEEE...


----------



## Camp (Jun 26, 2015)

Right wing crap that has been harassing the country for far to long are finally being knocked down like sand castles in the path of a Tsunami. Racist flags, attacks on health care, anti integration in housing and now same sex marriage. Whats next?


----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...


 
HAHA!  BUTT HURT!  pardon the pun right?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > So who is surprised this court who consistently pisses on the constitution pisses on it once more? Not me. Now all you homosexuals can now start doing what your progressives masters want of you and start suing churches and kill more freedoms..... Fucking retards.
> ...


I am not democrat stupid so why the fuck would I cry into their flag?


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > ruled 5-4 !!!
> ...




Sorry I am straight but think its great that gay people can marry in all 50 states


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



True, and the amendments and rulings on segregation can't make you not hate people who you don't know and just happen to be a darker color than you like.  

The ruling has no impact on your freedom to hate, so keep on keeping on.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

It never has seemed fair to me. Gays should have the right to enjoy all the bliss that I experienced in my previous marriages....


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Did they approve polygamy? If not, why the hypocrisy?



We knew their bitch wasn't going to end if the got their marriage. Now I guess they will find marriage Sacred of a sudden


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > should be a hell of show
> ...


People are not going to marry their pets for marital bliss. People are going to marry their pets so they can add them to their medical insurance, Social Security benefits and other free shit. And now people who marry their pets can take them any place that forbid animals. Hotels, restaurants and any other places that discriminate against animals are going to be hit with a gigantic shitload of lawsuits for discrimination. Bring it on!!


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

So how many of you homosexuals actually think this piece of paper changes what we all know marriage to be???? LMAO You all surrendered your 10th amendments for a illusion .


----------



## Nutz (Jun 26, 2015)

Jesus wept.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> ruled 5-4 !!!
> 
> Watch heads explode!!
> 
> Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


It was the Constitutionally proper thing to do...This silly hodgepodge of laws was in direct violation of the "full faith and credit" clause. 
For example, full faith and credit makes it possible for us to not have to obtain a driver's license in every state in which we plan on traveling. 
The same applies to government sanction ( licensing) of marriage. A marriage in one state is recognized in all states. 
Moving on now.


----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...


 
Not good.  Too much power for a small group of unaccountable, unelected officials who's decisions are based on politics and who are just as partisan as you or I on any given issue.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> So how many of you homosexuals actually think this piece of paper changes what we all know marriage to be???? LMAO You all surrendered your 10th amendments for a illusion .



SSM is an illusion


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

I LOVE IT! THE GUY ACROSS THE STREET JUST LOWERED HIS FLAG TO HALF MAST!


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Posting this now for the third thread

snip:
*15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality *
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015







Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.


Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

*The Rainbow’s Arc*
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

all of it here:
15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> 
> Follow  your leaders thumpers
> Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO


So?...If this guy wants to do an impression of Tibetan Monk protesting oppression by the govt of China, let him....One less radical wacko on the planet.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...


What freedoms of yours got "pissed on"?  The freedom to be a jack wagon?  You've still got that.


----------



## Nutz (Jun 26, 2015)

Leweman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You can't cry about the system when it doesn't go your way.  That's ant-American.  Just take it up the ass and enjoy it


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

Add thinking goats can consent to legal contracts to Stephanie 's long list of retardation symptoms.

Steph, you know if we polled every person on the entire board right now as to.who is the dumbest poster, you win it in a landslide right?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Umm....retard argument debunked: a goat cant consent to a legal contract.
> ...




That's a really stupid thing to say but hey, post a link ...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?
> ...



Agreed.  Yet some organized religions already sanction SSM and like a viable political party, the Catholic Church must change with the times.  Pope Francis isn't a conservative, and it's unlikely he sanctifies SSM, but he will likely minister to such couples and any children they may raise.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Posting this now for the third thread
> 
> snip:
> *15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality *
> ...


Have a cookie.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


So...the rumors are true....you have a keen sense of Gaydar and you are not what you seem.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Pets can sign legal contracts? 

Another one bites the dust of insanity!

The rightwing meltdown continues, and its awesome!!


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

The final paragraph of Justice Kennedy's argument in the Gay Marriage case:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."


----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2015)

Nutz said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

Isn't that why this was a SCOTUS case to begin with.  Because someone cried about the system?  Hmmm weird they didn't just have to take it up the ass.


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.



A goat can't consent.

Dope.

FAIL THEAD.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?


Gee...I think that's in the queue right after they are FORCED to marry previously divorced people.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > So they can be pretend married? LMAO
> ...


Why do you view this as a "win" for your own personal reasons?
This ruling was a matter of the Constitution of the US and whether or not there should be permitted conflicting rules from state to state.
Is everything on your side about picking winners and losers? Is everything about _winning_ being "the only thing"?.....
If so ....WOW....


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
Doesn't change anything in my life, I still define a marriage as the joining of two persons of the opposite sex, and I will not personally recognize anything else as a marriage.


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> This will be interesting the next few years when the Social Conservatives discover their close minded way of thinking is no longer accepted in this country.
> 
> You will have red meat states like Tejas and Bama ( Texas and Alabama ) that will try to defy the court ruling, but in the end Same sex couples will be able to be treated equal as they should be.
> 
> ...


give it about a decade and the Con-servatives will claim it was all their idea in the first place.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

Nothing has changed.   There is nothing in this law that requires individual recognition or association.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 26, 2015)

If a guy wants to marry his goat, what business is it of yours?


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Umm....retard argument debunked: a goat cant consent to a legal contract.
> ...



they can take it the supreme court now. I bet Obama would be all for that too. He's strutting around like a peacock.


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## bucs90 (Jun 26, 2015)

Hmmm. Odd...but I just dont have a strong give a shit on this ruling one way or the other. 

Gays can marry. Ok. Whatever. Im more worried about the SEC football season starting September 3rd honestly. Doesnt affect me.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > This will be interesting the next few years when the Social Conservatives discover their close minded way of thinking is no longer accepted in this country.
> ...


Yeah.  Just like integration and abortion.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

I'm looking to invest in a company that will manufacture and sell rainbow colored wedding dresses....


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

My only concern is........

*What about the cakes?*


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2015)

bucs90 said:


> Hmmm. Odd...but I just dont have a strong give a shit on this ruling one way or the other.
> 
> Gays can marry. Ok. Whatever. Im more worried about the SEC football season starting September 3rd honestly. Doesnt affect me.


 
I agree.  Nothing trumps football.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
> Doesn't change anything in my life, I still define a marriage as the joining of two persons of the opposite sex, and I will not personally recognize anything else as a marriage.


I am sure gay people all over the nation are aghast that they will not receive your approval.  Many will simply give up the fight if you will not support them.


----------



## Nutz (Jun 26, 2015)

Leweman said:


> Nutz said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...


Umm...and SCOTUS has the final say as defined in the Constitution.  I don't like it, but it doesn't really affect me.  Let them marry....the union may be sanctioned by government, but not God.  It has no effect on my faith


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

God I wish members would look the board over before they post new threads !
There was a thread already started on this topic a good nine minutes before this thread was started !!!


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Oh dear...you've lost your freedom of religion?  What religion will you be forced to practice now?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




Easy answer to that is to just marry the hotel or restaurant. 

Bet you think people will be marrying their piano so they can add it to their insurance. 


You dumb RWs are really desperate.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


The freedom the shape my own state government... But dont worry at least you get the illusion that people will see you are truly;y married.... Fucking gullible idiot.


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> So they can be pretend married? LMAO


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

007 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > ruled 5-4 !!!
> ...


What does this Supreme Court decision have to do with pedophiles?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You are free to choose to attend the Westboro Baptist Church or others like it.  

Your state can elect to ignore the SC decision and not recognize SSM.  The consequences will be severe, but that is the price of principles.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Mr Clean said:


> If a guy wants to marry his goat, what business is it of yours?



We'll we be FORCED to bake a cake for them? or cater pizza to their Holy Matrimony ?


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Nothing has changed.   There is nothing in this law that requires individual recognition or association.



Laughing......why is it I envision you rocking back and forth and pulling on the ends of your hair while saying that?


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 26, 2015)

Its not like the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on other shit.  Hell slavery was abolished against states wishes too.  There's been a slew of crap that the Federal Gov. has "forced" upon the states since the very beginning.  No more "constitutional state's right's" have been lost here, than in any other thing that came up.  That's what the SCOUS does; decides shit like this...


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > So they can be pretend married? LMAO


Phobia mean fear dumb ass. None of us fear homosexuals.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

The marriage issue is a Trojan Horse.

What this ruling really means is that the Government has expanded the roles of people who will be eligible for entitlements.

All the  Debt Serfs and Tax Donkeys must support the Democrat Identity Politics Coalition.

And I say this as someone who doesn't care who marries whom.   Marriage shouldn't be the government's business.  Entitlements connected with Marriage drag the government into the bedroom.  Why the Left wants this intrusion is quite laughable.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

How discriminatory towards our 4 legged friends. Why I the hell can't they consent ? Just because they can't speak ? So unfair to the poor goats.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Having a racist call me a bigot is fucking funny.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...



Speaking of Westboro Church, have they gone ballistic yet?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
> ...



I know they could care less what I think, and I could care less that they could care less .


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Its not like the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on other shit.  Hell slavery was abolished against states wishes too.  There's been a slew of crap that the Federal Gov. has "forced" upon the states since the very beginning.  No more "constitutional state's right's" have been lost here, than in any other thing that came up.  That's what the SCOUS does; decides shit like this...


It also ruled that slaves were property.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


You aren't very bright are you.   The Con-federates were not Democrats...educate yourself with a map of the 1860 election...the Democrats did not win ONE, not ONE single, Southern state that then seceded.  Not one.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > So they can be pretend married? LMAO



By the way, you voted for a homophobe for president in '08.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> The marriage issue is a Trojan Horse.
> 
> What this ruling really means is that the Government has expanded the roles of people who will be eligible for entitlements.
> 
> ...



I've posted in another thread:
snip:

*15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality *
Don't fall for the 'marriage equality' sales pitch. It's a deception.
By Stella Morabito


By Stella Morabito
June 26, 2015








Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.


Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

*The Rainbow’s Arc*
Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

*1. The Kids Are Not All Right*
*
all of it here:
15 Reasons Marriage Equality Is About Neither*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Add thinking goats can consent to legal contracts to Stephanie 's long list of retardation symptoms.
> 
> Steph, you know if we polled every person on the entire board right now as to.who is the dumbest poster, you win it in a landslide right?



You are being deliberately ignorant or just stupid, take your pick. Libtards have been advancing animal rights and equality for decades now, even giving human rights to animals.

Who are you to say that an animal that is taught to give signals can never give consent? Bahbah can stamp her hooves once for yes, twice for no. By libtard reasoning it can in fact be done.


----------



## Camp (Jun 26, 2015)

This is what happens when people bitch about baking cakes and making pizza.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2015)

Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin

All fair game


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

This is really gonna unite the country!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > The VOR said:
> ...


I'm assuming that was a joke.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)

hortysir said:


> Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin
> 
> All fair game


----------



## Camp (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> This is really gonna unite the country!


It already did and has. Come out of you bubble once in awhile.


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The marriage issue is a Trojan Horse.
> ...


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.


How will you get your goat to say I do?


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

hortysir said:


> Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin
> 
> All fair game



remember how they put down polygamy?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...





Vandalshandle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
How would you tell?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Closer than I thought it would be
> ...


 
Can he top...Applesauce?


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

I bet this guy will now assert his right to marry another leoopard.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Add thinking goats can consent to legal contracts to Stephanie 's long list of retardation symptoms.
> ...


Oh wow....

Another unhinged conservatard meltsdown!! Lol


Today is awesome.....an easier day than most to weed out the morons you should never attempt to take seriously, for the future


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Congrats OP, now you can finally get married.
> 
> Can I be your best man?


Not interested. I'm into women, but I do support equality and fair play.

Are your arguments so pathetically weak that you have to concentrate on me as a person instead of debating the actual topic?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
> Doesn't change anything in my life, I still define a marriage as the joining of two persons of the opposite sex, and I will not personally recognize anything else as a marriage.



I doubt that many gay married couples will lose a lot of sleep over you not recognizing their union.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> You did draw that comparison. I have read similar posts by you in the past. You want to back off now, fine. I am sure the floodgates argument was made 50 years ago when Loving was decided. It was ignorant then and remains an ignorant argument. What I see is you claiming that because gay people are now allowed to enter into committed relationships, the country will suffer. That is hate in its most basic form


 
I didn't draw the comparison in my post, however, I will say, unnatural and immoral sexual relations are what they are..... you can say my belief is hate but I can say your belief is hate as well  -

Ignorance goes both ways, and just because you "say so" doesn't make it so.  This is such a lame tactic used all the time.. people can see if from a mile away.....

When the country does suffer (and it is already) it won't seem so hateful...but then again the world is going down in a downward spiral, and people will cling to their erroneous beliefs as they go down the tubes.

I won't back off or stop - I'm not sure why you thought I wanted to or would....


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


If you are going to be the useful idiot tool for the democrat party learn its history moron.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Posting this now for the third thread
> 
> snip:
> *15 Reasons ‘Marriage Equality’ Is About Neither Marriage Nor Equality *
> ...


Put the bong down. Step away. Breathe some normal air. Relax.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Its not like the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on other shit.  Hell slavery was abolished against states wishes too.  There's been a slew of crap that the Federal Gov. has "forced" upon the states since the very beginning.  No more "constitutional state's right's" have been lost here, than in any other thing that came up.  That's what the SCOUS does; decides shit like this...
> ...



Yep:

"In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property." ~ The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 PBS

Which prompted the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments in 1865, directly overturning their decision as not inline with "we the peoples" opinion. 

If anti-SSM folks think ya'll have the peeps, feel free to go for a constitutional amendment to overturn this SCOUS decision.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
> ...



I know, I just agreed with that.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > You did draw that comparison. I have read similar posts by you in the past. You want to back off now, fine. I am sure the floodgates argument was made 50 years ago when Loving was decided. It was ignorant then and remains an ignorant argument. What I see is you claiming that because gay people are now allowed to enter into committed relationships, the country will suffer. That is hate in its most basic form
> ...


 
How are you suffering?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

...and now, Richard Simmons will no longer have to live in sin.....


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Links to be found at all major news outlets. Would be interesting to read all 9 decisions.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk



this is the only decision you need

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions


Statistikhengst said:


> 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kennedy. Represents a TECHTONIC shift in juristic thinking in the USA.
> 
> In, 2004, incumbent Pres. Bush ran on a platform advocating a constitutional amendment to ban SSM. Now, such an amendment would be a very, very heavy lift.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk



/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

i don't think it reflects a shift in judicial thinking... i think it represents a shift in societal thinking.

based on loving v virginia, this is the decision which the court had to issue


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


I never cared if homosexuals got that piece of paper. I cared about how they went about it. This was the most stupid way. They fucked state rights and their own choices to get something they would have got eventually anyway.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > The VOR said:
> ...



Read to go? Don't let anyone stop you, you should go be happy.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jun 26, 2015)

MUST watching the next few days.

The 700 Club with Pat Robertson, and the John Hagee show.

You are going to see meltdown as it is meant to be. Don't forget the popcorn.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> This is really gonna unite the country!



Honestly though, it would have remained fragmented regardless of which way they decided.

We all need to come to the realization, that the days of a united America are over.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
Which was their right.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



How did they fuck states rights?  I'm not seeing it.  Either way though, if its that big a deal for the 13 states who don't have SSM then they should get together and put up an amendment.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


No actually it isn't a right to marry it is a privilege.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > This is really gonna unite the country!
> ...


 
What made you think they had ever started?


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Saul would be proud


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



So you lost nothing!

You do not have the right to discriminate, and the court has ruled against those like you.


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > The VOR said:
> ...


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


So it was all 50 states the decided to give this paper to you homosexuals?


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
It was their right to petition the courts for relief.  That is the right of every American citizen.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin
> ...


It a not up to you what a dad and a legal aged daughter do in the privacy of the bedroom.
You can't say their love isn't real.
They have just as much right to marry as you do


----------



## RosieS (Jun 26, 2015)

Decision based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

Awesome day for civil rights in America.

The male choir singing "America the Beautiful"  on the SCOTUS steps sounded terrific!

Regards from Rosie


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

I'm so relieved that Men no longer have to resort to just Staring At Goats.

The Men Who Stare at Goats 2009 - IMDb


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

jillian said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Links to be found at all major news outlets. Would be interesting to read all 9 decisions.
> ...


Hey, thanks for the links.

And you may be right about juristic vs societal thinking.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 26, 2015)

hortysir said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...




Why let the law stop your love?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
Can't wait to see their next protest


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > So how many of you homosexuals actually think this piece of paper changes what we all know marriage to be???? LMAO You all surrendered your 10th amendments for a illusion .
> ...


Just as much as YOUR marriage is an illusion.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Hossfly is a good man with a big heart. I respect his right to his opinion, an opinion I do not share in this case.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> I'm so relieved that Men no longer have to resort to just Staring At Goats.
> 
> The Men Who Stare at Goats 2009 - IMDb


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > You did draw that comparison. I have read similar posts by you in the past. You want to back off now, fine. I am sure the floodgates argument was made 50 years ago when Loving was decided. It was ignorant then and remains an ignorant argument. What I see is you claiming that because gay people are now allowed to enter into committed relationships, the country will suffer. That is hate in its most basic form
> ...


I don't care whether you back off or not. You do not matter.  Folks who think like you do not matter.  It is done. Marriage equality is the law and will remain the law. Soon, gay people will be protected from bigots like you firing them, or refusing to rent to them or refusing service to them. And you cannot do a damn thing about it. Except, spread your hate here.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


that doesnt make it smart.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > hazlnut said:
> ...


What law can?


----------



## jillian (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



sometimes society is ahead of the courts. sometimes the courts move society (as it did with brown v bd of ed). and sometimes society and the court hit the same place at the same time.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

RosieS said:


> Decision based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> Awesome day for civil rights in America.
> 
> ...


My dearest 11001100, I have missed you. Now my algorithms are all a twitter!

Yours in big, thick, solid digits, 

00110011

RosieS

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> don't care whether you back off or not. You do not matter. Folks who think like you do not matter. It is done. Marriage equality is the law and will remain the law. Soon, gay people will be protected from bigots like you firing them, or refusing to rent to them or refusing service to them. And you cannot do a damn thing about it. Except, spread your hate here.


 
The only law that ultimately matters is God's law. 

It's the only true law, and, while I'm here on this Earth I will continue to live by it and support it. 

You rest your faith in man, and I say, good luck with that.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I hope the next decision by the supreme court is to BAN ABORTION.  Because that is Discrimination of the UNBORN


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > The VOR said:
> ...


 
I can't wait for the religious right to pin the next natural disaster on the gays


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > don't care whether you back off or not. You do not matter. Folks who think like you do not matter. It is done. Marriage equality is the law and will remain the law. Soon, gay people will be protected from bigots like you firing them, or refusing to rent to them or refusing service to them. And you cannot do a damn thing about it. Except, spread your hate here.
> ...


 
Let God worry about it

I suspect he is not too upset


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> The marriage issue is a Trojan Horse.
> 
> What this ruling really means is that the Government has expanded the roles of people who will be eligible for entitlements.
> 
> ...


You don't mind it when you received the entitlement...


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Integration...yep...Abortion, not yet...but it will.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > No surprise, I fully expected this decision, and that it would be pretty split.
> ...


Of course not.  Now multiply that by millions of neighbors, coworkers and associates.   Since one of the major goals of the perverts was acceptance, removal of stigma and unity, one more rejection isn't going to help.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


 

I thought they were  all Bush's fault


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



It's amazing to me that someone running for president could freely say they were opposed to same sex marriage just a handful of years ago, but now if you dared to say you were opposed, you would be branded a bigot, and you would be shunned. It's a good thing Obama "evolved" or you guys apparently would have ran him out of D.C. on a rail in 2012.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 26, 2015)

Conservatards rejoice!

You have something new to whine about now.

Enjoy your day.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
They ruled on that one 40 years ago


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


You can think?



Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Did you know it was democrats that wanted segregation???? I am sure they will never treat the 1% of people like you like they did the blacks , Jews and Japanese..... LMAO gullible tool


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2015)

A total federalistic, tyrannical government.
The federal government is systematically chipping away at State's rights.
We answer ONLY to the Executive and Judicial branches.
The Legislative branch has been castrated


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


They were wrong there as well.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Since the supreme court today can do anything they like

We NEED TO START gearing up to put banning abortion back in front of them


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
From their perspective, it certainly does.

There has been much discussion on bakers and photographers being forced to provide services for SSM weddings.  All of those cases relate to the enforcement of state laws.  Are you equally passionate about supporting the state's right to impose that on its citizens?  Would you consider it unwise for a baker to take their case to SCOTUS because it might infringe upon state's rights?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I suspect we will see the dozens of Repub candidates "evolve" very quickly over the next few months.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Not too late for you to evolve.  Most people do as they grow older and experience more of life.  Or, you could stay ignorant.  Your choice in this free country.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.



And the ignorant Conservative melt down begins.....


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 
Only evidence you don't know God.  He cares.  If not, he would not be God.  Yet, we are here to live for him, so, sitting on hands is not the answer...


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > don't care whether you back off or not. You do not matter. Folks who think like you do not matter. It is done. Marriage equality is the law and will remain the law. Soon, gay people will be protected from bigots like you firing them, or refusing to rent to them or refusing service to them. And you cannot do a damn thing about it. Except, spread your hate here.
> ...


God's law?  Which God?  See, that is the problem.  There is no agreement on what God would want.  She gave conflicting messages.  And, you will actually abide by man's law.  Or pay the price.  You live in a state that bans discrimination against gay people you will not discriminate.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


They have proved to be idiots.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Yes, and did you know that Dixie-crats of those days are now the Tea Party of today?

Also it was racist Democrats that have attempted to fix the errors of the past ( LBJ, Byrd and their group ) while those like you cling to the past wanting America to stay WASP controlled and denying the minorities any right to be happy in this nation.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Sure God cares.  She is embarrass that hateful folks like you blame her for your ignorance and bigotry. She wants you to STFU.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

*A GOP Pecan tree speaks out.......*
* Huckabee: I Will Not Accept 'Imperial Court’ Ruling On Gay Marriage *





Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R) said Friday that he would not “acquiesce to an imperial court” and its decision to make gay marriage legal in all 50 states.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



I am sure there will be countless gay couples losing sleep tonight knowing they don't have your approval. Get over yourself, we don't give a fuck want you think.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


All 72 of the whores.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 
You don't receive the free gift of Salvation and you pay the eternal price.
I feel good about my choice.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Sure God cares. She is embarrass that hateful folks like you blame her for your ignorance and bigotry. She wants you to STFU.


 
I appreciate your intellectual and well thought out response


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Oy, Gewalt.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


 
They certainly did.  They were the Dixiecrats.  That's historical fact.  And the Republican party was run by patriots and conservatism was a work of intellectual giants.  Strange how things change with time.  Goldwater warned us what would happen if we began to cater to the fringes and religious right.  He was right.  Now we are lumbered with the Dixiecrats.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Nope. Serious as a heart attack.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jun 26, 2015)

Look on the bright side, now gays have nothing to bitch about so they will shut the hell up finally.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
Don't want to answer the question?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


 Really?

There were dozens of Democratic States in the north that didn't want segregation


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 26, 2015)

In remembrance to those who didn't live to see the day.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Sister, Dad, Mom, Son, Brother, Twin
> ...




Are we allowed to say "butth*rt" in a thread about homosexuals ?  Seems wrong to me.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

Just curious, did the decision include some kind of a mandate in which they have to register somewhere?

I'm fucking horrible at buying gifts, ask my wife.  Embarrassing.

.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


You shouldn't be so happy. When I go there's a whole lot of evil bastards going with me.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *A GOP Pecan tree speaks out.......*
> * Huckabee: I Will Not Accept 'Imperial Court’ Ruling On Gay Marriage *
> 
> 
> ...


 
Sounds like it is time for some second amendment remedies


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Gay marriage will also inevitably mean some gay divorces as well. Law of averages....


Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Sure God cares. She is embarrass that hateful folks like you blame her for your ignorance and bigotry. She wants you to STFU.
> ...


You are not capable of appreciating anything intellectual.  And my response did not need to be well thought out; it was an obvious response to a bigot using God to justify their hatred of God's creations.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


God agrees with you, fag.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

dilloduck said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



not to worry. it will be (by a push from them the SAME they did marriage) outlawed soon enough. can't speak badly about homosexuals you know


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Sure you feel good about your choice.  I allows you to falsely think that you are better than a whole group of people.  You need that.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Mac1958 said:


> Just curious, did the decision include some kind of a mandate in which they have to register somewhere?
> 
> I'm fucking horrible at buying gifts, ask my wife.  Embarrassing.
> 
> .


Lol!!!

Mac, that was so, uh, PC of you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2015)

AquaAthena said:


> Who thought it wouldn't pass?  This is the most liberal court since 1969.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-surprising-move-leftward.html?abt=0002&abg=1
> 
> ...


SCOTUS's defined purpose is to decide, CONSTITUTIONALLY, what is legal.
If the COTUS had nothing to do with the decision, their opinions carry ZERO authority


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Look at all the deflections in this thread. Too funny!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

Please over the next several days keep razor blades away from conservatives as a safety measure.....
*Weekly Standard Freaks Over Gay Marriage: ‘You Will Be Assimilated’*


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, did the decision include some kind of a mandate in which they have to register somewhere?
> ...


Hey, you know me, PC all day!

.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

I had no idea homosexuals were so goataphobic. Guess the elation of the recent SCOTUS decision has caused them to let their guard down.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Not at all. It will be pinned on Hashem. And justly so.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.


----------



## Anathema (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


>



No. It's basic Morality and Values.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 26, 2015)

This ruling is wonderful for gays, and I am happy for them.  As for the rest of us, it really will not have any affect on our lives whatsoever.  Now I know there will be some crazy cons out there who will now think that we all have to marry someone of the same sex, but we all know that isn't true.  Religious entities will not be forced to marry anyone if it goes against the tenets of their religion, so again this will not affect anyone in a negative way.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

It seems it was a wise investment buying stock in Kleenex several months ago. All the tears in this thread alone should pay off in spades. Poor little crybabies can't force queers to be 2nd class citizens anymore. You'll get over it.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 26, 2015)

AquaAthena said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > NaziCon nutters are having a really bad week.
> ...



That is getting very old and will soon be forgotten....


----------



## paperview (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Seriously?   It's not smart to exercise our rights as American citizens?    Wow!


----------



## pwjohn (Jun 26, 2015)

Dana7360 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > ruled 5-4 !!!
> ...



Why so much hatred on your part ?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> This ruling is wonderful for gays, and I am happy for them.  As for the rest of us, it really will not have any affect on our lives whatsoever.  Now I know there will be some crazy cons out there who will now think that we all have to marry someone of the same sex, but we all know that isn't true.  Religious entities will not be forced to marry anyone if it goes against the tenets of their religion, so again this will not affect anyone in a negative way.


 
Five years from now, people will wonder what the fuss was all about


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Seriously?   It's not smart to exercise our rights as American citizens?    Wow!


That is correct the Nut bags say* "one should accept being placed in the back of the bus"*


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


To shape your own state government?  To keep certain law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from the same legal access you have?   How fascist of you?   BTW...what have YOU actively done to get rid of the PA laws you don't like in your state?


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I'm bisexual in a heterosexual monogamous relationship since 2006, thanks for asking. 

No, my state was one of the first to ban it in 1996.  In 1998 Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the ban on SSM was against the state constitution.  In 1998 the state voted (68%) to amend the state constitution in order to keep the ban.  However, it's been a battle between courts and public opinion ever since; with the majority of polls the past decade plus showing a change of heart, including votes and rulings somewhere around 2007 which gave equivocal "marital rights" to homosexual couples (benefits, medical decisions, etc.)  

We had started fiddling with removing the amendment and bringing the state constitution back inline with the wishes of the people (generally we are at about 60% for SSM today) somewhere around 2011-2012.  In 2014 a US District Court found the amendment was unconstitutional, thus SSM became legal.  Upon appeal the Supreme Court refused to look at it, and sent it to the Ninth Circuit, but we put that case on hold, pending the SCOUS's decision today. 

Now the SCOUS has decided the matter and we'll amend our state constitution, (which is pretty much what I think most of us wanted to do anyway.)


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *A GOP Pecan tree speaks out.......*
> * Huckabee: I Will Not Accept 'Imperial Court’ Ruling On Gay Marriage *
> 
> 
> ...


 
I really can't wait for the response from the rest of the GOP Clown Car

Who can come up with a more outlandish response than Hucks?

Cruz? Jindal? Santorum?

This will be fun


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

*In Texas Obama already has the secret marriage courts under abandoned Walmarts to force Cowboys to marry selected Muslim  Bedouin bedwetters....*


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously?   It's not smart to exercise our rights as American citizens?    Wow!
> ...



Some simply believe the definition of marriage is two persons of the opposite sex.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The marriage issue is a Trojan Horse.
> ...




I am so sick of the sophistry that receiving something one doesn't want and against one's will is somehow support of said thing.


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...



News doesn't travel fast to her trailer park


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

Mr Clean said:


> Conservatards rejoice!
> 
> You have something new to whine about now.
> 
> Enjoy your day.



I doubt many are surprised of the ruling.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


If you need to split hairs....


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



AND they wail about a Democracy. How is having some JUDGES rule over us a democracy?  these people have no clue what they GIVING UP for all this nonsense. It won't hurt me, I just feel bad for our children as to what a country they coming up in. Ruled by tyrants. took them a few years but they finally accomplished it WITH the help of the people living here. SAD


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




You really are one of the most Banal and Boring posters on the board.

Your posting diarrhea is tiresome.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


As long as the black market and underground is left alone is all I care about....


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


If you can't see anything past your redundant posts, I can't do anything for you....


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

Lakhota said:


> NaziCon nutters are having a really bad week.



Obama was a Nazi nutter in '08, yet you voted for him.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Some simply believe the definition of marriage is two persons of the opposite sex.


*
some use to simply believe that marriage was between a white man and a white woman....NO NEGROES ALLOWED TO MARRY WHITES...its unnatural they said*


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
All of America evolved


It is amazing how quickly opinions changed....Why does it take Republicans so long to catch on?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

Homosexuals need to understand that allowing people to marry goats does nothing to mar the sanctity of their own "marriage". You would think they would be a little sensitive to this issue since they were so recently victimized.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
Let me check...


Hey GOD

If you oppose Same Sex Marriage......Hit me with a lightning bolt!


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Even Jesus knew not to test God


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

People need to bring back banning abortion in front of these Masters, I mean the Supremes

they can change their mind and interpret thing however they want.

I hope that's next


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



There's no agreement as to God because there is no more agreement.  There is no agreement because the country is no longer united.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Sure you don't...it shows in every post you make on this topic that you have no fear.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > Some simply believe the definition of marriage is two persons of the opposite sex.
> ...


 
If God had wanted the races to mix, he wouldn't have placed them on different continents


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> 
> Where chaos rules; nations fail.


Why is same sex marriage not seen by you as a 'real marriage'?  Do you think that the commitment to marriage is not real?  The love of the partners is not real?  The benefits and advantages and protections of the marriage contract not real?  What is 'not real' here?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
5 minutes and nothing happened

I don't think God is that pissed about this Gay Marriage stuff


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Here...learn yourself:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1860

There are the facts...but I honestly don't expect you to admit the truth.....your kind never does.


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

The decision affirmed growing public support in the U.S. for gay marriage, with about two-thirds of Americans now in favor. And it comes as gay rights groups have seen gay marriage bans fall rapidly in recent years, with the number of states allowing gay marriage swelling most recently to 37 -- that is, until this ruling.


Supreme Court rules states must allow same-sex marriage - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


How else should we have "gone about it"?  Had a civil war?   We followed the law.  Why is that so horrible for you?  Do you hate our way of government THAT much?  OR are you just a whiner when you don't get your way?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



You voted for a bigot in '08.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Several Supreme Court decisions over the decades disagree with you....but continue whining.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> 5 minutes and nothing happened
> 
> I don't think God is that pissed about this Gay Marriage stuff


 
Oh?  You get to decide when it's appropriate or the "right time" for God to act?  You must be pretty powerful.  Do people worship you?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > Some simply believe the definition of marriage is two persons of the opposite sex.
> ...



Apples and oranges. They were man and woman, this is something completely different.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 26, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> As I said in my own thread, "Swell. Now I can marry a man in Missouri...Anbd then be evicted from my apartment of 16 years, fired from a job, and refused employment at a new job while living under a freeway in a cardboard box with my new husband."


The courts struck down state laws against interracial marriages but it took a long time for people to accept interracial marriages as just marriage..  It will take a while before same sex marriage, gay marriage, and heterosexual marriage are recognized as just "marriage".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




It is not unhinged to project the irrationality of the unhinged libtards.

Which if these facts are not true: first that animal rights advocates insist that animals should be given equal rights. and secondly that animal rights advocates are themselves libtards?

Anyone that follows current events in the least knows these things to be true, which simply illustrates how ridiculous libtardism is.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> ...


 
Marriage is a sacred vow to God making a man and woman husband and wife.
Society can create any rules they want, but that doesn't change God's rules.

There are many sincere people who want to do right, but they want to decide for themselves what is good and evil. The consequences are deadly. *Proverb 14:12, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” *Proverb 3:5-7 tells us to trust wholeheartedly in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not to lean upon our own understanding; to fear God and depart from evil, and not to be wise in our own eyes.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...


same argument that "its unnatural" its "against God" [like she cares who is zooming who]...same tired argument ...if a woman wants to live with another woman and express physical affection to each other why should that cost them the Rights and privileges of other citizens as conferred by a legally recognized marriage... *and why should I an uninvolved hetero [in my case] individual give a hoot about what those two women are doing...*where is my dog in that fight ?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

obviously much better than you.   You do not think, you are a parrot who repeats the liberal talking points of the day as instructed by your masters in the media.   You are incapable of individual thought,  you are a sheep, a slave, and an idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > So how many of you homosexuals actually think this piece of paper changes what we all know marriage to be???? LMAO You all surrendered your 10th amendments for a illusion .
> ...



SSM is a contract, as are all marriages.


----------



## blastoff (Jun 26, 2015)

Marrying goats is strictly reserved for Muslim men only.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > As I said in my own thread, "Swell. Now I can marry a man in Missouri...Anbd then be evicted from my apartment of 16 years, fired from a job, and refused employment at a new job while living under a freeway in a cardboard box with my new husband."
> ...


 
And the progression continues.  Offensive or not, NAMBLA is encouraged.... I'm sure when interracial marriages were accepted, homosexual marriages seemed offensive just like NAMBLA does now....

Funny you find NAMBLA offensive but not the murder of 5 week old humans. Hmm.....


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

It's been a good week for America.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> This ruling is wonderful for gays, and I am happy for them.  As for the rest of us, it really will not have any affect on our lives whatsoever.  Now I know there will be some crazy cons out there who will now think that we all have to marry someone of the same sex, but we all know that isn't true.  Religious entities will not be forced to marry anyone if it goes against the tenets of their religion, so again this will not affect anyone in a negative way.


 
What it does is set a legal precedent that marriage can be whatever the people "marrying" want it to be.

If two men is a marriage, why not 3 men, or two women and 5 men?  

Its coming,  I guarantee it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Nothing has changed.   There is nothing in this law that requires individual recognition or association.



True.  You have every right as a US citizen to hate people you do not know.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > This ruling is wonderful for gays, and I am happy for them.  As for the rest of us, it really will not have any affect on our lives whatsoever.  Now I know there will be some crazy cons out there who will now think that we all have to marry someone of the same sex, but we all know that isn't true.  Religious entities will not be forced to marry anyone if it goes against the tenets of their religion, so again this will not affect anyone in a negative way.
> ...


 

Yes, winger, now you can pack fudge legally,  you and jake can marry and jerk each other off while you take turns posting on this message board.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> 
> (if you don't know what NAMBLA is I'll be happy to inform you..)



Really, I don't want to hear about your NAMBLA association.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

hortysir said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > Who thought it wouldn't pass?  This is the most liberal court since 1969.
> ...


Another clueless legal scholar heard from.  The


Bonzi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


"Marriage is a sacred vow to God making a man and woman husband and wife.
Society can create any rules they want, but that doesn't change God's rules."  Not in this country, it is not.  We are not bound by your or anyone's claim to speak for God.  You live your life according to your beliefs but leave the rest of us alone.  How other people choose to live their lives is none of your business.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



First off, you can drop the "god" part where I'm concerned, I'm agnostic, and my views have nothing to do with a religious belief.
Next, I could care less if two women or two men live together and have sex all night long. I could care less if they have their neighbor, or their neighbor's dog join in.
I just don't believe they should get to have the title of marriage. I think the very definition has to do with the joining of opposites.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Well, now we wait for their NEXT demands on us all

they are already GOING after a flag.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Once again, comparing adults in a consensual, loving relationship to pedophiles.  Sick, Sick, Sick.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

Nutz said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > Nutz said:
> ...



Did God tell you that?  I wonder, next time you speak with God, ask him/her whey s/he made people gay.  

Thanks in advance.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > This ruling is wonderful for gays, and I am happy for them.  As for the rest of us, it really will not have any affect on our lives whatsoever.  Now I know there will be some crazy cons out there who will now think that we all have to marry someone of the same sex, but we all know that isn't true.  Religious entities will not be forced to marry anyone if it goes against the tenets of their religion, so again this will not affect anyone in a negative way.
> ...



No it doesn't.  All it does is say that if a state is going to make monogamous marriage a legal civil union, the state cannot restrict to opposite sex only.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> ...


Seems to be obsessed with that organization.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Liberals are know for lowering value of everything in order to achieve something.

Marriage lost its meaning. If anything can be called marriage, then nothing is marriage.


----------



## RosieS (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> > Decision based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
> ...



Darling 00110011,

Perhaps one day we can show one and all that you are NOT gay.

Blushingly Yours,

11001100


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Always had faith he would evolve.  He did.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



You seem to be taking the court's ruling well.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Liberals are know for lowering value of everything in order to achieve something.
> 
> Marriage lost its meaning. If anything can be called marriage, then nothing is marriage.


Sure has a lot of meaning for Bristol Palin.  I guess she can blame her two out of marriage kids on gay people getting married.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Yes, because they know how the left works, and they know they'll be compared to Hitler if they do not comply.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



However, you did not know if he would. You voted for a bigot.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Yes, you are correct, the Democrats from about a century ago were the Rightwingers and the Republicans were the Progressives.  That have flopped.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > This ruling is wonderful for gays, and I am happy for them.  As for the rest of us, it really will not have any affect on our lives whatsoever.  Now I know there will be some crazy cons out there who will now think that we all have to marry someone of the same sex, but we all know that isn't true.  Religious entities will not be forced to marry anyone if it goes against the tenets of their religion, so again this will not affect anyone in a negative way.
> ...



And Republicans will be trying to take credit for it.  lol, they'll add it to Reagan's legacy of accomplishments...

...he appointed Anthony Kennedy.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



He forgot to lube up this morning.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > 5 minutes and nothing happened
> ...


 
God seems to be slipping with his punishing of sinners

He used to be right up there with floods, pillars of salt, locusts and killing first born

You would think this gay marriage stuff would really piss him off.....but I think Jesus doesn't have a problem with it. He is more level headed


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Well, the problem isn't real or unreal.  The problem is how our nation is governed.  God does not have a vote.  And interpreting God's will or His laws is a sticky wicket.

Here in America we do not ignore God, but we do not let Him legislate either.  Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is contract law.  God's idea of marriage is reserved for Him and not the way we govern ourselves.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Liberals are know for lowering value of everything in order to achieve something.
> 
> Marriage lost its meaning. If anything can be called marriage, then nothing is marriage.


 
How does it affect your marriage?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 26, 2015)

All that remains is to see, sadly, who and what rightwingers will shoot or blow up in reaction to this decision.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Anger is a necessary stage of the healing process. We are now witnessing second step to the stages of grief. Some here are still on the denial stage but they'll get to anger soon enough.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


 
Damn....this shit pisses you off doesn't it?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...


 

I told you what is coming,  I am right.   just wait.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> First off, you can drop the "god" part where I'm concerned, I'm agnostic, and my views have nothing to do with a religious belief.


The folks on your side of this are preponderantly using God as the "deal breaker" so whether or not you are personally a theist is irrelevant to my perspective...


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> All that remains is to see, sadly, who and what rightwingers will shoot or blow up in reaction to this decision.



They'll shoot their mouths off and blow their noses but other then that I don't expect any violence.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

Yes, watching this great nation go down the crapper pisses me off.   And I am not going to be silent or worry about offending anyone.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



Yep, I'm sure that's why. It can't possibly be that Repubs are held hostage by their own rabid base. I'm quite sure none of the Repub candidates have any interest in appealing to a wider group of voters. If only the liberals would allow them to have their own opinions, they wouldn't be seen as regressive.


----------



## hangover (Jun 26, 2015)

Cons should thank SCOTUS for getting the confederate flag on the back burner....it's still gonna come back to haunt them though.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

the court has allowed 3% of the population to dictate to 97%.


----------



## hangover (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Well of course 1%ers don't believe in equality.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> All that remains is to see, sadly, who and what rightwingers will shoot or blow up in reaction to this decision.


 

no one, those are liberal tactics.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> I just don't believe they should get to have the title of marriage. I think the very definition has to do with the joining of opposites.



*You may feel that  your personal bias is enough to invalidate the gay folks Right to Equal Protection under the Law" a Constitutional Right*...however the central legal controlling Institution just said "Nay"....


----------



## hangover (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


If only 3% believed in equality, it wouldn't have happened, and we'd still have slavery.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

hangover said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

you mean like the clintons,  most of hollywood, pelosi, reid, whoopi--------------those 1% ers?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
I love conservative temper tantrums

Such drama queens


----------



## The VOR (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> And I am not going to be silent or worry about offending anyone.


Anonymously on a message board of course.  What a brave patriot you are.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

hangover said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


 

this decision was not about equality.  it was about using the SC to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   THAT is what it was about.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I remember you gassing on endlessly about how you would accept this ruling if it didn't go you way. As I suspected, you're not taking this ruling so well. Oh, by the way, gay people may only 3% of the population but they have the majority of population supporting their right to marry. You'll get over it.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

The VOR said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > And I am not going to be silent or worry about offending anyone.
> ...


 

nope, in everything I do or say, on facebook, in person, in public.   I am tired of the liberals controlling the debate in this country and lying about our history, our constitution, our religion, and our founders.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


 

I have accepted it.   But I don't have to agree with it.

Personally I don't give a shit if two gay men call their hook up a marriage.  Its not, but they can call it that.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

Now legal in all states.
 Congratulations to those that can finally get married.

 and yes, I mean that seriously.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


 

the majority of americans do not support this ruling.  But it is the ruling so they will have to accept it and move on.   There are more important battles yet to come.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 26, 2015)

The GOP brought this on themselves. You cannot claim be for rights and liberties but ONLY those rights and liberties that you approve of.

It shouldn't never have gone that far, now the consequences will be far more than even you realize.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were," Kennedy wrote. "As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death."


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You are free to have that opinion and it will still have zero bearing on the law.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The majority of Americans do not support this ruling? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


>


----------



## PredFan (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were," Kennedy wrote. "As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death."



The ruling was the correct one, unfortunately Judge Roberts feels it's his job to define marriage. That isn't the job of the SCOTUS. That part is sad and a very scary outlook for future SC actions.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

PredFan said:


> The GOP brought this on themselves. You cannot claim be for rights and liberties but ONLY those rights and liberties that you approve of.
> 
> It shouldn't never have gone that far, now the consequences will be far more than even you realize.


 not sure what you mean here. 
 I agree that Marriage is not a right, but at the same time I dont see where it hurts anyone for gays to marry.
 plus, the wedding parties are going to be awesome, not to mention how good their yards are going to look.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 26, 2015)

It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.


----------



## J.E.D (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...


You think? IOW, in your opinion marriage should be a union between two people of the opposite sex. Well, you know what they say about opinions.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

Good god, have we all lost the ability to look to see if a thread has already been started on a topic ?!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Now legal in all states.
> Congratulations to those that can finally get married.
> 
> and yes, I mean that seriously.




This only means trouble.

The lesbians can bare children with some tom cat guy, but the gay men are now left childless.

There will be a civil war over this fact of biology.

.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Now legal in all states.
> Congratulations to those that can finally get married.
> 
> and yes, I mean that seriously.


Time will tell. God always gets the last word.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP brought this on themselves. You cannot claim be for rights and liberties but ONLY those rights and liberties that you approve of.
> ...



Wow! Did you really say that?


