# Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage



## Penelope

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
		










						Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
					

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.




					www.newsweek.com
				



-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.


----------



## rightwinger

Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage

The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


----------



## ReinyDays

... separate schools for white children and black children ...


----------



## Golfing Gator

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.



It is next on the chopping block, followed soon after by legal birth control.


----------



## Penelope

Golfing Gator said:


> It is next on the chopping block, followed soon after by legal birth control.


Yes , I sure they are going to ban BC pills.


----------



## Penelope

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...


I'm sure it is too.


----------



## Penelope

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
-----------------------------
Here I thought God was all forgiving.


----------



## Mac1958

Penelope said:


> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.

Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.

_E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


----------



## rightwinger

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


Another example of why secular law is more just than Biblical law


----------



## frigidweirdo

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.



Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex? It's weird. 

"all men are created equal".... it's right there in the Declaration of Independence. 

And they want to ignore such documents because.....


----------



## Penelope

Thats what Clarence Thomas urges.


----------



## ReinyDays

Didn't Ted Cruz pee his pants hiding like a scare little chicken during the Jan 6th episode? ... what a coward ...


----------



## ReinyDays

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex? ...



Try looking in their closets ...


----------



## 1srelluc

Another shit decision that should have been left to the states or at least legislated in congress.

Then again Cruz is a putz for even bringing it up.....Red meat for the dems.


----------



## surada

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.



Well,  it's Texas. They are so moral they can take an offensive flag off your property.


----------



## Penelope

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


it will be dark red OR dark blue.
----------------------------------------
True, it's becoming that was, as I will live in a free state.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.  

If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.


----------



## Penelope

1srelluc said:


> Another shit decision that should have been left to the states or at least legislated in congress.
> 
> Then again Cruz is a putz for even bringing it up.....Red meat for the dems.


He actually believe this stuff.

*Marriage*: As Solicitor General, Ted Cruz led the charge to deny Texas couples marriage equality. In the Senate, he has supported a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from recognizing marriage equality and an amendment placing members of the Supreme Court up for election. He even said that Justice Anthony Kennedy should resign and that the Obergefell ruling threw the Supreme Court’s “very legitimacy into question.” He has said a ruling in favor of marriage equality was “fundamentally illegitimate.” Cruz has promised to campaign “front and center” on his opposition to marriage equality.









						Ted Cruz: Not a Fan of Pride Parades - HRC
					

Withdrew CandidacyWhether the issue is marriage equality or critical protection from discrimination, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has consistently opposed equality for LGBT Americans. And he’s gone even further, attacking fellow…




					www.hrc.org
				




Oh he is so religious he probably cheats on his wife and incest his children, we don't know whatever he does.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Another example of why secular law is more just than Biblical law


the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).


----------



## initforme

We believe in freedom....but....only a little freedom


----------



## Redfish

Penelope said:


> He actually believe this stuff.
> 
> *Marriage*: As Solicitor General, Ted Cruz led the charge to deny Texas couples marriage equality. In the Senate, he has supported a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from recognizing marriage equality and an amendment placing members of the Supreme Court up for election. He even said that Justice Anthony Kennedy should resign and that the Obergefell ruling threw the Supreme Court’s “very legitimacy into question.” He has said a ruling in favor of marriage equality was “fundamentally illegitimate.” Cruz has promised to campaign “front and center” on his opposition to marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz: Not a Fan of Pride Parades - HRC
> 
> 
> Withdrew CandidacyWhether the issue is marriage equality or critical protection from discrimination, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has consistently opposed equality for LGBT Americans. And he’s gone even further, attacking fellow…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hrc.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he is so religious he probably cheats on his wife and incest his children, we don't know whatever he does.


and the clintons, Swalwell, Biden, Schumer, and the rest of the dem perverts are clean and pure?


----------



## Redfish

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.


dumb penny disagrees,   like a good little sheep dem/lib she repeats the party lies and attacks anyone who posts the truth.  you libs are a waste of oxygen.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.



Yes it is a federal issue
The courts job is to defend the 14th Amendment not to pander to the hatred of the far right


----------



## Redfish

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.


another brain dead lib disagrees,  So why doesn't one of you quote the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage and abortion federal constitutional issues that must be decided by the SC rather than the voters in each state?


----------



## Penelope

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-25/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-story-just-the-latest-bombshell-in-a-bizarre-campaign
		


you guys believe tramp.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).



10 years ago the rabbis announced that God made homosexuals too.

Muslims ignore homosexuality unless they act out in public.. even heterosexuals don't act out in public.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).



Thank GOD for a separation of Church and State


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Yes it is a federal issue
> The courts job is to defend the 14th Amendment not to pander to the hatred of the far right


quote the constitutional language that addresses gay marriage and abortion.   Show us those words in the constitution.