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

lets get behind this folks or forever have the supreme court be the rule over YOUR STATES

snip:
*Scott Walker responds to SCOTUS gay marriage decision, calls for NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT*
Posted by The Right Scoop on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:48 PM in Politics | Leave a 

Scott Walker has penned his response to the Supreme Court decision, calling it a grave mistake and calling for a constitutional amendment to reaffirm that the states have the ability to define marriage:



Read more: http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBnKEpLs


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.


 This is true, and hopefully the churches wont be forced to participate. And we dont have to particpate in the sacrilege, nobody is going to force me to bed down with another man. Unless I go to prison and bubba is really big and demanding, but still, there is going to be a fight before he gets to finalize our marriage. LOL


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.



 Christians churches are already marrying gays in this country.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


  did I say what?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If god doesn't do something soon about San Francisco, he's going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > AquaAthena said:
> ...


You are saying that, essentially, any and all marriages that don't conform to your interpretation of God's will is illegitimate.  There are folks who marry under the aegis of other religions, or no religion at all, yet those marriages are regarded as legitimate under the laws of this nation.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> What will be funny will be reading the comments on here praising Robert's wise dissent from the same folks calling him a liberal stooge for Obama on the Obamacare decision threads.


Although I don't agree with Robert's vote on gay marriage, I do appreciate the fact that he's lot more middle of the road than either liberals or conservatives believed he would be when he joined the court.  This week he voted for maintaining the Obamacare subsidies and against gay marriage.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.



Businesses are not allowed to discriminate (it varies by state), but churches are under no obligation to marry gays.

However, there are numerous pastors who are willing to do it, with or without the blessings of their churches.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
The Netherlands is still standing

Looks like God doesn't have as big a problem with homosexuality as has been suggested


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals are know for lowering value of everything in order to achieve something.
> ...



It devalue meaning of it.

It's like calling everyone that has vagina a lady.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.
> ...


 but you do know that the gays are going to walk past the 3 churches in town that will marry them, just to get denied at the 4th church that wont. Just to make a stink and start on the next "right" that they want.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Anything is possible from this liberalCourt.  Business people refusing to service a gay wedding  are being forced to attend sensitivity training class.   Thanks to liberalism and the Court this country is becoming more like the Soviet Union every day.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.
> ...


Pagan churches calling themselves "Christian" are engaged in the act of embracing homosexuality.

2 Timothy 3 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
*“Difficult Times Will Come”*

3 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come.

2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy,

3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, *without self-control, brutal, haters of good,*

4* treacherous, reckless, conceited,* *lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God*,

5 *holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.*

6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,

7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these _men_ also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith.

9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.

10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, persecutions, _and_ sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, Iconium _and_ at
Lystra;

11 what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!

12 Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

13 But evil men and impostors will proceed _from bad_ to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned _them_,

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Your complaint is with state PA laws.  What have you actively done to repeal such laws in your state?  Or do you just sit at your computer and whine?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Unfortunately, many eyes won't be opened until the next life.

All I can say is keep your mind an heart open to the Lord and seek Him.  The only good advice I can give at this point....


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 10 years now- hasn't happened in 10 years. 

What I truly expect are examples of the Religious right looking for reasons to be outraged- like you are.


----------



## Meathead (Jun 26, 2015)

Marrying goats should go over well with Muslims a least.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



How exactly does a church engage in homosexuality? Does the church get attracted to another church?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> You are saying that, essentially, any and all marriages that don't conform to your international of God's will is illegitimate. There are folks who marry under the aegis of other religions, or no religion at all, yet those marriages are regarded as legitimate under the laws of this nation.


 
I'm saying there is one God, we will all answer to him.

Men can and will live any way they want on this Earth, make the rules and do what is right "in their own eyes" but, ultimately, it will fail. 

God said it and so it will be.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 

God will do what He will do in His time.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> [
> A goat can't consent.
> 
> Dope.
> ...


 Technicality. If a man wants to marry is goat nobody can stop him not even the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court said so


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 26, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.



Nobody is or has been trying to force churches to do anything.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 26, 2015)

I don't get the anger or the celebration.

This is a decision.

It will impact some things.

States that don't like it will start to hem it up where possible.

Roe is no longer what it was (in some states).

In states where people want gay marriage (a great majority of them), things will continue as they have been for some time.

There are places that gays would not want to live...that won't change.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter, we still won't participate in sacrilege. And trust me, Christians are not going to start marrying homos in their churches. And nobody will be able to force them to. Watch for wailing and gnashing of teeth from the homonazis as they run up against this more and more, as they try to force churches, as they've attempted to force small businesses, to participate in their weird homo wedding revels.
> ...



".......with or without the blessings of their churches, (or the local Bund"............"


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


No they didnt. Youre just illiterate apparently


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

The meaning of marriage is even deeper now.

You confederate gay bashers can have this flag


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Get back with us when that actually happens. Until then, STFU.


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> 
> (if you don't know what NAMBLA is I'll be happy to inform you..)


 
Ah yes, the youth outreach organization of the Democratic Party.


----------



## Fishlore (Jun 26, 2015)

The idea that same sex marriage covers bestiality is too silly to ascribe to stupidity or ignorance. For the TEA Party base of the Republican Party the world is falling apart at accelerating speed. The pain and betrayal felt over gay marriage, civil rights and Obamacare is disorienting to them. Really. 

Their forefathers suffered a similar catastrophe with the news of Appomattox. There are two more big bumps coming down the road: federal action on gun registration and the election of Hillary Clinton. We should expect a significant increase in racist terrorism similar to the Charleston Massacre as the reality of twenty-first century America begins to be revealed. It is sad but true: there is no birth without blood.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Add thinking goats can consent to legal contracts to Stephanie 's long list of retardation symptoms.
> 
> Steph, you know if we polled every person on the entire board right now as to.who is the dumbest poster, you win it in a landslide right?


"Mirror, mirror, on the wall....."


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Add thinking goats can consent to legal contracts to Stephanie 's long list of retardation symptoms.
> ...


What are you, a wicked witch?


----------



## Obiwan (Jun 26, 2015)

Actually, the court has held hearings concerning legal rights for chimpanzees....

Chimpanzees granted petition to hear legal persons status in court World news The Guardian

For the first time in US history, a judge has granted two chimpanzees a petition – through human attorneys – to defend their rights against unlawful imprisonment, allowing a hearing on the status of “legal persons” for the primates.

Maybe letting Libs marry them is next!!!!!


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 26, 2015)

What I've learned this week.

State doesn't mean state.

Marriage doesn't mean marriage.

Conservative court doesn't mean conservative court.

This is like waking up in Wayward Pines.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

Fishlore said:


> The idea that same sex marriage covers bestiality is too silly to ascribe to stupidity or ignorance. For the TEA Party base of the Republican Party the world is falling apart at accelerating speed. The pain and betrayal felt over gay marriage, civil rights and Obamacare is disorienting to them. Really.
> 
> Their forefathers suffered a similar catastrophe with the news of Appomattox. There are two more big bumps coming down the road: federal action on gun registration and the election of Hillary Clinton. We should expect a significant increase in racist terrorism similar to the Charleston Massacre as the reality of twenty-first century America begins to be revealed. It is sad but true: there is no birth without blood.



goataphobics-----coming out of the woodwork


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.



So the question to me is are you wondering if you can marry your pet goat?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Ah- I was waiting for the first Conservative to call the Justice 'tyrants' today- no surprise Stephanie won that prize.

My child is ecstatic over the ruling- the vast majority of young people support gay marriage- to them the bans are as nonsensical as bans on mixed race marriages.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.
> ...


 i'm not going to marry my Goat. I only wish I could prevent you,  but the Supreme Court took that away from me.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...


No, Dopey, humans will have Power of Attorney. Why are Liberal Progressive pukes so effing braindead?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


 How am I exhibiting outrage on their ability to marry.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


 kay bud.....gontest your theory and be the first to "legally" marry an animal.

Ill gladly cut you a check for the wedding expenses.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Congrats to the happy couple! Are the two of you registered at PetSmart?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Don't forget women can marry goats too !!!  Don't want anyone feeling left out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

kwc57 said:


> What I've learned this week.
> 
> State doesn't mean state.
> 
> ...


It's waking up in reality.  The decision is traditionally conservative: since no constitutional issue exists, let Congress deal with its own legislation.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > hazlnut said:
> ...



hmmmmm  Will Petsmart be forced to issue licenses to humans  ???


----------



## rdean (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Like an atheist.  They should be killed, right?  Anything else is not "Godly".


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


  how about you look at the lesbians that tried to get fertilization from a Catholic run clinic in California, there were other options that would have worked for them but they had to go where they knew they would be turned down. why?
 or the gays that went to the christian owned bakery even though there were other options for them that would have taken care of their needs. why?
 Its already happened, so, basically you can STFU,


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Obuffon is strutting around like a faggot who has laid a turd and is waiting for it to hatch into a "son who will look like him."


----------



## Obiwan (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Yeah, but the kid might be pretty ugly....


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

dilloduck said:


> .
> 
> Don't forget women can marry goats too !!!  Don't want anyone feeling left out.


. I think the goat MUST be female in that case.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...


Don't you get it?  This is a legal issue.  A marriage license is just a legal contract between two people.  The only value it has is in regard to the legal privileges and responsibilities associated with the contract.

A religious marriage may certainly have requirements different from a civil marriage as is the case with Catholic marriages today.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

dilloduck said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...



The licences will be issued by vending machines. Did you even read the ruling!? lol


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

rdean said:


> Like an atheist. They should be killed, right? Anything else is not "Godly".


 
Nope.  But people that are "anti-God" love to put words in peoples mouths and make it look like the truth.
It's a very common practice - often times effective (because people are easily duped) - but very over played, and certainly not truthful.

You should be a follower of Jesus because it's the only REAL meaning in life.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...




No dumbass. The fertility clinic was a business that is required to serve ALL the public. So was the cake shop. Neither were churches. However, if you would have just sold the damn cake in the first place, this probably would have never ended up in the supreme court. You really shot yourself in the foot this time.


----------



## RosieS (Jun 26, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The meaning of marriage is even deeper now.
> 
> You confederate gay bashers can have this flag









Regards from Rosie


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Yeth.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > hazlnut said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure that you cant say "ugly " but  I'll check the daily liberal lexicon


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 26, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 no dumbass, the clinic was Catholic run, and had Catholic rules. The bakery was privately owned and not required to serve someone that they did not want to serve.
 thats the problem with the mentally ill liberals, they just dont understand these things. Dumbass.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Like an atheist. They should be killed, right? Anything else is not "Godly".
> ...



Selective use of faith is also a quite common practice. If God has a problem with same sex marriage then what must he have thought about slavery and it's flag that still flies today? I'm sure that's not kosher either yet you are indifferent on that issue. That's why we don't legislate based on faith.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

dilloduck said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > hazlnut said:
> ...




How binary of you. There are over 60 genders on Facebook, and more are being invented Every Day!

_Some were, of course, the usual “gay” or “lesbian,” but in addition to these were “demisexuals,” “androsexuals,” and “therians” (which, she explained, are people who are only attracted to individuals who commune with the same spirit animal). One identified as a “panromantic polyamorous asexual non-binary space god.” Upon hearing this, I knew I had something to say, although it is unlikely to be nice. Having heard, however, several episodes of “The Prairie Home Companion,” I am convinced women from Wisconsin are famously kind, so I am sure my friend will forgive me._

Why Do Progressives Resent Reality So Much


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

dilloduck said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...




"Differently Appearanced"


----------



## Toro (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.



Congratulations. 

I hope you two are very happy.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 26, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...




Sorry, but the laws concerning who a business serving the public has to do business with disagree with you.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.



Animals can't enter into contracts. 

Done.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


really Just Strom Thurman did all of that? Hey idiot he is the only one who switched parties.... Bull Connor Democrat Al Gore Senior democrat LBJ Wallace Democrat Robert Byrd Democrat that was minority and majority leader in the senate for years. You are ignorant as hell it seems.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


 
I am not well read on the history of the Confederate/Rebel flag.  There are people I know that love it because they love the South (not slavery) - they are proud to be from the South and view it as a symbol of their pride.  I am not a mind reader, nor, am I a big fan of political correctness.  I don't claim to be perfect or even completely in God's will - but I do know that's the only thing that matters ultimately.

If I don't comment on an issue, it will be most likely because I don't know enough about it to really get deep into a productive discussion about it.

What I do know is that God wants an intimate relationship with all people, and, that, once he has that, he can reveal His will to those that accept his sacrifice and salvation plan... and enter in to relationship with Him.


----------



## Obiwan (Jun 26, 2015)

Skylar said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.
> ...


Why not??? How do you think they get critters to work in the movies?????


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...



They can't legally agree to contracts. As they lack the mental capacity.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.



I had no idea the Constitution bestowed rights upon goats. Please, do tell, bigot.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Awww, being called ignorant by someone like you is a wonderful compliment when you are the dumbest poster on here so far.

Now why is it Dixiecrats like you fear allowing others to have equal rights?

Also as I wrote the racist Democrats like Byrd and LBJ attempted to fix their wrongs from their past, and that flew right over your ignorant ass as usual...

You are living proof what is wrong with the Christian Right and why they ruined the GOP. Those like you condoned laws that prevented interracial marriages. You are the type that would refuse a person to be employed because of his skin color. You are the type that would demand a woman should be barefooted and pregnant in the kitchen and be allowed to beat her daily because she is property to you.

I bet you believe that flying a Dixie Flag is cool and if someone that find it revolting is a Liberal Queer to you, am I correct?

The great thing about today ruling is it end the argument but it will not end those like you from wanting to revert back to the WASP America where you enjoyed denying others the same rights you enjoy.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...


The infamous "casting couch."


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> should be a hell of show



I'm sure that was the happiest day of your life, and your veil is beautiful, but you should post your personal photo's in the Gallery section. That's what it's there for.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> ruled 5-4 !!!
> 
> Watch heads explode!!
> 
> Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide


Idiots like you think that is a good thing, faggot.


----------



## AmericanFirst1 (Jun 26, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > ruled 5-4 !!!
> ...


The nuts are running the asylum. Retards.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi has every right to her faith and her understanding of God.  We all do.  But our nation is secular in basis.  The LGBT community has the same civil rights as the straight community.  If God disagrees, S/He will deal with the matter in a divine way.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Son you seem to ignore ACTUAL history for your fairy tales.... There was no
magical party switch. They all but one STAYED IN YOUR PARTY!


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 26, 2015)

And they never refused to serve gays anyway.

They refused to PARTICIPATE in a sacrilegious ceremony, themselves. They didn't want to go to the wedding or contribute to the wedding. They were fine with serving the gays.

This isn't that complicated but  homonazis are patently stupid.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jun 26, 2015)

*Threads Merged.*


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



That's kind of a dodge, a cop out, don't you think?  I believe it's quite easy to understand how God must have felt about slavery just as it's equally easy to understand the purpose of the Civil War. Your selective outrage only highlights the need to keep our legal system completely secular.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. *They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.*

It is so ordered.
Justice Anthony Kennedy


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 26, 2015)

It seems Roberts was trying for a mulligan on his horseshit ACA vote...neither mattered because it is and has been Kennedy's court since Barry stacked it with his two lesbians.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> That's kind of a dodge, a cop out, don't you think? I believe it's quite easy to understand how God must have felt about slavery just as it's equally easy to understand the purpose of the Civil War. Your selective outrage only highlights the need to keep our legal system completely secular.


 
No.  I think I speak Truth.  I don't have any outrage but I do have issues I clearly am more concerned about that others.... God spoke clearly about his 2 greatest commands:

1st and foremost, above all else:  #1 - LOVE GOD
2nd, #2 - Love you Neighbor as Yourself

This means - not enslaving people, not willfully setting out to hurt people, whether it be by flag, by words (the insulting of persons - be they Liberal or Conservative) etc.  A conscientious effort to LOVE, and, part of the LOVING of OTHERS in a Christian's heart is SHARING GOD!  Imploring others to live for GOD, because that I #1 (see above).


----------



## RosieS (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. *They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.*
> 
> It is so ordered.
> Justice Anthony Kennedy



Beautifully written.

As of today, it is not SSM or gay marriage.

It is just marriage for all.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I was just making a joke.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying that, essentially, any and all marriages that don't conform to your international of God's will is illegitimate. There are folks who marry under the aegis of other religions, or no religion at all, yet those marriages are regarded as legitimate under the laws of this nation.
> ...


I know someone who was married in a Las Vegas wedding chapel.  The officiate was an Elvis impersonator wearing tye dye.  The wedding was as secular as you get.  Is their marriage 'real'?

My late Uncle Ducky and his wife Aunt Sis were married by a Justice of the Peace during World War II.  To my knowledge, no one invoked God during their civil ceremony.  Was their marriage 'real'?

Could it be, just possibly, not everyone need conform to any interpretation of God's will in order to be truly, really married?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

*"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.*"


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Are you really that stupid?

Dixiecrat voters like you left the Democrat party after LBJ signed laws that those like you objected to. 

Also dumb ass I am not either DEMOCRAT nor REPUBLICAN and voted for McCain and Romney in the last two elections because I do not support Obama nor his agenda but I am not a close minded buffoon like you longing for the gone days of a WASP America!


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 26, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > What I've learned this week.
> ...


 
Wow!  If no constitutional issue exists, why did the SCOTUS hear the cases?  You know that's their job, correct?  Also, it doesn't seem to appear that Congress needs to legislate as the SCOTUS can just redefine any laws written to mean what they want them to mean.  That's the new reality.


----------



## PratchettFan (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


 
I would say that is a personal question for the people involved to answer and it is no body else's business.  Outside of that, the only important issue is whether the government considers it real.  I think that question has been answered.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > That's kind of a dodge, a cop out, don't you think? I believe it's quite easy to understand how God must have felt about slavery just as it's equally easy to understand the purpose of the Civil War. Your selective outrage only highlights the need to keep our legal system completely secular.
> ...


ECCL 12:13,14

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 26, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> And they never refused to serve gays anyway.
> 
> They refused to PARTICIPATE in a sacrilegious ceremony, themselves. They didn't want to go to the wedding or contribute to the wedding. They were fine with serving the gays.
> 
> This isn't that complicated but  homonazis are patently stupid.



Can't be that stupid. They just got the Supreme Court to rule against you. If they are stupid, and defeated you that easily, what does that make you?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > That's kind of a dodge, a cop out, don't you think? I believe it's quite easy to understand how God must have felt about slavery just as it's equally easy to understand the purpose of the Civil War. Your selective outrage only highlights the need to keep our legal system completely secular.
> ...


And comparing adults in a loving committed relationship to someone of the same gender to pedophiles not willfully setting out to hurt those... not insulting them.. loving them?  What a hypocrite.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
The 14th amendment does not cover goats


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I got the legal part. I don't get why they wanna call it something that is not. 

I guess for the same reason that every woman wants to be called lady. It make's them feeeeeeel good.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

Why did the SCOTUS hear the cases?  Because thirteen states were out of harmony with 37 states.

Harmony is restored.


----------



## SillyWabbit (Jun 26, 2015)

Okay, now that this is over, can we please move on to real world problems? Gays: you didn't win the Lotto. People against gay marriage: the sky didn't open up and no fire and brimstone issued forth. 
Of course, I'm keeping an eye out for that Earth-killing asteroid...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

Somebody who gives a rat's ass sould research and see what revelations from god that Pat Robinson has had over the last 6 hours and post them, just for giggles.


----------



## J.E.D (Jun 26, 2015)

With all of the butthurt in here, one would think they'd stumbled upon a gay orgy


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

RosieS said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > RosieS said:
> ...




My sweetest, honeypot 00110011,

anyone crazy enough to think I'm gay is totally cool, because it can only mean that he ate ALL of the punched jello at Sunnydales Sanitorium! And anyone who can eat that much vodka-jello deserves my respect!



I do love it when you blush; it gives your algorhythms even more sexy curves.

Up to the hard task,

your

00110011


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Actually, the Dixicrat movement  was started by Strom Thurmond in 1948.  He and his fellow bigots walked out of the Democratic Convention in response to Harry Truman's efforts to integrate the Armed Forces.  Southern Conservative Democrats started to leave the Democrat Party then and even more so after the Civil Rights and Voter's Rights bills were signed in the early 1960s..

Their loyalty ran toward their segregationist ideology more than party identity and Conservatives from the old solid Democratic South have followed suit ever since. 

Conservatives have a distinctly difficult time with history and even a harder time understanding the difference between party identity and political ideology.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



We are now transporting back to 4,500 years before the common era, where the potter's wheel was invented.

_Inventor: I have invented the wheel!  This will revolutionize travel!

Butthurt Conservative: The square wheel has always worked, it is G-d's will, goddammnit!

Inventor: No, the square wheel is cumbersome, it requires too much energy, it is hard to manuever, it breaks alot.

Butthurt Conservative: Fuck you. It's G-d's will that we have square wheels. Your round wheeled abominations will bring damnation upon us. Go to hell, you heathen...._


----------



## Flipper (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



The definition of irony?

The resident flamer telling anyone else to shove anything up their ass.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Breaking news.
> 
> Links later, am traveling.
> 
> ...




Screenshots from the media reporting of the SCOTUS decision:


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


 
what I am saying is set the ball rolling on moral decay.. .it will continue to roll.....


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

Truman knew that the democrats were doomed in 1952, because of the split in the democratic party. In fact, he actually told Ike that he would step down in 1952 if Ike would run as a democrat. Ike ran as a republican and Truman stepped down anyway. The South went red as the deserting bigots joined the republicans. Ike did his very best to avoid Truman's fate, but the Supreme Court forced his hand in the 1954 Brown Vs. Ark. Board of Education, so he was forced into sending in the National Guard to integrate the schools. He need not have worried. The bigots had no where else to turn until 1968 when George Wallace ran.


----------



## protectionist (Jun 26, 2015)

PredFan said:


> The GOP brought this on themselves. You cannot claim be for rights and liberties but ONLY those rights and liberties that you approve of.
> 
> It shouldn't never have gone that far, now the consequences will be far more than even you realize.


Do you know how idiotic what you just said is ?  If we didn't be for ONLY those rights and liberties that we approve of there would no such thing as a legislature, no laws, no cops, no jails, no mental institutions, no quaratines of ebola victims, etc   Everyone would have EQUAL access to jobs, including illiterates becoming doctor and lawyers.

The reason why all that doesn't exist, is because we know that all people are NOT EQUAL, and are not to be treated as if they are. Since gays and heterosexuals are different (not equal) , they shouldn't be treated as if they were. Got it ?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I'm more concerned about tooth decay, myself....


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm more concerned about tooth decay, myself....


 
that's unfortunate.... but I understand the desire to mock others, it's mean-spirited and results in no good, and that is par for the course....


----------



## protectionist (Jun 26, 2015)

They can proclaim anything they want. Nothing is changed for me. *I do not, and will not, accept any 2 gay people as being married. Not ever*. I don't care what papers they have, what ceremony they went through, or anything else. Millions of Americans no doubt, think exactly the same.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> I would say that is a personal question for the people involved to answer and it is no body else's business. Outside of that, the only important issue is whether the government considers it real. I think that question has been answered.


 
Which makes it LEGAL, but not necessarily RIGHT or in the best interest of the Country.
That will remain open for debate.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


You are an example of that moral decay.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

protectionist said:


> They can proclaim anything they want. Nothing is changed for me. *I do not, and will not, accept any 2 gay people as being married. Not ever*. I don't care what papers they have, what ceremony they went through, or anything else. Millions of Americans no doubt, think exactly the same.



Who gives a shit if you believe they are married or not! Do you care if I don't believe your marriage is valid? Of course not. Quit crying and take your defeat like a man.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

Now that s gotta hurt Fox Viewers...........


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more concerned about tooth decay, myself....
> ...



Par for the course is 72...at least the one I play on.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Wrong again...over 60% support the ruling


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Par for the course is 72...at least the one I play on.


 
deflecting with humor, that's an old and overused trick.. nice try


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Now that s gotta hurt Fox Viewers...........


I can hear it now, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of The Cocksuckers Of America........"   I ain't gonna do it.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Par for the course is 72...at least the one I play on.
> ...


But you are so laughable.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




That might work for you, but I don't take advice from perverts and I don't play with my rectum either, as hard as that might be fore you to imagine, dear.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Then how do you get your head of there?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't discriminate against same sex marriages, then you can't discriminate based on species.  Liberals wave Equality flags in jubilant celebration.
> ...





I would have to guess that it would be the same way you do.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > The VOR said:
> ...



Best Post Ever!!!!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Then how do you get your head of there?



Well most of the rest of us just avoid putting our heads in our rectums, so we don't have that problem. You might try it next time and you  wont have to ask such stupid questions.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Then how do you get your head of there?
> ...


Your seem so firmly planted up there given the shit you spew here.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Again, that would be called 'projection' on your part.

You shouldn't presume other people have the same perverted practices that you and your butt buddies do.


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Lolol you thought fit to respond to that twice, huh?

Meeeeeelting doooownnnn boohooo


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


What a nice myth to bad facts speak otherwise since Thurman left the party the rest of the bigots stayed

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

G.T. said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Lol, enjoy your win, perv. It isn't going to last. Nature abhors homosexuality and removes that perversion from itself


----------



## G.T. (Jun 26, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Lolol you thought fit to respond to that twice, huh?

Meeeeeelting doooownnnn boohooo





JimBowie1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Nature? Is that a guy you know?


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Now that s gotta hurt Fox Viewers...........
> ...



Nobody is asking you to.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I know you'll be doing it with tears of joy running down your cheeks.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 26, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> I just saw the news on this and was going to post a link.  You beat me to it.
> 
> This is GREAT news!!
> 
> ...


There is no appeal to ignorance of Article 4, Section 2.


----------



## mdk (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I won't be doing it at all and neither will you.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Have heterosexuals respected the institution of marriage sufficiently to prevent this impending moral decay?  Has Newt Gingrich?  Had Ted Kennedy?  Had Johnny Carson?

Letting our fellow American citizens, who are breaking no laws by merely being homosexuals, avail themselves of the protections and benefits of the marriage contract does not harm the institution of marriage at all.  No Fault divorce laws and serial marriges do mor


thanatos144 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce_T_Laney said:
> ...


Sure.  And George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Sheriff 'Bull' Connor were all peacenik, Tree-hugging, Birkenstock wearing, Kumbya singing Liberals who strongly identified with nominee George McGovern and sided with Teddy Kennedy in 1980.

please.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



I would argue that loving your neighbor 
( gays), as yourself (allowing them the same rights you enjoy), is right in line with true faith.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

mdk said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


You won't? Good for you.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Now that s gotta hurt Fox Viewers...........




LOL....


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


They were all democrats just like you . 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Now that s gotta hurt Fox Viewers...........


Exchanging the Stars and Bars for an AIDS Blanket? Cool.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

AmericanFirst1 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > ruled 5-4 !!!
> ...


 
Such drama out of conservatives

They sure are taking this hard


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


What does pedophilia have to do with this debate?  Do you understand the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality?  Do you realize that most pedophiles are heterosexuals?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Do you understand the essential differences between political party identity and political ideology?


----------



## hangover (Jun 26, 2015)

As I said on another thread......

The down side to this, is now con hate crimes are going to explode, just like when blacks were allowed in schools.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Amazing what politicians will do for campaign contributions.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

Breaking News:

Zoidberg and Co., the makers of this:






just tweeted that the number of orders of large, 400 tube cartons of Butthurt Creme just shot up 4,000% yesterday, and already another 7,000% today.

In order to keep up with the extreme demand, Zoidberg is immediately opening Butthurt Creme plants in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana..... quoting the willingness of low-information 'Walmart-type' fully indoctrinated workers to work for a pittance and not want a health care plan, so they can bitch about how America is going to the dogs.

Zoidberg vows it will be able to keep up with the massive uptick in Butthurt Creme orders by next Friday and strongly advises it's customers to not stick corncobs or any such similar objects up their asses in a vain attempt to relieve the uncomfortable effects of Butthurt.

Said Sal Wingwanger, CEO of Zoidberg and Co: "think peaceful thoughts, avoid the sight of rainbows, and hang in there!"


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The funny thing about it is that the majority of Americans actually do now support it.  Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Breaking News:
> 
> Zoidberg and Co., the makers of this:
> 
> ...


And we move on.

They should have to suffer like the rest of us!

POW!

.


----------



## hangover (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Breaking News:
> 
> Zoidberg and Co., the makers of this:
> 
> ...


...and cons make fun of gays taking it up the wahzoo, funny.


----------



## guno (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...




And their sky is falling hysterics  are for naught


----------



## PredFan (Jun 26, 2015)

protectionist said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP brought this on themselves. You cannot claim be for rights and liberties but ONLY those rights and liberties that you approve of.
> ...



Never said anything about equality.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 26, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


 

yes, the gay mafia/media has done a very good job of indoctrination and brain washing.  

Now, how about doing a poll on this question:   Would you want your son or daughter to marry someone of the same sex?    I dare any pollster to do that one and publish the results.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 26, 2015)

Nature = Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia 

In any event, there's a lot of Gods out there who do not condemn homosexually and because there is freedom of religion in this country, we cannot mandate our laws based on only the religious viewpoints of /one/ God.  You're free to do so in your church, and I actually encourage that you do if it is what you believe in, however, because we have religious freedom, you also have to understand that not all of us think it's immoral and not all of us believe in your God.  It's not an attack on Christians at all, but you choose to make it one in an attempt to be "in control" of a "religiously diverse" country. 

It would have been nice if you folks had simply learned to share without forcing the other side to tattle to the SCOTUS and decide for us.  So don't blame Democrats, don't blame gays, and don't blame the country.  Your selfishness and refusal to respect other peoples beliefs forced this to the SCOTUS no matter how much you want to twist the story.  You sat down and said, "NO, our God says no homosexual marriage so fuck you."  The LGBT community had no choice but to stand up for /their/ beliefs.  And in America, they were right, you were wrong.

Now is when you dry your eyes, wipe your nose, and stop being so selfish.  Would you divorce your wife if she disagreed with you about a biblical interpretation?  Same shit, bigger scale.  Unless you really have no love for America anyway.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Sexual immortality is sexual immortality. God will protect those that honor and serve Him


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Pedophiles rob innocent children of that innocence.  Adult homosexuals are consenting partners.

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as sexual immorality among heterosexuals?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


What acts do homos perform that are so Godly, admirable and honorable? A brief description please.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Nope, we all sin and fall short of God's glory, but we don't need to say we are one nation under God and blatantly disregard what he views as an abomination and expect his protective hand to shelter us. We are telling God, "We know better than You"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation


Care to elaborate on that inane assertion??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



What acts do bigots perform that are so Godly admirable and honorable? A brief description please?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...



HEY---watch who you're calling binary.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> AmericanFirst1 said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...



Apparently pretty dry as well given all of the squealing


Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



The very same acts as hetero people.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

dilloduck said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




Oh Snap!


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



This country is going down the crapper because it is not becoming a Christian theocracy.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...




Homosexual men have vaginas?  Who knew?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Now they can start on polygamy and lowering that pesky age of consent.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

auditor0007 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Yes, we are all gonna die, because, well, Jeebus and Benghazi.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


They are law abiding American citizen who engage in adult consensual sex.  Otherwise, they are just as good citizens, neighbors, family members as any other American.

Do they need the approval of you? Of government?

Or are you calling for a national code of morality?


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 26, 2015)

SillyWabbit said:


> Okay, now that this is over, can we please move on to real world problems? Gays: you didn't win the Lotto. People against gay marriage: the sky didn't open up and no fire and brimstone issued forth.
> Of course, I'm keeping an eye out for that Earth-killing asteroid...



I'm hoping with this decision, that at least we might actually start to see a decline in the non-stop gay this, gay that everything, that has been constantly in our faces for quite some time now.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

boedicca said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Obtuse. Go figure.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I realize it's a terrible thing that we are not allowing mob rule to discriminate against the minority, but we will just have to live with that.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



What a moron Noob.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, now that this is over, can we please move on to real world problems? Gays: you didn't win the Lotto. People against gay marriage: the sky didn't open up and no fire and brimstone issued forth.
> ...



Yea like the homophobes, bigot, fear mongers and religious right wing nuts have been in the face of those advocating for justice and equality. You get in my face and I get in yours


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?


You know...we should be magnanimous in victory.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> 
> Where chaos rules; nations fail.


I don't hate straights.  It's just not a real marriage and all their divorces are chipping away at the strength of our nation.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> What will be funny will be reading the comments on here praising Robert's wise dissent from the same folks calling him a liberal stooge for Obama on the Obamacare decision threads.


Roberts is still the Chief Cocksucker of the Supreme Court, even if he's against gay marriage.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> ...


Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. THANKS!


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> So who is surprised this court who consistently pisses on the constitution pisses on it once more? Not me. Now all you homosexuals can now start doing what your progressives masters want of you and start suing churches and kill more freedoms..... Fucking retards.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*There's* that wonderful bitterness I've been looking for!


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> The failure is allowing the idea of separate but equal to persist in our culture. This is a great step foreward.
> There have always been gay folks there will always be gay folks. Gay folks have always coupled and always will.  Officially granting  them legal equality doesn't change anything for anyone but them.The two guys who live down the street still live down the street. Only now they can be a whole and complete family under the law.


Listen up jackass. The two gays down the street can have me fired from my job if I am ever heard by them saying that I disapprove of their marriage. That's what's happened today. Besides being allowed to marry a goat.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liberals 2: Conservative 0.
> 
> If this does not lead to a mass exodus of Cons headed for other shores, then we will simply have to get the court to invalidate Texas Anti-abortion laws....




Where are they gonna go? Unless they start their own conservatopia out in the woods somewhere, any other country they go to which shares their views is gonna be a shithole.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > The failure is allowing the idea of separate but equal to persist in our culture. This is a great step foreward.
> ...


Sounds like a load of equine excrement to me .


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Closer than I thought it would be
> 
> Did Scalia throw a hissy fit again?




The hissyest!


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


You are quite welcome.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liberals 2: Conservative 0.
> 
> If this does not lead to a mass exodus of Cons headed for other shores, then we will simply have to get the court to invalidate Texas Anti-abortion laws....



They could find a home in Russia, Africa or the middle east. America....love it or leave it as they used to say in the 60s


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 26, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals 2: Conservative 0.
> ...


^ morons think this was a win for libertards.  No dumb asses this was a win for liberty.  So shove that up your libtard asses.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...




Yeah, I remember back when _I_ was in high school and just calling someone gay was an insult...


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > I guess 5 unelected officials out of 300 million people making this decision is the way to go.  haha.  I'm actually for Gay Marriage but feel like this should be a law voted on or an amendment should be passed.  Supreme Court has waaaaaay too much power for who they are.
> ...




Well, that's different, of course. Those "5 unelected officials" made a decision he supports, so it's all good.

Right, Lew?


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?




No, stupid.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> This will be interesting the next few years when the Social Conservatives discover their close minded way of thinking is no longer accepted in this country.
> 
> You will have red meat states like Tejas and Bama ( Texas and Alabama ) that will try to defy the court ruling, but in the end Same sex couples will be able to be treated equal as they should be.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe they'll make like Oklahoma and just shut down any agency which would have to acknowledge an SSM. IOW, total cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face tactics.


----------



## Flipper (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more concerned about tooth decay, myself....
> ...



Well duh, welcome to USMB.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> For those of you who oppose this ruling
> 
> How does it affect your life?




It gives them a sad because Rush, Hannity and the rest of the wingnut talkers repeatedly told them that *they* were the real majority.


----------



## Flipper (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who oppose this ruling
> ...



Really?

The Court voted, not the "people".


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > ruled 5-4 !!!
> ...




You might wanna relay that to thanatos; he seems to believe otherwise.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > The failure is allowing the idea of separate but equal to persist in our culture. This is a great step foreward.
> ...



Probably shouldn't say shit like that at work huh.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who oppose this ruling
> ...


Don't you love it when partisan assholes make liberty a partisan issue?


----------



## Flipper (Jun 26, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The Left LOVES freedom as long as they get to define what it is.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

Flipper said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That does not answer the question, now does it?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



The Supreme Court just established one. Perhaps they will go on to redefine lots of things for us.


----------



## Flipper (Jun 26, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Flipper said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Please pay attention to which posts are being responded to


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Save your breath. He obviously constantly brings up this zombie talking point to troll.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

*Conservatives vow to defy Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling *


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



lol, you wonder if any of them are Adults. sheesh


----------



## toxicmedia (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


It still is, if the person you're saying it to isn't gay, because it's all about intentions


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 26, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Conservatives vow to defy Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling *



The Doctrine of Nullification -  some haven't learned from history.


----------



## Flipper (Jun 26, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Flipper said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Please pay attention to which posts are being responded to


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst1 said:
> ...


Taking a shit?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Conservatives vow to defy Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling *
> ...





* Republicans Freak Out And Call For The Abolition Of All Civil Marriage After Same-Sex Legalization *

Republicans like Rep. Steve King (R-IA) have responded to the legalization of same-sex marriage by calling on the states to abolish civil marriage.…


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 26, 2015)

* Republicans Running for President Are Trying To Nullify The Federal Right To Same Sex Marriage *

Republicans running for president are now running on the platform of nullification, which is to say, the concept of the desperate pre-and-during the Civil War, as states threatened…


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


"Adult consensual _sex_"  Ain't nuthin "sex" about fudge packin', Lester.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> the majority of americans do not support this ruling.  But it is the ruling so they will have to accept it and move on.   There are more important battles yet to come.




Major polls say you have that backwards.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Should we follow God's law in our secular legislation?  If so, which interpretation of God's law?

I ask because, according to God's law, my beloved Ohio State Buckeyes as well as my beloved Pittsburgh Steelers are unclean as they dominate their opponents on the gridiron.  They are touching the skin of a dead pig. My Mother planted a garden this spring.  But she violated God's law by planting two different vegetables in adjoining furrows.

If I fail to honor her, should the family conduct a small, intimate ceremony prior to stoning me to death?

And did God create homosexuals as well as everything else under His firmament?  Should we judge those homosexuals?  Who should cast the first stone?

God's law mandates that we love our neighbors as we would love ourselves.  Should we ignore that mandate and scorn homosexuals for being who they are?  Or should we judge them, regardless of the admonition that we be judged as well?

God told Muhammed certain acts of comportment.  Should we pay attention to those laws as well?  Or should American Muslims and American Hindus and American Taoists and American Methodists simply ignore the American laws and adhere to their own peculiar interpretations of God's law?

If we're going to proclaim Liberty throughout the land, is it fitting and proper to deny liberty to all Americans?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


I suppose your methods are what they are, but so long as you are not doing anything with children or animals, who am I to judge?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Most dumbass comment so far. What do you think you mean, Shirley?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Are you as stupid as you appear to be in your photo?


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

protectionist said:


> They can proclaim anything they want. Nothing is changed for me. *I do not, and will not, accept any 2 gay people as being married. Not ever*. I don't care what papers they have, what ceremony they went through, or anything else. Millions of Americans no doubt, think exactly the same.




And you are...?


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...




Where's the fun in that?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 26, 2015)

Since when have the far right reactionaries been magnanimous in victory.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


I mean a private life is exactly that, a private life.  Who are you to judge someone else's love?  What great calamity happens when you meet a homosexual?

In point of fact, you personally know homosexuals as neighbors, business associates, friends and family.  Are you safe?  Did they deign to mention your sexual behavior?  Does it matter to them?  Then why does it matter to you?

And there is plenty of heterosexual anal acts.  Are heterosexuals just too straight laced to be kinky?  Are you sure you have an Internet connection?

Opinions, they say, are similar to anuses.  We all have one and yours stinks.

I don't want to run out a string about your attitude.  It's not a good color on you dear.  Keep it to yourself.  Feel what it's like to get 'closeted'.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > So who is surprised this court who consistently pisses on the constitution pisses on it once more? Not me. Now all you homosexuals can now start doing what your progressives masters want of you and start suing churches and kill more freedoms..... Fucking retards.
> ...



And the bitter fluids did thusly flow from the end-orifices of the many various and sundry butthurteds, and they were cast into the desert of self-doubt for 40 days and 40 nights. And then they cried like little babies. The end.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Closer than I thought it would be
> ...




It was a 10.7 out of 10 on the Richterhissy Scale.

Those who know the word play on Richter, feel free to show your intelligence.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 26, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?




Praise the Lord.  It's a wonderful day indeed.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Huckabee blasts SCOTUS I will not acquiesce to an imperial court vows to resist and reject judicial tyranny - Blogs - Mike Huckabee for President

Here's what The Most Reverend Mike Huckabee had to say.  Basically, he says we have to destroy the village in order to save the village. 

Tell me if his attitudes mirror those of the nuttiest nut cases here!


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



They wailed and lamented thrusting themselves upon the rocky ground prostrate before the Lord. They cried, " Lord ,why have you foresaken us"? " We can neither sit nor stand as the butthurt is upon us". The Lord has yet to respond.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

protectionist said:


> They can proclaim anything they want. Nothing is changed for me. *I do not, and will not, accept any 2 gay people as being married. Not ever*. I don't care what papers they have, what ceremony they went through, or anything else. Millions of Americans no doubt, think exactly the same.


You sound a bit hysterical. Calm down. Don't have  a cow. It will be OK. Try not to think about it. It seems that you are not plagued by thinking that much anyway.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> So who is surprised this court who consistently pisses on the constitution pisses on it once more? Not me. Now all you homosexuals can now start doing what your progressives masters want of you and start suing churches and kill more freedoms..... Fucking retards.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 26, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...




Jesus surrounded Himself with sinners.  He socialized with drunks, tax collectors, the greedy, adulterers, etc.  Anyone who ostracizes a homosexual isn't following the example of Jesus very well.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

Nah, just sitting and waiting for you to eat crow.....of course your unable to admit being wrong, but, It's coming


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 26, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


He also brought down a temple and cursed money collectors.  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Jesus would love a homosexual so much he would tell him his must deny his sexual feelings and sin no more


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...




They were desecrating the Temple.  Just _*slightly *_different.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> 
> Where chaos rules; nations fail.


Incorrect.

There is only one marriage law available to same- or opposite-sex couples, marriage that is indeed real.

Otherwise your post fails as a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Huckabee blasts SCOTUS I will not acquiesce to an imperial court vows to resist and reject judicial tyranny - Blogs - Mike Huckabee for President
> 
> Here's what The Most Reverend Mike Huckabee had to say.  Basically, he says we have to destroy the village in order to save the village.
> 
> Tell me if his attitudes mirror those of the nuttiest nut cases here!



Methinks a lot of this is just posturing.

Take a look at this:



> Following the ruling, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued a directive on Friday ordering state agencies to "prioritize compliance" with the First Amendment and Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The directive states that agencies should make sure that nobody "takes any adverse action against" people "substantially motivated by sincere religious belief."
> 
> "The law protects religious liberty not only in houses of worship—but also in schools, in businesses, in the military, in public forums, and in the town square. These protections are afforded to all people, of all faiths," Abbott wrote in the directive. "Yet in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the law’s promise of religious liberty will be tested by some who seek to silence and marginalize those whose conscience will not allow them to participate in or endorse marriages that are incompatible with their religious beliefs."
> 
> In a statement blasting the Supreme Court's decision earlier on Friday, Abbott said that he would take direct action to protect the religious liberties of Texas residents.



But at the end...



> Though he disapproved of the ruling, [Texas AG} Paxton said that *Texas would be following the Supreme Court ruling, and county clerks in Texas began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Friday*.



Texas Guv Issues Religious Liberties Directive After Gay Marriage Ruling


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Jesus would love a homosexual so much he would tell him his must deny his sexual feelings and sin no more



It's hard enough to try to figure out what Jesus actually *did *say without complicating it by trying to figure out what He *would *have said regarding something He never addressed..


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> ...


Marriage is a construct created by God, any thing else is just man made rules that mean nothing, only to those that feel the law and politicians are god


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


First time I've said it on USMB, but Fuck You, heathen Mick.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus would love a homosexual so much he would tell him his must deny his sexual feelings and sin no more
> ...


Since it's a sin, pretty easy to say...


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Nah, just sitting and waiting for you to eat crow.....of course your unable to admit being wrong, but, It's coming




Wrong about what, exactly?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, just sitting and waiting for you to eat crow.....of course your unable to admit being wrong, but, It's coming
> ...


These supposed victories that are going to ultimately ruin this country....


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



So then leave it to God to determine whether or not He recognizes same sex unions.  It's not ours to judge on His behalf.  He is a big boy.  He can make the determination all by Himself.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Well there have been countless threads on that topic and I am not going to derail the thread by pushing it in that direction.  Count me among those who say the verses condemning homosexuality in the Bible are very problematic....VERY problematic.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


Will find or start a thread on that....it is condemned throughout the Bible. Starting thread now


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Huckabee blasts SCOTUS I will not acquiesce to an imperial court vows to resist and reject judicial tyranny - Blogs - Mike Huckabee for President
> ...


It's restraint of trade.  Once the last homophobe declares bankruptcy because he lost not only all those potential same sex couples, but all other customers with a conscience, the Conservatives may even damn the free market they so dearly love


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Fuck you too, heathen faggot.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


well argued.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I second that...
they really think the supreme court CAN force a state do something.
they are going to be getting a HUGE surprise soon


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Thanks, Pansy


----------



## protectionist (Jun 26, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Gonna be a lot of unhappy faggot-haters around here...


*Why ?  *
What good does the SCOTUS decision due for gays anyway ? Before this, they could get an apartment or house together, and live as if they were married. So now they get a ceremony, and a piece of paper to go with it. And ? That's it ? That's the difference ?

Millions of people will still regard them as the same pervert lunatics they were regarded all along. Hey, where's Hillary Clinton ?  We need somebody to get on here and shout >>>

*



*


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 26, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> What a great week this is turning out to be.
> 
> Not just one, but TWO major reasons for wingnuts to cry into their Gadsen flags.



You people are hateful and ALL OVER politics. it has to be sickness you aquire when you sign up to become a liberal/democrat.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


For the record, I'm a happy heterosexual man.  And I'm an American who has bought into the pledges and the oaths and the anthems and the miraculous documents that provided future generations with an owner's manual.

I sincerely believe that freedom is for all my fellow citizens.  We bill ourselves as "the land of the free, and the home of the brave".  Isn't it about time we grew up and into that ideal?


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > What a great week this is turning out to be.
> ...




Thanks for supplying another example.

Hankie?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Actually, the Supreme Court CAN force a state to do something


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


You're right. The hatchet is buried.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Amazing what conservatives sink to when their hatreds are challenged


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


And ditto to you, heathen.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 26, 2015)

**NOTE* - there are no "super power" countries that allow Same Sex Marriage


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Whether it is or isn't is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant – as we saw today.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2015)

Flipper said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Actually the people did, when they voted for the presidents who appointed the justices to the Court, and the senators who confirmed those appointments.

It's called a_ representative democracy_, a component of our republican form of government. See Article IV, Section 4.

It was the genius of the Founding Generation to create a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – laws seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that, along with today's ruling invalidating those laws.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2015)

Countries in which the people have no common bonds and require the force of law to survive don't survive.  More and more laws are required to hold a disparate people together until the nation is a complete tyranny.  Then it is over.   The people rebel or invite in a superior power promising freedom.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 26, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


What's amazing is how quickly they get there.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## TrinityPower (Jun 26, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Jesus did not condone the behavior either. He was amongst them to teach them but he didn't participate in what they were doing


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



No shit. I have been thinking the same thing. They don't even try to digest or think. Just react mindlessly even when approached diplomatically.


----------



## TrinityPower (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Exactly. God made covenant with Israel as well but said if you turn from this I will remove my protection...time and time again the people did evil then cried out for help. God made covenant with America and they wrote out covenant on the mayflower. It is horrifying that a minorty sect of the population can change something of this magnitude. It is way past a wake up call for those who do not agree with this kind of thing to get out and be just as or more passionate about shoving this kind of thing back into the closet it came from. In the Old Testament it spoke of running people that practiced this behavior from the city walls. This is what happens when ground is not stood on and get involved to say no this is not happening here. First it was hey let's kill babies because we can now this...and they will roll right in and demand to adopt kids also because without science they can't make any which is one of the root problems that to me is very clear why it was never intended. Don't think it will end at this, it won't. Their lifestyle will just be shoved down everyone throat even more. I am very hurt that the country I love has failed so miserably but I expected it given God hasn't been welcome in schools and most churches for years.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Countries in which the people have no common bonds and require the force of law to survive don't survive.  More and more laws are required to hold a disparate people together until the nation is a complete tyranny.  Then it is over.   The people rebel or invite in a superior power promising freedom.



We have plenty of common bonds. The world is not ending.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 26, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> **NOTE* - there are no "super power" countries that allow Same Sex Marriage




Sure there is.

Same Sex Civil Marriage has exist here, yes America is "super power" for over a decade.  As of today American, a "super power" will allow SSCM in all states.


>>>>


----------



## Flopper (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...


Marriage is the only way to guarantee that gay and lesbian couples will have the same legal protections of other married couples.

The alternative would be a civil union which exist in only a few states.  It would be virtual impossible to recreate this legal status in every state as well as the federal level and change God knows how many laws through out the country to make the civil union equal to marriage in eyes of the law. 

Then there would be the issue of company policies.  Most companies only recognized the status of married or single so every business would need to change it's policies, again virtually impossible.

Since there are only 4 countries in the world that have civil unions, this status would not be recognized in most other countries.

Marriage is the only institution that can be assign to gay and lesbian couples that would guarantee equal protection under the law..


----------



## Ame®icano (Jun 26, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Oh excuses...

I would agree with alternative, civil union. Because what they got now it's not marriage.

Company policies? Well, companies have to follow the law, right? Impossible? So is marriage in between gays. But they're calling it marriage anyways. 

Their "married" status wont be recognized in most of countries anyways, since just around 20 countries recognize it.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 26, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?



Well done America. Us here in Australia are eagerly watching and hoping that the same thing could happen here. Sadly, with our idiot PM insisting that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because his religion is against it, its not likely.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 26, 2015)

guno said:


> *Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide (AUDIO)*
> 
> Addicting Info Christian Pastor Promises To Set Himself On Fire If Gay Marriage Is Legalized Nationwide AUDIO



I'll buy tickets to that show!


----------



## Flopper (Jun 26, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...


Actually what they do have now is legal marriage in every state.  You're wrong again on foreign country recognition of marriage.  Most countries recognized the marriages of foreigners as long as they are legally married in their own country.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

Gay Marriage Around the World Pew Research Center


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


A "church" says that homosexual marriage is ok to them, and indulges in gay marriage. They have no scripture to back this up fully. It is simply *their* judgment. They may even allow a practicing homosexual to remain the pastor of that church. Such a church will hold that homosexuality is not a sin. Such a church in this way rather than be a servant of Christ, becomes a whore to vice and does nothing to overcome it.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> **NOTE* - there are no "super power" countries that allow Same Sex Marriage



Well given that we are the only Super Power nation in the world right now and we just legalized it, I'd say you are wrong.  The only other nation that would even come close to Super Power status is Russia so if you toss them in it's still at 50%


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 27, 2015)

Noomi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...


Perhaps among all the nations of the world there will be one or two safe havens for righteousness and moral consideration.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

The vast majority of the UK also recognizes same sex marriage, save like 3% of the population in Northern Ireland.  Have they been knocked off the list of "super power nations"?

A lot of Europe also allows SSM.  I know a number of people who left America and moved there in order to get married.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

Feel free to take your pick of countries that illegalized SSM: 79 countries where homosexuality is illegal 76 CRIMES


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 27, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > **NOTE* - there are no "super power" countries that allow Same Sex Marriage
> ...


God will likely remove the status. He once blessed us with.. When Kennedy allowed the Supreme Court to remove Prayer and Bible reading without any Presidential argument, God's judgment came rather swiftly.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

I forgot to add Japan, they have no laws "legalizing SSM" but they do have laws recognizing it (basically what was just ruled here), as well as laws that specifically state that homosexual sex is not illegal.

Socially I guess they don't talk about it and most LGBT's hide their sexual orientation because it doesn't fit in their traditional societal views.  (That's info from a gay buddy of mine who's stationed in Japan.)


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 27, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...


Only in your strange, Nazi-loving, anti-semitic, racist, bigoted wet-dreams.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm not buying the same sex marriage over states rights argument as nazi-ism thing.

To go the other way and /allow/ same sex marriage ban would transform American into a theocracy, would it not?


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 27, 2015)

Steinlight said:


>




So tell us more....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Christians marry LGBT in their churches all the time, so you pretend Christians will not need to worry about anyone trying to get you to do the same.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The safest place for religious freedom is right here.  What you want is religious oppression, and that is not going to happen here, bud.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Sure there is.
> 
> Same Sex Civil Marriage has exist here, yes America is "super power" for over a decade. As of today American, a "super power" will allow SSCM in all states.


 
Since we always have to go to China to bail us out like an irresponsible child, I would say China would qualify.

If you think other countries are going to use us as and example and follow, you're wrong. They are laughing saying, good!  This is the beginning of the end for the USA.  That' didn't take long.....


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 27, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > Will the Catholic Church be told they must marry gays?
> ...


Can you guarantee the Church will be exempt?  Because you fucking libs and gay atheists will demand it in the courts."


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Care to elaborate on that inane assertion??


 
RE:  passage of the Gay Marriage law...

I said above, we have a motto of "One Nation Under God" - we are not "under God" if we keep ignoring what He says, and making our own rules of what is right and wrong.  If we are willing to submit and surrender to His will, we are guaranteed an abundant life.  But remember, our life is NOT just our years on this Earth.  Our lives are ETERNAL.

God WILL punish those that do not listen to him.  He did it to the Israelites.  Why would he not do it to US?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Care to elaborate on that inane assertion??
> ...


Spar me the God stuff. This is  a secular republic. I am an atheist. I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. That is all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there is.
> ...


Sure, Bonzi.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 27, 2015)

It was shocking to wake up this morning to the news that the peoples White House was awash in the colors of the gay flag. I read somewhere that each color of the gay flag  stands for a sexual perversion activity that the gay people involve themselves in like yellow celebrates drinking human urine.  They call it water sports.  That's just one activity that each color stands for. And look at what the Obama regime does they celebrated by putting those colors on our White House. Disgraceful!

Posts denying this fact begin in. 5...4...3...2...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Sure, avgguy.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

The original meaning for the flags colors have been lost to time and the economy:

Gilbert Baker is said to have gotten the idea for the rainbow flag from this flag[5] in borrowing it from the Hippie movement of that time[6] largely influenced by pioneering gay activist Allen Ginsberg. The flag consisted of eight stripes; Baker assigned specific meaning to each of the colors:

hot pink: sexuality
red: life
orange: healing
yellow: sunlight
green: nature
turquoise: magic/art
indigo/blue: serenity/harmony
violet: spirit

Thirty volunteers hand-dyed and stitched the first two flags for the parade.[7]

To meet demand, the Paramount Flag Company began selling a version of the flag using stock rainbow fabric consisting of seven stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, and violet. As Baker ramped up production of his version of the flag, he too dropped the hot pink stripe because of the unavailability of hot-pink fabric. Also, San Francisco-based Paramount Flag Co. began selling a surplus stock of Rainbow Girls flags from its retail store on the southwest corner of Polk and Post, at which Gilbert Baker was an employee.[8]

In 1979 the flag was modified again. When hung vertically from the lamp posts of San Francisco's Market Street, the center stripe was obscured by the post itself. Changing the flag design to one with an even number of stripes was the easiest way to rectify this, so the turquoise stripe was dropped, which resulted in a six stripe version of the flag — red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet.[8]

In 1989, the rainbow flag came to nationwide attention in the United States after John Stout sued his landlords and won when they attempted to prohibit him from displaying the flag from his West Hollywood, California, apartment balcony.


~ I do not personally know any LGBT's who assign anything to the actual stripes, merely the flag as a whole.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 27, 2015)

*The White House flooded in Rainbow colors... photos*
Love is Love:


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 27, 2015)




----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 27, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> The original meaning for the flags colors have been lost to time and the economy:
> 
> Gilbert Baker is said to have gotten the idea for the rainbow flag from this flag[5] in borrowing it from the Hippie movement of that time[6] largely influenced by pioneering gay activist Allen Ginsberg. The flag consisted of eight stripes; Baker assigned specific meaning to each of the colors:
> 
> ...


Told ya.  Right on time.  They will deny it, but the gay culture underground know those colors for what they stand for to them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Indeed, they do, and you don't.  End of story.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> Told ya.  Right on time.  They will deny it, but the gay culture underground know those colors for what they stand for to them.



When did you join the LGBT movement to know so much about their beliefs?  I mean I'm a bisexual in an LGBT circle and I don't know of anyone who equates flag stripe colors to any meaning.  Clearly your LGBT circle is up on current meanings more than mine...


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Love is Love:


 
God is Love
God hates sexual immorality
Therefore, sexual immorality has no part of love.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Love is Love:
> ...


Tell God "you don't play a the game you don't make a the rules"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> It was shocking to wake up this morning to the news that the peoples White House was awash in the colors of the gay flag. I read somewhere that each color of the gay flag  stands for a sexual perversion activity that the gay people involve themselves in like yellow celebrates drinking human urine.  They call it water sports.  That's just one activity that each color stands for. And look at what the Obama regime does they celebrated by putting those colors on our White House. Disgraceful!
> 
> Posts denying this fact begin in. 5...4...3...2...




What horseshit! It's  always all about sex and perversion. It makes me wonder what people like you are into…….

At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else. Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Tell God "you don't play a the game you don't make a the rules"


 
I don't need to, you just did.  He hears you.  He may even respond - I would suggest listening.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It's always all about sex and perversion


 
The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.

Read up on history.  Everyone knows it, but they'd rather use The Netherlands and say "look at them" instead of the history of many more that FAILED due to decadence and moral decay.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

First great error of the day: "The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture."  No, it did not.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> First great error of the day: "The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture."  No, it did not.


 
In _Sex and Culture_, a study of 86 human civilizations ranging from Rome to Tahiti, J.D. Unwin found that a society’s destiny is tied inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called “absolute monogamy,” in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman,


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 27, 2015)

Those colors have meaning and here's proof.

...  Gat hanky colors  link  removed for web safety concerns ...  

*COLOR* *WORN ON LEFT* *WORN ON RIGHT*
BLACK heavy SM top heavy SM bottom
GREY bondage top fit to be tied!
BLUE, Light wants head cocksucker
BLUE, Robin's Egg 69er anything but 69ing
BLUE, Medium cop copsucker
BLUE, Navy fucker (top) fuckee (bottom)
BLUE, Airforce pilot/flight attendant likes flyboys
BLUE, Light w/WHITE Stripe sailor lookin' for salty seamen
BLUE, Teal cock & ball torturer cock & ball torturee
RED fist fucker fist fuckee
MAROON cuts bleeds
RED, Dark 2-handed fister 2-handed fistee
PINK, Light dildo fucker dildo fuckee
PINK, Dark tit torturer tit torturee
MAUVE into navel worshippers has a navel fetish
MAGENTA suck my pits armpit freak
PURPLE piercer piercee
LAVENDER likes drag queens drag queen
YELLOW pisser/WS piss freak
YELLOW, Pale spits drool crazy
MUSTARD hung 8"+ wants 8"+
GOLD two looking for one one looking for two
ORANGE anything anytime nothing now (just cruising)
APRICOT two tons o' fun chubby chaser
CORAL suck my toes shrimper (sucks toes)
RUST a cowboy a cowboy's horse
FUSCHIA spanker spankee
GREEN, Kelly hustler (for rent) john (looking to buy)
GREEN, Hunter daddy orphan boy looking for daddy
OLIVE DRAB military top military bottom
GREEN, Lime dines off tricks (food) dinner plate (will buy dinner)
BEIGE rimmer rimmee
BROWN scat top scat bottom
BROWN LACE uncut likes uncut
BROWN SATIN cut likes cut
CHARCOAL latex fetish top latex fetish bottom
GREY FLANNEL owns a suit likes men in suits
WHITE beat my meat (J/O) I'll do us both (J/O)
HOLSTEIN milker milkee
CREAM cums in condoms sucks cum out of condoms
BLACK w/WHITE Check safe sex top safe sex bottom
RED w/WHITE Stripe shaver shavee
RED w/BLACK Stripe furry bear likes bears
WHITE LACE likes white bottoms likes white tops
BLACK w/WHITE Stripe  likes black bottoms  likes black tops
BROWN w/WHITE Stripe likes latino bottoms likes latino tops
YELLOW w/WHITE Stripe likes asian bottoms likes asian tops
BLUE, Light w/WHITE Dots likes white suckers likes to suck whites
BLUE, Light w/BLACK Dots likes black suckers likes to suck blacks
BLUE, Light w/BROWN Dots likes latino suckers likes to suck latinos
BLUE, Light w/YELLOW Dots likes asian suckers likes to suck asians
RED/WHITE GINGHAM park sex top park sex bottom
BROWN CORDUROY headmaster student
PAISLEY wears boxer shorts likes boxer shorts
FUR bestialist top bestialist bottom
GOLD LAME likes muscleboy bottoms likes muscleboy tops
SILVER LAME starfucker celebrity
BLACK VELVET has/takes videos will perform for the camera
WHITE VELVET voyeur (likes to watch) will put on a show
LEOPARD has tattoos likes tattoos
TAN smokes cigars likes cigars
TEDDY BEAR cuddler cuddlee
KEWPIE DOLL chicken (under-aged) chicken hawk (likes young adolescents)
DIRTY JOCKSTRAP wears a dirty jock sucks dirty jocks clean
DOILY tearoom top (pours) tearoom bottom (drinks)
MOSQUITO NETTING outdoor sex top outdoor sex bottom
ZIPLOC BAG has drugs looking for drugs
COCKTAIL NAPKIN bartender bar groupie
KLEENEX stinks sniffs
KEYS IN FRONT has a car looking for a ride
KEYS IN BACK has a home needs a place to stay
HOUNDSTOOTH likes to nibble willing to be bitten
UNION JACK skinhead top skinhead bottom
CALICO new in town tourists welcome
TERRYCLOTH bathhouse top bathhouse bottom
WHITE w/MULTICOLOR Dots hosting an orgy looking for an orgy


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

I'll have to share that one with my single LGBT buddies.  It might be bullshit, but it's worth trying.

Thanks 

Update; Awww

Why didn't they include BearCode and SmurfCode links?  They offered TwinkCode 1.12.  

I can't even look those ones up because the sites keep trying to give me a virus...

It's actually a bit of a shame it's bullshit. The hanky thing could actually be useful.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Gays are happy...you are miserable

Seems like a fair trade


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 27, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > Told ya.  Right on time.  They will deny it, but the gay culture underground know those colors for what they stand for to them.
> ...


Ever heard of Google?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Gays are happy...you are miserable
> 
> Seems like a fair trade


 
Unless they get saved, they better enjoy their happiness here on Earth, because they will be miserable for eternity.....


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 27, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> I'll have to share that one with my single LGBT buddies.  It might be bullshit, but it's worth trying.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ...


Look.  Nobody care how you swing.  Just be honest about the meaning behind the gay flag colors.  Displaying them on our White House is disgraceful.  If Christians want crosses  displayed on our White House, that would be denied.


----------



## Flipper (Jun 27, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flipper said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Actually no, hey didn't. 

And the current form of our Representative Democrcay is not representing it's folks the way they are supposed to.

You'll need to do better than that, that was weak.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have to share that one with my single LGBT buddies.  It might be bullshit, but it's worth trying.
> ...



There are all sorts of color things to do with sexuality.  Straights have plenty of them too.

But that does not mean the rainbow flag is about sexual acts.  It is about the diversity of humanity.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2015)

Flipper said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Flipper said:
> ...



I guess that depends on whether you think the Equal Protection Clause should be a part of the US Constitution.  If you do, then the ruling yesterday was the right one.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have to share that one with my single LGBT buddies.  It might be bullshit, but it's worth trying.
> ...



Remember Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition?  Was that about sexual perversions too?


----------



## Flipper (Jun 27, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Flipper said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Was that what clayton and I were discussing?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have to share that one with my single LGBT buddies.  It might be bullshit, but it's worth trying.
> ...


The gay flag was displayed on the white house because that's the flag designated to replace the American stars and stripes.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...



Drama queen


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 27, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > What a great week this is turning out to be.
> ...


You and others on the right have only yourselves to blame, the consequence of adhering blindly to failed, errant conservative dogma fearful of change and hostile toward diversity and expressions of individual liberty. 

Most on the right are truly naïve as to believe gay Americans would willingly remain second-class citizens and not oppose the un-Constitutional discrimination forced upon them by social conservatives, or that the courts would sanction such unlawful discrimination.

There was a time when conservatives would have celebrated such a ruling, acknowledging the authority of the Constitution to place limits on government powers, safeguarding the individual liberty of all Americans, including gay Americans.

The unwarranted reactionaryism and fear of change common to most on the right have once again placed conservatives on the wrong side of history.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> It was shocking to wake up this morning to the news that the peoples White House was awash in the colors of the gay flag. I read somewhere that each color of the gay flag  stands for a sexual perversion activity that the gay people involve themselves in like yellow celebrates drinking human urine.  They call it water sports.  That's just one activity that each color stands for. And look at what the Obama regime does they celebrated by putting those colors on our White House. Disgraceful!
> 
> Posts denying this fact begin in. 5...4...3...2...



Right wing media at its finest


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there is.
> ...




China gives us money because they have no choice.  If they refuse, we diminish their capacity to purchase oil by denying them access to American dollars which is the only currency that can be used to buy oil from OPEC.  China is caught in a position where they are forced to pay us so they can continue to to run their economy.  Hardly super power status there

And whoever said other nations would follow our lead?  I surely didn't. You made a statement that no super powers allowed gay marriage and I merely refuted your point.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.



Such as?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.
> ...


 
 In _Sex and Culture, JD _Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture.
> ...


 
 According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Even if true , what does that have to do with the marriage issue? Regardless of the status of marriage, there will still be homosexuals and homosexuality. Would we be a more moral people if we treat others who are disapproved of badly?


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...




Well I am unfamiliar with Mr. Unwins work, but "primitive tribes" are hardly "great civilizations".  What I can gather from the few sources that are online about this book is that it was written in 1934 in Great Britain during a time when British women were gaining more rights and freedoms.  Mr. Unwin apparently believed that women should remain subservient and thus published his work in an effort to provide an argument that women should should revert back to their status of Victorian England.  The book doesn't seem to be one that is widely referenced by scholarship and, from the little I have been able to find, those that do consider it a study in the manipulation of data in order to establish a pre-conceived, political agenda.

"_In order to attain this absolute correlation, he has had to manipulate his definitions of both sexual restrictions and of cultural achievement.  *His restrictions, in fact, only concern the limitation of pre-nuptual freedom in women and the nature of religious rites*...in defining cultural achievement the standard is surprising.  The lowest level recognized is that characterized by religion without post-funeral honor of the individual dead or without worship in temples, these two being the criteria of the middle and highest levels of primitive cultural achievement.  *For a culture to rise from the lowest plane to the next highest level it is only necessary to restrict pre-nuptual freedom of women; to rise to the highest level, where they will be capable of building temples, it is only necessary to demand tokens of virginity.  It is not necessary for all restrictions to be enforced on all females of a societ*y....

*It is impossible within the limits of a brief review to criticize the long list of absurdities that are involved in the correlations of this volume.....This volume is an extreme example of the manipulation of anthropological material to support private programs of social reform, in this case, a program of return to the immediate Victorian past.*  It makes clear, as has already been abundantly demonstrated in anthropological literature, that any thesis, no matter how unlikely, can be upheld by a suitable rearrangement of cultural facts from primitive peoples.  Only insistence upon a greater scrupulousness and a greater intelligence can prevent the recurrence of such volumes of special pleading_"

-Dr. Ruth Benedict, Ph.D.
Columbia University, Department of Anthropology

GENERAL Sex and Culture. J. D. Unwin. - Benedict - 2009 - American Anthropologist - Wiley Online Library

.Dr. Benedict also mentions in her review, that *Unwin completely ignored several tribes that were in the immediate area and time frame of other tribes he did consider that would have totally destroyed his hypothesis such as the Cheyenne and Menomini*.  So, it appears that you are supporting your thesis by quoting a source that  was designed to subjugate women and appears to be the 1930's British equivalent of AGW; i.e. '_we will only consider data that supports our political aims and we will ignore the rest_'.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...




I'll bet he didn't include Rome in that study.  They only started falling apart after converting to Christianity.  In fact, if one were to compare the sexual culture of Rome and attempt to correlate it to its power, one would note that during times of what we would consider "sexual debauchery", Rome rose to great power.  Yet after embracing Christianity and a more conservative sexual culture following Constantine in 337 CE, Rome's power began to slowly diminish the more sexually restrained they became until finally collapsing 260 years later or so.  

Now, I personally don't think their sexual culture (nor anyone else's for that matter) had anything to do with their rise or their fall.  A nation's ability to engage in commerce and defend its borders and expand is not impacted by their tendency to engage in an orgy.  One has nothing to do with the other as Dr. Benedict pointed out, pretty harshly I might add, in response to Unwin's study.

This is to say nothing of the Greeks and Egyptians who also freely engaged in what we would consider sexual immorality in Western culture today, and grew vast Empires and thrived for hundreds or thousands of years.


----------



## Obiwan (Jun 27, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


But when do we take the next step and let libs marry their pet goat?????

After all, you are supposed to be anything you want in this country, according to the Libs, and the poor goats probably just think they're a human trapped in an animal body.....


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



The white goats identify as black goats


----------



## Obiwan (Jun 27, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Possibly.... That means that the Libs have to allow goat marriage, since refusing it would be downright racist under that scenario...


----------



## theHawk (Jun 27, 2015)

Happy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy.  Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies.  So much for separation of church and state!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Happy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy.  Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies.  So much for separation of church and state!


That makes NO damned sense at all. Only the government has to recognize the marriage. No one is going to make the churches do anything. You really can't be serious with that


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 27, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Happy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy.  Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies.  So much for separation of church and state!




This ruling represents the separation of church and state.  Had the SCOTUS ruled against gay marriage they would, in effect, be endorsing a position whose only legitimate support comes from a religious institution. Instead they went to the US Constitution where it stipulates that *all *United States citizens have equal access to the law and enjoy the rights, responsibilities, and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution.  The separation of church and state was, therefore, upheld.  No one is forcing *you *to recognize anything.  You are free to dismiss same sex marriage if you choose, but you cannot deny United States citizens their protections under the 14th Amendment simply because you disagree with their lifestyle. This was a civil rights issue right down the line and the SCOTUS upheld equal rights for all Americans.  That's it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

TrinityPower said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Now you're changing the subject. First of all they get away with engaging in politics all the time. They should lose their tax exempt status for that but I don't know of a single time when any did. But, you made the statement that they would be forced to recognize gay marriages, and that is just horseshit


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 27, 2015)

theHawk said:


> Happy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy.  Now they can celebrate a *government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies*.  So much for separation of church and state!


 
No, it kinda _doesn't _mean that.


Dumbass.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...


Just like we demanded that the Catholic Church marry non-Catholics and divorced Catholics.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > The original meaning for the flags colors have been lost to time and the economy:
> ...


So, since you know, you must be part of the gay underground. You can come above ground now. It is ok that you are gay.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > First great error of the day: "The downfall of many a great civilization involved the rampant immoral sexuality and perversion in that culture."  No, it did not.
> ...


Unwin is as much an idiot as you are.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Gays are happy...you are miserable
> ...


They just got saved....from immoral bigots like you demanding that they live according to your perverted morals.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


And you just proved that you know more about Unwin than Bonzi, who never read his book or anything other than some blurb on a right wing nut job site.


----------



## bornright (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?


Everything has consequences.  Has anyone thought of common law marriage and how this will come into play.  There are many homosexual men that each make a large amount of money.  If they live together as husband and husband whether they are married or not will this be considered as common law marriage.  If their combined salary is over 400,000 a year will their tax rate not sky rocket. 

What happens when two men live together and then split up in the states that have spousal support laws?  This marriage thing will or could affect the situation where homosexual men or homosexual women live together even though they are not married.  I am sure many homosexuals will be financially disappointed by this law and many will wish it did not exist.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

They will resolve it the same way straight couples do today.  No biggie.  And I am sure that they don't hate marriage either.  Think, please.


----------



## bornright (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> They will resolve it the same way straight couples do today.  No biggie.  And I am sure that they don't hate marriage either.  Think, please.


Do you really think it is that simple?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

bornright said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...


Sounds like you looking to conjure up problems just to say "I told you so"  Divorce and alimony are touchy  and difficult subjects for all couples of all kinds. Alimony reform is long over due. I would guess that there is a need to develop case and statutory law to deal with new situations. It is not a reason to say that gays are going to regret marriage any more than a lot of straight people do at some point. Now be nice and wish them well.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Absolutely no reasoning exists to indicate gays will regret their victory.  None.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 27, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Lol at this nerdy faggot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Steinie, you are a drama queen we like to tease.  Never go away.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 27, 2015)

bornright said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...




There are only a handful of States left that allow common law Civil Marriage.  On top of that if you research the specific laws they may require specific acknowledgement by the parties involved electing to be Civilly Married.  There are no "accidental" CLM anymore.

Common Law Marriage by State


>>>>


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

bornright said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...


Most states no longer recognize common law marriage. In those that do, they have to hold themselves out in the community as married. If they don't claim to be married, they are not. Finally, do what?  Straight couples deal with the same issues.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
Didn't that happen to other great empires in the past, such as those of Britain, Spain, Rome, Persia, Babylon and Egypt? Is America' s future more secure than theirs was?
Sir John Bagot Glubb (1897-1987), a highly honored British general and historian better known as Glubb Pasha, wrote about the collapsed empires of the past. In his 1978 book _ The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival,_ he described a common pattern fitting the history of some fallen empires. They went through a cycle of stages as they started, expanded, matured, declined and collapsed.

1. The age of outburst (or pioneers).
2. The age of conquests.
3. The age of commerce.
4. The age of affluence.
5. The age of intellect.
6. The age of decadence.
7. The age of decline and collapse.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Absolutely no reasoning exists to indicate gays will regret their victory.  None.


 
Even if this country suffers for it, they won't regret it, because of selfishness...


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely no reasoning exists to indicate gays will regret their victory.  None.
> ...


Selfishness in demanding that others live according to your hateful version of faith.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Nonsense.  Sir Glubb wrote a glib burb.  He ignored all the other factors that were far more significant.  Read other literature as well, Bonzi, before relying only on Glubb.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
It's not hateful.

It's out of love.  For the best of everyone.

Caving into your lusts and allowing it to hurt you and others is not loving


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.


 
It's not hateful.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


 
Thank you for admitting that!  That is your choice! Free will!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Not your business about other's private lives, Bonzi.
> ...


It's not your business.  I did not say you were hateful.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Everyone gets to make their own choices.  It was someone else that said I was hateful.
I am not saying people have to believe as I do, but I am saying everyone, one day, will answer to God, whether you believe it or not.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
How was your swim?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Twenty laps.  First time in a year.  I will be up to forty next week.  Fifty four the week after.  Then I will do it twice a day four times a week.  I like swimming.  A lot.  I grew up on the beach in San Diego County: the ocean, the beach, the road, my house.  Life was tough.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 27, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Happy Queers Day, I knew the USMB assclown brigade would be happy.  Now they can celebrate a government forcing everyone to recognize their religious ceremonies.  So much for separation of church and state!
> ...


I didn't say it was forcing the churches to do anything.  Nothing ever prevented churches from performing gay marriages in the first place.
But now suddenly the government is forced to accept these queer "marriages", which will also mean these queers will be given equal opportunity for things like adoption.  Only assclowns like the idea of young boys being handed over to perverted queers.  Next they'll be given the right to mutilate their adopted children for a "sex change".

I never cared what fags do with each other, but pretending they are normal is bullshit.  Most queers are batshit crazy and belong in a mental institute.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Hetero assholes groom children for adoption for perversion, Hawk.  Far more than Homo assholes.

Let's be honest, let's be in context.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



If America is going to collapse, it will be because it has become an oligarchy  and or a theocracy,  because of marriage equality. Vote Republican and hasten the downfall!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 27, 2015)

theHawk said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Congratulations! That is the stupidest and most offensive post that I've seen here in a while. Yes the government will have to accept same sex marriage. Get over it. It has nothing to do with you.

Your most offensive comments have to do with adoption and children. Apparently your too fucking ignorant to know that gay people have been adopting children in some state for decades and long before same sex marriage was even being seriously disguised. They provide an important resource for kids in need of a home. I worked in the protective services and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 fucking years and placed kids with gay and lesbian couples during that time with good results. NJ was the first state to allow joint adoption by gays starting in 1997. And what is that horseshit about mutilating the kids   ? Do you not understand the difference between homosexuality and trans genderism?  Do you understand that no one is going to mutilate a child because of what THEY are?

It seem like you're the one who belongs in an institution- for morons!


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Well the case law is already in place.  As the courts now recognize simply "marriage," the generations of alimony and divorce procedures of case law would apply, the marriage being heterosexual or homosexual in nature should be completely irrelevant.

Even custodial matters with same sex couples already has some case law on the record, likely if it comes up in any other states they'll rely on the existing decisions made in states that accepted SSM from the get go.  The same goes with adoption, though I believe Alaska had one same sex couple adoption case on record for referral to the Superior Court, I'm not sure what the details of it were.




theHawk said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Yea see the last part above.  Same sex adoption has been happening in this country for a long time.  It's been legal in Alaska since 2007, the same sex parents just weren't considered as married because SSM was banned by our state constitution; did not stop them from adopting as a single individual and raising the child together.  I've not heard anything negative happen up here because of same sex adoption; though do feel free to search through whatever anti-gay sites and see if you can find something.  If it were to come up an issue, I have no doubt Alaskan Christians would bring it to court; they did put millions into the political effort to ban SSM.

For that matter, the reality is that same sex couples all over the country have been adopting and raising children just like Alaska for a very long time. I've not heard anything bad, but again the liberal media doesn't report shit that "doesn't fit the agenda" so give us some links for issues with same sex adoption issues and I'll take a look at them.


I can agree that sex change for children is an issue we need to address more adequately, though I do not think that issue has anything to do with SSM legalization, but rather it is a social issue that /all/ parents have.

There was a case of a couple actively working on a sex change procedure for their child brought up not to long ago in the current events thread here. ( Linky to article Transgender kids Painful quest to be who they are - CNN.com ) 

I'm torn on the issue of sex changes for children.  On the one hand I instinctually think it's better for the parents to wait and let said child make the legally visible decision to do such a thing on their own (18 would be the age of maturity for that I believe) when they've "settled" a bit as it were, but on the other hand, I can 100% understand how difficult high school would be for a child who feels stuck in the wrong sex; I mean HS is already a pretty horrible experience regardless of ones sexual orientation.  If /anyone/ is even the slightest bit self-conscious it amplifies that "dread" even further, certainly a child with a gender identity issue is going to have a far, far worse time dealing with that phase than a heterosexual child.

To expand the latter thought, I also look at the widely practiced act of circumcision. The general consensus is that it might reduce the transmission of STD's and it's cleaner for the child.  Now if we can accept that such a procedure should/could be decided by parents in order to possibly increase the child's physical well being and safety, then shouldn't we also accept possible psychological "benefits" of a sex change for a gender confused child given the higher risk of suicide during that phase of life?  And, in relation specifically to the thread that was here in current events, the drugs they were giving their child are apparently hormone suppressants; given that wildly fluctuating hormones are thought to be one of the major underlying causes of teenage suicide, perhaps, at least that part of, the procedure isn't against the child's best interest and thus should fall under the same "scrutiny" as the somewhat controversial, but near universally decided as a parents right, procedure of circumcision.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Claiming that being gay is like being a pedophile, as you have repeatedly done, is hateful. You are hateful. A person who does not approve of gay marriage who does not hate simply disapproves; they don't work to deny others the right to their happiness and the don't call them perverts or sinful.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

Anyone who claims being homosexual is like being a pedophile is not following either of the Two Great Commandments.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 27, 2015)

man did you all get duped: AGAIN. way to go

SNIP:
*Published on Jun 26, 2015*
Brian Lilley talks about the US Supreme Court decision making gay marriage legal in every state.

"This fight was lost a long time ago," he says. In Canada, same sex marriage was legalized a decade ago, and Lilley talks about the changes that brought to society. Laws have to be written; words like "husband" and "wife" have to be removed, along with the phrase "natural parent." But there's much more...


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 27, 2015)

Yep, way to go. call Obama and have him light up his white house again

snip:
*After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses *
By Polly Mosendz 6/26/15 at 4:40 PM





U.S.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law mean that states cannot ban same-sex marriages. However, Mississippi may not allow gay marriages to go through. Joshua Roberts/Reuters




Filed Under: U.S.
Mississippi is considering pulling the plug on issuing marriage licenses altogether after the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage Friday morning. 

As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court’s decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying ways to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi.” To Bryant’s point of doing “all” the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.

all of it here:
http://www.newsweek.com/following-s...sissippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, way to go. call Obama and have him light up his white house again
> 
> snip:
> *After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses *
> ...



First Texas and now this...and it's the weekend


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, way to go. call Obama and have him light up his white house again
> 
> snip:
> *After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses *
> ...


What are they gonna do?  Secede?  They made the same noises when we made them stop having racist laws. They shut up and obeyed and will do so again.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, way to go. call Obama and have him light up his white house again
> ...


Texas?  Where hundreds of gay couples have already married?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

The far right will always scrape and bow, and they will claim next month that Marriage Equality was all their doing.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Get up to date and the comment to me. Until then eat more fiber, you seem like maybe you're constipatted


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 27, 2015)

But they can completely get out of the marriage business.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Seems you are the one full of shit. http://www.newsweek.com/texas-clerk...nses-following-scotus-decision-despite-347499


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Matthew said:


> But they can completely get out of the marriage business.


No they cannot. Simply not possible. God but you people are fucking stupid.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



There is a thread somewhere on what Texas is up to. Go look for it. Chop chop


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, way to go. call Obama and have him light up his white house again
> 
> snip:
> *After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses *
> ...


"Attorney General Jim Hood on Friday said the Supreme Court's decision will not take effect immediately in Mississippi because of a stay issued by the federal Fifth Circuit. But he said lifting the stay or issuing an order based on the high court ruling will be forthcoming soon and "circuit clerks will be required to issue same-sex marriage licenses...."  So, the top law enforcement officer in that backwards ass state will direct clerks to follow the law.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I did. I read about what some assholes claim they might do. Tough. They will follow the Supreme Court ruling. No choice. Get over it. You lost; freedom won.


----------



## bornright (Jun 27, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The homosexual marriages does not affect me at all and I don't care one way or another.  I do think that sometimes people seem to see things simplified.  This is going to have a lot of complicated issues with it.  I know for a fact many lawyers see dollar signs for them.  If you know any tax lawyers ask them how many of these homosexual couples have called asking questions.  There are no answers to give just yet.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Do you ever post or comment civilly? Now stop acting like you're hard ass Mensa material and perhaps YOU won't be viewed as an asshole


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I am civil to those who act civilly. You never have. You are hateful and arrogant and ignorant all at the same time. You suggested that something was happening in Texas to avoid this decision and I pointed out that hundreds of couples have married. How is that not civil?  And Your response was civil?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



whoosh, right over your head. Now go eat a puppy


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

bornright said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bornright said:
> ...


There will be no complicated issues. There will be the same issues that courts have been dealing with for centuries. If a couple is married, they can file married. They have been able to do that for several years.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Eat a what?


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 27, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 I bet you could suck a golf ball out of a garden hose.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> 
> Where chaos rules; nations fail.


Equal protection is not chaos. WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## bornright (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


I don't really care if there are complicated issues with this.   I just stated my opinion on what I know will be a obvious item.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Yep, way to go. call Obama and have him light up his white house again
> 
> snip:
> *After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses *
> ...


Leave it to the brain-dead right to "save" marriage by abolishing it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 27, 2015)

This is over, far right.

Sigh and cry and lie and ask why.  It does not matter.

This is over.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Wouldn't you like to find out?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

bornright said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > bornright said:
> ...


So, now you say there won't be complicated issues?  Can you make up your mind?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> ...


 
Chaos will ensue when you try to make life fair for everyone.  It's contrary to nature and can't happen.
Life had winners and losers.  Enabling gays to believe their lifestyle is normal and healthy is doing a disservice to them as well.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Completely deranged.  This decision neither establishes gay lifestyles as normal nor healthy. What it does do is affirms that gays have the same fundamental right to marriage as straight folks.

You don't even know what you're arguing.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 
If you say so.... but marriage is defined by God, not government.  God created marriage, not man.  And he created woman for man for that purpose.  He didn't tell Adam you have the option between.  Also, you don't get to decide what we are "arguing"... just FYI.


----------



## Faun (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Government sanctioned marriage is created by the government and as such, it's the government's responsibility to ensure that fundamental right is protected for all. That is why the Supreme Court ruled as they did.

And who's telling you what you can or cannot argue?? Certainly, not I. I was pointing out you don't know what you're arguing. I never said you can't argue your strawman.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


We enable you to think that your hate is normal; that your are not a hateful bigot; that you are not a loser in that striving we all have to not be a complete asshole.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


God did not create marriage, at least not in this country. Marriage is a legally created state with rights and responsibilities. And how could Adam have had an option when the only other person was a female? V


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Goats do not have constitutional rights
Homosexuals do


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Nonsense.

No one is seeking to “make life fair for everyone,” the notion is utterly ridiculous.

The fundamental principles of due process and equal protection of the law are as old as the Republic itself, these principles are employed by the courts to determine the Constitutionality of laws and measures whose intent is to limit or deny citizens their fundamental rights, and failing to pass Constitutional muster, are invalidated by the courts in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

The intent of these principles is not to “make life fair for everyone”; rather, their intent is to place important limits on the power and authority of the state thus safeguarding our civil liberties.

From yesterday's ruling:

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 27, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


This has nothing to do with the issue before the court or the law in general.

Marriage is in fact defined by government, it is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts, contract law either same- or opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into, where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Subjective and personal religious beliefs and dogma are completely devoid of legal merit, they have no bearing on matters of the law, nor does the law in any way interfere with personal, subjective religious beliefs.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 27, 2015)

This is a very important distinction that folks need to make - my husband and I just had a row about public opinion vs actual law not more than an hour ago heh


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 27, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Man can make laws and legalize what they want, but we will all ultimately answer to God. This is not a good thing for this country


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 27, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Marriage is a contract.  Consenting adults, one would expect, means human beings at or above the age of majority and having no existing next of kin relationship may enter into publicly issued licenses, attach signatures and seals and voilà! We have a contract.

So let's dispell the idiocy and answer all that's baffling you.

Goats aren't human so, there's strike one.

Siblings and incestuous situations fail because there's that pesky next of kin provision.  Swing and a miss.  Strike two.

Pedophilia is a sticky wicket (pardon the pun) for Homophobes.  They freely associate pedophilia with homosexuality.  Despite peer reviewed studies proving there is no ancillary behavior among homosexuals that tends toward children.  Point of fact, most pedophiles identify as heterosexual.

Slider paints the low outside corner and that's the ballgame!

The legal status of homosexual citizens of the United States has been settled, but the cultural aspect still has to wither away as it surely will.

I'm just wondering why so many come back and ask the same inane questions as you have with your little pet goat.  Perpetuating sterotypes that are culturally passé serves what noble purpose?  I support your right to continue to weaken your credibility by tipping your hand and let us see the deuce, six, eight, ten and five you're holding.   Speak up!  It's your right.  But you are being perceived as if you were in Black Face under the marquis at The Apollo.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 27, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Conservatives vow to defy Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling *


It's called civil disobedience....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 27, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Liberals 2: Conservative 0.
> 
> If this does not lead to a mass exodus of Cons headed for other shores, then we will simply have to get the court to invalidate Texas Anti-abortion laws....


They'll have trouble finding a country without same sex marriage. Their favorite, Israel, has same sex marriage. Maybe they should try Iran or Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 27, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals 2: Conservative 0.
> ...


Or one of those countries where they throw fairies off of tall buildings and watch 'em splash.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 27, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




We've seen it....

...and you're an idiot if you believe it.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 27, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Here in Texas we don't let no goddamed Yankee faggots tell us how to run things.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 27, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




That's why guys just got gay-married there anyway, right?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 27, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


How should I know? I don't hang around with those cretins.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 27, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



So how did Texas let that happen? I thought they were supposed to be standing firm against this.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 27, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


Me too but someone was sleeping while on guard.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 27, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...




Like your AG, maybe?



> On Thursday Paxton told county clerks to wait for his directive following the Supreme Court ruling, indicating that he was considering defying a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
> 
> "To be clear — the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman, and the position of this office is that the United States Constitution clearly does not speak to any right to marriage other than one man and one woman and that the First Amendment clearly protects religious liberty and the right to believe in traditional marriage without facing discrimination," he said in a statement, according to the Texas Tribune.
> 
> *But on Friday, Paxton said in the headline of his statement that the state would be "following high court’s flawed ruling."*



Texas AG No Court No Law No Rule Will Change Definition Of Marriage


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 27, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Anthony Kennedy and the other four justices are straighter than you, ya old queen.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


I got yer queen hangin', you limey bastard.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 27, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> I'm not buying the same sex marriage over states rights argument as nazi-ism thing.
> 
> To go the other way and /allow/ same sex marriage ban would transform American into a theocracy, would it not?


I prefer One nation under God, to a nation manipulated by a secular Judiciary thinking it's "ordained".