----------



## Penelope

Redfish said:


> another brain dead lib disagrees,  So why doesn't one of you quote the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage and abortion federal constitutional issues that must be decided by the SC rather than the voters in each state?


MY BODY, MY CHOICE comes to mind.


----------



## occupied

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.


For a variety of practical reasons all marriages have to be recognized as legitimate in every state.


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> 10 years ago the rabbis announced that God made homosexuals too.
> 
> Muslims ignore homosexuality unless they act out in public.. even heterosexuals don't act out in public.


LOL, more uninformed ignorance.  Muslims toss gays off or rooftops.   yes, rabbis and many christian pastors accept that gays are children of God,  but they do not condone their actions or lifestyles.


----------



## Redfish

Penelope said:


> MY BODY, MY CHOICE comes to mind.


Does that apply to vax injections?


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.



You don't think the 14th Amendment is a part of the US Constitution? ...


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> quote the constitutional language that addresses gay marriage and abortion.   Show us those words in the constitution.


14th Amendment equal protection under the law

The State does not get to judge what type of relationship you have or what makes a “real” marriage

Same as they couldn’t tell white people they couldn’t marry black people


----------



## Penelope

Redfish said:


> LOL, more uninformed ignorance.  Muslims toss gays off or rooftops.   yes, rabbis and many christian pastors accept that gays are children of God,  but they do not condone their actions or lifestyles.


some of you religious folk are gay themselves.


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> Does that apply to vax injections?



Yes ... because if this is a requirement for employment ... you can quit ... _c.f._ 13th Amendment to the US Constitution ...


----------



## Redfish

Penelope said:


> https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-25/ted-cruz-sex-scandal-story-just-the-latest-bombshell-in-a-bizarre-campaign
> 
> 
> 
> you guys believe tramp.


a cite from a left wing rag does not make your case, penny. ..

as to Trump, the best president in  my lifetime and I have been around a long time.


----------



## Redfish

Penelope said:


> some of you religious folk are gay themselves.


yes, some are. so what?


----------



## Redfish

ReinyDays said:


> Yes ... because if this is a requirement for employment ... you can quit ... _c.f._ 13th Amendment to the US Constitution ...


I thought you libs supported the rights of individuals over the rights of the evil corporations.  Now you are saying that the corporations can refuse employment to anyone who does not agree to get a vax?   inconsistent at best, disingenuous at worst.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> Does that apply to vax injections?


Nobody was forced to be vaccinated
They were just kept apart from regular people


----------



## Redfish

ReinyDays said:


> You don't think the 14th Amendment is a part of the US Constitution? ...


quote from the 14th where it mentions gay marriage or abortion, show me those words in the 14th amendment and I will concede that you are right.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Nobody was forced to be vaccinated
> They were just kept apart from regular people


if you wanted to work or travel you were forced, stop lying about this.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> if you wanted to work or travel you were forced, stop lying about this.


Your choice

If you don’t get to associate with regular people it was YOUR a decision


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Your choice
> 
> If you don’t get to associate with regular people it was YOUR a decision


bullshit.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


You thought wrong. His forgiveness extends ONLY to those who repent of their sin and accept Christ as Lord and Master.


----------



## rightwinger

GMCGeneral said:


> You thought wrong. His forgiveness extends ONLY to those who repent of their sin and accept Christ as Lord and Master.


And the billions of people around the world who are not Christian?


----------



## ReinyDays

rightwinger said:


> 14th Amendment equal protection under the law
> 
> The State does not get to judge what type of relationship you have or what makes a “real” marriage
> 
> Same as they couldn’t tell white people they couldn’t marry black people



Yes they do ... Oregon's constitution requires marriage to be "one man, one woman" ... and we've established Civil Union laws for the "equal but separate" solution ... all of which SCOTUS overruled ...

These are individual rights ... and Ted Cruz wants to give these rights to the government ... the government tells us who we can and cannot marry, the government tells us if we should be pregnant or not, the government tells us who are friends should be ...

I agree this is all good for Texas ... lord knows those people can't decide themselves ... all the more reason to let Mexico have her back ... Texas thrives under totalitarianism ... individual liberties is wasted on these folks ...


----------



## ReinyDays

GMCGeneral said:


> You thought wrong. His forgiveness extends ONLY to those who repent of their sin and accept Christ as Lord and Master.



Wrong ... God forgives all ... it is only Man who refuses to forgive ... first himself, then all others ...


----------



## White 6

1srelluc said:


> Another shit decision that should have been left to the states or at least legislated in congress.
> 
> Then again Cruz is a putz for even bringing it up.....Red meat for the dems.


Nobody said Cancun Ted was very bright.


----------



## Polishprince

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.