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 27, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I bet you don't even have the courtesy to give a reach around you potato eating faggot.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 28, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Gays are bi-sexual and that means that homosexuality is a matter of CHOICE. "Gays" are not happy unless engaged in sexual activity. Most old people are just content to be alive.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 28, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Kennedy allowed the Supreme Court to remove Prayer and Bible reading


AvgGuyIA said:


> Those colors have meaning and here's proof.
> 
> ...  Gat hanky colors  link  removed for web safety concerns ...
> 
> ...





Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


So a nation should avoid prosperity it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

Reason 999 not to vote Republican


----------



## Flopper (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


So a nation should avoid prosperity because it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose?


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


It should try to avoid crass materialism that comes with wealth, which breeds decadence, creating atomization and nihilism. I don't think there is a way for civilization to avoid this, short of putting less value on perpetual economic growth as the ultimate goal for a society. It seems to be the cycle of civilization, where unbridled prosperity eventually sinks into decadence and to the decline of civilization. 

Acceptance of same sex marriage isn't a result of materialism or wealth though. It is a result of marriage becoming removed from procreation, and relationships becoming more transactional(about individual convenience and personal happiness). It is no surprise that a society that embraces single motherhood(40% of children are born out of wedlock) and rampant divorce(50% of marriages end in divorce) is indifferent to sam sex marriage.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?



Who gives a crap?

-Geaux


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2015)

AME®ICANO SAID:

“I would agree with alternative, civil union. Because what they got now it's not marriage.”

Wrong.

Separate but equal is just as repugnant to the Constitution and denying same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 28, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...




A good many of your fellow wingnuts, obviously.

- Me


----------



## Skylar (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> This is over, far right.
> 
> Sigh and cry and lie and ask why.  It does not matter.
> 
> This is over.



The new fight is for the faithful to try and subordinate civil law to religion. All to deny goods, services, housing, employment, etc to gays.

There seems to be one consistent axiom in the conservative conception of freedom: it almost always involves treating someone else like a piece of shit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...


Yes, guaranteed:

"_t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

And yes, you are indeed stupid; as liberal Catholics correctly understand that they can agree with the Court's decision concerning the right of gay Americans to marry while also adhering to their faith's tenet prohibiting the sacrament of marriage being afforded to same-sex couples._


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Care to elaborate on that inane assertion??
> ...


Again, this is subjective religious dogma, completely irrelevant – having no legal merit whatsoever.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 28, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > This is over, far right.
> ...



You also have to include acting as if _they're_ the ones being treated like shit while doing it to others, though. They're always the victim, y'know.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 28, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...




You're right, but Bonzi obviously doesn't give two shits, so you're kinda wasting your keystrokes explaining that.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
I get it.

But what you 2 don't understand is God is eternal, we are not.
God matters more than the law of the land. 

Anyway that thinks lawmakers are perfect and what passes as law is always correct is just a moron.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


 
It's a tendency for Nations to do this.  If people cared to learn from History, they would not becoming increasingly liberal.  But, with wealth, comes arrogance and with arrogance, comes thinking you know better than God so you start changing the rules.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

The Bible does not supersede the Constitution as law in America.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Bible does not supersede the Constitution as law in America.


 
If you live by man's laws and base your life on laws and what politicians say I agree.
I don't, and neither should anyone else.

It would be like going into the Garden of Eden right after Adam and Eve ate the fruit and saying, I think I'll go with Adam and Eve... forget this guy that created all this....


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Pedophilia is a sticky wicket (pardon the pun) for Homophobes. They freely associate pedophilia with homosexuality. Despite peer reviewed studies proving there is no ancillary behavior among homosexuals that tends toward children. Point of fact, most pedophiles identify as heterosexual.


 
The connect/comparison is that both are perversions.

People knew and recognized it as such, but over time, morals decay and people accept things they once never would..... then call it progress.

I'm sure as much as you think pedophilia is offensive etc., others felt that way about homosexuals, and, both are perversions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible does not supersede the Constitution as law in America.
> ...


Sigh.  We don't live in a theocracy, we won't live in a theocracy, and our grandchildren will wonder at was all the fuss about.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

No, only in the minds of the perverse is homosexuality a perversion.  To deny the right to marriage is a religious perversion.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Jake  - I understand these are laws that are being passed, I'm simply saying they are wrong and detrimental.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


In your opinion.  That is not a fact.  To deny marriage equality is religious perversion.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, only in the minds of the perverse is homosexuality a perversion.  To deny the right to marriage is a religious perversion.


 
30 years ago, you would  have agreed with the majority that homosexuality was a perversion and unnatural.  Why?  Because "everyone else" thought so and that's that the experts were saying etc. etc.

There are all kinds of perversions, many of them heterosexual, people practice them behind closed doors and so on, yet, they are still perversions and offensive to God.  Still sins.

As I have stated before JS, I'm not saying Man can't make his own rules and enact them as Law.
I am saying, they are not healthy for this Nation or Mankind.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
I believe them to be factual.  This will prove out over time - -it will not be settled between you and I.....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

As a youngster I and my friends thought segregation was correct.  By the time I was a mid teen, I realized that was hooey.  I though women should never be in leadership positions.  After years in the military, I found that to be stupid.

Your analogy is flawed. Time only shows contrasts not correctness.

In our secular society for now, it has been settled.

We judge behaviors, God judges morality, and I trust  God.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> As a youngster I and my friends thought segregation was correct.
> 
> Your analogy is flawed.  Time only shows contrasts not correctness.


 
Like I said, this ill all prove out over time.  Once again I disagree, I think what I am saying makes more sense that most people care to admit (and most never will) - but they are not my words, the are God's principles and I will stand behind them.

You and others don't have to follow them, I have already said that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

No one is saying you have to believe what we believe.

I am saying that your opinion about God is merely your opinion.

Time will prove you wrong, I believe.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> In our secular society for now, it has been settled.
> 
> We judge behaviors, God judges morality, and I trust God.


 
God judges everything.
So you are of the believe that God approves of homosexual marriage?
Or are you saying it doesn't matter that God thinks of it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Don't ever put words in my mouth.  You are better than that.

I have said that God has no problem with this, only some of his mistaken followers.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one is saying you have to believe what we believe.
> 
> I am saying that your opinion about God is merely your opinion.
> 
> Time will prove you wrong, I believe.


 
I'm not entirely sure why people can't understand the scripture below.  It's from the New Testament.

*Romans 1:26-27
26*  Because of this, God gave them to *shameful lusts*. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for *unnatural* ones.  *27* In the same way the *men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another*. Men committed *shameful acts* with other men, and *received in themselves the due penalty for their error.*


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Don't ever put words in my mouth.  You are better than that.
> 
> I have said that God has no problem with this, only some of his mistaken followers.


 
I wasn't putting words in your mouth - I was asking a question.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


There are many who do not believe in G-d. While you and I would disagree with them, they are fortunate to live in a non-theocratic nation which does not force religious doctrine upon them. At the same time, this great nation does believe everyone is entitled to their rights, regardless of where each individual believes those rights come from. Friday's decision exemplified that as the government stood up and protected the fundamental right of marriage for a group of people for whom it was previously denied.

Whether one is anti-gay or not, we should all be applauding the government protecting our rights. In this case, it benefited gays ... next time, it could benefit you.

What amazes me (not really) is the hypocrisy of the right. They usually champion reduced regulations and government staying out of privacy issues and increased individual liberty  ... but apparently they don't extend those beliefs for people they feel are violating the Bible.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


I bet you do.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


 
I still contend that by treating homosexuality as if it were natural - is doing a disservice.
We have allowed society to convince us that it's just as natural and normal as heterosexual relationships.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Limey?  You that fucking stupid as to not know that a Limey is English; not Irish?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


It is more natural than your hate and bigotry.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 
Do I need to quote Romans again?

I don't hate homosexuals.  I love them, and want them to realize that denying their perverse feelings for the same sex will be beneficial to them... and, mostly, turning to God and relying on him for strength to live for Him.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Your God is a bigoted asshole like you. You created a God in your image and it is an ugly image.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


You're still arguing a strawman. Straight folks are not contending gay sex is natural. Get past your strawman.


----------



## Jaaaman (Jun 28, 2015)

She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not buying the same sex marriage over states rights argument as nazi-ism thing.
> ...


Then move to Uganda


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

Jaaaman said:


> She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?


The "lifestyle choice" part. It's not only bigoted but just plain stupid!


----------



## Jaaaman (Jun 28, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jaaaman said:
> 
> 
> > She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?
> ...


We all make choices in life.  Getting up out of bed in the morning is a choice.  Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jaaaman said:
> 
> 
> > She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?
> ...



Well, to be fair, nobody has to agree with it.  That does not give them the right to discriminate though, IMO.  This is all just based on religious mumbo jumbo.  If you remove ancient religious beliefs from the equation, there is absolutely NO valid reason to object to SSM.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Have a wall of text Bonzi,

Romans 13:1-5 ESV       
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

I submit, that according to your bible, God doesn't agree with your position on LGBT issues.




			
				tons more here said:
			
		

> *Titus 3:1 ESV*
> Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
> 
> *Romans 2:13 ESV                *
> ...


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> You're still arguing a strawman. Straight folks are not contending gay sex is natural. Get past your strawman.


 
By legalizing it, you effectively are.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Your God is a bigoted asshole like you. You created a God in your image and it is an ugly image.


 
God loves you even though you don't love him.   God IS love, he will never let you down or leave you... but if you don't want that unconditional love and promise of eternal life, that is your choice.

EVERYONE can have that!  Everyone SHOULD have it, not because I say so, but because it's the ONLY think n life worth living for (God) -


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> submit, that according to your bible, God doesn't agree with your position on LGBT issues.


 
If between God's law and Man's we must always follow God's law.
We do have the choice to live under the law of the land, or to leave that land.  Granted.
But just because 9 people agree to make Homosexuality legal, doesn't mean God approves.
God may have put them there, but we all still have free will, and often do wrong with it.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Your God is a bigoted asshole like you. You created a God in your image and it is an ugly image.
> ...



Nope, that is an individual personal choice, just like the way you choose to live your life is your own personal choice.  You can't force God on people.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're still arguing a strawman. Straight folks are not contending gay sex is natural. Get past your strawman.
> ...



I disagree.  It's not the responsibility of government to be the morality police.  Why, if two people love one another, would you want to deny them the same happiness that is afforded to you?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jaaaman said:
> 
> 
> > She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?
> ...



BTW, I think I know you from somewhere!


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > submit, that according to your bible, God doesn't agree with your position on LGBT issues.
> ...



Great.  Now who is forcing you into a sinful homosexual act, you know, the part that is a sin?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Nope, that is an individual personal choice, just like the way you choose to live your life is your own personal choice. You can't force God on people.


 
I actually agree with you ChrisL  ... all I am saying is that they would be so much better off in the long run if they did - and much more at peace as well ... it's unfortunate there are so many people running around calling themselves Christians that are not, and, it makes God and Christianity look terrible.... so I don't blame people for their pessimism....


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Great. Now who is forcing you into a sinful homosexual act, you know, the part that is a sin?


 
No one. But I am going to make a stand and say that they were wrong to do what they did.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, that is an individual personal choice, just like the way you choose to live your life is your own personal choice. You can't force God on people.
> ...



Well, again, that is your own personal opinion regarding religion and God.  Others find man-made religion to be as silly as believing in the Easter Bunny.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Since it occurs in nature normally, then it is natural.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jaaaman said:
> 
> 
> > She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?
> ...


 
It is a choice.  Your sexual preferences or desires lead to a lifestyle choice. I know everyone gets all bent out of shape on this, but, there are many types of sexual perversions, and, we make choices to act upon them or not.  It's unfortunate, that, in this fallen world, we have to live with cravings and desires that are unhealthy to ourselves and others, but, for the good of all, we must deny them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Jaaaman said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Jaaaman said:
> ...


Only in your opinion, which is not factual.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
Yep.  They have a right to believe that, and rely on Man.  I'm just saying, Man will let you down, every time.
No one has yet been able to prove there is no God.  Everyone should keep an open mind and heart.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Great. Now who is forcing you into a sinful homosexual act, you know, the part that is a sin?
> ...



How are they wrong?  You mean to say, in your opinion, they are wrong.  To them, it is not wrong.  It is fair and just.  What is wrong is trying to force your way of life and your beliefs on other people.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Jaaaman said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


 
How is that not a fact?  Explain?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

All those who are mistaken about God and His love have every right to their mistaken opinions.  God is not worried about LGBT (they are made is His image).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Jaaaman said:
> ...


Since you can't prove it, then it is not fact.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Jaaaman said:
> ...



I don't think you choose who you feel a sexual attraction to.  Do you?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


 
They are wrong because it's against God.
If you don't believe in God, then, it's not wrong TO YOU because you don't believe in God.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Okay well you said this is not factual - not even my post, but, see below:

We all make choices in life (FACT). Getting up out of bed in the morning is a choice (FACT). Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



That is one of the great things about our country, people get to choose their own path in life.  We are not a theocracy, thankfully.  Being against gay marriage is old fashioned antiquated belief system, not based in reality, IMO.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Are you Paddy's boyfriend?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
You don't get to choose whatever "turns you on" (no matter what it is .... ) but, you can control yourself.  Or deny yourself.  People do it all the time.  Life isn't just about your sexual attraction and the act of sex!


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Why don't you leave that up to God?  Why do you think it is okay for you to make judgments on God's behalf?  You are a mere mortal, also flawed.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
Even in God's eyes, you have the right to choose.  Free will.  No one will deny that.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
I feel I am doing God a disservice to not stand up for Him.  Obviously, He is more than capable of standing up for Himself, but he has called Christians to proclaim Him to the World and be a light to the lost.  It is my duty as a Christian to speak of God's word and truth in love and gentleness (and I do try to be loving and gentle...)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

"having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)"

That does not mean that homosexuality is a choice.  Your logic fails, again.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



You seem to be terribly confused and ignorant about matters of human sexuality. It is doubtful that you are able or even have any desire to understand how ridiculous you are so I am not going to even try to explain


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

"You don't get to choose whatever "turns you on" (no matter what it is .... )"

You just contradicted yourself, Bonzi.  You just said it was a choice.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Who says it is?  By reading some of the right wing posts on the subject, you would think so though!    You are all so fixated on the sex lives of others.  Live and let live is what I think you all need to do.  Worry about yourselves and following your belief system.  Leave other people, who choose not to follow your belief system, alone.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

"It is my duty as a Christian to speak of God's word and truth in love and gentleness (and I do try to be loving and gentle...)"  Well, that is your opinion, but I do agree that you are loving and gentle.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



That's wonderful, but when you infringe upon another person's happiness, then you are involving yourself in their lives.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> :It is my duty as a Christian to speak of God's word and truth in love and gentleness (and I do try to be loving and gentle...)"  Well, that is your opinion, but I do agree that you are loving and gentle.



I don't think it's loving and gentle to force yourself and your beliefs upon others.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Jaaaman said:
> ...


Humm, where? Are you also on Political Forum or Political Hot Wire?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I'm a member at PF.  You and I have talked there before.    In fact, IIRC, you are on my friends list there.  I haven't been there in a few weeks though.  I've been a little busy lately.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Your God is a bigoted asshole like you. You created a God in your image and it is an ugly image.
> ...


Your version of God is not about love; it is about hate and bigotry and exclusion.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > submit, that according to your bible, God doesn't agree with your position on LGBT issues.
> ...


So now you want gay people locked up. You want homosexuality to be illegal. Stop lying about how you don't hate. You clearly do hate.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
Well like to told De above... I am not infringing... I don't have the power or ability to do so!


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

As long as you are a human being, living here in America, you should be entitled to all the same rights and benefits as anyone else.  As far as marriage, if you are two human beings, both of consenting age and aware of the stipulations of the contract you are signing, then all should be fine.  There is absolutely no logical reason to deny two consenting adults (regardless of their sex) the benefits of marriage.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


why is sexual morality correlated to cohesion instead of poor leadership?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 28, 2015)

Okay well people I need to go get ready for my son's wedding so, will answer or respond later.

Have a wonderful Sunday!


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're still arguing a strawman. Straight folks are not contending gay sex is natural. Get past your strawman.
> ...





Jaaaman said:


> She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?


Because she is lying about the love part. She wants being gay to once again be a crime. How is that being loving. She is a hateful, bigoted POS.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Okay well people I need to go get ready for my son's wedding so, will answer or respond later.
> 
> Have a wonderful Sunday!


Hope he and his husband are happy.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I think that when you vote against gay marriage or you support those who want it to remain illegal, you are insinuating yourself into those people's lives and their pursuit of happiness.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Okay well people I need to go get ready for my son's wedding so, will answer or respond later.
> 
> Have a wonderful Sunday!



Congratulations!  Have a great day!


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


She not only wants to ban gay marriage; she thinks being gay, or acting on those desires, should be illegal. Since she bases her views in the bible, it is not hard to guess what punishment she would favor: the biblical one.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


60% of Americans support marriage equality. The vast majority are, like me, straight. You really are a stupid POS.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I don't know about all that, but I do think that they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, which is fine.  They are also entitled to live their lives according to their own beliefs, but the problem arises when they try to use the rule of law to force their belief system on others who do not share their beliefs.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Did you get some fiber? You still seem constipated.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Read her posts. She posted that homosexuality should be illegal.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I am actually sitting on the john pushing some of you out.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Nah, you're thinking of Erikthered AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Whatever.  I'm not here to personally attack others about their personal beliefs.  I am here to make my opinions known and to maybe change even just ONE person's mind.  You aren't going to do that by insulting them though.  Some of the people here cannot be spoken to in a logical manner and, yes, you end up playing the insult game, but I don't think Bonzi is that person.  She has been respectful and has not tried to insult others.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



He's hate filled. It's obvious from his comments. Most likely he's mad at the world, upset the man kept him down his entire life but the reality is he doesn't have what it takes to be a success. Can you imagine that attitude in any work environment? Nope, not happening


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Right! Nice to hear from you again. I have not been on there much recently either. I got tired of the same old idiots so I came here to deal with a new set of idiots. And here, we don't have to be so careful of what we say. I was racking up infractions on PF.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


No. Thinking of a piece of shit. You.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



I just try to remind myself that these kinds of forums are going to be a magnet for extremists of all shapes and sizes.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


She has been hugely disrespectful repeatedly. You cannot be respectful and call for prison for gay people.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Lol!    It's a hard transition, coming from here and going there!  I've had a couple (hee-hee) infractions there myself.  I post here most often because of the high activity level.  I like that!


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 28, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



How did we get so lucky you came back? only the idiots take your spew serious. which there is much of that as we see with this idiot post


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I don't take any of it serious. Nobody is going to change anyone's minds, the problem is some don't realize it and get all angry.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Well, I must have missed that post.  Care to quote it?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


This forum is a magnet for hate filed bigots who think they have the God given right to tell others how to live or who to love. Bonzi and Irish lassie are two of the worst. Calling supported of marriage equality faggots.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



You really need to learn some of that tolerance you left loons demand. Now settle down, you're going to stroke


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Perhsps you need to pay better attention to the posts. By the way, the extremist position is not favoring marriage equality or wanting homosexuality made illegal. The extremists here are these two hateful ladies.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



I was reading the posts and didn't see Bonzi say that gay people should be imprisoned.  Where did she say that?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

I have no t


SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I have no tolerance for people like you who hate others simply because they are different. Bigotry like your cannot be tolerated; it has to be opposed. It was only by opposing people like you that this nation won the great victory for freedom in the Supreme Court.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> I have no t
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Well your problem is I don't hate gay people. I disagree with SSM. Now learn the other's position before you make a further fool of yourself.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


↑
You're still arguing a strawman. Straight folks are not contending gay sex is natural. Get past your strawman.


"By legalizing it, you effectively are."

Legalizing it. Before the Supreme Court tossed laws making gay sex a crime, it was punishable by jail.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 28, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > I have no t
> ...


So, you don't think the government should ban gay marriage?  You don't think that homosexuality should be illegal, as Bonzi does?  You don't think that discrimination against gay people should be illegal?  Disagreeing with a person marrying another of the same gender is one thing. Demanding that the law be used to advance your personal beliefs is another. I don't believe in same sex marriage for me. Despite your idiotic suggestion that if one supports marriage equality, one must be gay, I am a straight male. But I have no right to demand that the law conform to my orientation. Do you?


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 28, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


 Find me someone who is purple.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



I've said all along if two men or two women want to pretend they are married go ahead. I won't recognize it and in fact I'd have a hard time not laughing if they introduced themselves as a married couple. There is far too much noise being made about a very small minority of the population, VERY small and I recognize it for what it is, a distraction from the real issues. If you want to support them go right ahead but stop being abusive to ones' who don't support it. YOU need to learn some of that tolerance the gays demand


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Non-Catholics  and divorced Catholics don't have mean-spirted organizations like LGBT and ACT-UP behind then trying to override normalcy.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 28, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...



Do you really think they are trying to "override normalcy?"  Or are they trying to gain acceptance as legitimate members of their communities?  Honestly, I don't think homosexuality will ever be the "norm."  Most people just don't swing that way!


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Jun 28, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Homos are normal part of the diversity of humanity..  I don't disagree with that.  Gays marrying isn't.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > AvgGuyIA said:
> ...


It is now in the USA and about 20 other countries. Get used to it


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > You're still arguing a strawman. Straight folks are not contending gay sex is natural. Get past your strawman.
> ...


Nope, not true. Smoking is neither natural nor healthy; yet it's legal. If I may borrow your strawman for a moment, being legal means smoking is "effectively" natural and healthy.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > submit, that according to your bible, God doesn't agree with your position on LGBT issues.
> ...


Nine people did not make homosexuality legal. WTF are you smoking?


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...




Once a culture reaches the age of decadence they are naturally going to decline because there is nowhere else to go.  Decadence exists because you have achieved a place within society wherein you have an abundance of wealth and materials. As a society evolves in strength and stability the focus turns from the effort merely to exist and to the enjoyment of life.  Consider John Adams' quote:

"_I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain_"
-John Adams

This is a natural evolution.  When you no longer have to worry about securing your borders, you mind turns to other things; the nature of the world, the accumulation of wealth, etc.  Then when those things are accomplished one begins to study the arts and enjoy the fruits of their struggle.  Sometimes sexuality becomes more liberal as a society evolves and sometimes (Cheyenne and Rome to name just a couple) it does not.  Yet, they ultimately suffer the same fate because once you reach the top of the mountain, there is nowhere else to go but down.  That is not predicated upon sexual culture, but upon the focus of the government to maintain commerce, industry, and defence.  Unless you wish to argue that the British empire fell because women were gaining more cultural freedoms.  Is that the argument that you wish to make?


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



That's a good catch.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...




ok

A) Isn't that what you are doing yourself?  I say this out love Bonzi, because, as we are both Christian, you know I love you and have respect for you.  But are you not doing the same?  You are speaking on behalf of God.  God knows what He will accept and what He will not.  What right do we have, as Christians, to make that judgement for Him?  Did Paul not write, "_12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside..._" (1 Cor 5:12-13)

B) Didn't Christianity change the rules?  According to Jesus the way to be _'right with God'_ (righteous) was 1) follow the Law (Matt. 5:17-20), 2) love God with all your heart (Matt. 22:37), and 3) love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:39).  But, according to Paul, the way to be '_right with God_' was by accepting _Grace_.  Through Grace, the acceptance of the free gift of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus, the Law becomes secondary if it applies at all.  This is why Paul freaked the fuck out in his letter to the Galatians regarding circumcision.  Through circumcision, people were adhering to the Law which, for Paul, is not only inapplicable, but makes the sacrifice of Jesus irrelevant.  So for Jesus, the Law is the path to God, but for Paul the Law doesn't matter and Grace is the way to God. Didn't Paul change the rules?


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



EXACTLY!!!!  And just as life is not just about sexual attraction, a person is not just about sexual attraction as well.  So, because a person engages in a sexual lifestyle that you disagree with that does not mean that they are a bad person.  It just means they have a lifestyle you would not choose for yourself. It does not mean they lack positive attributes or possess other negative attributes based upon that single criterion.  I urge you to do some reading on the "_Halo Effect_" and the '_Pitchfork Effect_'


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...




Well let's be fair though, paddy.  It's also a magnet for hate filled bigoted atheists who think they have the right to tell theists what they should think and ho they should live.  Read: Guno and Hollie.  It goes both ways


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...




Yes because they are on the losing side.  Had the decision gone the other way, the people screaming bloody murder and pounding their shoes on the table would be those representing marriage equality, who, in that case, would look equally as extreme.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pedophilia is a sticky wicket (pardon the pun) for Homophobes. They freely associate pedophilia with homosexuality. Despite peer reviewed studies proving there is no ancillary behavior among homosexuals that tends toward children. Point of fact, most pedophiles identify as heterosexual.
> ...


You, no doubt, personally know homosexuals as neighbors, business associates, friends and family.  Do you regard them as perverts in you interactions with them?  Is that the behavior Christ taught?  Is that the reaction and model for civic behavior and comportment?  If so, to what purpose?

What do we. As a society gain by treating our fellow citizens as 'less than' because a few folks still see others who are committing no crime as perverts?  Is this the moralitythatholds a better society?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I let my girlfriends keep their girlfriends.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


I'm Irish, Chauncy. Go sweep the London dock where you were born and raised.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Hangin' from a tree?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Meet me in the men's shithouse at the Grayhound station and I'll show ya.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 28, 2015)

Jaaaman said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Jaaaman said:
> ...



Explain to us how you choose to be hetero.
Who you find attractive is not a choice. Go suck a cock and show us how easy it is to make that choice.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Interesting and perhaps telling that you know where to go for such shenanigans?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


No one has ever proved there is a God, although I certainly state I believe in God.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> How is that not a fact?  Explain?


You believe that God does X and Y. Your belief is a fact. However, your belief does not make "that God does X and Y" a fact.


fact
fakt/
_noun_
noun: *fact*; plural noun: *facts*

a thing that is indisputably the case.
"she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

antonyms: lie, fiction
used in discussing the significance of something that is the case.
noun: *the fact that*
"the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut"
a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
synonyms: detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point,factor, feature, characteristic, ingredient, circumstance, aspect, facet;
information
"every fact was double-checked"
LAW
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.
"there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter"

Origin




late 15th century: from Latin _factum_, neuter past participle of _facere_ ‘do.’ The original sense was ‘an act or feat,’ later ‘bad deed, a crime,’ surviving in the phrase _before (or after) the fact_ . The earliest of the current senses (‘truth, reality’) dates from the late 16th century.

fact definition - Google Search


----------



## Flopper (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Good points.  I think major social changes in society such as gay marriage are the result of many other changes that preceded it. The civil rights movement and the feminist movement of the mid 20th century certainly encouraged minority groups such as gays to seek equal protection under the law. Likewise those movements were encouraged by women's suffrage, the labor movement, and freeing of the slaves.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

Jaaaman said:


> She just stated she loves homosexuals but doesn't agree with their lifestyle choice.  How is that 'bigoted'?



Human Sexuality for the dumbest of Dummies 101



Sexual orientation refers to a person who is either Heterosexual.  Homosexual or Bi Sexual. That does not change


Among bi sexual people there exists a continuum of sexual/romantic attraction ranging from those who are primarily attracted to the opposite sex and those who are primarily attracted to the opposite sex.


Bi sexual people may be involved romantically with someone of the opposite sex at points in their life and their own sex at other times. Hence the perception that they have changed their sexual orientation.


Some people who are strictly homosexual in terms of their attraction have chosen to live as heterosexuals and even marry someone of the opposite sex because of the real or perceived dangers and disadvantages of being out. When this happens, there is often disastrous  emotional consequences for them and their families.



If they do come out, they may be perceived as “choosing homosexuality” but that is just a load of ignorant equine excrement



Anyone who claims to not understand this is either really, really stupid, or shamelessly dishonest by using changes in a person’s sexual lifestyle to “prove” that homosexuality is a choice.  It is doubly stupid because nobody really gives a fuck about this choice stuff and especially not the courts which have been regarding homosexuality as an immutable characteristic-and that is that.

Now Read this:


*Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely Is a Choice  *http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-p...b_7106800.html

*Before the anti-gay rights crowd starts jumping for joy after reading the title, thinking that you now have justification for discrimination, I suggest that you read the whole piece. It begins with:*



> _To all of my Christian brothers and sisters who insist that homosexuality is a choice, I need to break down and finally admit something: I agree with you.
> 
> I believe that it absolutely is a choice too, only not in the way that you may have meant._



It continues:



> _Far too often Christians, when you make the statement that being gay is a sin, what you're really doing without realizing it is reducing all LGBT people down to a sex act -- as if that alone defines sexuality.
> 
> You're denying any emotional component in their lives, any capacity to feel real love or show genuine affection toward someone else._



Now before we go on, I want to make two things clear. Although this article is admonishing those Christians who condemn gays, all of those who try to marginalize gays by claiming that being gay is a choice are doing the same thing. The second point is, that this is not a conflict between Christians and gays as many try to make it out to be. It is a conflict between those of any religious persuasion who want to discriminate and those of us-straight and gay- who believe in equality and the value of all human beings.

In another passage that is true of anyone who advocates discrimination, regardless of motive, religious or otherwise, it states:




> _In a gross oversimplification, you're labeling a complex, fully formed human being as merely a performer of intercourse.
> 
> That's something you would never do with heterosexuality, and especially not with your own sexuality, because you understand implicitly that your sexual orientation is about much more than a physical act. It's a much deeper part of who you are than that._
> 
> And ………






> _Christians, you probably recall this in your own story of sexual identity and self discovery don't you? You simply felt naturally and quite involuntarily, the impulses you felt.
> 
> By following those impulses you were making a choice, too. You were choosing to be authentic and true to your heart and mind's leading. You were choosing to agree with the truth about how you loved. The alternative would never have been an option. _



*Why is it so hard for you to believe that LGBT people are operating any differently?*

I will finish with this passage:




> _When we use these words in this very limited and narrow way, we're also assuming that our own inclination, toward not just sex, but affection, intimacy, companionship, romance, and love, are all within our control and alterable -- that they involve decision on any level.
> 
> There is more but you get the idea. Those who seek enlightenment will read it and those who want to cling to ignorance and bigotry will ignore it. Your CHOICE_


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 28, 2015)

Just one other point I would like to toss out as a "fuck you" to both sides.  For gun control opponents who base their opposition on their constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment, yet also oppose SSM, you just lost your justification to use the Second Amendment to support your position.  For advocates of SSM who are championing the 14th Amendment, I am assuming you will also support the free right of all citizens to bear arms from now on


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


----------



## Obiwan (Jun 28, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


One thing at a time..... The nutty liberals are working on getting rights for chimps first!!!!
New York Lawsuit Argues Chimpanzees Have Human Rights TIME.com

*Do Chimps Have Human Rights? This Lawsuit Says Yes*
Using arguments taken from antislavery efforts, a new lawsuit seeks to give chimpanzees the basic right to freedom

As scientists have studied the chimpanzee, they’ve found more and more similarities between humans and their closest living relatives. But when it comes to the courts, chimps and humans couldn’t be more different. Chimpanzees, like other animals, are not considered persons before the law. Instead, they are considered closer to property, a thing that can be bought and sold, albeit with some oversight by the government — too rarely exercised — in the form of animal-welfare regulations.

Now a lawsuit filed on Dec. 2 in New York State seeks to fundamentally overthrow that distinction. The Nonhuman Rights Group, led by the animal-rights lawyer Steven Wise, filed papers with the state supreme court in Fulton County in New York State on Monday, asking that the courts recognize a captive chimpanzee called Tommy as a legal person with a limited right to liberty. The lawsuit seeks to remove Tommy from his owners in Gloversville, Fla., and place him in a sanctuary. The group says it plans to file additional lawsuits later this week on behalf of a chimp kept in a private home in Niagara Falls, and two other chimps owned by a research center and currently being used in experiments at Stony Brook University in New York State.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Simple. The last time I was in the mens room at Greyhound I had to paralize a pansy for sticking his finger in my piss stream.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 28, 2015)

Can anyone in their right mind take this horseshit seriously??


> 'Satan Dancing With Delight':
> 
> The Religious Right Reacts To The Legalization Of Gay Marriage Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 6/26/2015 11:36 am This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, effectively legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. Needless to say, anti-gay Religious Right activists and Republican politicians who have repeatedly warned that such a ruling would literally destroy America have not reacted well, as exemplified by Bryan Fischer, who fired off a series of tweets declaring that Satan is now dancing in the streets of America: - See more at:  Satan Dancing With Delight The Religious Right Reacts To The Legalization Of Gay Marriage Right Wing Watch








> Todd Starnes Warns Pastors Who Refuse To Perform Gay Marriages To 'Prepare For Hate Crime Charges' Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 6/26/2015 1:33 pm Following his interview with Franklin Graham this morning in which Graham warned that the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage will lead to persecution of Christians and, ultimately, God unleashing His judgment upon America, Fox News commentator Todd Starnes shared his own dire predictions about what is to come. - See more at: Todd Starnes Warns Pastors Who Refuse To Perform Gay Marriages To Prepare For Hate Crime Charges Right Wing Watch





> *Conservatives React To Gay Marriage Ruling*:
> 
> End Times! God's Wrath! Civil War! Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 6/26/2015 1:30 pm The right-wing outrage machine has moved into high-gear following the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold marriage equality, with anti-gay activists vowing to defy the decision. - See more at: Conservatives React To Gay Marriage Ruling End Times God s Wrath Civil War Right Wing Watch


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


God created Great Britain, and on the seventh day he rested. He took a shit and out came Ireland.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2015)

OBIWAN SAID:

“The nutty liberals are working on getting rights for chimps first!!!!”

This fails as a composition fallacy, in addition to being a ridiculous lie.

Where in the lawsuit is anyone identified as being 'liberal,' where is it stated anywhere that those who filed the lawsuit are 'representative' of all liberals.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 28, 2015)

Well here we go. That didn't take long.
VIDEO at the site


SNIP:
THE WAR BEGINS – Lesbian Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings

all of it here
Read more at http://patdollard.com/2015/06/the-w...ticipate-in-gay-weddings/#H8OsrXQU3ccuPJQK.99


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Well here we go. That didn't take long.
> VIDEO at the site
> 
> 
> ...



Me thinks the Senator is a tad confused about the First

Oh wait, it's Tammy Baldwin, she is a fucking moon bat


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.



The biggest down side of feminism being that now two incomes are required to pay the bills, thus making it quite difficult to raise a family AND children for the less educated. (aka forced to drop out of school and thus stunting their education.)  The support structure we have in place for single young mothers is oft little more than religious based shame and not a lot of actual help.  Though I'm at a loss how we can fix this stacking problem because the market has flown on the dual income plane and to change that would require doing things that we simply cannot do under our system.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Well here we go. That didn't take long.
> VIDEO at the site
> 
> 
> ...



Video didn't load for me, so all I got was the clearly biased opinion piece.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Well here we go. That didn't take long.
> ...



Loaded for me fine and the article accompanying it explained what she said very well


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it had much to do with the civil rights movement. I think Feminism and the Sexual Revolution definitely had a role in the current view of homosexuality in the mainstream media, the political establishment, and a good percentage of the country(probably close to 50% of people). I think you are right about Feminism having an influence. Definitely in the idea of separating sex from procreation, marriage from procreation, came out of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, the idea of solidified gender roles that became more vague as feminism became mainstream. The idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that roles can be interchanged, particularly in parenting. A good percentage of don't think that having two parents necessarily matters in child rearing, or that the sex of those parents matters.
> ...


The problem is the Government incentivizes single motherhood through the welfare state. The more you subsidize a behavior, the more you get of it. As long as single motherhood is a viable economic option, and women who have children outside of wedlock can rely on the State, this situation won't be corrected.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 28, 2015)

oh lookie,

SNIP:
*Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage Case*
By Tom Blumer | April 30, 2015 | 12:04 AM EDT
 
Add the following to the "you will be made to care" stories Erick Erickson at RedState began to recognize several years ago.

Those who think that legalizing same-sex "marriage" won't affect them should have received a wake-up call on Tuesday during arguments at the Supreme Court over inventing a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to have such an arrangement. Most of them didn't get it, because, with only one exception I could find, the establishment press covering the proceedings perfectly understood the gravity of the discussion and its implications — and refused to report it, because doing so would give away the Obama administration's, and the left's, ultimate game plan.

The exception was at the Washington Post, via Sarah Pulliam Bailey at the paper's Acts of Faith blog. Even then, Get Religion's Terry Mattingly reports that Bailey's work didn't make the "ink on paper" edition.

Here's Bailey's coverage of what was arguably the most important question of the day:

*Could religious institutions lose tax-exempt status over Supreme Court’s gay marriage case?*


ALL of it here:

- See more at: Not News Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes Gay Marriage Case


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I've gotten through her response to "did you ever think this was possible 11 years later?" then it cuts off and is no more.  Maybe they're having bandwidth issues (or my providers working our 1g upgrade heh)  I'll have to try again later.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



I did get some message saying they were checking my connection and it took like 30 secs to load after that


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 28, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



yes that does happen then mine went to the site. I don't know what their problem is


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage.   Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind.  We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out.  There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now.  However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support.  Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> oh lookie,
> 
> SNIP:
> *Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage Case*
> ...



I'm sorry I just had to lol at the hypocrisy of this statement:

"No one should have a reasonable doubt at this point that the left's goal here is to force compliance and to persecute those who won't."

Sounds way to familiar for some reason...


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


Sounds like a virus. Glad I didn't click on a link from you.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

I didn't get a "OMG VIRUS!!!" panic alert from any of my virus protection programs for the part that will load, not that it helps tell the story at all...


----------



## Flopper (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Regardless of sex, two good parents are better than one. Parenting is not about sex, something the anti-gay crowd can't seem to understand.

It's not that uncommon for two women with kids to live together in a loving relationship to provide a family with two parents for their kids.  In these relationships sex is often not a major component.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock. 

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms,  children, and the society as a whole.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I think there would be many that disagree with your position, that a two parent household is by default a better environment for a child than a single parent. That is a moderate to conservative position that is disputed by many sectors of the current Establishment which is liberal. I agree that two parents is a better situation by default, but just keep in mind that is a right of center position in an overton window that is consistently shifting to the left. 

I would say to you that you don't seem to understand the differences between the sexes, and that children pick up social cues and an understanding of gender relations from their mother and father. They are definitely socially retarded in this aspect. Not to say they can't learn, but they are certainly at a disadvantage to their peers with a father and mother. And no, a feminine man or masculine woman cannot replicate the experience of mother or father. 

I wouldn't really be holding up the example of single women rooming together as a shining example of household stability. Children that grow up without a father in the home are far more likely to be a victim of abuse, of the single mother or the boyfriend.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.
> 
> It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms,  children, and the society as a whole.



I disagree with your correlation, do you have evidence of it?

What I see is a loss of personal responsibility due to the lack of parental oversight.  However, it's not because of welfare, but because of the two parent working requirement that became established after the feminist movement.  Women were falling all over themselves to get to work and subsequently chose their careers over raising their kids, this led to an increase of household income and an increase in costs.  My mother chose her career over raising me, fuck I can't even boil water.  I was left to tend to myself my entire childhood, luckily I, and my friends, were total geek/nerds and I thus spent my "trouble" years playing D&D and learning to program computers, rather than on the streets causing trouble*.  There also were no gangs to "ease my boredom" while sucking me into a criminal culture instead. 

(*We did smoke pot at weekend parties, but it was legal and frankly pot just made us debate politics and shit.  Not like cocaine and the shit you have in the lower 48.  - I'll also note that I wasn't even aware my parents /might/ have a problem with me smoking pot, until they officially made it illegal in like 1992, and my mother made the comment that she was glad I never did that stuff when it came on the news.  I laughed silently and wandered off; I'd quit some years before it was made illegal because it wasn't worth my time, and made programming /really/ hard to concentrate on...)


----------



## Flopper (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal _Demography_, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago.  Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Well here we go. That didn't take long.
> VIDEO at the site
> 
> 
> ...


You're either a liar or an idiot – likely both.

Did you bother to read what you linked – nowhere was anyone advocating that churches be compelled through force of law to afford same-sex couples religious marriage rituals.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> 
> (if you don't know what NAMBLA is I'll be happy to inform you..)


 
uh, you got business cards or something?

lol


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 28, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...





> At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)


Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 28, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



My argument is still that part of the criminal problem we have is mothers being forced to work.  I do not doubt that some single-parents abuse the welfare program, in that they have more kids to get more money.  Still, you kind of have to make a social/moral choice on that; do you want to risk more criminal/untended/bad kids, or do you want to save money on welfare?  (Agreeably the present welfare setup is killing us on expense, but I'm sure, given that it's run by the government, it's horribly setup and wasteful.  They can't even put out a damn website for millions...)

In any event, I think we've gotten off the subject at hand a bit.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 28, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


So you are encouraging denial of your sexuality as a choice?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> oh lookie,
> 
> SNIP:
> *Not News: Obama Admin Admits Tax-Exempt Status of Churches at Stake in Supremes' Gay 'Marriage Case*
> ...


Again, you're either a liar or an idiot – and again, likely both.

You're an idiot for linking to a rightwing blog completely devoid of credibility.

You're a liar for attempting to propagate the lie contrived by the blog author that religious institutions will lose their tax-exempt status because they refuse to afford religious marriage rituals to same-sex couples.

The case cited in the blog, _Bob Jones University v. United States _(1983), is applicable only to schools, not churches or other purely religious institutions. And a tax-exempt status can be removed only when the private organization is in violation of Federal law; since there are no Federal statues prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples, there is no Federal law to violate. Moreover, in _Bob Jones_ the Court held that “government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education.” Clearly there is no fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination against same-sex couples in education.

Last, and most importantly, no one is seeking now, nor will anyone ever, to remove the tax-exempt status of churches or other religious organizations because of their hostility toward same-sex couples; indeed, in _Obergefell_ Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in no uncertain terms that religious objections to same-sex couples marrying are entitled to full and comprehensive First Amendment protections:

“[T]he First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 28, 2015)

BONZI SAID:

“Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”

A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BONZI SAID:
> 
> “Living with and having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)”
> 
> A choice entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from attack by the state (FACT).


Except sex with a same sex person isn't sex, love or tenderness. It's simple animalistic rutting and an abomination in God's eye.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BONZI SAID:
> ...



Says the expert.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


The expert ain't gonna go to hell or waste away with AIDS.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



Good for you, ya' wrapped your dog.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



It's OK, don't worry about it.


----------



## TrinityPower (Jun 28, 2015)

I have read through most of the posts about this issue and you know what occurred to me?  Same as with abortion...those for it never admit they are a part of it just that they should be allowed to do it.  I remember years ago working with people who argued oh I would never do it (abortion) but it isn't for me to say someone else can't.  Interesting that not one of them admitted to having an abortion when later I leaned some had.  I am seeing the same with this issue.  No one admits they are gay but I bet you a good majority of those of you agreeing with the decision are one or know one, most likely related to one.  I have yet in this thread to see someone admit hey I am gay.  There is a stigma that comes with admitting it that is different than just stepping out saying I agree with the right to it but not admitting you are one of them.  Just my observation.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jun 28, 2015)

TrinityPower said:


> I have read through most of the posts about this issue and you know what occurred to me?  Same as with abortion...those for it never admit they are a part of it just that they should be allowed to do it.  I remember years ago working with people who argued oh I would never do it (abortion) but it isn't for me to say someone else can't.  Interesting that not one of them admitted to having an abortion when later I leaned some had.  I am seeing the same with this issue.  No one admits they are gay but I bet you a good majority of those of you agreeing with the decision are one or know one, most likely related to one.  I have yet in this thread to see someone admit hey I am gay.  There is a stigma that comes with admitting it that is different than just stepping out saying I agree with the right to it but not admitting you are one of them.  Just my observation.



There are several posters who have said they are gay.  Does it matter?  Am I gay?  Who cares? A right is a right.


----------



## Faun (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BONZI SAID:
> ...


Well if we're talkin' about an abomination in G-d's eye, so is:

Leviticus 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 11:41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 19:5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, ye shall offer it at your own will.
6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.

Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 28, 2015)

_No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. 

_
How could anyone object to this?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> _No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
> 
> _
> How could anyone object to this?


How about the known fact that a huge majority of gays were molested by adult gays when they were kids. Because they were violated and hurt and damaged spiritually they are now adults and if they're in a same sex marriage they are going to want kids in order to live a "loving" family life. Well, the sad truth is, they want every kid to experience the same molestation, pain and hurt they went through. They will insure their kids are broken-in like they were They are going to raise their kids as homosexuals and those kids are not being raised to have heterosexual marriages. They're going to marry someone of the same sex and the scenario will repeat itself over and over and over. That is my  objection.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

Faun said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


God hates a lot of things but he doesn't particularly like fudge packers or carpet munchers.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
> ...


Still selling that myth? That is from like 50 years ago

What does that have to do with people who are in love getting married?


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 28, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > oh lookie,
> ...



oh well. bury your head in the sand. much easier


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Don't confuse animal-like rutting lust for love.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 28, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I have no interest in the intimate details of your sex life. If your technique is like animal rutting, that is your problem


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 28, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Are you reallly as dense as you portray yourself?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
I was just stating that what the person said above were facts (not opinions)
Sexuality is always a choice.  I think you should abstain from any sexual act that is harmful to you or others, and, if you are a Christian, is sinful and offensive to God.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

Shogun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > NAMBLA is thrilled with all this going on..... gives them hope.
> ...


 
I'm not a guy, so ....


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


 
Why do people think it will just end at homosexuality?
Is it so far fetched to think that with this trend, more and more perverse things will become acceptable over time?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


That you made a post is a fact.  The statement "Sexuality is always a choice" is an opinion not a fact by traditional definition.  Why?  Because you have no conclusive evidence that it is so.

A friend of mine once said, "The Truth stands alone."  She was wrong.  We measure faith by belief in things unseen, while we measure our world by empirical standards.  It is a fact that you may believe in such and so, but that belief does not make such and so a fact.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one has ever proved there is a God, although I certainly state I believe in God.


 
What do you think he's like?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
I should have said:  Acting on your sexual impulses and desires is a choice.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> [QUOTE="Why do people think it will just end at homosexuality?
> Is it so far fetched to think that with this trend, more and more perverse things will become acceptable over time?


Do you have any evidence, any facts to support your fear?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

People can work on sexual hang ups and change because most of your sexual issues are in your mind.  (Maybe even 100% of them).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one has ever proved there is a God, although I certainly state I believe in God.
> ...


That is immaterial.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


While you made the statement, in itself it is still an opinion not a fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> People can work on sexual hang ups and change because most of your sexual issues are in your mind.  (Maybe even 100% of them).


Perhaps.  Homosexuality, in my opinion, is not one of those things.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="Why do people think it will just end at homosexuality?
> ...


 
Not everything I say is a FACT or 100% prediction Jake.  that is just silly.

I'm assuming people reading these posts are using coming sense and thinking about things that make sense, but, are not always 100% provable with fact.  I can't prove our country will continue on a liberal trend allowing more and more.... I can only ask.... why wouldn't it?  Why would it stop at homosexuality...?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
So you think some people can help themselves?  I'm sure mentally ill people can't....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Thank you for stating that.  Opinions can be changed into facts with solid evidence.  Homosexuality, according to the APA, is not mental illness.  I can show you some heteros with serious sexual addition, a real mental illness.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Immaterial to what?   I was just curious, but, if you don't know or don't want to share that is ok.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Many thinks can be said and speculated that are not YET provable.  People should consider POTENTIALS as well as hard cold fact.  

Someone could say "history will repeat itself" (which is has in certain cases) but, sometimes you have to look at the big picture and draw logical conclusions....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Whether God exists is immaterial to this issue.

Only the Constitution governs this issue in our secular world.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


The world of "if" is many matters are discovered, yes.  Newton and Einstein thought matters out, then wrote their papers about gravity or relativity.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Whether God exists is immaterial to this issue.
> 
> Only the Constitution governs this issue in our secular world.


 
Ok was just curious what you thought God was like and what you based it on.

Yes, laws govern the US.  People have free will to obey or not.  We all have our beliefs of what is right and wrong.  And, since the US is governed by people, they CAN be wrong.  God can't.  That's a fact.

Someone can say - well that is your opinion that God can't be wrong.  But I still maintain it's a fact. 
So don't bother saying... "your opinion!"


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
If you think it is sinful then you should definitely live a life of guilt and repression because others are telling you how you should feel


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
Well I will freely admit I'm not Newton or Einstein!  I get tired just thinking about coming to this Board lately!


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
If you are homosexual and are a Christian, you should WANT to not act on your sexual desires because it's God honoring.

If you are not a Christian and are homosexual, it's a non-issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

You can maintain the sun is green, but your belief is evidence only of your belief not your conclusion.  Same with your belief in God.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> "having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)"
> 
> That does not mean that homosexuality is a choice.  Your logic fails, again.


 
I don't know if homosexuality is a choice or not, but, I do know ACTING on it is.
I was addressing the "having sex" part.  Not the desire part.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 29, 2015)

So, now stand-by for legal union with Chickens

I don't care what fetish gets rocks off in the bedroom, just when did being a sodomite equate to equality? 

Grease them chickens up first OK? Don't want PETA on your ass

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)"
> ...



Only a real failure of a man looks at say a beaver, and a schwantz and decides to take the meat.

That's what makes them fags

-Geaux


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> but I do agree that you are loving and gentle


'

Aww.. thanks Jake!  I try!!!!


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


 
paddy ... I'm sorry this is so upsetting to you.   I could reveal things about my personal life that I'm sure would change your opinion about me, but, I don't think that is necessary here.

Others may disagree with me, and that's fine.  My hope is that all would find and have their eyes opened to God and following Him.  What I say is what I know to be true in my heart.  Others have equally strong convictions to the contrary, but, as an agent of God, I feel I must speak Truth.  Regardless of the opposition I come up against.  Not to be a contrarian or to cause arguments and hate, but, because I love God.

I assure you. My love is real.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Well, then you wouldn't want to discriminate against other human beings, also creations of God, according to your beliefs.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 
Everyone should experience and has God's love available to them.
I guess people have different definitions of love.  Here is something (ironically) that showed up in my email this morning....
*Today's Scripture *"Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. *No one can come to the Father except through me."* John 14:6
*Thoughts for Today.  *In today's world, unity and tolerance have become goals within themselves. Peace at any cost. All ways lead to God. Live and let live. Such "tolerant" attitudes actually lead to intolerance of anyone who claims to have _the_ answer.
Jesus made it clear that *he is the only way to God,* the only way to real peace. Indeed, in Isaiah 9:6 he is called the Prince of Peace. Although God calls us to love all people, for us to seek unity and peace by agreeing that other faiths can lead to God is to deny our own faith; and to deny Jesus.
*Consider this … *
 As Christians, we are not expressing Christ-like love when we are willing to accept the beliefs of those who deny Christ or live sinful lifestyles as OK; all for the sake of unity and peace. We need to express Jesus' love by loving people where they are, by building relationships with them and … as the Holy Spirit leads … by sharing the truths of the Gospel with them. Jesus _is_ the only answer.

No one has to believe this.  But I hope they would and/or would consider it instead of dismissing it out of hand. 

I have been on both sides (I used to be an atheist/agnostic)


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


So, he was reaching around and you objected?  You prefer to just have your ass pounded?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


So, they are telling others who they should be allowed to marry?  They are demanding that laws be passed that reflect their religious beliefs?


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


On behalf of all Irish and Irish Americans, please know that Hoss is in no way reflective of what the Irish think.  Hence the referendum last month.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Tell that to Huckabee and Cruz and the other morons who will keep this issue alive.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


So if you eat bacon you're living a sinful life... but pissing all over gays telling them they are gonna go to hell that's being a good person.  Maybe put down the stones?  Just sayin.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> So if you eat bacon you're living a sinful life... but pissing all over gays telling them they are gonna go to hell that's being a good person.


 
The Levitical laws were broken into 3 groups. I won't bore you with the details (unless you want to hear them) but suffice it to say, homosexuality and it's sinfulness is addressed in both the Old and New Testament.

Am I going to say I never sin?  No, of course not.  To someone that doesn't believe in God, sin should not even be an issue - and for the record, I don't tell people they are going to hell.  That is not my call to make.  I can only tell them there is a better life for them... through Christ Jesus.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > So if you eat bacon you're living a sinful life... but pissing all over gays telling them they are gonna go to hell that's being a good person.
> ...


And eating pork was right next to homosexual acts.  It's old Jewish rabbinical laws written by men.

Who are we to say a gay man can't be gay and be in a church of god at the same time?  I see this as very similar to cloven hoof and Sabbath type rules that pick which day is the Sabbath and what keeping the Sabbath means.  IMO men can sometimes get overzealous with their definitions of what is good or bad.  I look at the ten commandments and I compare those to eating pork... and I have to say.. hmm..


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 29, 2015)

There are no laws saying that people must eat pork.  There are no laws that say all restaurants must serve pork.  There are no protests against restaurants forcing them to serve pork.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Eating bacon isn't a sin...and never was for gentiles


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There are no laws saying that people must eat pork.  There are no laws that say all restaurants must serve pork.  There are no protests against restaurants forcing them to serve pork.


There is no argument that everyone has to marry the same gender; there is no law saying all churches must marry gay couples; there are not protests about churches that do not marry gay couples.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 29, 2015)

People. This god crap is getting really stupid. Actually it has been all along. Everyone needs to take a time out, go back and read the OP and get focused


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 29, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> People. This god crap is getting really stupid. Actually it has been all along. Everyone needs to take a time out, go back and read the OP and get focused



you don't like it, leave. You aren't the BOSS
the Supremes can't FORCE a state to do JACK SHIT. so you all can stop with your wet dreaming over all this


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There are no laws saying that people must eat pork.  There are no laws that say all restaurants must serve pork.  There are no protests against restaurants forcing them to serve pork.


Nor are there any laws saying people must be gay.  Nor are there any laws saying restaurant owners must be gay.  Nor are there any protests against restaurants that are not gay.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


talking about moving the goal posts...  yes eating bacon is a sin according to the bible... it's right next to gay sex acts being a sin.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's no longer a sin, the New Covenant changed the Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws. Sorry, you can't win this one.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I see... so we are focusing on the new covenant.  Good so do I.

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” [John 8:7 KJV]

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” [Matthew 22:37-40 KJV]

Let No One Disqualify You Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.*These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.*Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. (Colossians 2:16-19 ESV)

Think that over. He's pointing out three of the old rules and telling them to "let no one pass judgment on you regarding those rules... However, he follows with stating that these are a shadow of things to come.. IOW there may be more rules that should not be judged by man, and the substance of which should or should not be judged by man belongs to Christ, not man. You'll note he's not talking about the commandments but rather these types of jewish rules. You'll note that the rule about gays is right next to the rule about pork.

Edit to add... it's not about winning or loosing it's about throwing stones or taking a breath and asking what would Jesus say / do today, two thousand years later.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I said Covenants, not Testaments


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 29, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > People. This god crap is getting really stupid. Actually it has been all along. Everyone needs to take a time out, go back and read the OP and get focused
> ...


Stupid  AND boring


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Point?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I think the point is you have no idea what you are talking about. Covenants and Testaments are two different things. While I'm at it though homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. I see the point you are trying to make, people pick their sins, but in essence you are doing the same thing. Sin is sin.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



You can believe whatever you want to believe, but in our secular society that doesn't give you the go ahead to trample over other people's rights.  No matter how you slice it, these are human beings who are living in America and entitled to the same rights as everyone else regardless of whether or not you "approve" of them.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
Okay so I guess I'm going to have to explain after all - Here are the 3 groups of Levitical Laws:


*Civil* - Expired with the demise of the Jewish civil government
Justice practices (Lev. 24:17-23)
Law of property redemption (Lev. 25)
Be just with the poor, (Lev. 19:15)
Do not hate in your heart (Lev. 19:17)
Retain just scales in commerce (Lev. 19:35f)
Robbery, extortion, false witness, and restitution (Lev. 6:1-7)

*Ceremonial* - Expired with the fulfillment of priestly work of Christ (Matt. 3:15)
Various sacrificial offerings for sin (Lev. 1,2,3,4,5,6)
Priestly duties (Lev. 7:1-37)
Laws on animals for food (Lev. 11:1-47)
Cleaning house of leper (Lev. 14:33-57)
Law of Atonement (Lev. 16:1-28;17:1-16)
Regulations for Priests (Lev. 21,22)
Festivals (Lev. 23:1-25)

*Moral* - No Expiration because it is based on God's character.  "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy," (Lev. 19:2)
Do not steal or lie (Lev. 19:11)
Do not oppress your neighbor (Lev. 19:13)
No idolatry (Lev. 26:1-13)
Don't sacrifice children to Molech (Lev. 20:1-5)
Don't commit adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc. (Lev. 20:9-21)
You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)

Homosexuality is under the moral law category.  In addition, as stated earlier, it is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan), not just the Israelites.  Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial.  Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said "speak to the sons of Israel saying..."  These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply for us today.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
It's a great society in the sense that we can all have a voice.  Whether you are secular or not.
I'm sure that is why so many people want to live her (legally or illegally but that is another topic!)
I do not deny that men are running the country and making the laws.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


 
Everyone sins.  It's not a matter of judging (we're ALL guilty) - it's a matter of doing the right thing.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > People. This god crap is getting really stupid. Actually it has been all along. Everyone needs to take a time out, go back and read the OP and get focused
> ...


Did you skip school when the civil rights era of the fifties and sixties?  The states were forced to accept the Supreme Court's ruling then; they will accept them now.  There are only two states now making noises about not following the law, but they will shut  up and fall in line.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I think the point here is to live and let live.  It's not up to you to judge these people on God's behalf.  He didn't anoint you to such a position, so I don't know what makes you judge and jury.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

In the old days, religious people used to torture and kill other people, claiming they were "heretics."  This seems like more of the same, only on a less violent scale, IMO.  

her·e·tic
ˈherəˌtik/
_noun_

a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
synonyms: dissenter, nonconformist, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast; More

a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

We all have (or should have) freedom of speech and expression. 
Shut up and fall in line hardly exemplifies that.......


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
I really am not judging.  I have opinions, but, ultimately, I answer to God and do what I feel he would have me to do an say.....

You think I'm wrong in what I believe.  I don't consider that judging and I hope you don't consider my beliefs judging either, just because we share them....


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
see my post above - explaining the Levitical Laws....


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



I think being against gay people having the same rights as you or I is "judging" them.  I don't care what you believe.  The point is that what you believe is no reason for our country to discriminate against gay people.  Like I keep telling you, they are PEOPLE.  They should be treated as such.  It's a simple concept really.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> We all have (or should have) freedom of speech and expression.
> Shut up and fall in line hardly exemplifies that.......



Free speech?  Trying to keep marriage between gay people illegal is NOT free speech.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


 
I've explained my position the best I know how through-out this thread, so, really I have nothing more to say.
Obviously you have a right to your opinion and stance.  Hopefully we can part friends.  If not, I understand.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Of course, that's what this board is all about.  Lol.  No hard feelings.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Wow.  You must be really smart to be able to judge do many things about me over the internet through a couple posts! Can I have your autograph? 

You are not god.  You don't get to "disqualify" others. The substance belongs to Christ, not you, and not some rabbis from TWO THOUSAND YEARS BACK.  Folks like you that sit around casting stones at gays telling them god does not love them because they are sinners... yeah... put your stone down and let Jesus decide whether the substance of their love for another man is a sin or not.  Let go of your homophobia... let it go.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > We all have (or should have) freedom of speech and expression.
> ...



Sorry but it is free speech. One has just as much right to say their beliefs as anyone else.


RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I never disqualified anyone, I simply pointed out eating bacon isn't a sin. Now you're all butt hurt


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Why is homosexuality the same as stealing, killing children, incest, etc. in your eyes?  Cause someone told you it was?  Where's the harm in homosexuality?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women’s choice to have children.  Benefits peaked in nineties with welfare reform. Benefits have been falling steadily, yet the number of unmarried child births have been increasing.

I think it's a bit absurd to think that a child support payment of about $300/mo is going to give a single women the incentive to go through pregnancy and years of childcare without a husband to share the burden. Also, TANF payments are limited to 5 years except in special cases.  They are dependent on state laws some which require at least part time work.  Childcare payments beyond 5 years require that no form of welfare is paid to any adult family members of the family.   







Child Recipients of Welfare AFDC TANF Child Trends


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


The point is ... the _righteous_ right like to pick and choose which "abominations" are acceptable.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Not according to Jesus...

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


There is a correlation according to these studies. If you have a problem with these studies and their results, including the study from the Department of Health and Human Services, than please, show where they went wrong. What specifically is wrong with their methodology? Also, single mothers don't just receive TANF, they receive WIC, EITC, SSI, section 8, Medicaid etc. They receive far more than 300 a month. For example, if a single mother with two children, making 15000 a year,  will get about 5000 in food stamps. If she marries a man making identical income, she will lose those benefits. Why should she marry this man when  they can be together out of wedlock and still keep the benefits?


----------



## TrinityPower (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > So if you eat bacon you're living a sinful life... but pissing all over gays telling them they are gonna go to hell that's being a good person.
> ...


Sad to say Bonzi but they won't change their mind about this stuff.  I find it heartbreaking that the US will be judged as a goat nation.  I always thought there was no way America would turn their back on God and Israel but it did.  I learned recently that it is taught in 8th grade health class that anal sex is totally fine.  As I have said before I do not hear people who are supporting this saying yeah I am one of them, that is still too far to step out but gee I think those people OVER THERE can do what they want.  No one who has an abortion is shouting it to the world and the people who have are emotionally rocked over it for the rest of their lives.  This is a major shift of end times, let the chaff fall away from the wheat.

Isaiah 5:20-30New International Version (NIV)

20 Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    and clever in their own sight.
22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine
    and champions at mixing drinks,
23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
    but deny justice to the innocent.
24 Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw
    and as dry grass sinks down in the flames,
so their roots will decay
    and their flowers blow away like dust;
for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty
    and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.
25 Therefore the Lord’s anger burns against his people;
    his hand is raised and he strikes them down.
The mountains shake,
    and the dead bodies are like refuse in the streets.
Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
    his hand is still upraised.
26 He lifts up a banner for the distant nations,
    he whistles for those at the ends of the earth.
Here they come,
    swiftly and speedily!
27 Not one of them grows tired or stumbles,
    not one slumbers or sleeps;
not a belt is loosened at the waist,
    not a sandal strap is broken.
28 Their arrows are sharp,
    all their bows are strung;
their horses’ hooves seem like flint,
    their chariot wheels like a whirlwind.
29 Their roar is like that of the lion,
    they roar like young lions;
they growl as they seize their prey
    and carry it off with no one to rescue.
30 In that day they will roar over it
    like the roaring of the sea.
And if one looks at the land,
    there is only darkness and distress;
    even the sun will be darkened by clouds.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > "having sex with someone of the same sex is a choice (FACT)"
> ...


We are made in God's image.  There is no issue with homosexual intimate relations.  That's only a man's hangup, not God's.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 29, 2015)

Somebody better get to making some phone calls...



> “Personally, same-sex marriage is a contradiction to my faith and belief that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Denton County Clerk Juli Luke said in a statement Sunday, according to the the Denton Record-Chronicle. “However,* first and foremost, I took an oath on my family Bible to uphold the law, and as an elected public official, my personal belief cannot prevent me from issuing the licenses as required.”*



Texas Clerk Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses In Spite of Her Faith


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 29, 2015)

TrinityPower said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



America...Love it or leave it as the conservative war monger said to the hippies in the 60s. Your turn now



> Far-Right: Flee America Before God Destroys Us For Gay Marriage! Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 6/26/2015 2:15 pm Religious Right activists have compared today’s gay marriage ruling to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Pearl Harbor, warning of imminent divine judgment and civil war. “No matter what, the Court’s ruling does not upend millenia of truth,” former Rep. Michele Bachmann said. “Many Americans will choose to follow God’s ways rather than this Court and they should suffer no penalty for doing so. The Court has flung open the gate to lawsuits from those pushing the gay agenda against those who disagree with same sex marriage.” Rep. Louie Gohmert said God will withdraw his protection from America: Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, reacted with guns blzaing, calling the ruling a “civilization-changing decision that destroys our nation’s heritage of Biblical marriage. May God forgive our Supreme Court majority for its arrogance and its self-apotheosis.” - See more at: Far-Right Flee America Before God Destroys Us For Gay Marriage Right Wing Watch


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
Or fight to change it....

we will not go quietly into the night....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Work for an amendment.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

All these posts and paddymurphy has my favorite....

"Shut up and fall in line"

Oh my, that is priceless!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Work for an amendment.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TrinityPower said:
> ...


You are already gone




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

I think I'm here... but I could be wrong.. 
You and Eagles fan?


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Work for an amendment.


 Hi JS  -


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TrinityPower said:
> ...


Fight what? It's done. Gay marriage is the law of the land and it's here to stay.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


 
Laws never change?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Evidently the biblical ones don't.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 
Nice seque (or diversion) - we can discuss changing of Federal Laws or Biblical Laws, but let's do them one at a time...


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Free speech is saying you disagree with something or whatever.  Once you insert yourself and try to force your opinions on others, that is not free speech anymore. I still wonder why you think you have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their lives.  You are entitled to your beliefs but not to force them on anyone else.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


I've got an idea.. why don't we agree to keep them separate and not try to establish some particular religion's biblical laws as the federal laws of the land.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



What? What does that have to do with eating bacon?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Then no cakes if the baker doesn't want to, right?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Sorry but it is free speech. One has just as much right to say their beliefs as anyone else.



Sorry, this is the post I meant to quote.  I must have quoted the wrong post or something.


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> All these posts and paddymurphy has my favorite....
> 
> "Shut up and fall in line"
> 
> Oh my, that is priceless!


Some of you will continue to be hateful bigots. The civil rights decisions and laws of the fifties a new sixties did not prevent the continuation of the KKK and other racists. You will continue to whine and moan and condemn but the rest of us, the majority who reject your hate, will move ahead. You will be part of that petulant minority who cling to your prejudices.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but it is free speech. One has just as much right to say their beliefs as anyone else.
> ...



Oh, ok and no worries


----------



## paddymurphy (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


They seldom change to take rights away from people.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Supreme Court decisions typically require a Constitutional amendment to overturn them. That certainly won't be a viable option given a minimum of 3/4ths of the states are required to ratify such an amendment and gay marriage was already legal in 3/4ths of the states.

So what else ya got?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


That's right he has a choice... sell to the public or don't sell to the public.   His choice.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



But you said they should be separate....right? Look pal, save your BS, I'm already weary of it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


You lost me... why is civil rights a religious issue again?  Why do you think your right to bash gays over the head with a baseball bat is greater than their right not to be killed by you?

In the situation where a company is selling products to the public, the person who discriminates against a member of the public is the one doing harm... not the one BUYING THE PRODUCT ya fool.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I said I was done with it. You're deflecting all over and I'm not chasing after you. Go eat some bacon, it's  not a sin


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> I've got an idea.. why don't we agree to keep them separate and not try to establish some particular religion's biblical laws as the federal laws of the land.





SassyIrishLass said:


> Then no cakes if the baker doesn't want to, right?




What bakers have run afoul of Federal law?

Last I knew they had problems with State Public Accommodation laws, not Federal.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I'm deflecting?  Did I bring up cake baking?  No, I didn't.  

Are you retarded or something?


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Umm, it takes two to tango. You're welcome to gracefully bow out anytime you wish.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 29, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I've got an idea.. why don't we agree to keep them separate and not try to establish some particular religion's biblical laws as the federal laws of the land.
> ...


Apparently with this lass you can only have two out of three, sassy, irish, or intelligent.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


If you don't mind ... let's test your consistency ...

Marrying the person you love is a fundamental right and an essential aspect of the inalienable right to pursue happiness. If I'm  understanding you correctly, you seek to deny certain people that right because you believe they violate G-d's law by being gay, and the Bible prohibits such behavior....

... but worshipping G-d is also one of His laws ... do you believe people who don't worship G-d should also be denied the right to get married to each other even if they're heterosexual?


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 29, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


SassyIrishLass , contact me via Conversation or add me to the list of those who can see your profile.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 29, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



He wants to meet you in the gloryhole stall at the greyhound station. He already invited me.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Could be he suspects SIL is really a dude.


----------



## Hossfly (Jun 29, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I'm getting desperate, Cowboy.


----------



## TrinityPower (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You can't even bring yourself to type God yet demand a right to marry given by the creator to His people then say it isn't about God. He set the rules for it thousands of years ago, just because some men believe themselves to be intellectually more intelligent than the God who created and continues to create universes with words you keep right on a going. I won't participate in it


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




That's Leviticus. Problem #1) Leviticus (The Law in general actually) is a contract between the Jews and God.  The Jews get to live in the Holy Land under God's protection.  In exchange, the Jews had to follow The Law.  If you are not a Jew that lives in Israel, the Law does not apply to you.  This is why a former acquaintance of mine, who is also a Rabbi, does not keep Kosher Law. As he explained to me once, while he is a Jew, he lives in the United States.  Since, he is not accepting the gift of living in the Holy Land (God's part of the deal) he is not bound to the Law (the Jews' part of the deal).  So unless you are a Jew who lives in Israel, you can toss Leviticus over your shoulder.  It doesn't apply to you.

Problem #2) Read Galatians and acquaint yourself with Paul's Doctrine of Justification Through Faith.  Because of the sacrifice of Jesus, The Law is null and void. According to Paul, and Christian doctrine originating from Paul, living in Grace is what makes one right with God.  In fact, for Paul, if one follows the Law to demonstrate their commitment to God they render the sacrifice of Jesus irrelevant.  That's why Paul flipped a fucking bitch about people continuing to circumcise themselves. The act of circumcision is adherence to The Law.  If you accept Grace, the Law becomes irrelevant and so circumcision is not only unnecessary, it violates the entire concept of Paul's Doctrine of Justification Through Faith.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> see my post above - explaining the Levitical Laws....



See my post above explaining why, if you are a Christian, Levitical Law is totally irrelevant.  In what universe are Christians bound by Torah?  Did I slip into an alternate reality overnight?


----------



## RicO'Shea (Jun 29, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I don't hate gays.  It's just not a real marriage - and it's chipping away at the strength of our nation.
> 
> Where chaos rules; nations fail.



Really, the strength of our nation??? Where the hell did you get that from, Limbaugh? Chaos is the Christian conservative mind, they think they can control and dictate how others can live, AND their mind goes completely ape-shit when someone tells them they can no longer discriminate.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

TrinityPower said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


First of all, why are you even responding if you won't participate?? 

Secondly, no one made you an authority to decide which of G-d's laws need to be observed by others. That's G-d's doing, not yours.

Thirdly, not everyone believes in G-d, and for many who do, they don't believe in Him and His laws the way you do. Therefore, again, you do not speak for G-d.

Fourthly, gay marriage as has been established as a fundamental right according to the laws of this nation, does have nothing to do with G-d. Churches and temples and mosques can still deny gay marriage according to their faiths. What has changed is that the states can no longer deny gays their fundamental right to marry the person they love. That's not about G-d. That's about the secular law we live under since we are not, thank G-d, a theocracy.

And lastly, why do you think I choose to spell G-d this way?


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Not according to Jesus...
> 
> Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.



And according to Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus fulfilled the Law and the prophecies ushering in a new era of Judaism that abolished the old covenant and brought in a new one.  If you had read Chapter One of the book you quote, you would recognize that the author makes clear through the genealogy that every 14th generation something massive happens and Judaism changes.  After the first 14 generations, David came and established the royal line which dramatically changed everything.  14 generations later was the Babylonian exile which again dramatically changed everything.  Now 14 generations later, here comes Jesus ushering in yet another era wherein the prophecies are fulfilled, the old covenant is no more, and a new covenant is established.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> America...Love it or leave it as the conservative war monger said to the hippies in the 60s. Your turn now



And then they invaded Vietnam


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


B'chol Ivrit?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Not according to Jesus...
> ...


You're saying Paul knew something Jesus did not? Jesus said he did not come to change the law. Paul did not get to reverse that.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > TrinityPower said:
> ...


I'm hoping trinity will answer....


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 29, 2015)

Flopper said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> AME®ICANO SAID:
> 
> “I would agree with alternative, civil union. Because what they got now it's not marriage.”
> 
> ...


Two men cannot beget a baby. That makes their engagements acts of futility to say the very least, and unequal and inferior to the coupling of a man with a woman. Homosexuality is not supported by science/biology/procreation. Such is not ordained or blessed by God. Sexual prowess in not a logical or moral reason for society to promote or encourage homosexual acts.

I feel the United States will be punished. The United States has set itself apart from God and as such is presently a pagan nation in rebellion with the Creator. I also see that in allowing the White House to be bathed in multicolor lights Obama is setting himself up as a type of Anti-Christ. This maybe without Obamas realization; however, he is playing into the hands of the Deceiver and leading the nation.

All the power a government possesses comes from God. When a government acts in defiance to the Creator, that government is in dreadful danger because it is outstepping its authority.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Two seventy year olds, whether straight or gay, cannot beget a baby, yet both can marry.  Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Well....he did.  What Paul preached and what Jesus preached in regard to salvation are two different things.  According to Paul, and traditional Christian thought, Jesus made that statement as a prediction because He had not yet died and fulfilled the Law.  Therefore, what He said in Matthew 5 applied.  But the moment he died and was resurrected, it all became fulfilled.  Matthew 26:28 at the Last Supper says "_because this is *my blood of the new covenant* that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins_." (Matt26:28, ISV)

That's Paul's argument at least


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

Doesn't matter.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Homosexuality is not supported by science/biology/procreation.



You know flamingos (as well as some other species) demonstrate homosexual couples that mate for life.  Just tossing that out there in response to that science/biology/procreation argument.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Not according to Jesus...
> ...


Umm ... looks to me like there are only 13 generations between Babylon and Christ... 


Abraham
Isaac 
Jacob 
Judas 
Phares 
Esrom 
Aram 
Aminadab
Naasson
Salmon 
Booz 
Obed 
Jesse 
David 

Solomon
Roboam 
Abia 
Asa 
Josaphat
Joram 
Ozias 
Joatham 
Achaz 
Ezekias 
Manasses
Amon 
Josias 
Jechonias (exiled to Babylon)

Salathiel
Zorobabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Sadoc
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph
Jesus
Matthew 1 - KJV - Bible Study Tools


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two seventy year olds, whether straight or gay, cannot beget a baby, yet both can marry.  Thus endeth the lesson.


Abraham and Sarah did!  That is an historical Bible fact and the existence of the nation of Israel is the physical proof!


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Very good.  Scholars have been pointing that out for centuries.  But according to Matt 1:17 it says "_17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah_" (Matt. 1:17, NIV).  So it appears someone fucked up, huh?  Scholars believe that a scribe made an error in copying it, missed a name, that name was missed by later scribes that copied that scribe's copy and it kept getting copied incorrectly over and over and over from the copy to the copy of the copy to the copy of the copy of the copy (multiply that by about 1,000 years) until it comes to us today.  It's one of the many things that doesn't quite make sense, but clearly the author intended to make the point of the fourteen generations as he points it out specifically in 1:17.  Where the other name went?  Who the fuck knows

See you have learned something today.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Two seventy year olds, whether straight or gay, cannot beget a baby, yet both can marry.  Thus endeth the lesson.
> ...


Plenty of such stories exist without proof.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Pssst...I know you got this, Jake, but tag me if you need a breather.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 29, 2015)




----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 29, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Well, I do not know how many of "such stories" exist; however, none of them involve two men or two women -------- can you think of one?


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 29, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


You sound like a very learned person, so why use the "F" word?  It is demeaning towards women. Homosexuals enjoy the "F" word, which undermines their sexual value system with proof of its roots in vulgarity and cheap thrills...


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Two seventy year olds, whether straight or gay, cannot beget a baby, yet both can marry.  Thus endeth the lesson.
> ...


Umm, that was some 4,000 years ago when people lived to be 175 years old (according to the Bible).

That's no longer the case.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Fornication Under Consent of the King.


----------



## Faun (Jun 29, 2015)

Since this has become Bible hour ...

Pastor says gays should be put to death


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

Come one shitlibs, tell us how you really feel.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Come one shitlibs, tell us how you really feel.



I'm not a "shitlib" but I don't really care.  Why do you?  There always have been and always will be people who are in the "fringe" of society, so what is your point?


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Come one shitlibs, tell us how you really feel.
> ...



Yes, you are a shitlib.

I care because I am not a nihilist.

So you are saying marriage licenses should be granted to multiple partners who practice polyamory?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Why not?  Why should I care one bit?  This is what I wonder about you busy bodies.  Why not mind your business and worry about yourself?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Nope, sorry you are wrong.  I would know what I am far better than you.  Try to control your ugly nastiness for once in your life instead of trolling like a douche.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Because society shouldn't be promoting and sanctioning fringe degeneracy by giving them marriage licenses.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 29, 2015)

States can and should forego appeals to any federal court with regards to any and all socio-economic legal issues. Ignore them as the irrelevant and illegal entities that they have become.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Is this a free country or not?  Would you want the government being involved in your personal life?  I don't think it means society is promoting anything.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


LOL at the guy who supports polyamory talking about ugly nastiness. You have zero self awareness.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Not giving them a marriage license isn't denying them freedom. They are a fringe freaks, they can stay on that fringe as well. Socially degenerate lifestyles like polyamory should not be promoted by the state through marriage licenses. Society should discourage such anti-social attitudes as well, promoting procreation and monogamy, since this is the superior and far healthier lifetsyle for individuals and their children.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



You have no awareness, considering I'm a female.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



No, sorry, this is America and America is a free country for people to pursue their happiness and all that good stuff.  Your personal opinions, judgments don't really count for much to anyone but yourself.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Guys is a gender neutral term you bigot.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



No it isn't.  Not in the way you used it, duh.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Getting the state to sanction your degenerate sexual relationship isn't a freedom, it is a privilege that should not be granted to these damaging anti-social behaviors. Kids should not be growing up around some degenerate f-uck fest, and the state certainly shouldn't be endorsing the behavior by granting them licenses to have multiple partners in marriage. Children should be taken out of such abusive environments if anything.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


How did I use guy in a male way? So are you saying women cant be referred to as guys? 

Also, who cares if you are a woman? Do you prefer I call you are girl?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



There are plenty of "degenerate" heterosexual monogamous couples as well, who have children, abuse them, beat them, etc.  What makes you automatically assume that because the relationship dynamic is "different" that it must be abusive on some level?  Anyone can be a "degenerate."


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Since when are women referred to as "guys?"  That is not the case where I'm from.  Lol.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Children are far better off in a home with a mother and father than with a mother with multiple sex partners or a father with multiple sex partners. Exceptions to the rule don't break the general rule.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


In America all over the place, people say "you guys" all the time, to girls as well. You must never get off the internet. That also explains your moral and social retardation when it comes to polyamory. You don't get out much so you have no moral compass.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



While I might agree that the ideal home would have a mom and a dad, there is really no such thing as an "ideal" home.  Many homes that might seem ideal are not so ideal, like I said.  So what about all of those kids?  

I don't know if there are any studies that have shown conclusively and that are not biased as hell, that children fare any better, so I can't speak for that.  My issue with this is the marriage itself.  I don't think others should have a say in someone's private personal business, and especially not the government!


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Because it's a word created by man which does not offend God and for which there exists to adequate alternative.  It's a little like "asshole".  If you called me an asshole and I demanded that you find another word that means precisely the same thing, you would be pretty hard pressed to find one.  I mean we could say "jerk" but does "jerk" really mean the same thing as "asshole".  Well kind of but it doesn't really capture the poetic spirit of it, does it?  "Moron"?  Nah...that has to do with intelligence and an asshole is...well....an asshole.  You know...there's a difference.  Same thing with "fuck".  Find me another word that means the precise same thing and I will use it.  And as far as "demeaning toward women"....maybe you feel that way because women don't scream it out to you enough.In my experience, it's a pretty good thing.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 29, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



You were not referring to a group of people as "you guys" though!  Are you from this country?  

No, MY moral compass is fine.  I just don't feel the need to have to apply it to everyone else's private matters.  I'm not an old busy body.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 29, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You are an idiot.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 29, 2015)

Faun said:


> Since this has become Bible hour ...
> 
> Pastor says gays should be put to death




See... that pastor is an asshole.  LittleNipper....can you find a better word to describe him?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



This just shows that you have no argument.  What do you think this is?  Leave It To Beaver or something?  Lol.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You are also incredibly socially awkward. Debating a common gender neutral phrase. You guys is the plural of guy. 

No, your moral compass clearly isn't fine if you can't recognize how it would be harmful to the child for a mother or father or both to be engaged in multiple sexual relationships around the child. You are clearly missing some common sense. Probably from years of social isolation on the internet.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


There is no argument to be had, you are just blabbering on as that quote shows.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


guarantee you are older than me.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




That was established by your need for little blue pills


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Oh, so then you are probably just a child.  I think it's past your bedtime, little boy.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Sorry if you can't refute facts.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You are the one taking the blue pill if you think a child growing up in a polyamorous home is just as ideal for a child as a monogamous home with a mother and father.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You didn't state any "facts", you are a walking contradiction.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


How does it feel being a post menopausal cat lady? Don't you have anything better to do with your life than waste it away on the internet all day. actually scratch that question, I am sure you don't.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Mmm-hmmm.  Well, I'm not postmenopausal, I work full time and am not here all day, and I have no cats, but I do think I hear your mom calling you!


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Your only work is as an online poster, you might sell some shit on ebay or something. But you are a dumpy and obese middle aged woman with no life that has made 1916 posts this month. You don't get on the USMB leaderboard with a social life or a full time job.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Well, you would be wrong.  We've had this discussion before, you are either too old or too young to remember, I suppose.  I have pictures in my gallery.  How about you?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Oh, it's easy to get a high post count, Einstein.


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


how come you "sex-positive" creeps are always so ugly or mentally ill?


----------



## Steinlight (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


yea, when you have no life.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Just as I thought . . . you have no pictures because you nasty.    Sex positive?  You're the creep.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Nope, when you actually get into discussions with people, your post count goes up.  You wouldn't know what a discussion is though.

I imagine you are on most people's ignore list because you're a douchebag.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Maybe Methuselah saw something like that in his 900 years of living.  Doesn't matter, nipper.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL has kicked Steinie's degenerate butt.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 30, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There are no laws saying that people must eat pork.  There are no laws that say all restaurants must serve pork.  There are no protests against restaurants forcing them to serve pork.


Public accommodation laws must be a fixed Standard for Merchants in Commerce.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Do you think Jesus loved the sinner or the sin?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

Polygamy normally ends up with women being abused at a young age.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 30, 2015)

I believe we are "evolved" enough to simply "harass" the Judicature to intercede with the Establishment for us, instead of St. Pete.



> The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.
> -FDR


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



I think he said " Don't hate the player. Hate the game".


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I think he said repent your sins and go forth and sin no more........ But we both know homosexuals and any liberal libertarian wont do this.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> ChrisL has kicked Steinie's degenerate butt.



He should just consider himself lucky that he has the protection of being behind his computer screen!    Lol!


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



It's a sin to you perhaps.  Most people don't really care one way or the other if homosexuals get married or not.  I think we should leave them alone and let them do their thing.  By denying them marriage, you are only harassing these people.  They obviously don't follow your particular set of rules for living.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I find your sig to be rather ironic too.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


They will not be satisfied until their lifestyle is accepted as equal by everyone everywhere. They will not leave Christians alone.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



They should be equal.  They are human beings!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jun 30, 2015)

We know that thanatos refuses to repent; he has said so.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


I think he loved both. I think Jesus was a narcissist who thrived on sin since without it, he would have been out of business. He had to fool others into believing no matter how righteous they were, they were still a sinner, barring them from the Kingdom of G-d; and the only way in was through him. Sin was to him what ailments were to a charlatan "doctor" in a medicine show -- a marketing tool designed to draw in customers for which he had the cure.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Let me guess.. you're an ex-catholic.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 30, 2015)

I think for many, the issue with homosexuality isn't about denying them rights or hating on them etc.

I think the real Christian's out there don't like that fact that gay marriage is legalized because they believe that by gay marriage becoming "legal",  people will start to perceive it as acceptable, and maybe even, "okay" for a Christian to do.... their concern is FOR GOD and his ways, not AGAINST GAYS and their ways (most Christian's believe God considers Homosexuality as a sin and an abomination - you can argue against that, but, that won't change their belief.   They don't believe it because they hate gays, they believe it because they were taught that and feel scriptures back it up). 

Now, sex outside of marriage is also a sin.  But the issue with allowing gay marriage is that on top of homosexuality being a sin, Christian's view marriage as a HOLY union (vs. a legal union).

They see it as a breaking down of the moral fabric of our Country and worry that it is part of a trend that will bring this country into further decadence and moral decay.... and ultimately, Godly punishment.

If you can look at it as a LOVE for God and Country (even if you thinks it's mis-construed) and not has a hateful and controlling thing, you still won't agree, but, maybe you can partially understand or at least see where they might be coming from, from their point of view.

You can say, well, guess what, I think gay marriage is a right and this is fair and tough for you cause that's where we are at now in this Country .... but adding on that people are hateful, backward and narrow-minded is just not fair (but, that is not to say that some aren't...). 

But many really are good hearted, well intentioned people - people that would clothe and feed a homosexual person, and help them in a time of need.

I'm pretty sure I didn't word or say all this correctly, but I tried my best!


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 30, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I think for many, the issue with homosexuality isn't about denying them rights or hating on them etc.
> 
> I think the real Christian's out there don't like that fact that gay marriage is legalized because they believe that by gay marriage becoming "legal",  people will start to perceive it as acceptable, and maybe even, "okay" for a Christian to do.... their concern is FOR GOD and his ways, not AGAINST GAYS and their ways (most Christian's believe God considers Homosexuality as a sin and an abomination - you can argue against that, but, that won't change their belief.   They don't believe it because they hate gays, they believe it because they were taught that and feel scriptures back it up).
> 
> ...


Wrong.  Real Christians are not bigots.  But yes many Christians have been brought up to be bigoted against gays similar to the way they were brought up to be bigoted against blacks.  Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 30, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...





LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Wrong! Acceptance is a state of mind. Most people are smart enough to know that that can't change unwilling minds. It's about behavior. Your behavior and that of your ilk towards others who just want to be treated with fairness and equality. That will change!

Aside from that, you can torment yourself with the hatred that is festering in the recesses of your atrophied Neanderthal brain until the day that you die.

And to portray this a an epic battle between Christians and gays is just moronic


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Neither will any Conservative who criticizes Liberals.


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 30, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > I think for many, the issue with homosexuality isn't about denying them rights or hating on them etc.
> ...


 
The definition of a *bigot* is:  a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions

True Christians are not intolerant of any people.  They love them, and feel telling them about God and life they can have as a Christian, allowing God to be the master of their lives, is the best gift they can give them......

Do you think Jesus was a bigot?
What about his Apostles?


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Wrong.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> I think for many, the issue with homosexuality isn't about denying them rights or hating on them etc.
> 
> I think the real Christian's out there don't like that fact that gay marriage is legalized because they believe that by gay marriage becoming "legal",  people will start to perceive it as acceptable, and maybe even, "okay" for a Christian to do.... their concern is FOR GOD and his ways, not AGAINST GAYS and their ways (most Christian's believe God considers Homosexuality as a sin and an abomination - you can argue against that, but, that won't change their belief.   They don't believe it because they hate gays, they believe it because they were taught that and feel scriptures back it up).
> 
> ...


And this would be one of those, _It's none of your fucking business, _ moments.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 30, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


>>>Do you think Jesus was a bigot? No.  But he did express intolerance for the money changers.
>>>What about his Apostles? No.

The bigotry is usually from the people that teach bigotry against certain groups, for example, against blacks and interracial marriage up to the end of the last century, against gays even today, against islam, sometimes even against Catholics,...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


ok...


----------



## Bonzi (Jun 30, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> >>>Do you think Jesus was a bigot? No. But he did express intolerance for the money changers.
> >>>What about his Apostles? No.
> 
> The bigotry is usually from the people that teach bigotry against certain groups, for example, against blacks and interracial marriage up to the end of the last century, against gays even today, against islam, sometimes even against Catholics,...


 
Jesus and His Apostles were constantly preaching to people about salvation and telling them to turn from their sinful ways.
But you are right, there are bigoted people out there - Christian and non-Christian.

But not all Christian's are bigots.  That's all I was saying.....


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


There is quality, class, and the eternal. Homosexuality misses on all three points.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jun 30, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


What the hell are you talking about??


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


 Righteousness comes from God. Man is not righteous without God. I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist. A house divided cannot stand.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Sorry, I don't know what you mean.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



This is nothing but your own personal belief system.  Do you understand that other people do not share the same belief system that you do?


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Wrong, though G-d can inspire righteousness in people. Words have meaning, you should learn them.



LittleNipper said:


> I think you never read the Bible if you believe Jesus was a narcissist.


While I haven't read all of it, I have read much of both testaments.



LittleNipper said:


> A house divided cannot stand.


Then don't be so divisive.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


It means he _thinks_ he's superior.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


It is a sin to God.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


marriage is not a right it is a privilege and one where it was suppose to be left to each state not the politburo


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


who ever said they were unequal? You and your kind did no christian ever did.... So the true bigot is you and the liberal left.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Huh?  You statement doesn't make sense.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



That's your belief.  Everyone doesn't share your beliefs.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > I think for many, the issue with homosexuality isn't about denying them rights or hating on them etc.
> ...


Hey fuck you. Stop calling those who refuse to celebrate sin bigots .


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Speaking the truth isnt a sin.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


No christian ever treated them as unequal. Yet you do. You treat them as if they are something different from a human. As if all they are is who or what they fuck. It is really sick.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


No that is the word of God.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I do?  How so?  I said that people should NOT be judged on their sex lives.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Sorry but not everyone believes in a god or your god in particular.  That's just the way it is.


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Then why are you against them being married?


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Live and let live.  God doesn't need your help, I'm sure.


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Complete idiocy. In the United States, it is firmly established as not just a right, but a fundamental right as an important aspect of the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

_As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argument, if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise *the fundamental right to marry* in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character._ 
_* * *_​_No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. *The Constitution grants them that right.*

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed._​


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


The highest court in the land.

_Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. *They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.*_​


----------



## ChrisL (Jun 30, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I don't see how people can say that homosexuals are treated as "equals" when they do not want to allow them the same privileges that everyone else has!


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Really? Show me were truth matters ......

revile

to speak about (someone or something) in a very critical or insulting way

to subject to verbal abuse

to use abusive language​


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Bigots have to twist reality in order to justify it in their deformed minds.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



IMO, they don't have any right to "define" what marriage is to another person.  I also cannot understand how they can insinuate themselves into another person's life and happiness!


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Not everyone wants to or is qualified to become a Deacon.



> *1 Timothy 3:8-13*
> Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 1, 2015)

Some on the left believe we should compete with any other religionists, and claim we need double the wives of any other Religion, simply due to "moral inflation".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

It appears that in the wake of the court’s decision, it’s not only the Republican politicians and the preachers that are having meltdowns. ………..

Marriage Equality Ruling Sparks Rise In Anti-LGBT Violence (VIDEO)

We’re all celebrating because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that made marriage equality the law of the land, but as expected, there has been serious backlash from conservatives and other homophobes. Most supporters are brushing it off; after all, it’s a done deal. However, a more serious situation surrounding discontent with the ruling has come to light: A rise in anti-LGBT hate crimes.  Addicting Info Marriage Equality Ruling Sparks Rise In Anti-LGBT Violence VIDEO 

South Dakota County Clerk Threatens To Marry Her Dog To Oppose Gay Marriage
Not willing to set herself on fire, a South Dakota county clerk has decided to oppose gay marriage in a less painful but equally nonsensical way: She will try to marry her dog.

Once again proving that the only slippery slope exists in the fevered minds of the homophobe, the Sioux Falls resident apparently believes that if she were to marry her dog this would prove that gay marriage is wrong, although you would be hard pressed to figure out how.  South Dakota County Clerk Threatens To Marry Her Dog To Oppose Gay Marriage Addicting Info The Knowledge You Crave

*Tennessee Hardware Store Puts Up ‘No Gays Allowed’ Sign To Protest Marriage Equality (VIDEO)*
A Baptist minister and owner of a Tennessee hardware store is very concerned that “the gays” might handle his tools. Jeff Amyx, who owns Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies in Grainger County, Tennessee, reacted to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that the definition of “marriage” includes same-sex couples in pretty much the same way the rest of the conservative world did: with an immature and discriminatory action.  Addicting Info Tennessee Hardware Store Puts Up No Gays Allowed Sign To Protest Marriage Equality VIDEO


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It appears that in the wake of the court’s decision, it’s not only the Republican politicians and the preachers that are having meltdowns. ………..
> 
> Marriage Equality Ruling Sparks Rise In Anti-LGBT Violence (VIDEO)
> 
> ...



yeah sure. how do they know? they ask the criminals why they committed the crime? spare us all the how homosexuals are such  victims in this POOR poor life they have to live in. they can always move to another country. the only MELTDOWNS is coming from your leftwing HATE sites like addictinggarbageinfo


----------



## guno (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that in the wake of the court’s decision, it’s not only the Republican politicians and the preachers that are having meltdowns. ………..
> ...





Stephanie said:


> the only MELTDOWNS is coming from your leftwing



Sez the trailer dweller on the government dole, government cheese eater who has been having meltdowns since friday


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that in the wake of the court’s decision, it’s not only the Republican politicians and the preachers that are having meltdowns. ………..
> ...



OMG!  Are you serious?  I'm sorry, but your views are extreme.  This is America.  Gay people are human beings. There is absolutely no reason to deny them the rights and privileges that anyone else has.  It is not up to you to define another person's marriage.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


they ALEADY had all the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. they could marry all along. just not someone of their SEX of choosing. so sorry you can knock off the dramatics


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



No they don't.  It is up to them who they marry and not you.  Mind your business!


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



You and they should mind their own business. you don't like the truth be told. but people aren't going to be beat over the head any longer with the BS. People are tired of getting BENT over


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



That is just complete horseshit and you know it:


To say that gay people already have equal marriage rights is a logical fallacy in several ways:

*Non sequitur* (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a _non sequitur_, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of _non sequitur_. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.

In this case  the conclusion, that they already have equal rights is based on the premise that, like heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex. However, that can only be true if marriage were strictly a legal/ business arrangement and not a personal/ romantic one. The conclusion ignores the fact that the premise is faulty because it ignores the fact that gay people do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex.
____________________________________________________________________

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that  a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex.  ( Insert reference to McGreevy) The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays.In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and  the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more.  It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. Choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to  be with the person who they desire,  but to do so would require that they  forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



You are the one sticking your nose into other people's business.  What are you so scared of?


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



So, why don't you, all knowing Stephanie, tell us what the real truth is then?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that in the wake of the court’s decision, it’s not only the Republican politicians and the preachers that are having meltdowns. ………..
> ...



What are you blathering about? It's not even coherent. It seems to me that it's the bigots and religious wing nuts who are playing victim since Friday.  Wha ! Whaaaa!! Whaaaaa! I want my religious freedom!!


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


What the fuck makes you think 9 unelected people have that right?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


Truth hurts huh?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The truth that you are bigoted little man? That isn't a secret you despicable little man.... Just come out of the closet already.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


shut up. go back to addicting info. they are jerks there too. I won't be beat down by you on the left ugly shit like this post of yours


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


I'm bigoted against bigots like you, yes.  Why don't you put your stones down and go home.  Gays may be legally married now.  Your fight to keep your boot on their necks has been lost.  You are the weak ass bully that has been shamed.  You are dismissed.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

You see. they get what they want but here they are still going around calling everyone names. like bigot. when are you people going to take a stand?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.

and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> You see. they get what they want but here they are still going around calling everyone names. like bigot. when are you people going to take a stand?


ok ok... why is bigot a bad word to use?

Is it not appropriate to call someone that does not want a minority group to have the same freedoms that other groups have a bigot against that group?  

For example, are we as a nation not bigoted against islamic radical terrorists?

I think it's ok to be bigoted against some groups and not against others... it sort of depends on whether those groups really are the "enemy" or not. 

I don't see gays as the enemy.  Nambla, yes, that's an enemy.  I'm a bigot against that minority group.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Sounds like you're becoming unhinged !!


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > You see. they get what they want but here they are still going around calling everyone names. like bigot. when are you people going to take a stand?
> ...



I didn't mean the way you put it. I'm talking about the homosexual mafia out in force on here


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



yeah, typical when someone stands up to you bullies


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.
> 
> and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again


YES THEY CAN! Just like they forced desegregation. Get over it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.
> 
> and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again


The people do not have to bow down to the SCOTUS.  That's not the point.

I see what you are saying with regard to the tone of the discussions.

It's time for the gay community to be honorable in their win... not to rub faces.  But I don't see them here rubbing faces.  What I see is democrats rubbing republican faces..


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.
> ...



No they can't. states rights overrules all you fascist. so you can stop with the drama words like desegregation,, slavery, blaa blaaa


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.
> ...



thank you. if you look at his post from addicting info he claimed Republicans were melting down. so he's far from one who is honorable


----------



## Camp (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Yes they can. That is why there is no confederate states of America.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Yes, ok.  I agree there are radical elements said mafia that I'm also against.  Just as I'm against the radical elements in the catholic mafia   It would seem most groups have their radical elements.  

These radical elements try to usurp their groups.  

However, I would point out that more often than not the radical elements are not "running" the group, they are just the ones the media likes to put in front of the camera to sell air time.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



We all need to be somewhat careful in our generalizations.  While it would be accurate to say some republicans are melting down... as evidenced through the media anyway, it is not accurate to say all republicans are melting down.  

I've not spoken to a single republican that is against secular gay marriage in a very long time.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I not upset with them marrying anyone. what I am upset with is this Supreme court. How they think they can come out and just override a peoples votes in their states and overrule a States rights,  is what has me burning. I'm not sure if this over.  but we are having it shoved in our faces like they always do when they think they've won something. and again it's all being done over the majority of the people in the country for a 3% of people


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Edited to clarify...

States rights rule over some things and not others.  States should have been able to decide for themselves whether they will provide marriage licenses but should not have been able to take away a marriage license provided by another state.  However, if they do provide marriage licenses, they should not have been able to select one pairing over another based on discrimination.  The reason is they are required to treat everyone equally under the law.  Nor can they decide for the country whether marriage licenses will be provided for any particular group.  So, because we have freedom of travel, and freedom from discrimination, there are some things the states can't rule over.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I think you have it backwards.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.



Yes, a lot of people have been saying that. get governments out the marriage business. So that could be next. thanks for taking the time for your input. all good stuff.
I can get ticked when I see post of how Republicans are supposedly having meltdowns over all this from sites like addicting info. all that is being used for is to stir up hate in my book.
thanks again


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.
> ...


I get ticked when that happens too.  Just recognize that they are "trolling" you... they are using this decision to empower themselves in our divisive on-going political war between the left and right.  The more you express your anger at them the more power you give them.  This is called feeding the troll.  Course, I'm just as guilty myself.  Sometimes you just can't help it


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



yes, I should always remember that. but. lol


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.
> ...


LOL  ! Dum ass Ted Cruz said that last Thursday and Friday were among the darkest days in American History! That is not having a meltdown??


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


That's not a meltdown that's a war drum.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
Does it get any darker than allowing the government to give healthcare subsidies and allowing two people who love each other to marry?

That dwarfs the stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, JFKs assasination and 9-11


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


You can't trust a word Cruz says.  The guys's both a politician and a lawyer...


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

*The  Supreme Court  takes its powers from Article III  of the Constitution.  Article III, §1  provides  that  "the  judicial power of the United States,  shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."  In accordance with this provision, the Suprem Court of the United States was created by the authority of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  The Court met for the first time on February 2, 1790.*

[...]

*EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW* — These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence.

"The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans . . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom.

To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

~ The Supreme Court in the American System of Government


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That's the system of government we live in. You don't like it? Too fucking bad. The best part? There's nothing you can do about it except move to a country which doesn't have the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.



Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly  by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like. They take this position as an alternative to the legalization of gay marriage and assert that in the absence of government regulation anyone can form a union-via contract- with anyone else who they chose to, and call it whatever they want. I suspect that those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to stave off the day when such nuptials are universally recognized by government.  Other just hate anything that the government does. The idea it seems is to sink the ship in order to drown the rats. In addition, I have yet to hear any real  explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

 I believe that it is wrought with problems and pitfalls, and promoted by people who do not really want it to come to that-indeed they don’t believe that it will-but who are also being coy about their opposition to equality or government regulation of anything. However, far be it from me-the Progressive Patriot- to jump to conclusions or rush to judgment so I decided to take a closer look.

First, let us consider why marriage is something that is regulated by the government in the first place. It is true that for centuries, marriage was in fact a private affair between families.  However it is also true that the practice of requiring marriage licenses dates back more than 400 years in England. (When those opposed to gay marriage talk about tradition, I say, now there is tradition! A tradition that you might want to think twice about discarding)

This license requirement came about because ” 





> …. When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.” The American colonies later adapted many of the same customs and laws. Gradually, the states began to exercise greater control over who one could marry and a major concern was to prevent inter racial marriage. Later, the primary reason for government control of marriage licenses remains for vital statistics recording and continues as a source of revenue for local and state governments. Source: http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html#ixzz2sg0BKysk



It’s interesting to note that while marriage licenses came about in England at the behest of the state run church, and the church continued to have enormous influence in the colonies , once the United States came into being, there was no longer a state church and in fact a state church was specifically prohibited. However, concessions were made to the church such as granting tax exempt status, and most notable with respect to marriage, clergy were afforded the right to perform wedding ceremonies that result in a legally binding union under the law. Some would say that doing so blurs the lines between church and state. 

So on the surface, it may seem at this point that government regulation came about for the wrong reasons or is no longer relevant:


Interracial marriage is no longer an issue


There is no state sponsored church that has official influence on government so presumably, government could pull out of the marriage regulation business if chose to.


Marriage licenses are probably not a significant source of revenue, it is restricted to local government and it is not a reason to require legal marriage that most people would endorse.


Public health and vital statistics could be compiled by the census and through the registration of those private contracts

But wait! What is a “private contract” Not being a student of midlevel history, I don’t know what the concept of “contract” was then. However, I know that in our system of government and law, a contract is a legal construct that is it is created by law. Its execution and desolation is controlled by statute, and only government creates statutory law. So I submit to you that to get government “out of marriage” is not a choice under the contemporary definition of contract

Ok, so some government involvement is inevitable. But you might say if those contracts are regulated by government, why can’t they just be like any other contract such as one you might enter into with an employer, or someone remodeling your home. What makes a “marriage contract” special? Why require a license to enter into a marriage contract, but not other contracts?

As it turns out, there is at least one supporter of traditional marriage who think that it would, in fact be a very bad idea to remove the government sanction and regulation of marriage.



> Robert George, one of the *leading voices contending for traditional marriage* today, along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, have written a thorough and well-documented piece in the_ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy _entitled _What is Marriage?_ *Among other things, they argue that attempts to stop government from regulating marriage are naive at best and ruinous at worst. *



*They go on to say: *



> _“Almost no society that has left us a trace of itself has done without some regulation of sexual relationships…The wellbeing of children gives us powerful prudential reasons to recognize and protect marriage legally”._
> 
> _*And while a main concern of theirs stems from an opposition of extension of marriage to gays, they have much more to say in support of government regulation. *_
> 
> “…… the government cannot simply bow out of the marriage regulation business, as divorces will still have to be adjudicated, for there will inevitably be disputes over marital unfaithfulness, assets, and custody of children. The state will have to involve itself in disentangling the mess after traditional marriage has been thus dismantled. This is why the libertarian argument fails. For a true libertarian would surely want less governmental intrusion into our private lives, but the de-regulation of marriage would in fact lead to more of it”.



And:




> “_Although some libertarians propose to “privatize” marriage, treating marriages the way we treat baptisms and bar mitzvahs, _*supporters of limited government should recognize that marriage privatization would be a catastrophe for limited government.*_ In the absence of a flourishing marriage culture, families often fail to form, or to achieve and maintain stability. As absentee fathers and out‐of‐wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies follows.”_
> 
> *http://russellandduenes.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/should-we-do-away-with-all-governmental-regulation-of-marriage/*



In addition, for many people, religious or not, marriage is still a special covenant, a statement about commitment and a status that is still valued. It is a word and a concept that has universal meaning. While traditionalist rail against same sex marriage as devaluing marriage as we know it, while at the same time saying  that marriage is no different than other contracts  and not recognize it as special  is the height of hypocrisy. The fact is that to reduce it to a simple contract  would be the ultimate blow to the institution and its value.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is what the constitution and case law says. Read the freakin thing. Read some cases. Educate yourself.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.



I'm sure that there are a lot of different-sex couples that would be please that their "Civil Union" certificate isn't recognized across state lines and not recognized by the Federal government.


>>>>


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

*
Now Hear This People!!

Federal Judge Orders Alabama Judges To Issue Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples Period. - The New Civil Rights Movement




			Despite Chief Justice Roy Moore's best efforts to sow confusion and fear into same-sex couples and probate judges, same-sex couples will be marrying in the state of Alabama. Federal Judge Callie Granade, who several times now has struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, today has issued an order to Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange and all defendants mandating they issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On Monday, Justice Moore announced that the Supreme Court's ruling was not in effect, and said that probate judges could not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Hours later, he backed down, claimed he misspoke, and said they "may," but were not legally obligated to do so, creating mass confusion and frustration – and opportunity for those who do not wish to support  equality

Click to expand...

*


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.
> ...


Yeah well, though I'm a heterosexual, I'm all for same sex marriage.  As for the marriage license thing.. The contracts are still needed and I'm not saying that should go away.  I'm just saying call it a civil license so as not to mix the religious language thing.  Thus marriage is more a anarchistic term used by religious folk and those who desire to call their government managed civil union a marriage.  Whatever... but the government should not be implying that the civil union license (currently called a marriage license) is a religious construct.    No need to make this all deep and shit.. just rename the damn thing at the state government level to make everyone feel better.

However if it's too much work for a state to change the name to civil union... lol fine stop complaining about it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > My recommendation to a state that does not like this ruling is to stop providing marriage licenses at all, and instead issue civil union certificates or something.  IOW now they might agree it is time for governments to get out of the marriage business.  Leave marriage to the people.  Let governments manage civil union contracts.  Drop all these silly marriage laws.
> ...


Heh... fun shit.  Grats to the same sex folks sorry it took this long and I apologize for the behavior of my fellow Christians for being so... un-Christian like.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




Yes, A variation on the government out of marriage theme has been the suggestion that  marriage be preserved only as a religious institution while all those who do not want a religious nuptial-both gay and straight- are relegated to civil unions  Til Death Do Us Part The End of Government Regulation of Marriage and the Emergence of Domestic Partnership Contracts The People Ideas and Things PIT Journal

Now, I, like you am a heterosexual and obviously in favor of gay marriage. Unlike you, I am an atheist. I am also married, and enjoy the right to call it marriage because that is what it is. Marriage is a word that has meaning and is universally understood. Anyone tries to deny me the right to call it marriage is going to have a problem with me. Religion does not own the word “marriage’ , least of all at this point in history in the U.S.


While this might solve the issue of equality between gays and straights and avoid the issue of government recognition of same sex marriage, it sets up another dichotomy – that between religious unions and others. It would be just another form of discrimination. In short, it is just another unnecessary, pointless and losing proposition that nobody is going to go for. It would also appear that those –like me-who want to call their union ”marriage” without the religious aspects would have a strong case for religious discrimination.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Perhaps, you miss my point.  

Government manages a contract currently called a "marriage."  The exact same contract could be called... fubar.  Come and get your fubar licence, previously named "marriage" license.  The story would go that the new name means the same but the people got all whiny about government using the name,  we had to rename it to something that is non-descriptive as a substitute word to placate the bastards who can't stand thinking about same sex and plural marriages sharing the word marriage.  Why?  Because many people are fundamentally selfish.  

If you prefer you can call it "the" license or pairing licence or nuputal licence.  I really don't care what name you call your "coupling."  Just because the government puts the word "license" on the damn piece of paper does not mean it's not the license you use for your "marriage."   

Now when it comes to colloquial language, yeah most people will still call it a marriage, but I'd guess some gay folks would be proud to call their's a same sex marriage.  But recognize that adjectives are just... adjectives.   Hell some people call it your ball and chain license.  Really what the hell does it matter?  All these names mean the same thing...  two or more consenting adults decided to stay together and share a life... potentially for the rest of their days.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 1, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


A single Mom age 22 with a wage of $1250/mo ($15,000/yr) in the state of Louisiana and one child will receive $98 to $105/mo or $1,176 to $1,260/yr, no where near $5,000 year. 
FNS SNAP Program Eligibility Screening Tool


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I think that you missed my point. The word "marriage" matters and you cant use different terms for religious vs. civil marriage because that is discriminatory. The only thing that makes sense is marriage for all. I am not going to pander to the religious wing-nutters and  call non religious unions anything else. This does not have to be complicated, and you know what? Since last Friday it's not. Everyone gets married and that is that.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.
> 
> and then when a states comes out and says, hell no...they go off again




What happened when some states refused to follow a federal order to end segregation?  How did that work out for George Wallace?


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I am a Republican and a Christian and I have been a supporter of SSM from the start of the debate.  I supported it as a Republican because Republicans are supposed to be about equal rights for all Americans.  It's what our party was created for and what we have always fought for.  I supported it as a Christian because the Bible says to treat your neighbor as you would treat yourself, remove the log from your own eye before worrying about the speck in another's, and to allow God to be the judge.  In view view, supporting SSM is the most Republican and Christian thing one can do.  Why the rest of my distinguished colleagues on the right and in the churches can't figure that out is beyond me.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Marriage in a religious sense can certain be different than a civil marriage. Ask any Catholic.  However, the gay marriage issue was strictly a legal issue, not a religious issue although some people may not see it that way.

Some churches already recognize and perform gay marriages and other over time will.  Some may never, just as some churches don't perform mix marriages.

When SCOTUS made gay marriages legal, it assured gays equal protection under the law. That's what it's all about.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


No the word marriage does not matter.  It's just a word.  And yes different words ARE USED ALL THE TIME.  And no using a word IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY.  It's called language.  Yes since last Friday this is a done deal.  FYI at my church when I got married they called it holy matrimony, nuptuals, and other words were also used  for example joining of two people..

My point was the states can still do stupid things to placate stupid people.  For example, they can call marriages license in their state civil unions.   Here watch..

_*CIVIL UNION LICENSE*_
aka. marriage license in the other 56 states.​


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Sorry but your irrational hatred and personal beliefs do not apply to anyone else but yourself.  THAT is something you need to understand.  Other people do not want to, nor do they have to live by your rules or have your approval.  Where does your sense of self importance when it comes to other people's LIVES come from?  Where do you get off?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Your ignorance is astounding. How is allowing 5 people make law for all of the country a good thing dip shit? You fucking wish to be allowed to marry your homosexual lover clouds your reason.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 1, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


No it is not....Not even close.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 1, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You need to read the Constitution again because it most definitely does not say 9 people rule the country.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Hey fuck face the only hate is from you.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 1, 2015)

Have to love the hate coming from the left here.... If I dont like fascism I hate homosexuals LMAO what a bunch of assholes LOL


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Read the Constitution. Read case Law. Learn.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


What is this? Is there supposed to e a link showing that some states have replaced marriage w/ civil unions? The word matters.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


They did not make a law.

They affirmed gays have the same rights as everyone else.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


You're a fucking imbecile.

Our Constitution worked exactly as designed. People had a grievance and sought redress through our justice system. I understand it bugs the shit out of you because your side lost, but that's how the justice system works. There are winners and there are losers.

You're the loser. 

So you bitch and moan because that's all you can do. It's music to my Liberal ears.


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


It would be a waste of time ... that one is inducible,.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Have to love the hate coming from the left here.... If I dont like fascism I hate homosexuals LMAO what a bunch of assholes LOL


----------



## Flopper (Jul 1, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Article III Section 2 of the Constitution certainly gives the Supreme Court the power to decide whether any person or group is being denied equal protection as defined in the 14th Amendment.  You may disagree with their decision but they certainly have the right to render that decision

.Article III Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Have to love the hate coming from the left here.... If I dont like fascism I hate homosexuals LMAO what a bunch of assholes LOL


You'll get over it , or you won't. No one really cares. The bigots lost. Have a nice day.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 2, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Every time you open your mouth you prove your ignorance. I'm not gay ya dumb ass.  

The gays already had the right to marry, ya dumb ass.  What the SCOTUS did was rule that States can't take away that right, ya dumb ass.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2015)

I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows

snip:
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
The Supreme Court handed the gay community tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.
By Paul Rosnick





By Paul Rosnick
July 2, 2015





*wrote an opinion piece** for The Federalist explaining why I, as a gay man, opposed same-sex marriage.* After last week’s Supreme Court ruling, I find myself on the “wrong side of history,” but the right side of the facts—an incredibly frustrating place to be.

I write now, not to defend the traditional institution of marriage, but to encourage my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community to step up to the great responsibility that is now before them.

The beloved Uncle Ben from Marvel’s “Spider Man” put it nicely when he said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Supreme Court handed the gay community a tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.

Unfortunately, I fear that the gay community at large is not ready to handle this responsibility. Contrary to what is often portrayed in the media and on television shows like “Modern Family,” LGBT culture is far from “family friendly.”

*Gay Culture Is Not Family-Friendly*
*
all of it here
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power*


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows
> 
> snip:
> What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
> ...


It's not a power, ya dildo ... it's equality.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



It appears that you are becoming unhinged over this. So sorry!!


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 2, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Nope, you are the hateful one.  You think you are superior to other human beings because they are different from you, and you want to force them to conform to your belief system.  The epitome of a tyrant.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)




----------



## ChrisL (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>



You know, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment too.    I really want people to be free to make their own decisions regarding their own lives basically, without government interference.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Jindal and a few other recalcitrant ass hats need to be held in contempt of court!



> Bobby Jindal Again Halts Louisiana State Agencies From Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages  Bobby Jindal Again Halts Louisiana State Agencies From Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages - The New Civil Rights Movement





> *LOOK: Bobby Jindal Signed An Executive Order Giving Clerks Religious Right To Not Issue Marriage Licenses*
> 
> Gov. Bobby Jindal, running for the Republican nomination for president on a strong Christian platform, on Wednesday night refused to comply.
> 
> "Jindal has decided Louisiana same-sex couples need to wait for yet another court's decision," _The Times-Picayune_ reported late Wednesday night. "Our agencies will follow the Louisiana Constitution until the District Court orders us otherwise," Reed now says.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jindal and a few other recalcitrant ass hats need to be held in contempt of court!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Asshat^^^^^


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 2, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > what's more scary than anything is these people really think the Supreme court can FORCE a state and the people in it to bow down to this.
> ...




It turned him into a Presidential candidate that almost took it all in 72

Why? Whats your fucking point?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>



A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.

Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




roflmao, you libtards are just hilarious.  You see no gun rights as civil rights, but you see case law as the same thing as being in the Constitution when it suits you.

Don't you get it yet? Everyone realizes that you guys are a bunch of slimy lying ideological Nazis who will say  anything no matter how stupid, tell any lie no matter how transparent and just twist the law however you can.

No one thinks you fucktards have any integrity, honor, honesty or can even think straight. You are just fonts for leftwing bullshit, that is all.

Right now you have the country buffaloed into thinking that they are a minority when they are not. Once enough realize what the true situation is and take control of the GOP, things will improve much.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



I am never more convinced that I'm right when a right wing nut go off on a rant and has to resort to name calling and flame baiting. So is that all that you have ?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 2, 2015)

Lol, again demonstrating the idiocy of libtards......



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am never more convinced that I'm right when a right wing nut go off on a rant and has to resort to name calling and flame baiting. So is that all that you have ?



You really cant see what you just did there, can you?

Just cant get enough of you stupid fucks. You make my day so light and full of laughter.....


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 2, 2015)

Pretty funny stuff.. guy goes off on a rant complaining about someone else going off on a rant.

Yeah it's no surprise to me when authoritarians come out in favor of liberty for the actions and desires of the people that they support and then summarily dismiss liberty for the actions and desires of the "other" side.  Hilarious.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows
> 
> snip:
> What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
> ...


----------



## Flopper (Jul 2, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows
> ...


Seeing that 50% of all first marriages of heterosexual couples end in divorce and 40% of heterosexual divorced couples have children, I really doubt that gay and lesbian couples will do any worse.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A false analogy. Apples and oranges. Gun rights are not civil rights. It is a public safety question and government has a legitimate and compelling interest in limiting gun possession as a right. At the same time, no one is arguing that there is no rights to gun ownership at all.
> 
> Same sex marriage is and has indeed been found in the 14th Amendment. No one state was able to provide so much as a rational basis-leave alone a compelling interest- for bans on same sex marriage



Actually, regarding the gun rights, elected representatives of States are obligated to enact gun laws meant to achieve the _security_ and _domestic Tranquility_ of our free States; according to the _maturity_ level of their Constituency.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> I was reading this. could be why a lot of people still oppose this ruling and lifestyle.. who knows
> 
> snip:
> What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
> ...




I see that you like to mindlessly copy and paste this sort of inane equine excrement without any thought or analysis. That’s OK, I can do that for you. This is just another smear of gay men that provided no evidence to back it up. This is a highly biased piece that fails miserably to make a case against same sex marriage and parents.

In the article What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power ,  The Dutch study http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/11/20030711-121254-3711r/?page=all which was a survey from 2003 states that gay couples do not stay together as long as heterosexuals .and are sexually active outside of the relationship  than heterosexuals.

However, no methodology –such as what variables if any were controlled for is described. . How was it determined that gay men are so much more sexually active with different partners than straight men are?. Where are the empirical studies that control for intervening variables such as marital status?

More importantly, I submit to you that none of this constitutes a case against same sex marriage and common sense would tell you that marriage is likely to have a positive impact on the longevity and fidelity of relationships. It could well be that gay men who have marriage available to them, or at least have community and family support for their relationships are no more promiscuous than their straight counterparts?

The National Institute of Health study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2906147/ discusses the various sexual lifestyles and relationship agreements of gay men, with an eye towards the HIV issue, while there is no comparison at all with heterosexual couples. In addition, it is from 2010 when marriage was only possible in a few states. Again, this is hardly a case against marriage and child rearing.

The UCLA Study states that



> they are promiscuous because they are _men_. (Not gay men, but men) Women temper the baser instincts of men. Without the moderating effects of womanhood, or an overwhelming moral code, men give in to primal urges. Perhaps that is why lesbians are twice as likely to get married as gay men, according to a study by researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles


.

In addition, this part is glossed over in that study



> In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates of different-sex couples. The percentage of those same sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually.




The opinion piece that he refers to is, well, just that, an opinion by Paul Rosnick which is a pseudonym.  In that piece, he claims that many gays and lesbians are against marriage. Well, so are many heterosexuals. He touches on the failed argument of procreation which is not a requirement or expectation of marriage and ignores the fact that gay people do have children and raise children.

 In addition, he states that children in the care of gay parents had to have been removed from a biological parent and ignores that fact that that child already had lost a biological parent through circumstances that would have occurred anyway.

Also, even if they do have multiple sexual partners, it does not mean that it is going to lead to splitting up or an unstable home for children. Many straight couple are openly non monogamous and that in fact can lead to greater longevity in a relationship. 

I will add that gay men and lesbians have had children in their care long before marriage was possible. It is now estimated that there are upwards of two million in the US .Any increase in that number as the result of marriage is likely to be small. On the other hand, marriage will mean that numerous children who are currently in the care of gay people will have the opportunity to have married parents who are both their legal guardian, and that can only e beneficial to the children.

Lastly, the author cites hedonism and flamboyancy as reasons why gay people should not have children. That is the stupidest assertion of the whole piece. How often do gays engage in such behavior and what evidence is there that their children are involved,? Maybe people who attend Mardi Gras and spring break festivities should not have children either.. And as I said before gay people will have children whether anyone likes it or not and whether or not they can marry


I enjoyed this ! Thank you Stephanie!!


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Let's see progbrained, is GUN RIGHTS a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and spelled out specifically as such? (Come on deny it, so I can throw more rocks at you!) What amendment, and don't tell me the 14th amendment that was SPECIFICALLY set up to deal with FREED SLAVES, of which the queer nation WASN'T, is in the Constitution!

Interpretation, WRONGLY, by a majority of 5 ASSHOLES, UNELECTED ASSHOLES in black robes, and specifically One of the biggest assholes named Kennedy has turned our culture on it's ear, for their OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS! NOTHING to do with law!

Two things they could have done, send it back to the states where it REALLY BELONGS to be handled, OR MAKE A NEW GENDRE out of fags marrying and call it a CIVIL UNION where 2 fruits have exactly the same rights as a married man and woman, BUT it is a different category.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



The 14th amendment refers to all people and persons.  Whether that person is black or homosexual, they have an inherent right to equal protection under the law


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



No it doesn't, it specifically was put in there for Slavery, and NOTHING ELSE! You and SCOTUS continue to interpret it....POORLY!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk



When was it written asshat? Was QUEER NATION even thought about then, and riddle me this Statfuckingnameis, in over 135 years why take so long to even bring this up? You mean in 135 years EVERYONE but a few cocksuckers were unaware of this?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.
> ...


You seem angry and you seem to think you can insult people and it will somehow bother them, but you fail at it miserably. I am well aware of when the 14th was written and later, ratified, and smart people know of the circumstances leading up to its creation, but it was very deliberately worded to cover more than the issues of personal liberty related to slavery. In other words, the people who penned the 14th showed great foresight.

So, instead of trolling, learn to debate like an adult.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 2, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


If the amendment were meant to specifically apply just to blacks, it could have said so


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



NO, it wasn't worded to cover ANY OTHER issue....if so show me a link to somewhere back in the late 1860's to 1890's where it is mentioned by anyone of any renown! You're full of crap, and deserve insulting because YOU are insulting!

Heil Hitlery!


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.
> ...



It didn't have to, everyone BACK THEN knew EXACTLY what it referred to, they weren't Wesley little scumbags back then, they were men which Progs today aren't! You people are missing morals, ethics and principles, along with wanting to tear down our culture that has stood Wars for over 200 years!


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 2, 2015)

The court reiterated what lower courts have been saying. The state has proven no adverse impact on society from same sex marriage


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




Wow Zoro!! Calm the fuck down. Don’t have a stroke. The 2nd Amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The right to bear arms is in that same sentence. Yes, there is room for interpretation as to whether that means individuals or just militia groups, but” well regulated “ is the operative word while gun nuts want no regulations. It defiantly does not say that every mentally unstable yahoo can have as many assault weapons that they want-but that is what you guys mean by gun rights. All rights have limits and gun rights are limited by the need to ensure public safety which is a compelling state interst

Now, you want to talk about the 14th amendment? The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.



> The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
> 
> First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm



And consider this as well:



> On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
> 
> The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
> 
> ...



It’s pretty clear what the intent was.  It has been applied in a wide variety of cases  that did  not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.



> In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
> 
> “Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
> 
> ...



You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established  Marriage as a Fundamental Right  http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here  are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment.  Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??




> _Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson_, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
> 
> 
> _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
> ...



There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same  sex marriage is in fact  a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.


Lastly Civil Unions are horseshit and do not result in equality. More on that later. I don’t want to overwhelm your limited capacity to understand things.

Keep it coming if you enjoy getting smacked down so much.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...





OH, I see you've met Vigilante..... good luck with that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



You can quote SCOTUS all you want MARRIAGE is not a RIGHT!

"May was a game-changer for the national conversation on homosexual marriage.

On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1. The ballot measure changed the state's constitution to define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman. The approximately 61 percent to 39 percent vote in favor of the Amendment 1 makes North Carolina the 30th state to vote against homosexual marriage.

The very next day, to the surprise of exactly no one, President Barack Obama finally stated this belief: "At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me — personally — it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Of course, both of these incidents revved up the debate over the legalization of homosexual marriage and its consequences. But there are several issues regarding homosexual marriage that have yet to be given the proper discussion they deserve.

The first is the notion of "rights." Homosexual marriage advocates argue that marriage is a basic right. Denying this right to homosexuals would therefore be illegal. That's not true. There's no right to marry contained in the U.S. Constitution.

Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."

Marriage is Not a Right

SCOTUS is NOT the final word, but apparently you aren't nuanced enough to understand that!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



This amendment!???



> On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61.04% to 38.96%, *with a voter turnout of 34.66%.**[3]*
> 
> State law already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.[4] *The amendment was found unconstitutional in federal court on October 10, 2014.*



Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



They did not send it back to the states because that is not where it belongs. They could have remanded it back to the 6th circuit with instructions to apply a higher level of scrutiny, but Kennedy chose to do that himself.  What ever happened to you in life to make you so hateful??


As far as civil union go....I wrote this a while back:






> The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had  all the same rights and protections, naturalized  citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is.  It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?
> 
> 
> Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html
> ...


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Nothing the matter with me,. It's a States Rights Issue, the state voted and the federal court has no authority to OVERTURN A LEGITIMATE MANDATE by the PEOPLE... THAT'S the way it should work, but it has been CORRUPTED by scumbag liberals and their flunkies in the Federal gov't!

Apparently you fail to address ...Our *Constitution* created a *federal government* with only enumerated *powers. * All *powers not* listed were reserved *to the states and people*.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



They OVER REACHED their authority! Simple answer, but I do enjoy all your useless work!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




Nice meltdown. Proceed, Gov. Vagisil, proceed.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Making you happy NaziBoy, is one of my goals!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Lets see if you can possibly understand this. It's a little complicated and sophisticated so I'll understand if you can't but give it a try:




> *Penumbras of the Constitution:*
> 
> *charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation  **http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702*
> 
> ...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




Anyone stupid enough to think that Jew is a "NaziBoy" has indeed already earned his "batshit crazy for life" membership card.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Brilliant.!! Just fucking brilliant.,. Call me a Nazi. It would appear that you have become unhinged.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Let's see if you understand pictures, you seem to be hung up on SCOTUS words..






























Need more pictures to explain things to you?


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



George Soros...I rest my case...LOOK a 2 WORD WIN!!!!!!


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I call you a Socialist, I call Stathisfuckingnameis a Nazi!


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


You're a piece of shit moron.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Moi?


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 2, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




My fucking point is that he refused to obey a federal order so the U.S. Army's 2nd Infantry forced him to.


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...




But here's the difference.  The Supreme Court's interpretation actually *matters *where yours is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Yepp.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



True, but where is the outrage when Obama refuses to obey courts?

Obama s Gangster Government Operates Above the Law RealClearPolitics


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




Oh I bitch about that jack-ass on a daily basis


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1.





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Passed by about 20% of eligible voters!! Geeze, what is wrong with you?



To ensure passage, they had the vote taken on the same day as the Republican primary and not later in the year on the General Election Ballot.

The last 4 times Marriage appeared on a general election ballot it won (Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota).


>>>>


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > On May 8, North Carolinans overwhelmingly voted in favor of Amendment 1.
> ...



WOW, everyone of those is a DEEP BLUE SOCIALIST state...aren't you proud?


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

The 14th Amendment also declares anyone born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the U.S.

Like everything else in the 14th Amendment, it applies to everyone -- not just blacks.

Dayam, vagisil, someone really beat the shit out of you with the stupid stick.


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Well hell, if Derryck says marriage is not a right, then it must not be. Every court decision ever rendered on the matter must have been wrong. Chief Justice Derryck says so and vagisil confirms.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 2, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


I never said they made 15000 a year, your citation proves my point. A woman making 15000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps. This is what I said, if you bothered to read by post closely.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Fag Boy, glad to see you came out as what I've always believed you were! Nice avatar, Pawned....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


Wow!! Just freaken WOW! That s all you have in response to my extensive post citing the constitution and legal precedence ? Cartoons? Pretty pathetic not to mention juvenile. You are done here.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Done?...


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




Dude if you think posting a bunch of political cartoons is pwning someone I would like to enroll you in the STTAB school of wit so that you might at least take the next step


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Dude, if you don't like them, don't look at them... by my ratings, it seems that many appreciate POLITICAL SATIRE, if you aren't nuanced enough to enjoy it, I suggest YOU attend the STTAB school of wit!.... Political satire has been around longer than this country has been a independent country.... learn something!


----------



## BluePhantom (Jul 2, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




Yeah the problem is, it's not your wit.  You are just ripping off the wit of others and announcing victory because someone else has sass and all you have is the ability to search google.  All you are doing is copy and pasting.  That's the extent of your intellectual acumen it seems


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 2, 2015)

BluePhantom said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



Isn't America a great place? That's why people POST these little gems on the net....so they can be shared and enjoyed, especially when they put down a NeoCommie! If they didn't want to share them, they would make them so they couldn't be copied....DUH!!!

Are you the originator of your little gem? Do you mind if someone else uses it?

Apparently you don't mind since I just posted it to 2 other sites! Thank you for your cooperation!


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 3, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



LOL.....the ignorance and the irony is touching.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That one doesn't possess enough functioning brain cells to formulate much of a response beyond posting cartoons.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Err, I don't think so.  You clearly stated above that a woman making 15,000 a year will earn 5000 in food stamps.  Lie much?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


No. It's not a lie. That is a bold claim. Do you have proof I am lying?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I have you or seems has not 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Maybe you were just mistaken.  But if you were mistaken, you wouldn't keep making the same claims.  

*Income Chart*
(Oct. 1, 2014 through Sept. 30, 2015)

*Household size* *Gross monthly income (130 percent of poverty)* *Net monthly income (100 percent of poverty)*
1

$1,265 $ 973
2

1,705 1,311
3

2,144 1,650
4

2,584 1,988
5

3,024 2,326
6

3,464 2,665
7

3,904 3,003
8

4,344 3,341
Each additional member

+440 +339


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage.  Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and  poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


If you did, you'd understand the Supreme Court has supreme jurisdiction over the judicial branch which is given judicial power over all cases arising under the Constitution.

You don't understand that.

Your lack of understanding of that does not alter the reality which it is -- it only results in your own frustration in thinking you've been wronged. But in reality, the system worked exactly as designed by our forefathers.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



"It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOYUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime?"

More advertising dollars that way


We might need 2/3d's of Congress to answer that question.

They are probably all on holiday this week.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


This belief of mine is supported by the Bible. The Declaration of Independence is also supported by the Bible. I do understand that many people hate the United States for its historic background.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Sorry, America stands for freedom.  No one has to get your approval.  Why don't you try reversing this situation and see how you would feel about it then?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Hey Zorro, Here is a little something that you and all of the other anti gay rights nutters on here might appreciate. You are not alone! There are plenty of other's who are distraught and hysterical over the SCOTUS decision. Get on boards! Donate!




> Ryan Anderson's Road Map for Marriage Resisters
> 
> The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson, celebrated as the anti-marriage movement’s fresh young face, is promoting his new book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, which promises to tell anguished opponents of marriage equality how to respond in to the Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to be legally married. Anderson’s book will be available July 20, but there’s probably no need to order it, since he has been flooding the media with his analysis of the ruling and advice about what anti-equality Christians should do in its wake.
> 
> ...


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


So freedom by tyranny huh? What a joke you are 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



So your "freedom" to oppress others is not tyranny , it is just freedom
But when others who you disapprove of want freedom, the same freedom that you have, they are guilty of tyranny. Are you fucking serious??!!


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Another nut job I see.  Don't you see?  YOU are the tyrant for trying to force people to live by your ridiculous ancient man written religious views.  That is not what America is about.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



It is ignorance at it's finest.    The bible belt people are nuttier than squirrel poop.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms  is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms.  There are also straight couples that have open relationships.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them.  I really do not understand your objection.  You can't go back in time.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Well you don't really have to.  Just don't associate with them.  

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle.  I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


 What a shame you still don't get it.

I suppose you never will.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Who asked you to tolerate it? Who cares if you do or don't?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




Where on earth are you coming from with this. ?? You start out by making some degree of sense but then spiral down by saying:




> “Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture



What the hell does that mean and how is it true? Gay marriage does not erode anything. Marriage has been detached from procreation for a long time. Furthermore, gay people do have children, with help but they do have children. They procreate. But more than it being about procreation, marriage is about raising children and gay people do raise children who are better off if the parents are married.

.Then you say….





> It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline


.”

What social decline? Tolerating discrimination is social decline, not tolerating variations on human sexuality that have no effect on others or society in general. A just and fair society is an advanced society. You might want to consider joining it.

You get further into the stupid zone by questioning the stability of gay relationships. Stability in relation to who? Some relationships are stable, some are not. What evidence do you have that same sex relationships are less stale than heterosexual relationships? In the last year, we had two heterosexual couple neighbors-on either side of us split up. If gays are any less stable, maybe it is because of being forced to live in the shadows, of having been marginalized for so long, of not having their relationships validated. MAYBE with marriage and general equality they will be just as stable as anyone else.

And open relationships not equate with unstable relationships. I am straight, we are not monogamous and we have been married for 30 fucking years . Do you not know anything about life


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I really think this is related to a fear of change amongst the older people.  They are frightened to death of change and resist it as if their lives depend on it.  You should have seen some of the posts after this forum changed.  Lol!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I am not sympathetic . I am 68 years old


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, just look at the six figure fine the bakers in Oregon just got for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Or look at the catholic adoption agencies in certain states that had to close down, lest they be in violation of anti-discrimination laws for not adopting to homosexual couples.

Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Free and voluntary association is illegal under the law in the United States.

So since I cannot disassociate, I will continue to voice my opposition to the direction the culture is headed, as I have to live in the society as well. I won't be silenced.

I don't believe one has a right to a marriage license, and believe in the conjugal version of marriage. So I will continue to advocate that and voice my opposition to the normalization of a lifestyle I think is anti-social.

I am 24, I think things will shift back in a socially conservative direction in my lifetime.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Support for gay marriage is a product of the erosion of the idea of conjugal marriage, and pushes it further in that direction. I disagree with the direction marriage and relationships in general are heading. I don't think separating marriage from sex and marriage from procreation is a good thing. This has resulted in marriage and relations becoming more about convenience and personal gratification rather than about family formation. Certainly hasn't brought us good results with higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, lower birth rates, but higher out of wedlock birth rates. These are all net negatives.

Gays don't have children. It is impossible for two of the same sex to have a child. When they "have a kid", they take the sperm or eggs of another person, which opens into another ethical dilemma of the commodification of life. But I am pretty sure it is bigoted to have that. 

A marriage license won't reverse these open relationship rates of about 55% among gay couples. Kids are not better off in such a environment absent faithful parents in a stable relationship. The idea that same sex couples are the same in their behavior as heterosexual couples is just incorrect. Doesn't match up to the reality of the situation.

Discrimination is not a bad thing. People discriminate in relationships and in their daily lives all the time. We discriminate everyday in who we chose to associate and disassociate with based on their values and characteristics. You I don't think the degenerate homosexual lifestyle should be normalized in the legal and cultural arena. They simply are not like heterosexuals in their behavior, and I don't think the culture should promote their degeneracy by equalizing them under the law. 

I don't think normalizing a lifestyle that produces a 20% HIV rate, a 55% open relationship rate, a 20% meth use rate, and high promiscuity(studies show a range of between 100-500) is advanced at all. It is nihilistic and morally debased.

The Meth-Gay Sex Nightmare L.A. Weekly
Gay marriage and the triumph of 60s

Congratulations on being a cuck. You represent the baby boomers perfectly.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



You're 24??!! Holly crap! You don't have much in common with the majority of your peers. That's for sure. Get with it old sport. We are not going back to a society of bigotry and exclusion . Get real  dude>>>>Gezeee


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I am a 68 year old baby boomer and he does not represent me at all.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Most of my generation are brainwashed idiots that dont have their shit together on any level. They are in prolonged adolescence with shit jobs that just parrot what social media tells them. But not all of us are like this thankfully, a good amount are disgusted by the pc direction of our society.

Its funny how you boomers try to stay young and relevant. The 60s are over old man, and you aren't far away from the grave, and your degeneracy(your "open relationship" and advocating for corporate social fads like gay marriage) won't keep you from it despite what you think.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I might be close to the grave, but you are already in the grave, morally and socially speaking. I am relevant and you are an anachronism in your own time. If you think that we will go backwards to a society that closets homosexuality you are seriously delusional.


At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else.

Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all bullshit.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



That's conservatives in general regardless of age.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



And get laid!!!! You are in your prime dude. You should be chasing everything. By thirty it's over. 

You snooze you lose.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


No I am not an anachronism. Civilizations rise and fall, and go through periods of decadence and degeneracy. This linear version of history of the progressive, of "social progress", doesn't bare itself out. Social degeneracy and hyperliberalism does not last for long, they are the last gasps of a dying society. A example in a state of anomie, one of nihilism and atomization. The US wont last forever, this liberal global order if you call it that wont sustain itself financially and socially in the long run. You are on the wrong side of history if you look at any empire, and make no mistake, America is an empire. When this economic and social order collapses, people will revert to more traditional values sets, they always do.

The fact is, those in my generation who hold these nihilistic views only hold them because that is what media and school tell them to do. If right wingers, conservative, christians, traditionalists, whatever you want to call us, controlled the institutions, they would agree with us. 90% of people are complete followers and follow the cultural memes of the institutions. Also, a good percent of people my age don't agree with pc, they just don't care or fear repercussions. The true believers are very few in number. 

It is pitiful that you had to live a life abandoned from tradition, in order to keep a false sense of youth, with your cuckold "open relationship". You aren't young in spirit or relevant. You are a holdover from the 60s who time is coming to an end. Your views are just a flash in the pan as far as civilization goes. Right wing traditionalism, nationalism, faith, blood and soil are the human state are the natural state of man. Your rebellion against the natural order will not succeed. 

Homosexuals are not like heterosexuals, as the HIV numbers, the sexual partner count, the open relationship rate, the meth use rate indicate. They simply aren't the same, and are not "equal". This sounds nice, but it isn't the reality of the situation. 

How can you oppose polygamy or incestuous marriage. If they are all consenting adults, and marriage is a right, who are you to deny them this right and on what grounds?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I do. Just not in your sense.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


No, not in any sense. 

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live".  Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


A wedding cake is not gay sex and is not prohibited in the Bible.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Enabling sin, in this case, participating in a sinful ceremony is prohibited by the Bible. Pretty clear in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Christians are not to enable sin. 

But the fact remains, you don't support free exercise of religion or free association. Not only are you violating someone's religious liberties, you are violating their basic right of free association. In a free society, regardless of the reason, as sovereign individuals, we have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever we cant, because we are sovereign and own ourselves.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


The fact remains that religious dogma is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And it's a fact of law that public accommodations measures in no way 'violate' freedom of association or religious liberty.

Last, public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I don't care what some geriatrics in black robes say. Forcing a business to serve anyone for any reason violates free association and forcing someone to act against their religious conscience violates the free exercise of their religion.

A court can say up is down and black is white, but it doesn't make it so.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


I don't see anything in the Bible against two people of the same sex getting married and I see nothing prohibiting baking cakes other than during Passover.

Furthermore, there are many people committing other sins besides gay sex and I don't see any religious bakers denying them a wedding cake. Selectively citing religious infringement only against gay marriage, which isn't a sin, is nothing more than discrimination hiding behind religion. That's not allowed in Oregon which is why Sweet Cakes lost the lawsuit.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




That's too funny. Who cares what you think of the Supreme Court justices in their black robes? Their opinion matters. Yours? Not so much.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Well, you haven't read the Bible. I know, you aren't a Christian, but before you make such pronouncements, you should actually check out where the Bible condemns homosexuality. Romans, Timothy and Corinthians are a good start. Paul is particularly hardcore against homosexuality, and say they cannot enter heaven. The idea the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality is ridiculous. So as Christians, they aren't to participate in sinful acts like homosexual weddings.

But yes, I am fully aware that freedom of religion and freedom of association do not exist in Oregon. America is not a free country.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


They can make their proclamations, and are certainly more powerful than me. They have the guns of the state to back up their views, I don't. But it doesn't change that forcing someone to act against their religious conscience or forcing them to associate with those they don't want to violates freedom of religion and free association.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 3, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




Well, aren't you a stupid fucker.

Homosexuality is not condemned at all.

Specific homosexual acts are: exactly twice, in the Tanakh.

Paul never once actually specifically mentions any homosexual acts and Jesus never spoke of it, not even once.

But I would expect no less of an ugly fucking Jew hater like you. Go fuck yourself. You are no Christian. You are a fake. An empty fake.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yes it is. 

Read 1 Romans 26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 . 

I know your people don't have the New Testament, but you are going to make claims about the New Testament, the book of God's people, you should actually read it. 

Also, calm down shlomo.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




I bet I have read the NT more times than you, slimeshitter.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Just how fucking retarded are you? I never said the Bible doesn't condemn gay sex.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Again, no one is being forced to go against their religion. The Bible doesn't say baking a cake is a sin.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Not very closely, that much is apparent.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Correct.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


If you agree homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, you have an odd way of saying it. But that's ok, it is odd when you were suggesting that there is no religious basis for not participating in a homosexual wedding. But if you are over that than I'll let bygones be bygones.

But the fact remains, you don't respect religious liberty, or free association, so I don't respect you. You are a petty statist and a control freak.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Participating in a ceremony that celebrates a sin is a sin. As I said, read 1 Timothy 5:22, don't share in the sins of others.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


WTF is wrong with you? The ceremony doesn't celebrate gay sex.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The ceremony celebrates a union based in sin.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Again, the sex is the sin. There is no sin in the union itself, which is what a wedding celebrates. A wedding doesn't celebrate sex. And there is nothing in the Bible forbidding two people of the same gender being married to each other. Look at the lengths you're going to to twist the words of the Bible to mean something they don't say. Then again, I'm telling this to the idiot who _thought _ I said the Bible doesn't forbid gay sex.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yes, there is sin in the union itself, because homosexual attraction is a sin itself, the union is based on a sinful lust and sinful acts like gay sex. It is a celebration of sin. To suggest homosexuals don't get married because they are homosexually attracted to one another and to codify a sexual relationship is absurd. You are the one trying to pervert the bible with some contrived run around. 

How about you just stop being a control freak that wants to dictate how people live their lives. For one, not forcing them to bake a cake if they if they don't want to. What people do in their confines of their kitchen is none of your business.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




Again, the Tanakh does not condemn Homosexuality. It condemns two specific homosexual acts with the same force is codemns str8 adultery and masturbation. The act state of being a homosexual is never discussed in the Bible at all.

In fact, the word did not even exist until the 19th century.

Grow up and learn to debate like a real adult.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The Bible is not just the first five books. It is the New Testament as well. If you contend that Judaism permits homosexuality, than take it up with your Rabbi.

I am talking about Christianity, which in the New Testament condemns homosexuality in 1 Romans 26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 .


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Then quote the Bible where it says two people married to each other of the same gender is a sin......


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I don't need to, because it is common sense that if gay sex is a sin and homosexual lust is a sin, than a gay marriage, wherein they are sexually attracted to one another and have gay sex, is a sin. 

You are just being obtuse.

And it gets away from the point, what people do in their personal lives, including baking or not baking cakes, making or not making floral arrangements, is not your business.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




The fact is -- you can't quote the Bible because it's not in there.

I knew it and now I know you know it too.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Your laughing just exposes you as thick headed. The again, your unironic profile picture exposes that as well. It doesn't prove your non-point that gay marriage is somehow allowed in the Bible because it isn't mentioned specifically. The claim that you, a clownish shitlib internet poster are more aware of Biblical teachings than say the Pope on the issue of gay marriage, and got it right and where he got it wrong, is absurd on its face.

It just proves you lack linear thinking skills, and cannot deduce that gay marriage is not allowed, given that homosexual lust and sex are condemned, and thus relationships based in them are as well. Not something to be proud of.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


How come you can't live and let live? Why do you need to dictate the personal lives of florists and bakers?


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Nah, I'm laughing at you as I  watch you claim the Bible means something it doesn't say. Even worse, you pretend like it's your choice not to quote the Bible when we both know the truth is you *can't* quote the Bible since nowhere in it does it say what you claim.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


If they don't want to bake cakes, they shouldn't be in that line of business. Baking cakes does not go against anyone's religion. They were merely hiding behind their religion to mask their bigotry.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Yes it does condemn homosexual sex and homosexual attraction,  i already cited the verses, only a fool would claim that a relationship based in homosexual sex and homosexual attraction is somehow allowed. 

It is a clownish position. You are a clown.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


If someone owns a bakery, it is their business who they decide to make cakes for, not yours, since it isn't your property and you don't own them.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Nah, only a fool would think the Bible means something it doesn't say.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


And that's where you are wrong. In the state of Oregon, a baker can't discriminate.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I understand that Oregon is not a free society. The law clearly violates freedom of association, which is the foundation of a free society.

People discriminate everyday in whom the decide to associate or disassociate with, the law is arbitrary and tyrannical.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You are the fool here, by denying common sense. It is nonsensical to suggest that the Bible supports gay relationships like a gay marriage when in condemns homosexual lust and homosexual sex, which is what gay relationships are based in. There doesn't need to be explicit condemnation of a practice that didn't even exist in Palestine 2000 years ago. Logical deduction, use it. 

But you clearly aren't serious with this argument, and you know it as well.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Did I say anything about opposing polygamy and incest?


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Yet more you know nothing of. Just as there is no condemnation of two people of the same gender being together in a non-sexual manner; there was no Palestine 2000 years ago. Your entire argument is a figment of your imagination.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I have to admit it. I have met my match with you. I have nothing more to say. There is no hope  of reaching you. I just don't know how you will get by in the modern world. You are really far out there. Here is someone that you can relate to:




> *Bradlee Dean Warns America That The 'Gay Agenda' Will 'Pervert All Comprehension'* - See more at: Bradlee Dean Warns America That The Gay Agenda Will Pervert All Comprehension Right Wing Watch
> 
> Anti-gay activist Bradlee Dean claimed that LGBT people “are not ruled by law” on Monday’s episode of his “Sons of Liberty” radio program. Dean criticized the media for spreading the “gay agenda,” and attempting to “pervert all comprehension” and “confuse the younger generations.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



If you cannot treat everyone equally, then you should probably not go into the public accommodation business.  Discrimination based upon superstition and fear is not going to be tolerated in our modern society.  We are not Islam and we don't treat other citizens as second class citizens.  That is just not acceptable.  A LOT of Americans do not share your belief system.  

24!!!    Wow!  You are just a kid.  That's why you don't understand maybe.  Anyhow, you are really outdated and old fashioned.  This is not the 1950s and we aren't going back.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 4, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk





Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


If the protection clause in the 14th amendment was meant to cover just freed  slaves, then it would have been written using such language and not "any person".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 4, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > No. Nowhere in the 14th amendment is it written that it only refers to rights for former slaves. Learn the actual text of the 14th before making such claims.
> ...


You are really  fucking dense Zorro. I addressed this issue with you in post 1377 SCOTUS states cannot ban same sex marriage Page 138 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . You are playing dumb or your really are that dumb. Which is it.?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


You said it was an inane slippery slope to suggest marriage rights for polygamists and incestuous couples. You brought it up to begin with.

So you support the right to marry  for polygamists and incestuous couples?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Faun said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Now your argument is getting sillier by the minute, suggesting that gay marriage isn't about sexual attraction between two of the same sex. 

Now you are getting caught up in a clever silly argument about whether the region during the time of Jesus was called Israel, Judea, Palestine, Syria, whatever. That isn't the point. The point is, there was no such thing as homosexual marriage in that region at that time. So to suggest they have to explicitly prohibit something that didn't even exist in that place at that time, or they support it, is ridiculous.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News

On July 24, New York will join the league of states that allow gay marriage. Meanwhile, demographic data show that this group is already united in another significant way: lower-than-average divorce rates. Interesting, but does this mean that same-sex marriages in New York will last longer? Are the two characteristics even related? Perhaps, as data show that factors like education level and marriage age tend to be related to both a state's divorce rate and its stance on same-sex marriage.

According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent. Remove the outlier Nevada, the state with by far the lowest divorce rate by this metric (16.3 percent), likely due in part to Las Vegas's status as a wedding hotspot for out-of-state couples who may get married there but divorced elsewhere, and the figure jumps to 53.2 percent.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Same-sex divorce rate lower than heterosexual couples

SINCE May 2008 just nine civil unions pledged between members of the same sex as an alternative to marriage have been terminated in the ACT.

It is a 1.1 per cent failure rate with 799 gay unions performed in the capital during the period.

In the same period there were 8711 marriages and 6965 divorces granted in the ACT.

Adjunct Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Canberra Amanda Gordon said a straight comparison was not possible as the heterosexual divorce rate would include those married prior to 2008.

According to the Bureau of Statistics, the median length of marriage before separation in the ACT was 9.4 years with most couples divorcing almost 13 years after saying ''I do''.

But the probability that a traditional marriage will end in divorce is about 33 per cent.

Dr Gordon said early indications showed that gay couples were staying together longer. She attributed this to the lack of expectation to getting hitched and the conscious decision to do so.

''There are very few [terminations] because people have thought it through very carefully and understand the implications. … they are actually thinking very hard about the significance and importance of making it work.''

She said many people who were married in the traditional way had less commitment to the whole idea of marriage. ''They didn't have to work for it, if you like. If it ends they can do it again.''

As equality occurs, Dr Gordon said the gay marriage and divorce rate could well mirror heterosexual marriage.

''If homosexual couples slip in to marriage the way we do then I think you will find the same level of distress in a relationship as other people … these figures go some way to prove that if you put hard work into a relationship you can make it work, because these relationships have lasted the five-year distance in a way that is different to traditional marriages,'' she said.

''They don't take it for granted.''


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


This is my third example of Gay couples having lower divorce rates than straight couples- just to respond to Stein's allegations. 
Do Gays Have Lower Divorce Rates Than Straights The Dish

The most recent evidence from the UK Office of National Statistics finds that homosexual couples that joined in 2005 were significantly less likely to have filed for dissolution four years later than heterosexual couples were to have filed for divorce: 2.5% compared to 5.5%. As Hattersley points out, however, male couples were much less likely to dissolve their relationship than were female couples: By the end of 2010, 1.6 % of male civil partnerships had ended in dissolution compared to 3.3 % of female partnerships.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Then your problem is the Public Accommodation laws. 

Feel free to lead the charge to end Public Accommodation laws- it will be a bold Conservative move to suggest ending the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



For the same reason I have to tolerate your deviant social attitude.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Baking a cake is not a ceremony or participating in a ceremony- but if as a business owner, you have a problem complying with the law because of your religious beliefs, you should either change the law- or get out of business. 

Can't refuse to serve Hindu's just because Hindu's live in sin because they worship a false god.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



To say that it is stupid to suggest that it is a slippery slope is saying just that and nothing but that. It is not taking a stand on it either way. It has nothing to do with the  argument for or against gay marriage. And for the record, YOU brought it up.....are you already having memory problems at 24 years old.?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It is participating in the ceremony, the cake is an extension of the baker, the product of their labor, same with the florist and their floral arrangement. It is also forced participation when you are forced to use your property, say a private chapel, to host a gay wedding. This violates free association and freedom of religion, the latter being previously guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

I am aware of what the law is now, the law violates the basic principle freedom of association, a common law principle that has existed for centuries in Anglo-Saxon world.

It is a shame for those that claim to support the idea "live and let live", that they can't let those who disagree with them alone and use the power of the state to prosecute them. Then again, this aggressive anti-social behavior is not a surprise given who we are dealing with.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Do you oppose rape?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


That doesn't mean anything. That survey doesn't delineate between homosexual and heterosexual couples.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



And what the fuck does that have to do with the states right to ban gay marriage.?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



WTF?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


First off, your inaccurate and manipulated data doesn't disprove the fact that gays are in open relationships at a far higher rate and have far more sexual partners, exposing their dysfunction and deviancy. Also, your study goes by the divorce probability for a marriage, it doesn't delineate by couple. It just calculates the total number of marriages, it doesn't account for the fact that individuals get multiple divorces, and once you get one, you are more likely to divorce again. Far less than 33% of heterosexuals couples divorce. But your data doesn't mention this.

also, homosexuals don't enter committed relationships or marriage at nearly the same rates. Even in the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legal for years, only 20% of gay couples are married are married. 

But back to your inaccurate and manipulated data



> The error is subtle, and I learned of it via an email from a demographer, who wrote:
> _
> Looking at the way they did things, it seems to me that they understate divorce rates by roughly a factor of two in their calculation. What they want is an occurence-exposure rate, which is obtained by dividing the number events by the person-years of exposure. They have the events (e.g. 132 divorces in Vermont). They then need to estimate the exposure. They do this by dividing by the total number of marriages (about 3,700 for VT) and dividing again by the years that same-sex marriage has been allowed (about 4.33 VT).
> 
> ...


Same-sex divorce rate not as low as it seemed - The Washington Post


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Unfortunately, "civil rights" trump the First Amendment. Sad day for a free society.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Without the rule of law, how could the courts ever rule on a case with two opposing yet equally valid religious disputes?
There must be an applicable statute and not simply a religious disagreement.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


You brought up the slippery slope about incest and polygamy, not me, I was responding to you bringing it up to begin with.

You said the slippery slope was inane. It is not inane. If marriage is a right, how you prohibit incestuous and polygamous couples from marrying, as long as they are consenting adults?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



The same applies to business owners. No?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


No one here is advocating for anarchy. So it is rather silly you are bringing up this "rule of law" argument, when you are violating the common law principle of free association and the first amendment right of free exercise of religion.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Owners only own their own morals, not the morals of others simply because, only religious authorities are authorized the Sheppard's staff on their flock.

In any Case, I make a motion to enjoin moral Causes on a not-for-lucre basis, simply for any stake-hold in the greater glory of our immortal souls, in that alternative.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.

Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I've explained my position accept it or not. You keep saying the same thing even when you are shown why that's wrong.
Go to school and take a freaking class. The internet isn't serving you well.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


why do you oppose rape?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



I'm not playing your dumbass game.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 4, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



You have the right to free speech. Call the WH and threaten the pres and see what happens. There are limits.


----------



## Idadunno (Jul 4, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> So they can be pretend married? LMAO


A lot of men pretend not to be married while they are married. I would like to see one pretend to be married.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Its a reasonable question. Why do you think rape is wrong, philosophically speaking? This ties into the issue of self ownership and consent.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 4, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Specific and targeted threats aren't speech. Don't play this dishonest game. Whereas association is very clear, forcing people into business relationships violates the principle of free association. 

There is no equivocation between threatening an individual and refusing to associate with an individual.


----------



## ninja007 (Jul 5, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> I just saw the news on this and was going to post a link.  You beat me to it.
> 
> This is GREAT news!!
> 
> ...



i stopped right there.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 5, 2015)

ninja007 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I just saw the news on this and was going to post a link.  You beat me to it.
> ...


Read the actual ruling, then.

No need to remain ignorant.  

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


You may post this as many times as you wish, it's just as wrong now as the first time you posted it.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Why do you support rape?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



the 'aggressive anti-social behavior' being of course- the persons who refuse business to customers based upon the customers race, religion or sexual orientation.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



First of all, I have debunked this horseshit time and again and I'm not going to waist my time doing it again to try and convince your twisted and bigoted narrow mind. More importantly, regardless of any of this, it has nothing to do with the issue of the legality of same sex marriage. THAT is the subject of this thread. It is just stupid and meaningless to try to use this stuff as an argument against same sex marriage. It is a *Non sequitur *


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


If your religion is against selling products to the public.. then don't.  The PA laws allow you to sell privately.  Duh!


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Baking a cake is not rape, ya dumb ass.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


omfg... this scum bag is equating sexual rape with civil rights.. as if the right to access the public market is a rape of the public market... yeah no different than beating the shit out of someone and raping them... wow.  Liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from someone.  Everyone has a right to buy products from our public markets.  If you don't want to sell products to our public markets... don't.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Well you would be wrong because it is against the law to discriminate when it comes to business practices.  In your personal life, it's fine.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Nope, sorry.  If you go into business to serve the public, then you serve the public.  If you refuse to serve a sector of the public because of your personal views, that is discrimination which is against our laws here in America.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...




You're full of shit. The law forbids both.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 5, 2015)




----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Someone needs to point out the inconsistencies in your philosophically bankrupt worldview.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


I oppose rape. If you oppose rape, why do you oppose it?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> So if marriage is a right- how can you prevent mixed race couples from marrying?
> 
> The Supreme Court said marriage is a right- and States cannot prevent mixed race couples from marrying.
> 
> ...


Why can you restrict incestuous or polygamist couples from marrying if marriage is a right?

That is an arbitrary delineation with no consistency.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


In fact, withdrawing from an association this is the opposite of aggressive. Imposing yourself on someone, on a business, without your consent is aggressive. Specifically targeting business for legal prosecution you know wont serve you to get a pay out is aggressive. Talk about a perversion of words on your part.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


That's like saying that if you want to have sex with one person, you must have sex with everyone, consent be damned!


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


No one said it was. Can you articulate why you oppose rape. Why is it morally wrong? I am trying to get you to realize something here.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


The same principle applies. If we accept the premise that an individual owns themselves, than we recognize rape is wrong because it violates the self ownership principle by nullifying the individual's ability to consent to a sexual relationship. "Public accommodation" laws violate the self ownership principle by  nullifying the individual's ability to consent to a commercial/business relationship, as the owner's store(his property) is an extension of himself. 

In two sentences you contradict yourself. You say liberty is not the liberty to take. Than in the very next sentence you say people are entitled to the property(the products and labor) of others. 

You need to work out these internal contradictions in your worldview.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


The law isn't philosophically consistent, it has the guns of the state however.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 5, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...


Wish that was the case but it's not.  In accordance with the 1964 Civil Rights law, a person is protected against discrimination in privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.  In addition, federal law prohibits discrimination based on a person's disability.  As far as federal laws goes, that's it.  However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress.  Various municipalities also have discrimination discrimination laws.

Although there are places where a business can discriminate against various groups, the question is does it make good business sense.  The answer is no.  A business exists to make money, and denying service to customers is not the way to do that.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Can you articulate why you support rape?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Why do you support murder?

Just following your lead in throwing out straw man questions.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I oppose rape. I am trying to ask you why you oppose rape, philosophically speaking. Why is it wrong?

I don't see why you are so offended by it and are trolling me, it is a legitimate question that ties back to self ownership and consent.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I oppose murder, it violates the self-ownership principle by violating the sovereignty of the individual that's murdered by taking that person's life. An individual owns their own life and it is immoral for another to take their life by force.

Can you articulate why you oppose rape?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 5, 2015)

I believe polygamy should be encouraged whenever women complain they cannot find any more nice guys.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


No.  Unless you are selling sex... selling cake to the public is not like having sex.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


No.  Selling cake is not like selling yourself.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It is selling your labor. Cakes don't bake themselves. 

Over in another thread right now there is an idiot arguing that churches should be forced to have to hire gays if they want to work at them.

When does this bullshit stop? Every time we turn around now there is some new group wanting to be able to force businesses to serve them. 

How do you EVER have a right to do business with me, rather than the other way around and me having the right to choose my customers?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Ok lets go with that. So if a prostitute sells sex to one man, she must sell her body to all men? By becoming a prostitute withdraws consent to decide who to have sex with? By your very standard you are supporting legalized rape.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Labor and sex are both acts of the individual.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



LOL....you are really going off the deep end.

You think that baking cakes is the same as prostitution.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


It's odd. I doubt many on the left would oppose boycotts, that is, refusing to give business to a firm . But they oppose that firm's ability withdraw form doing business with individuals.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


They are both acts of labor and an extension of the individual. Your argument isn't philosophically consistent. You can't say a prostitute on one hand has the right to refuse service to a customer but that a baker doesn't.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It is in terms of the law , where prostitution is legal of course

Let's take Nevada, for example where prostitution is legal, outside of Las Vegas itself, do you think that if a Jewish customer went into a legal brothel and they refused to service him b/c he's a Jew and he sued that he would win? Yes or no?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



The funny part of this is that you do have a point. 

BUT- the point is that the prostitutes employer would insist that she service all customers regardless of their race or religion.

So you would agree then that employers are all rapists?

And that therefore Bakers are just like rapists?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



As I said to Saint- if the prostitutes employer insisted(as they would) that she service someone regardless of whether she wanted to or not- would that make them rapists?

And if so- would that make Bakers who tell their employees that they must service all customers- rapists also?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well, let''s assume just for the sake of argument that it is the boss who denied service (the pimp?) rather than the girl herself.

So, the brothel itself denied service to a Jew. That's just as illegal under current law as if a baker did it.

As a side note, it would be just as illegal if a street walker did it, but good luck prosecuting her.

So, are you saying that if a woman is a prostitute, she has to have sex with any man who will pay?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 5, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


If you join the military you agree to the rules.  If you sell to the public you agree to the rules.  If you want to join a private club... you agree to the private clubs' rules.  You don't want to sell to the public... don't sell to the public it's just that easy.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 5, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


And so is taking a shit and murder.  Some acts are not the same as other acts.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Oh really? And that's why gays didn't just say "okay we joined the military so we have to obey their rules?"


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


If she signed a contract in which it stipulated she could not discriminate which clients she provided sexual services based on race or religion or whatever, than no, it would not be rape in the case of the jewish customer. However, if that was no stipulated in the employment contract, or the prostitute was an independent contractor and the state mandated that the business or herself  discriminate against any customer, than yes, it would be rape, because their consent would be nullified.

Rape by definition is perpetrating a forced sexual act upon a person without their consent.

Same applies for the employees of the bakery. Depends on the terms of the contract between the employer and the employee. If the contract stipulates that employment and payment is contingent upon the employee providing services for whoever the employer says, and the employee signs it, than no, it is not "rape". However, if the owner is forced by the state to provide baking services to an individual against their will, thus nullifying their consent, and violating the principle of self ownership. Just as rape violates the principle of self ownership and nullifies the consent of the individual being raped.

So stop distracting from the question at hand. *If a baker cannot refuse service to an individual, how can a prostitute refuse sexual services to an individual?*


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 5, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You don't have the right to murder someone because you are violating the self-ownership principle by taking a life that does not belong to you, but belongs to the individual you murdered. 

But yes, just as you are responsible for murdering, shitting, fucking, and working, you own all those actions as well. So if you murder someone, you are responsible for it. If you bake a cake, or sell your body for money, you own that labor because it is an extension of you.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...


Huh?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Not if they pay you.  It's a fucking cake not an extension of your body.  Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC FUCKING DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC.  No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


THE BAKER CAN REFUSE TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC... HE DOES SO BY NOT SELLING TO THE PUBLIC AND INSTEAD SELLING PRIVATELY.  FURTHER THE BAKER CAN GO ON VACATION OR JUST NOT EFFING SELL CAKES AT ALL OR NEVER EVEN SELL DIRECTLY AT ALL.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves. 

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Typing in caps doesn't make your philosophy any less inconsistent. Calm down.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


Incorrect.  They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public.  The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public.  The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker.  It's against the law.  You break the law you pay the fine.  You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

I don't think giving a child alcohol is legal in your own house, and I would strongly oppose one abusing their child in this manner. A child does not have the agency to consent to drinking such substances and the adult should be prosecuted accordingly.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Or simply stop offering the service to the public. Bakers who don't wish to serve gays but don't wish to pay fines can take that option.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


That's like saying a prostitute is legally bound to sexually service all individuals if she advertises the public in a area where it is legal. In your scenario her consent is effectively nullified. Your train of logic would allowed for legalized rape. 

Sorry, but in a free society, you don't magically stop owning yourself once you offer services to "the public". It is an arbitrary delineation. What does "the public" even mean?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



No, that's like saying that there's an additional option beyond what you've acknowledged. A baker can stop offering services to the public. 

Thus, there is more than your 'baker or die' dichotomy.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to. 

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form. 



> The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.



Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

When the state  tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.



> When the state  tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\



Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership. 

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric. 



> If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.



Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains. 

And eliminates your false dichotomy of 'fuck or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.  

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes. 

Either you are obtuse or deliberately dishonest. I never said there would be no rule of law, or as you but it "regulation". Laws would exist to protect self ownership. Just because I oppose laws that violate the principle of self-ownership, does not mean I support "no regulations". Fraud, theft, murder, and rape all violate the self ownership principle and would be illegal in any free society. 

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today. 

Laws  exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property.  Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle. 

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical. 

There are only two options. Either she can use her body as she wishes, or she can't. In the second option the the self ownership principle is violated  because the State either prevents her from engaging in prostitution or forces her to service all individuals, lest she be "discriminatory". In both options of the State violates the self-ownership principle and the second option allows for a legal form of rape.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Your system is an authoritarian nightmare. Bake or go to jail, fuck or go to jail. You are piece of shit and a control freak. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a society governed by your arbitrary laws and will fight to maximize liberty where I can.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:



			
				steinlight said:
			
		

> That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.



So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with.* Its any threshold, any form of regulation. *Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.



> There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.



Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement nor characteristic of ownership. That's part of your _personal definition_ of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.



> Laws  exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property.  Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.



More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.



> My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.



Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



You're taking hyperbole to a degree of panty shitting hysterics that requires a fainting couch and smelling salts for the 'vapors'. As you're equating any form of regulation as an 'authoritarian nightmare' and 'legalized rape'. Despite such regulation existing and being part of our system of laws since their inception, with the power to regulate commerce being an implicit power of the State under our constitution.

Our constitution is not an 'authoritarian nightmare'. Nor is any form of regulation 'legalized rape'. You're simply overreacting and taking an already melodramatically extreme argument to further, more silly extremes. 

And if you don't want to live in a society that regulates commerce......there's Somalia. And that's about it.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be fucking fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word. 

You are doing it again, you claim there is "no regulation" in my system that protects self-ownership when you actually quote the things the law would be set out to protect(ie. murder, rape, theft, fraud etc). Once again, a deliberately dishonest characterization of my position and an appeal to emotion by saying anything outside your arbitrarily and heavy handed system is "anarchy". 

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law,  tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years. 


Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership. 
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So, not only do you mischaracterize my system as never existing, and self-ownership as "made up", you use it to avoid the fact that your system is philosophically inconsistent. And to avoid talking about how your system must allow for a legal form of rape in the name of "anti-discrimination" and "public accommodation".


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.
> 
> Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.
> 
> And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.


No, more lies on your part. I said forcing her to sell her body to all individuals under "public accommodation" laws is rape. Because it is. By definition, rape is sex without consent. You are nullifying her ability to consent by forcing her into sexual relations she doesn't want to be in by law. What I said in regards to denying her the right to sell her body, from entering prostitution, through laws against prostitution; you are violating the self ownership principle, by denying her the ability to enter voluntary sexual relationships of her own volition. 

I already acknowledge your erroneous claim of ceasing to do business. That violates the self-ownership principle, by denying individuals the ability to allocate their labor as they wish in voluntary arrangements with others. Labor is an extension of the self. If you do not own your labor, and have the ability to determine how you allocate your labor, you dont own youself.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


You are the engaging in hyperbole and falsehoods. You are saying I support "no regulation(no laws)", because I don't support your philosophically inconsistent and arbitrary legal system. 

A system in which you can go to jail for not baking a cake or not fucking someone is an authoritarian nightmare. That isn't hyperbole, that is reality. 

I don't need to go to Somalia to try and maximize human liberty, I want to do it here.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Its funny how someone can unironically say the other person is engaging in hyperbole when the that person suggests the should go to jail for baking a cake and that if you dont support this you should move to Somalia.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



All PA laws in question to gay marriage and bakers are State laws. The baker who last week had the $135,000 fine upheld was fined under Oregon State law. With the State regulation of intrastate commerce implicit and constitutional.

*Which you either know or should have known.* Making your condemnation of federal regulation of commerce in regards to this matter either a hopeless red herring or an act of obtuse ignorance. 

Pick which.



> All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.



The regulation reflects the values of the people making it. Which, bound by individual rights, is the beating heart of a democratic republic. And there's no conception of ownership rights ever recognized by our system of laws that places property beyond any form of regulation. Especially in terms of commerce. With intrastate commerce an implicit power under the 10th amendment.

And that is where your argument breaks, at exactly that point where the Ivory Tower ends and the real world application of law begins. To say nothing of your pseudo-legal gibberish about 'legalized rape'. 



> Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law,  tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.



A system in which there is no regulation save in the case of 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' is not ours. We've had all manner of regulation since the inception of our nation that went well beyond this. Meaning, that by your own logic....you must either condemn the entire history of our nation as an 'authoritarian nightmare', or recognize that your conception of ownership is not part of our laws nor ever has been. 



> Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
> Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



And exactly as predicted, what you're advocating is the beating heart of_ individualist anarchy. _

Now how did I know that was coming?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Your conception of 'philosophical consistency' is to equate any law regulating commerce  with legalized rape. Demonstrating in a stroke that the only thing consistent about your philosophy is its lack of logic or reason.

Preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape. You can't get around that, despite the fact that your hopelessly broken logic mandates such a conclusion. 



> A system in which you can go to jail for not baking a cake or not fucking someone is an authoritarian nightmare.



And again, you ignore the very real third option: simply stop doing business with the public. Obliterating your fallacious and false dichotomy of 'bake or die'. And your fantasy of an 'authoritarian nightmare'. 

You've overplayed your hand, taking hyperbole to a ridiculous extreme. And based your argument on hysteric overreaction and willful ignorance of a viable third option that you neither acknowledge nor can refute. 

No thank you.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


I am aware of the Oregon ruling. It doesn't in anyway nullify my point that there exist federal "public accommodation" laws, and that if we could get rid of them, it would be fantastic. I also never suggested there was no state laws regulating commerce, so you really made no point here but to expose your snark. If we could actually establish a system of federalism of competing legal systems where an experiment of democracy could take place, that would be a fantastic step towards maximizing freedom. Leaving public accommodation laws to the purview of individuals states. If you want to go live in Oregon, where they can bankrupt you for not making a cake, go live there. Otherwise, go live in a state that protects free association. That would be a good first step towards decentralization and maximizing liberty. The fact is, you are advocating legalized rape when you force a woman against her consent to have sex with an individual.

Actually you are wrong, regulation on property has been expanding, it isn't constant. There were for example, no "public accommodation" laws at the time of the American Revolution so yes, there has been a time when property has been beyond the scope of regulation. Unfortunately that scope has expanded over the years, minimizing personal freedom in the process. So no, America wasn't an authoritarian nightmare to begin with, but it has become that way.

Everything I  value, like free association, that is to enter into business with whom you want to because you own your property and yourself, was taken for granted in the United States until 1964, and has been part of Anglo Saxon common law for centuries. So the idea that self-ownership has no basis in Western philosophy or the legal system is absurd. The Declaration of Independence itself is based on the idea that a just government derives its consent from the governed(that is, self government). So you are really coming out of left field that your idea of centralization, hyper-regulation, and bureaucracy has been the norm throughout Western History, it hasn't. And you still haven't addressed the philosophical inconsistency of your position.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 6, 2015)

A state cannot have laws that require a driver's license to drive a car on public roads and then only make them available to heterosexuals.

That is how equal treatment under the law works.  That is how constitutional prohibitions against discrimination work.

If from that some of you still can't figure out why states can be required to issue same sex marriage licenses  and recognize same sex marriages,

say so, and I'll walk you through it, slower.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


No it isn't, that is just a combination of your lies and hyperbole. What I said is that forcing a woman into sexual relations with an individual under "public accommodation" laws and nullifying her consent is rape. Because it is. I never said the forcing someone to bake a cake is rape, what I said is that rape is wrong because it violates the self-ownership principle, and forcing someone to bake a cake violates this principle as well.

Unless you have another rational for why rape is wrong, please explain.

I never ignored this "option". There are only two options. Either she can use her body as she wishes, or she can't. In the second option the the self ownership principle is violated because the State either prevents her from engaging in prostitution or forces her to service all individuals, lest she be "discriminatory". In both options of the State violates the self-ownership principle and the second option allows for a legal form of rape.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



Given that this issue is irrelevant to federal 'public accommodation', your point is irrelevant. You're offering us a red herring. And such is a fallacy of logic for a reason. 

This is a State issue. An issue that per our constitution, the States most definitely have regulatory authority over. In fact, this is exclusively a state regulatory issue. As the Federal government offers no PA protections based on sexual orientation. Oregon law does. And the regulation of intrastate commerce is most definitely a power of the State per the constitution.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't. And thus....the red herrings.



> If we could actually establish a system of federalism of competing legal systems where an experiment of democracy could take place, that would be a fantastic step towards maximizing freedom.



We have it. Not all states have PA laws covering sexual orientation. Oregon and a few others do. We have your experiment with democracy. With the PA laws reflecting the values of those of their respective states. Given that Federal PA protections don't cover sexual orientation, the only possible source of such laws would be the very 'experiments of democracy' at the state level that you call for.

Yet you condemn the very system you call for. Equating it with legalizing rape. Demonstrating that your own standards of 'experiment with democracy' are merely more proxy noise for a fundamentally near anarchy world view. 

Its the wasting of my time with pointless proxy arguments that is the most annoying part of talking to anarchists. Or near anarchists in your case.


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


I am not offering a red herring. Federal "public accommodation" laws exist, I said we should get rid of them. You cite a case of state "public accommodation" laws. Ok great, doesn't change the point I was making. I don't think you understand what a red herring is. You engaged in the red herring by responding to my call to repeal federal public accommodation laws by citing a case involving a state matter. That's the distraction here. And it also distracts from the overlying point that these laws, whether at the state or federal level, violate the principle of self-ownership. 

We don't have full competition, because there still exist federal public accommodation laws, and I imagine, like with race, the federal scope will expand on this issue.

But I am talking about all "public accommodation" laws all together, not just based on sexual orientation, I am only highlighting that because it is a recent example in current events. And this speaks to my point, of how these "public accommodation" laws are arbitrary and no grounded in any consistent principles philosophically speaking. You can "discriminate" based on sexual orientation, but not race? These are silly delineations. People discriminate every day in their lives. Some may be "bad" reasons, but as free and sovereign individuals, we have the right to chose who we associate with. If people don't like it, they can not associate with them, boycott their business, ostracize them etc. All great ways if that is something you are into instead of locking someone up in a cage or forcing them to pay a fine to the state. 

Competing systems(competing is very limited here) is the first step towards maximizing liberty. But it doesn't mean I will cease to condemn authoritarian laws, as I have my right to free speech.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 6, 2015)

Hutch Starskey said:


> If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.




Actually you can.  PA laws do not mandate that a business provide everything, not do that require who you do business with.

The only mandate limitations on the reason business is refused.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...


While I agree you should own your labor, the 16th amendment took that from you.  While I agree you should be able to do as you please.... that does not extend to you defining what the public market is.  

Consumers have rights too.. not just sellers.  

You don't know what the public means?  Really?  Cough medicine has alcohol in it... a drink of wine for a 20year old is not abuse.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jul 6, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.
> ...



Probably too broad of a statement on my part. You can certainly have policies like, no shirt no shoes, but those must stop short of discrimination.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Steinlight said:
> ...



The Eiffel Tower exists as well. But neither it nor federal public accommodation laws have a thing to do with this discussion. As there is no federal PA laws protecting sexual orientation. *All such laws are chosen by the States. *You know, those 'experiments in democracy' you gave such empty lip service to only a couple of posts ago. Not a single law that has fined bakers, photographers, or anyone who has denied wedding services to gays has been a federal public accommodation law.

Every single one was a state law. 

Yet inexplicably, you're desperately trying to change the topic to federal public accommodation laws, which are completely irrelevant to this discussion and away from State public accommodation laws, which are the only laws that apply in these matters. As you know that the constitution implicitly grants the State authority over intrastate commerce. 

As I said, PA laws are irrelevant to your argument. Constitutional authority is irrelevant to your argument. Even the State government is irrelevant to your argument. You're little proto-anarchy drivel is against *any* regulation by *anyone* on *any* basis save murder, theft, fraud or rape. 

That's not our system of laws, nor even has been. Rendering your conception of ownership irrelevant to our laws.



> You cite a case of state "public accommodation" laws. Ok great, doesn't change the point I was making. I don't think you understand what a red herring is. You engaged in the red herring by responding to my call to repeal federal public accommodation laws by citing a case involving a state matter. That's the distraction here. And it also distracts from the overlying point that these laws, whether at the state or federal level, violate the principle of self-ownership.



It absolutely changes the point you're making. As the regulation of intra state commerce is implicitly delegated to the State by the 10th amendment. Nor is the authority of such regulation limited to 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' by our constitution. Your individualist anarchy conception of 'ownership' you insist we must adhere to do not exist in the Constitution or  our laws. 

*Nor ever have. *Rendering them irrelevant to our laws and our conception of ownership.

What you dismiss as 'arbitrary' is the will of the people of the States as expressed by their representatives. You're quite literally dismissing the very concept of republican democracy as 'arbitrary' and 'lacking any logical consistency'. And insist that we replace both the will of the people and the constitution with your judgment.

Laughing.....um, no. We're not doing that.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 6, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.
> ...


Yes, it is merely the contention of some on the left, that the right could engender more confidence in their sincerity, if moralists preached their morals on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 6, 2015)

Truth is the left hates freedom.  This thread alone shows how much 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 6, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Truth is the left hates freedom.  This thread alone shows how much
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steinlight (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


I am not delineating between state and federal "public accommodation" laws. Both are an infringement on self ownership and individual liberty. The fact you are trying to deflect the issue from the arbitrary nature of the application of these laws at both levels, just exposes the weakness of your argument. And this is what has forced you on a rant about one particular case or about the legality under the current system. This is a moral and philosophical diacussion. Not a legal one. Philosophically, you have no leg to stand on.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 7, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Truth is the left hates freedom.  This thread alone shows how much
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


it is merely the contention of some on the left, that the right could engender more confidence in their sincerity, if moralists preached their morals on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 8, 2015)

Why should states be expected to follow federal law when they ignore immigration laws and get away with it?

-Geaux


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Truth is the left hates freedom.  This thread alone shows how much
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


Can you elaborate on that please? I would really like to know what you mean-how you can say that when it is the right that wants to deny some the  freedom to marry.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Truth is the left hates freedom.  This thread alone shows how much
> ...


There you go lying once more. no on denied the homosexuals from being married . Normal people just refused to recognize that their perversion was normal. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 
*What!! I'm lying??* You must be delusional. Are you actually going to have us believe that the right wingers were going all out to stop gays from marrying.??


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Were they imprisoned?  

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Why should states be expected to follow federal law when they ignore immigration laws and get away with it?
> 
> -Geaux


Nonsense. The federal government is not ignoring immigration laws...


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Why should states be expected to follow federal law when they ignore immigration laws and get away with it?
> ...


Dummy the president himself said they were. 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Bullshit. The loony right denied gays from marrying the person they love and wanted to marry.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


No, the president said he was prioritizing who gets deported first. The chart shows we're still deported plenty of illegal immigrants.


----------



## mdk (Jul 8, 2015)

What the hell does immigration have to do with this thread? Oh wait...nothing.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Truth is the left hates freedom.  This thread alone shows how much
> ...



Hey, the gays should be happy with what the conservative Christians tell them they can have.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Why should states be expected to follow federal law when they ignore immigration laws and get away with it?
> ...



Reading comprehension lacks I see..

I said STATES not following Federal law

-Geaux


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


Nope, I'm not the one with the reading comprehension issues. The chart I posted shows immigration laws are not being ignored.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Then where are the prisons they are all at?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You lie like most people breath 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


What conservative jailed a homosexual for being married? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Your pathetically weak strawman is noted and disposed. We deport them.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Another insanely weak strawman. Who said anything about arresting gays for being married? Oh, that's right... no on but you. No, it was the loony rightwing who sought to deny gays the same right to marriage that straights have access to.


----------



## Faun (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


And yet another retardedly weak strawman. I posted a chart backing up what i said. You can't handle the truth; so you invent strawmen.


----------



## hadit (Jul 8, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


One notes that those who cheer California for refusing to obey federal immigration laws will likely go berserk when Texas refuses to honor gay "marriages".  They will completely miss the glaring hypocrisy.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

Faun said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


So I guess you can't find any homosexuals jailed in the USA for getting married. ..... 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



In case you didn't notice, I'm not going to play your moronic, juvenile, mind fuck games. I have better things to do than to get into a pissing match with the likes of you. You have nothing of value to contribute whatsoever. Welcome to my not so exclusive ignore list


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because, you know, you can treat them any way you want and it shouldn't matter as long as they aren't in prison.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Where is the law banning homosexual marriage as well? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


What does this law banning homosexual marriage say?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 8, 2015)

*Justice Kennedy Cements His Legacy On Gay Rights With Marriage Ruling*
In Friday’s decision striking down bans on same-sex couples’ marriages, Kennedy summed up his legal legacy for gay people: “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” he wrote in Friday’s opinion for the court in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Justice Kennedy Cements His Legacy On Gay Rights With Marriage Ruling - BuzzFeed News


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 8, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


   Nowhere now


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



His argument is SO stupid, you should probably not even respond.  Why lower yourself?  His argument:  Homosexuals should be happy because the Christian conservatives haven't thrown them in jail.  Lol!  These people are nuts.  It's unbelievable and quite sad actually.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 8, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I know, I have it on ignore but I couldn't resist with that one. You can never find out if they believe their own bovine excrement or not.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 8, 2015)

So I waited and yet still no prisons filled with homosexuals in there for getting married and no law actually banning homosexuals from being married. .... I guess you are all Liars 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It would seem that homosexuals are unable to make any comments without the use of rabid and salacious vulgarities of the most demeaning kind.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 9, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


The sad thing is that homosexual permissive "liberals" will likely not be as understanding towards Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians as such Christians have been towards  those that choose to indulge in sin. They will slander and likely eventually sue any and all that will refuse to agree with their definition of marriage.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 9, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Justice Kennedy Cements His Legacy On Gay Rights With Marriage Ruling*
> In Friday’s decision striking down bans on same-sex couples’ marriages, Kennedy summed up his legal legacy for gay people: “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
> 
> Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” he wrote in Friday’s opinion for the court in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Justice Kennedy Cements His Legacy On Gay Rights With Marriage Ruling - BuzzFeed News


"Dignity" is based solely on one's character and is not something any Constitution designed by morals can bestow. Justice Kennedy is a fraud who imagines marriage is his to define and manipulate. May God take pity on him.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> ...



So are you saying that Bakers are just like rapists?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Such Christians have spent the last 200 years attempting to put homosexuals in jail- and passing laws to force homosexuals to be fired. 

How very 'understanding' they have been.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Conservatives just jailed homosexuals for being homosexuals. 

Not for getting married.

And yes- Conservatives did specifically deny homosexuals legal marriage- went to the effort of passing special laws just to make sure.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Justice Kennedy Cements His Legacy On Gay Rights With Marriage Ruling*
> ...


Horseshit! One can be robbed of their dignity regardless of there character. Were blacks who were lynched or made to ride in the back of the bus not robbed of their dignity? You can't just string words together and say that this is reality. You are the fraud. This is reality .Deal with it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



The sad thing is that all that you can do is to make shit up that you think sounds reasonable but on closer examination is nothing but paranoid delusional inane equine excrement. Liberals do not give a fuck what Evangelical Christians or any other cult does or believes as long as they do not try to involve other and impose those beliefs on others. They no not have to agree with anything.  They do however have to obey the law. Have a nice day.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

States can refuse this law just like some refuse to enforce federal immigration laws

-Geaux


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



What homosexuals?


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Interesting, yet gays forced their perverted lifestyle (beliefs) on the rest of us. The gays have done exactly what you say Christians should not do.

I never realized Hell could be such a big place, because the reservations being made will call for ample space

-Geaux


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Nobody is forcing their lives upon you.  Just because you can't stop thinking about their sex, doesn't mean they push it on you.  Lol.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> States can refuse this law just like some refuse to enforce federal immigration laws
> 
> -Geaux


Bovine excrement. Only jackasses like Rick Perry actually believe in nullification.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



You can't "sue" someone for having a different definition of marriage.  Get real and stop your fear mongering.  Most of us normal people do not feel threatened by and are not afraid of gay people.    If you feel threatened by them, then the problem is you.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Sorry, something about two fags kissing on the town square just doesn't equate to 'normal' behavior. But hey, it used to be what you do in the bedroom is your business.... Now we have to allow fags to 'come out of the closet' and put on their freak show for all to witness

Sad times in America

-Geaux


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Justice Kennedy Cements His Legacy On Gay Rights With Marriage Ruling*
> ...



If you feel your marriage is threatened by gays, then it must be pretty weak is all I can say.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > States can refuse this law just like some refuse to enforce federal immigration laws
> ...



How about Jerry Brown?

-Geaux


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Of course you would think it's sad when people who you consider yourself to be superior to gain equal rights and privileges.  You will whine and cry for a while, I'm sure.  Perhaps if you stopped thinking about them and concentrated on your own issues, it wouldn't be such a problem for you.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



I find it offensive behavior like some find the confederate flag offensive.

-Geaux


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



That's your problem.  Not the gay people's problem.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Offensive behavior is not limited to gay people, that's for sure.  And another important thing for you to remember is that not all gay people are the same.  They are individuals, like you and me.  Some are less inhibited than others.  Some, you wouldn't even know they were gay if they didn't tell you.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



It's not a problem at all. It's a voice of reason as a result of being taught the difference between right and wrong. 

Hey, heard there is a push to ban blue and pink stocking caps in the maternity wards. Liberals don't want anyone defining sex.. Its up to the individual to determine just where the X and Y chromosomes got crossed

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



OK- I support don't ask, don't tell

-Geaux


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



That is your own opinion that being gay is "wrong."  I don't consider it "wrong" to be allowed to marry the person of your choice.  

Why should YOU get to define sex for anyone else?  WTF makes you think you and your opinions are important to a stranger?  Good grief, stay out of people's lives and worry about your damn self.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 9, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Does less inhibited include the strange dialect homo's use? And the inhibited refrain from such scarlet letters?

-Geaux


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



I have no idea what you are talking about, and that is probably because I'm not obsessed with what homosexual people do as far as their sex is concerned.  It's not my business, and I don't care.  Why do you care?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Name those conservatives

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



The Republicans of the State of Georgia.

The Conservatives of Louisiana

Louisiana Men Arrested Under Unconstitutional Sodomy Law Advocate.com

*Louisiana: Men Arrested Under Unconstitutional Sodomy Law*


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Tell that to the bakers and pizzeria 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



I am sure you feel the same way about seeing a n*gger kissing a white woman on the town square.

What we do in our own bedroom only became 'our own business's when Lawrence v. Kansas overturned the unconstitutional governmental intrusion into our bedrooms.

And yes- now you have to allow 'f*gs" to come out of the closet- and you can no longer round up 4 or 5 of your bravest friends to find a f*g by himself to beat up.

I can see that bothers you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



I tell Bakers and Pizzeria's to follow the law.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Rape is homosexuality? 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


What law is superior then thier first amendment rights?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2015)

Liberal Homosexuals and the liberals that support them are tyrannical

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Why do you insist on dragging us into your perverted bedroom them demand we stay out of it? You are bipolar

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Your moronic mind fucking is rape


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...




The blue and pink caps are for Democrats and Republicans.

What the hell are you talking about? Where did you hear that? And what the hell does it have to do with homosexuality ? Do you not understand the difference between gender and sexual orientation? Apparently not.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 9, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Horseshit! Gays are not forcing their "lifestyle " on you unless they are making you have gay sex with them or watching it. What the fuck has changed in your life, in you community as the result of gay rights? Oh, you might  occasionally  see a same sex couple who are  open about who they are. Maybe they are holding hands. Maybe a peck on the cheek in public. Grow up and get the fuck over it .

It is you who want to force your straight lifestyle on gay people by denying them  basic rights such as to marry. That has a very real, observable and measurable impact on their lives. Is it possible that you are not able to understand that?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


I don't believe i should have a care or a Cause if Bakers practice bakers morals among themselves and voluntary particpants.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

Cry baby Ted can't get over it. Just like some of you people here. No problem. Ted and the rest of you can keep tormenting yourselves over the fact that gay people have the right to marry. While you are being miserable , the rest of us are celebrating:



> *Ted Cruz Still in Denial: Polls Show Support for Marriage Equality*
> 
> While attempting to justify his belief that the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor marriage equality brought about “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” Cruz used every possible argument. He claimed that the court’s decision was “fundamentally illegitimate,” an assault on the constitution and a threat to our democracy, and asserted that the ruling is a “profound threat to the religious liberty to millions of men and women."
> 
> Cruz also claimed that most Americans don’t support marriage equality, despite numerous recent polls showing that support is at an all-time high of over 60 percent. Ted Cruz Still in Denial Polls Show Support for Marriage Equality Human Rights Campaign


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cry baby Ted can't get over it. Just like some of you people here. No problem. Ted and the rest of you can keep tormenting yourselves over the fact that gay people have the right to marry. While you are being miserable , the rest of us are celebrating:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fortunately for us, your numbers are so small that the 'rest of you' don't matter in the big scheme of things. So, the rest of you (a slim sick minority) can feel good all you want. And if you get Aids, take it up with God at the gates

-Geaux


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cry baby Ted can't get over it. Just like some of you people here. No problem. Ted and the rest of you can keep tormenting yourselves over the fact that gay people have the right to marry. While you are being miserable , the rest of us are celebrating:
> ...



"My numbers" The fastest way for anyone to lose any modicum of respect or credibility-if ever they had any- is for them to make an assumption about another' sexuality.

So it doesn't matter now? Then what the hell are you doing here.?


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



To be a voice that perverted, immoral lifestyles should not be celebrated regardless of what some leftist liberal judges say is so.

Keep it in the closet is my take

But knock yourself out.

Did you see my statistics on just how unhealthy the homosexual lifestyle is?

You chose the wrong colored pill. lol

-Geaux


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Yes I saw your outdated and biased statistics. I have seen that horseshit to many times before. If gay people do in fact suffer higher rates of physical illness or emotional problems, it does not mean that it is a direct result of "the lifestyle" Any group who is demeaned and marginalized and forced to live in the shadows of society would suffer ill effects. People like you are to blame.

Second of all, what the hell does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread. You people just like to put that shit out there anytime you have an opportunity to smear gays. Soon it will be you bigots who are relegated to the closet because you will no longer be tolerated.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Tolerated by just who again?

-Geaux


----------



## RKMBrown (Jul 10, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


It's hate and bile like yours that is the wrong colored pill.  Satan will be your judge I suspect.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cry baby Ted can't get over it. Just like some of you people here. No problem. Ted and the rest of you can keep tormenting yourselves over the fact that gay people have the right to marry. While you are being miserable , the rest of us are celebrating:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Polls show? Then why is it it failed in almost all states when brought to a vote? You are spreading lies 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


As you say while spitting hate a bile...hypocrite

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cry baby Ted can't get over it. Just like some of you people here. No problem. Ted and the rest of you can keep tormenting yourselves over the fact that gay people have the right to marry. While you are being miserable , the rest of us are celebrating:
> ...



The father of lies calling me a liar!! Yes, polls! And the last time a popular vote implemented a ban was Arizona in 2008. Since then three or four  states passed referendums to allow same sex marriage.

In any case it doesn't matter any more, does it dude? Actually it never did. The people do not get to decide questions of constitutionality. Get over it.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



The ignorance is just astounding.  Been trying to wrap my head around this and I just cannot understand why some people have the need to dehumanize, marginalize and disenfranchise an entire group of people.  I refuse to believe that this has any religious grounds because it is nothing but sheer hatred and fear.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 10, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


The problem you idiots are having is actual evidence shows your polls are lies 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Really dud? All of the polls are lies? Every one of them  I assume that since you so readily call us idiots that you can back that up with hard data. Oh, and I don't mean some propaganda from a hate group like the Family Research Council.

The problem that YOU are having is that you have no viable argument against same sex marriage-you never have- so all that you can do is whine about polls and convince yourself that it not true. Pathetic indeed.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Idiot the only poll that mattered were the voting polls and they showed people didn't want your perverted ideals 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



First the polls were a lie. Then I asked you for evidence of that. You produce none. Now, the polls don't matter. Got it. That's all you have. In a sense your right though, they don't matter. What matters is the rule of law. It's over pal.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Lol the facts seem to harsh for you

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Idiot the only poll that mattered were the voting polls and they showed people didn't want your perverted ideals
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



Marriage equality won the last 4 times it was on the General Election ballot.

Marriage discrimination won at the ballot a decade ago.

Attitudes change.


>>>>


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot the only poll that mattered were the voting polls and they showed people didn't want your perverted ideals
> ...


Judicial tyranny is not wining 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

Sux to be the losers.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Idiot the only poll that mattered were the voting polls and they showed people didn't want your perverted ideals
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk





WorldWatcher said:


> Marriage equality won the last 4 times it was on the General Election ballot.
> 
> Marriage discrimination won at the ballot a decade ago.
> 
> ...





thanatos144 said:


> Judicial tyranny is not wining
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk



Well that was a dumb reply.

We were talking about General Election ballots conducted by the States.  Marriage discrimination won a decade ago, attitudes changes, and Marriage equality won the last 4 times it was on the General Election ballot.

And you come back with "Judicial tyranny".

Serious Question, do you actually read and think about what you respond to or do you just have random reply's programmed into your phone?


>>>>


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




*We need to reconsider what religious freedom means.*

We all know about the bakers, the photographers and the wedding planners who claim that they can’t do their jobs and provide their services to gay couples because of their “deeply held religious beliefs. And we know about all of the new Jim Crow state laws that purport to protect religious freedom but really support discrimination.

That is all shameful and ridiculous in itself. And now we have public officials-civil servants who work for the government taking it upon themselves to defy the law. They are advocating anarchy.

They could just as well decide that they do not want to allow interracial couples to marry based on some religious prohibition. However, they won’t because outward racial bigotry is frowned upon-although still there just under the surface.

They might also find a religious reason to deny a marriage license to those who have been divorced, or who have had a child outside of marriage but they won’t do that either. Why? Because most of them have probably done those things themselves. What about interfaith couples? Denying them a license would not go over to well either.

Lastly, allow me to point out that if gay people are to enjoy full and true equality, they, like everyone else should not have to think about whether or not a business will serve them, or travel across town, or perhaps across a county to get what they need.

This is the height of hypocrisy.  If they can’t do their job they should get another one. There is no gay lie. There is a concerted effort to find ways to discriminate and make life difficult for gays in the name of god.

The reference to gay rights really being about getting government in the schools, churches and home is particularly disturbing. Churches and legitimate clergy are not going to be forced to participate in same sex wedding. That is just reprehensible fear mongering. Nor is anyone going to bother religious schools although I, for one do not think that those schools, or home schooling parents should be allowed to brain wash unfortunately  the law says differently. In some state, there is little or no oversite or standards for home schooling. The government does not view home schooling in itself as child abuse. That segment in itself destroyed all credibility od Ben Shapiro.


Here are some examples of the abuses of claims to religious freedom:






> *Gay Couples Across The Nation Still Denied Right To Marry Due To Public Employees' Religious Beliefs **http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ericrosswood/lgbt_couples_across_the_country_are_being_denied_marriage_licenses_due_to_sincerely_held_religious_objections*
> 
> 
> Even though the Supreme Court ruled that marriage equality is legal across the country, 14 magistrates in North Carolina have chosen to not perform same-sex marriages by taking advantage of a recusal law that passed last month. They are citing a “sincerely held religious objection” for their recusal. According to the _Charlotte Observer,_ those magistrates will not be able to perform civil marriages for any couple, gay or straight, for at least six months.
> ...



Now consider this.................



> 1.  *Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. 2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others. *
> 
> _
> 1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...





thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



No one wants you in a bedroom- anyone's bedroom. 

And unlike you- I don't think the government should be telling Americans what consenting adults can do in our bedrooms.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



But we aren't talking about Judicial tyranny- we are talking about unconstitutional laws being overturned.

Americans are now getting married, regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Everyone who is getting married is a winner.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



There was a reference in there to Saudi Arabia alluding to some hypocrisy on the part of the Administration with regards to gay rights. More proof that this Shapiro kid has no clue and no credibility. Consider this:


*Gay Rights and International Relations by Progressive Patriot 5.15.15*

I will be the first to say that we are often too forgiving and accepting of the human rights violations of all sorts that are perpetrated by other nations. But I must also say that foreign policy is complicated and to simply say that we should not tolerate any abuses what so ever, and take whatever action we can, without regards to other considerations is naïve  and simplistic. In a world where economic partners and strategic allies are needed to survive, we might find ourselves with few friends. In addition, we have to be realistic about how much influence even the United States can effectively apply-regardless of what sacrifices we are willing to make- in countries run by ultra-religious fanatics and  heavy handed dictators. 

I don’t believe that we can, or should try to hold other countries to our standards by force and coercion when it comes to human rights. To do so is just another form of nation building doomed to failure in countries that do not have a history of democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion from government.

What we could and  should be doing is to claim the moral high ground by teaching and leading by example. Unfortunately, we could be doing a much better job of that than we are. True, gay people are not treated  nearly as badly or with the brutality of these countries. We don’t kill them and jail them. However, in many cases they continue to be vilified, marginalized and discriminated against. While the overt behavior is not as harsh as in many other places, the underlying attitude is the same  and many of those who wish to continue to deny gays full participation in our society would, in fact, do much more harm if allowed to. The attitudes and values that underlie discriminatory policies are not distinct from those that advocate the death penalty for gays. They just occupy a different place on a continuum- a continuum of violence  and oppression.  All oppression and genocide starts with scapegoating and fear mongering which we see much too much of in this country. That is why Indianan matters and that is why we have to clean up our own act in this country before criticizing others. Know too, that while Indiana may have represented an inconvenience or a humiliation to these people, gays have been suffering in far more significant ways-ways that a measurably and observably harmful for a long time.

And let’s not forget that American fanatics have been responsible for promoting the anti-gay laws and policies in some of those countries. Just because we are the United States of America, it does not mean that we can just say that we are better than others and leave it at that. If we accept complacency, we will never be better. We must actually be better in thought, word and deed. Those who consider themselves patriots should understand that.

Here are some examples dangerous and hateful rhetoric coming out of this county by little know fringe lunatics, prominent politicians, various organizations and others which calls into question our ability to present ourselves as a shining light of equality and human rights or to shame anyone else into reform:




> *‘Death Penalty For Gays’ Ballot Initiative May Be Allowed To Proceed Under California Law  http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/20/death-penalty-for-gays-ballot-initiative-mclaughlin-harris-california-capital-punishment-sodomy/*
> 
> 
> Hateful Bigot Mike Huckabee Totally Fails At Basic Civics In, Idiotic, Anti-Gay Rant http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04...anti-gay-rant/
> ...


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

[Q UOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 11807737, member: 54822"]





JFish123 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



There was a reference in there to Saudi Arabia alluding to some hypocrisy on the part of the Administration with regards to gay rights. More proof that this Shapiro kid has no clue and no credibility. Consider this:


*Gay Rights and International Relations by Progressive Patriot 5.15.15*

I will be the first to say that we are often too forgiving and accepting of the human rights violations of all sorts that are perpetrated by other nations. But I must also say that foreign policy is complicated and to simply say that we should not tolerate any abuses what so ever, and take whatever action we can, without regards to other considerations is naïve  and simplistic. In a world where economic partners and strategic allies are needed to survive, we might find ourselves with few friends. In addition, we have to be realistic about how much influence even the United States can effectively apply-regardless of what sacrifices we are willing to make- in countries run by ultra-religious fanatics and  heavy handed dictators. 

I don’t believe that we can, or should try to hold other countries to our standards by force and coercion when it comes to human rights. To do so is just another form of nation building doomed to failure in countries that do not have a history of democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion from government.

What we could and  should be doing is to claim the moral high ground by teaching and leading by example. Unfortunately, we could be doing a much better job of that than we are. True, gay people are not treated  nearly as badly or with the brutality of these countries. We don’t kill them and jail them. However, in many cases they continue to be vilified, marginalized and discriminated against. While the overt behavior is not as harsh as in many other places, the underlying attitude is the same  and many of those who wish to continue to deny gays full participation in our society would, in fact, do much more harm if allowed to. The attitudes and values that underlie discriminatory policies are not distinct from those that advocate the death penalty for gays. They just occupy a different place on a continuum- a continuum of violence  and oppression.  All oppression and genocide starts with scapegoating and fear mongering which we see much too much of in this country. That is why Indianan matters and that is why we have to clean up our own act in this country before criticizing others. Know too, that while Indiana may have represented an inconvenience or a humiliation to these people, gays have been suffering in far more significant ways-ways that a measurably and observably harmful for a long time.

And let’s not forget that American fanatics have been responsible for promoting the anti-gay laws and policies in some of those countries. Just because we are the United States of America, it does not mean that we can just say that we are better than others and leave it at that. If we accept complacency, we will never be better. We must actually be better in thought, word and deed. Those who consider themselves patriots should understand that.

Here are some examples dangerous and hateful rhetoric coming out of this county by little know fringe lunatics, prominent politicians, various organizations and others which calls into question our ability to present ourselves as a shining light of equality and human rights or to shame anyone else into reform:




> *‘Death Penalty For Gays’ Ballot Initiative May Be Allowed To Proceed Under California Law  http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/20/death-penalty-for-gays-ballot-initiative-mclaughlin-harris-california-capital-punishment-sodomy/*
> 
> 
> Hateful Bigot Mike Huckabee Totally Fails At Basic Civics In, Idiotic, Anti-Gay Rant http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04...anti-gay-rant/
> ...


[/QUOTE]w are gay people marginalized or discriminated against in america? They have representatives everywhere in movies, tv shows like Ellen. I mean come on lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> [Q UOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 11807737, member: 54822"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


w are gay people marginalized or discriminated against in america? They have representatives everywhere in movies, tv shows like Ellen. I mean come on lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Aside from that not being the point....it appears that you, like Shapiro, don't have a clue. I suspect that you just happened upon that video clip and posted it without thinking that you would be called on it. Am I right?


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> > [Q UOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 11807737, member: 54822"]
> ...



Aside from that not being the point....it appears that you, like Shapiro, don't have a clue. I suspect that you just happened upon that video clip and posted it without thinking that you would be called on it. Am I right?[/QUOTE]
Not at all I expect someone will reply to anyone of my posts 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JFish123 said:
> ...


Not at all I expect someone will reply to anyone of my posts 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

I suspect that you were looking for a different kind of reply. NOW you have to defend the indefensible


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I suspect that you were looking for a different kind of reply. NOW you have to defend the indefensible[/QUOTE]
Indefensible? Someone's on a crusade  gay people (whom I don't hate so you can't use that old shtick against me-then again you probably will) have more people in every area of entertainment, and there not like black people in the 50's etc... There's a BIIIIIG difference in not serving a gay couple cause there gay (which is wrong) and not wanting to cater a gay EVENT. 
If your logic follows:
Force Muslims to make a muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake. Force blacks to make a Segregation cake. Unless you just want to target Christians 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

The lefts ridiculous stance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

The far unChristian right got stomped on ACA, gays, fair housing, and the flag.

Your days of influence have fled.


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

[ QUOTE="JakeStarkey, post: 11808234, member: 20412"]The far unChristian right got stomped on ACA, gays, fair housing, and the flag.

Your days of influence have fled.[/QUOTE]
Oh noooooo lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 10, 2015)

The Right's _*argumentum ad absurdum* _is to appeal to the subjective value of morals instead of the rule of law.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> 
> Those of you who don't like it: sux to be you, huh?


This decision is comparable to Vietnam, were Americans bought LBJ's BS Gulf of Tonkin reasons to involve us into Vietnam. Phony trumped up reasons for a illogical outcome we will regret later...It will inevitably be found that those 2% of Americans, homosexuals,  REALY are just victims of a mental/physiological impairment. And not some oppressed class of people. And all this focus on them, will be seen as  a further form of political corruption. Remember this post, because it WILL happen.


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriage is constitutional.
> ...



And you know this because........that is what the voices in your head tell you?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 44296
> View attachment 44297
> View attachment 44298
> 
> ...




Christians are not exempt from business laws.

No matter how much they want to ignore where the Bible tells them to comply with the law.

_Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God._


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JFish123 said:
> ...


Indefensible? Someone's on a crusade  gay people (whom I don't hate so you can't use that old shtick against me-then again you probably will) have more people in every area of entertainment, and there not like black people in the 50's etc... There's a BIIIIIG difference in not serving a gay couple cause there gay (which is wrong) and not wanting to cater a gay EVENT.
If your logic follows:
Force Muslims to make a muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake. Force blacks to make a Segregation cake. Unless you just want to target Christians 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Another faux conservative who doesn't even know what law he is upset about.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

Marriage Equality is equal to the Vietnam War?  Yep, you heard it here.  The freaks of the far right believe they are exempt from the law.  No, they are not, as they found out in SC this week.  That is only the start.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

My take away from this is you can bash religious rights , but don't question queers, because they got BIG mojo NOW.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

The gay haters do listen to those little voices in their head.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> My take away from this is you can bash religious rights , but don't question queers, because they got BIG mojo NOW.



Well Mary, our take away is that you live in your own fantasy world where Homosexuals have always had equal rights, and were never discriimnated against and unicorns have wings.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Marriage Equality is equal to the Vietnam War?  Yep, you heard it here.  The freaks of the far right believe they are exempt from the law.  No, they are not, as the found out in SC this week.  That is only the start.


Yeah, Vietnam. Let me dumb it down for you: we got suckered into something ( The Vietnam war) because of lies. We are being suckered into legalizing gay marriage for lies.  It's a corollary, a similar instance of being mislead...do you need pictures? The dupes that bought the war were just as self righteous and incredulous as you. Then we got into Iraq, same day different morons, Now, a new day dawns we get this Homosexual propaganda stuff. It is all the same thing, people manipulating  the facts to suit their SPECIAL agenda. Regardless of the facts. And the truth WILL out.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > My take away from this is you can bash religious rights , but don't question queers, because they got BIG mojo NOW.
> ...



Your fantasy world is better? You guys are better than this cheap flame board trolling mockery. I think you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL is the queen of the fallacy of false comparison this week.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

Homosexuality is a bargain basement dysphasia. I remember when the AMA promoted smoking as HEALTHY. Gays like outing  others, the truth will out them inevitably once this empty passion for promoting this dysfunction ends, and it WILL end, I assure you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage Equality is equal to the Vietnam War?  Yep, you heard it here.  The freaks of the far right believe they are exempt from the law.  No, they are not, as the found out in SC this week.  That is only the start.
> ...



The only one who appears to be lying here is you Mary.

You are the one who has lied and said gays always had the same rights. 

I don't know why you think gay couples having the same right to marriage as my wife and I enjoy is suckering anyone.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Homosexuality is a bargain basement dysphasia. I remember when the AMA promoted smoking as HEALTHY. Gays like outing  others, the truth will out them inevitably once this empty passion for promoting this dysfunction ends, and it WILL end, I assure you.



And is that what the voices in your head are telling you Mary?

What I assure you is younger Americans find your bigotry as offensive as bigotry because of race or religion or color. 

Your kind of bigotry is a dying breed.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> MaryL is the queen of the fallacy of false comparison this week.


Oh, be nice. Yo


Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I used to think you were a good poster, too. I wish you all the best, this is just a free exchange of thought. There is so much animus here, on such a simple subject. When you disparage or mock or hate on me, that is  fine, but what did I do to any of you other than disagree? Shame on you. I deserve as much respect as the rest of you. (starting with my key board, which for some odd reason keeps making type things two or three times before it appears here). Respect me, I respect YOU.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage Equality is equal to the Vietnam War?  Yep, you heard it here.  The freaks of the far right believe they are exempt from the law.  No, they are not, as the found out in SC this week.  That is only the start.
> ...



Really Mary? Are 50,000 Americans and countless other going to die horrible deaths over gay marriage. Will untold numbers of others be maimed and rendered homeless, drug addicted and in despair over gay marriage?Will a country and its people be left in ruins and a generation of Americans be alienated left and distrustful of government ? Give me a fucking break!  You sound like you're channeling Ann Coulter.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 44296
> View attachment 44297
> View attachment 44298
> 
> ...


So now I see what you are. Someone who wants to fight a proxy war with videos and cartoons because you can't  put a coherent paragraph together to explain your position on the topic. OK so be it


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL is the queen of the fallacy of false comparison this week.
> ...



Mary- it annoys me when you either make false statements out of ignorance- or false statements with the intent to deceive. 

You have claimed before that gays have always had equal rights- and I have pointed out that that is just a false statement- by pointing out the laws that specifically discriminated against homosexuals. 
You never respond when I do that.

Now you say that we have been 'suckered into gay marriage'- by 'lies'.

What lies Mary?


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 10, 2015)

Of course states can refuse to marry queers.... what can happen to them?... Lose Federal aid, they can simply have all citizens send the state the TAX owed the Fed. Send in troops? Governor can activate state troopers and city police, and ask for the MILITIA from other states to help, as they did with Bundy! In actually IF the people of the state VOTE to deny queer marriage, there isn't much the Federal government can do...but I'll listen to your replies!


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 44296
> ...


Already did post one, a reply to you few before this post. I'm still waiting for your reply 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


  Sorry to annoy you, I am tired of some people's ignorance. I don't want to be preachy or pedantic, Yes, Marriage  for all has always been on the table and  always has been. It's a lie that it isn't. But for a few restrictions. Simple as that. One man one woman. That is a beautiful thing, symmetry. And they can biologically reproduce with one another, simple as pie. They don't use artificial insemination, adoption or mistaken offspring  born out of mistaken heterosexual unions to use as pawns for their agenda. We are talking 2% of Americans here. And time will prove them just a sexual dysfunction, not a special class of human beings. That is the Vietnam I refer to. We will regret this involvement to this degree later, I assure you. BIG mistake.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL, yes, that is your opinion.  So what.  Most Americans now differ with you, as does a majority of SCOTUS.  This is over.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> MaryL, yes, that is your opinion.  So what.  Most Americans now differ with you, as does a majority of SCOTUS.  This is over.


And this is YOUR opinion. Between you and I, brother, I have no idea what MOST Americans think, But  on this  same note, I doubt you do, either. Stats, charts all that. If I am wrong, I will remember you. Pay you due homage as whatever you see fit. If I am right,  say 2045 or so, you owe me a coke. Deal? This isn't going to resolve itself over night And I doubt it will have a fairy  tail ending.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

The shift happened this week, and you will know long before 2045.

Other shifts: the firing on Old Glory at Ft Sumter that brought northern Democrats to support Lincoln and the Union; the bombing of Pearl Harbor end American isolationism launching us into WWII.  Dylan Roof's shooting of nine unarmed Christian worshippers woke all of America to the hatred of the far right.

Yup, we are moving forward.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The shift happened this week, and you will know long before 2045.
> 
> Other shifts: the firing on Old Glory at Ft Sumter that brought northern Democrats to support Lincoln and the Union; the bombing of Pearl Harbor end American isolationism launching us into WWII.  Dylan Roof's shooting of nine unarmed Christian worshippers woke all of America to the hatred of the far right.
> 
> Yup, we are moving forward.


Arrogance  isn't very charming. Especially when it wraps itself in  self righteousness. We shall see what the future holds.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The shift happened this week, and you will know long before 2045.
> ...


Ah,  you looked in the mirror.  Very insightful of you.  Yes, we will all see what unfolds in the future.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 10, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Channeling Ann Coulter, why I ought to sue ya...Good, but a  cheap shot. Funny, even I had to laugh. What can I say, nannie nannie neener? Besides the cheap shots, what else ya got? Gays don't NEED marriage, and the supreme court was overreaching and  damn, I wish they just let ALL of us Americans vote on this in a referendum of some kind and let the chips  fall where they may...ANYONE got a problem with THAT? I don't think those wankers on the supreme court should make such a momentous decision as gay marriage. Why not get the Mad Hater and the March hare as members of the supreme court too? They have all the same prerequisites as any other liberal dem.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 10, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Of course states can refuse to marry queers.... what can happen to them?... Lose Federal aid, they can simply have all citizens send the state the TAX owed the Fed. Send in troops? Governor can activate state troopers and city police, and ask for the MILITIA from other states to help, as they did with Bundy! In actually IF the people of the state VOTE to deny queer marriage, there isn't much the Federal government can do...but I'll listen to your replies!




What states are currently not allowing same-sex couples to Civilly Marry?

I believe the answer is none.  They are now marrying in all 50 States.

There are states where individuals are refusing to issue marriage licenses based on religious grounds, but all States allow SSCM now.


>>>>


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The shift happened this week, and you will know long before 2045.
> 
> Other shifts: the firing on Old Glory at Ft Sumter that brought northern Democrats to support Lincoln and the Union; the bombing of Pearl Harbor end American isolationism launching us into WWII.  Dylan Roof's shooting of nine unarmed Christian worshippers woke all of America to the hatred of the far right.
> 
> Yup, we are moving forward.



Damn, if he doesn't read those Democratic talking points just like the Obomanation!


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > Of course states can refuse to marry queers.... what can happen to them?... Lose Federal aid, they can simply have all citizens send the state the TAX owed the Fed. Send in troops? Governor can activate state troopers and city police, and ask for the MILITIA from other states to help, as they did with Bundy! In actually IF the people of the state VOTE to deny queer marriage, there isn't much the Federal government can do...but I'll listen to your replies!
> ...



They allow it, several including Texas have left it up to individuals as to their religious beliefs! The corruption of the country is going along well for you subversives!


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 10, 2015)

*Showdown: Clerk Refuses Gov.’s Order To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses*

Breitbart ^ | 9 Jul 2015 | by Dr. Susan Berry
The clerk of Casey County, Kentucky is refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite the order of Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear. During a private meeting, Beshear told county clerk Casey Davis Thursday that he should issue same-sex marriage licenses or resign, reports Kentucky.com. Davis said he is refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because same-sex marriage is against his religious beliefs, and he is also refusing to resign his post. Prior to meeting with Beshear, Davis said he was willing to go to jail for his religious beliefs. “If that’s what it takes to express freedom of religion,...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 10, 2015)

MaryL said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Holly shit! What a rant !! Have you been drinking or did you go off of you meds? Gays don't need marriage? YOU NEED HELP! Pull yourself together .....PLEASE!


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 10, 2015)

Are people who disapprove of gay marriage homophobes? 3 minute clip:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 11, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> Are people who disapprove of gay marriage homophobes? 3 minute clip:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh Christ dude! What is this now ? Another video! This one from 2009 pushing civil unions!! Why are you taking up space here with this inane crap? Apparently I was right. You can't actually present an argument of your own. You have no original thoughts.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 11, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JFish123 said:
> ...


Indefensible? Someone's on a crusade  gay people (whom I don't hate so you can't use that old shtick against me-then again you probably will) have more people in every area of entertainment, and there not like black people in the 50's etc... There's a BIIIIIG difference in not serving a gay couple cause there gay (which is wrong) and not wanting to cater a gay EVENT.
If your logic follows:
Force Muslims to make a muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake. Force blacks to make a Segregation cake. Unless you just want to target Christians 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

No I would not  want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake, blacks to make a Segregation cake. Nor would I want to force a Christian to make a  Satan cake ( maybe devils food though) These that you describe are all inherently offensive. All that any business would have to do is have a policy that states that they will not include any symbols or language that a reasonable person would  find objectionable. A reasonable person is not going to find a wedding cake offensive,

This whole thing about targeting Christians is paranoid lunacy. Laws against discrimination apply to all faiths equally .  The Muslim or anyone else who has a business is equally obligated to  serve the public when offering goods and services. I presented my take on what religious freedom means and does not mean and I stand by it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2015)

Texas, with a couple of minor exceptions, is happily issuing licenses to everyone.  So is every other state.  This is over.

The far right loonies, like Vigilante, have conceded.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 11, 2015)

Just the Right being frivolous with the People's time and money under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



No I would not  want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake, blacks to make a Segregation cake. Nor would I want to force a Christian to make a  Satan cake ( maybe devils food though) These that you describe are all inherently offensive. All that any business would have to do is have a policy that states that they will not include any symbols or language that a reasonable person would  find objectionable. A reasonable person is not going to find a wedding cake offensive,

This whole thing about targeting Christians is paranoid lunacy. Laws against discrimination apply to all faiths equally .  The Muslim or anyone else who has a business is equally obligated to  serve the public when offering goods and services. I presented my take on what religious freedom means and does not mean and I stand by it.[/QUOTE]


So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs. 
Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group. 
Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails  
The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue. 
The issue is, whether someone should be forced to make a PARTICULAR cake for any EVENT or celebration they believe is wrong. You see, making a cake is one thing, but making a cake AND writing or decorating it for something you find wrong is another issue entirely but people like to confuse the two. And those who disagree are labeled bigots. It's a sad confused world out there my friend.


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 11, 2015)

So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs. 
Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group. 
Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails  
The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue. 
The issue is, whether someone should be forced to make a PARTICULAR cake for any EVENT or celebration they believe is wrong. You see, making a cake is one thing, but making a cake AND writing or decorating it for something you find wrong is another issue entirely but people like to confuse the two. And those who disagree are labeled bigots. It's a sad confused world out there my friend. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2015)

JFish123 creates these long, rambling and inaccurate posts.

Good grief.

PA laws will guide these issues.


----------



## JFish123 (Jul 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> JFish123 creates these long, rambling and inaccurate posts.
> 
> Good grief.
> 
> PA laws will guide these issues.


Rambling? You mean explaining common sense and Truth? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JFish123 creates these long, rambling and inaccurate posts.
> ...


You are rambling.  PA laws will guide businesses on dealing with such issues.  If there are no PA laws, then a business can post a clear sign in an easily visible place what it will and won't do within the limits of common community standards.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Jul 11, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs.
> Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group.
> Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails
> The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue.
> ...




Look, I will admit that this is a difficult and touchy area. I really don’t want anyone to be in a position where they have to do something or participate in something that they find offensive and contrary to their religion. I feel sorry for those who have been brainwashed into believing that their religion requires them to treat others badly

I actually do respect religious freedom but to me that includes the freedom from religion-the idea  that not only is every person free to practice their faith and live as they wish-but that no one else is forced to adhere to the tenants of another faith. That is what a service provider who, in the name of religious freedom does when they inconvenience, or worse humiliate someone.

If you have a bakery or any business you have to serve everyone equally. It was only since the civil rights era that religious freedom was reinterpreted to mean the right to discriminate in the name of religion and now it’s happening again. I’m willing to bet that half or more of these people who don’t want to bake a “gay wedding cake” are full of shit when they invoke religion. They would cheerfully bake a cake for someone who had a child outside of marriage or who had been previously married. Religious freedom is easily abused and used as a cover for bigotry. And as I said before, if we allow people to discriminate against gays for religious purposes, then where does it end. They then have license to discriminate against anyone who they don’t approve of.

You said that any cake should be offensive to someone. Well, sorry, but no one has a right to not be offended. They have a right to practice their faith and live accordingly. If they can’t do their job because of those beliefs, they need to find another job. They need to just get over it.

And lastly, your invoking the specter of someone being forced to bake a Nazi or KKK cake is just fear mongering hyperbole. That is not going to happen. No one will be forced to provide symbols that universally recognized as offensive, nor will they be required to do anything pornographic as you alluded to. Racists and Fascists are not protected classes .


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



No I would not  want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake. Force Jews to make a Nazi cake, blacks to make a Segregation cake. Nor would I want to force a Christian to make a  Satan cake ( maybe devils food though) These that you describe are all inherently offensive. All that any business would have to do is have a policy that states that they will not include any symbols or language that a reasonable person would  find objectionable. A reasonable person is not going to find a wedding cake offensive,

This whole thing about targeting Christians is paranoid lunacy. Laws against discrimination apply to all faiths equally .  The Muslim or anyone else who has a business is equally obligated to  serve the public when offering goods and services. I presented my take on what religious freedom means and does not mean and I stand by it.[/QUOTE]

I see people are STILL completely misinterpreting the law here.  One more time for them?  It's not about your product, it is about access to your product.  You cannot go into business to serve the public and then refuse to serve one or more portions of the public.  The government doesn't recognize discrimination as a religious belief, custom or practice.    Think MAYBE they will get it this time?  Doubtful.  Lol!


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 11, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too? People don't make cakes for a variety of reasons that can offend them. Many don't make cakes with genetalia on them or sexual scenes, they don't make cakes for a KKK wedding or gathering. They don't as a matter of conscience make cakes that would go against there beliefs.
> Now you said "they would not include any symbol or language that a REASONABLE person would find objectionable." But everyone has their own beliefs and what they find reasonable. A muslim wouldn't want to make a Muhammad cake because even though I don't think it's bad. Why? Because I'm not a muslim. It's a belief they have, like the belief gay marriage is wrong that most Christians have. You can't say you'll force one group to go against there "belief" and not another group the same. Because both are set on beliefs. It's illogical and hypocritical to do so and shows your bias against one group.
> Also, a Jehovahs Witness might not want to make a "Jesus is God" or a "God is a Trinity" as they find them as abominable sins from the devil even though I do not as I believe the opposite. So what people consider "reasonable" is all relative. I mean heck, someone could find the word "fat" offensive on a cake if Political Correctness went off the rails
> The point is any cake could be offensive to anyone. And should anyone be FORCED to make a cake that goes against there conscience or strongly held beliefs? No, they shouldn't. To make a cake for people who are gay is one thing (and anyone SHOULD make that cake), but that's not the issue.
> ...



It's not about your product.  It is about public accommodation laws and anti discrimination laws and civil rights laws that were broken when this couple refused to sell to a portion of the public.  The government does not recognize discrimination as a religious practice.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Of course states can refuse to marry queers.... what can happen to them?... Lose Federal aid, they can simply have all citizens send the state the TAX owed the Fed. Send in troops? Governor can activate state troopers and city police, and ask for the MILITIA from other states to help, as they did with Bundy! In actually IF the people of the state VOTE to deny queer marriage, there isn't much the Federal government can do...but I'll listen to your replies!



Of course individuals can refuse to pay income tax? What can happen to them?

As soon as one public official is threatened with fines for contempt of court, the whole house of cards will crumble.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 11, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JFish123 said:
> ...




So you'd force a muslim to make a gay wedding cake too?.[/QUOTE]

I would insist that a Muslim business comply with the law just like any other business.

No special exemptions for Christians or Muslims or Atheists.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2015)

If you are offering a service in public association, then the government will recognize your discrimination to customers as a religious right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2015)

Did the Governor of Arizona ask for militia from other states to come to the defense of Bundy?


----------



## Geaux4it (Jul 11, 2015)

Another good time for me to send my friend Sheriff Joe a check

-Geaux


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Another good time for me to send my friend Sheriff Joe a check
> 
> -Geaux



You may need to. He lost again in court yesterday. 

It doesn't help when you try to intimate the judge in your case by having his wife stalked and investigated. But that kind of thuggery is just the kind of guy sheriff Joe is.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2015)

JFISH123 SAID: 

“No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake.”

Nonsense. 

No one is being ‘forced’ to do anything. 

Businesses are subject to all manner of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy, public accommodations laws are no different, just as business owners aren’t being ‘forced’ to pay a minimum wage and aren’t being ‘forced’ to ensure safe working conditions for employees.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jul 11, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JFISH123 SAID:
> 
> “No I would not want to force Muslims to make a Muhammad cake.”
> 
> ...


The first amendment is there to protect us from a government ran by tyrannical assholes like you 

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> If you are offering a service in public association, then the government will recognize your discrimination to customers as a religious right.



Will not, you mean?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 12, 2015)

Geaux4it said:


> Another good time for me to send my friend Sheriff Joe a check
> 
> -Geaux



Good idea- he and Maricopa County need the money to pay for all of the successful lawsuits for abuse of power by Sheriff Joe.


----------