Sen. Cruz is correctomundo.    Nothing in the Constitution about Gay Marriage (which was unheard of only a few decades ago) and nothing in the Constitution gives the Supremes the authority to create new social institutions.

Marriage is a relationship between one dude and one broad, and was established by Almighty God  when He placed Adam and Eve in the garden.   Not Adam and Steve, as claimed by libs, and for which there is no biblical basis.


----------



## 1srelluc

Penelope said:


> He actually believe this stuff.
> 
> *Marriage*: As Solicitor General, Ted Cruz led the charge to deny Texas couples marriage equality. In the Senate, he has supported a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from recognizing marriage equality and an amendment placing members of the Supreme Court up for election. He even said that Justice Anthony Kennedy should resign and that the Obergefell ruling threw the Supreme Court’s “very legitimacy into question.” He has said a ruling in favor of marriage equality was “fundamentally illegitimate.” Cruz has promised to campaign “front and center” on his opposition to marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz: Not a Fan of Pride Parades - HRC
> 
> 
> Withdrew CandidacyWhether the issue is marriage equality or critical protection from discrimination, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has consistently opposed equality for LGBT Americans. And he’s gone even further, attacking fellow…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hrc.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he is so religious he probably cheats on his wife and incest his children, we don't know whatever he does.


See, this exactly what I mean.....The mean-spirited dems are paying attention now.

The dems are grasping at any straw they can find in a vane effort to stave off what is going to happen to them in November and dumb-shit Ted Cruz just handed them one. Damn I dislike that man with the fire of a thousand suns. 

WTF was he thinking? I guess he thought it would be red meat pandering for the 5% of far right nutjobs in TX or some shit....Instead he stirs up the dem nut-jobs. 

Blah, never underestimate the ability for the likes of Cruz to give the dems something to run on.

Damn it to hell we have the dems where we want them so the fuzzy-faced cocksucker needs to STFU.

I swear, I wish TX would reform their old republic and take Ted Cruz with them.....Nothing of redeeming value comes from TX....Nothing.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> Sen. Cruz is correctomundo.    Nothing in the Constitution about Gay Marriage (which was unheard of only a few decades ago) and nothing in the Constitution gives the Supremes the authority to create new social institutions.
> 
> Marriage is a relationship between one dude and one broad, and was established by Almighty God  when He placed Adam and Eve in the garden.   Not Adam and Steve, as claimed by libs, and for which there is no biblical basis.


Read the 14th Amendment


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> was established by Almighty God when He placed Adam and Eve in the garden. Not Adam and Steve, as claimed by libs, and for which there is no biblical basis.



God created gay people
Are you saying he was wrong?


----------



## pknopp

When you wish to have sex everyone knows you don't turn to a lifelong partner of the same sex, you get yourself a pool boy or a porn star on the side.

 Though I am not sure what you do when you have an ugly wife like someone once told Ted.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> God created gay people
> Are you saying he was wrong?




Almighty God created all people, and some have chosen to commit the sin of sodomy- most notably in the ancient city of Sodom- where they loved takng it in the caboose so much they named their city after the act.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Read the 14th Amendment



The 14th Amendment says nothing about taking it in the Caboose.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> Almighty God created all people, and some have chosen to commit the sin of sodomy- most notably in the ancient city of Sodom- where they loved takng it in the caboose so much they named their city after the act.



Only they are born that way
Did God make a mistake?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage


Of course he did.

Like others on the right Cruz is a hateful bigot.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> The 14th Amendment says nothing about taking it in the Caboose.



Why are Conservatives obsessed with anal sex?


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Only they are born that way
> Did God make a mistake?



No one was "born that way", its just a non-normative behavior that some people CHOOSE to do.


----------



## Mr Natural

Don't they have anything more important to spend their time on?


----------



## Polishprince

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Of course he did.
> 
> Like others on the right Cruz is a hateful bigot.



Not at all.  Cruz is a proud hispanic who oozes with machismo and just doesn't approve of this behavior that people choose to do.

No, it isn't "bigotry", people don't choose to be black or latino,   Equating sodomy with being black will get you punched in the face around here.  Tell that opinion to a group of black guys hanging on the corner drinking malt liquor and smoking newports and see what happens.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.


It won’t stop with _Roe_ and _Obergefell _– _Lawrence_ and _Romer_ will be next.

In fact, it’s part of a conservative effort to not just allow discrimination against gay Americans but to destroy the doctrine of substantive due process codified by the 14th Amendment altogether, allowing the states to ignore the Bill of Rights.

The states will be at liberty to discriminate against and disadvantage religious minorities, ethnic minorities, racial minorities and immigrants – it’s a neo-fascist authoritarian rightwing dream come true.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> LOL, more uninformed ignorance.  Muslims toss gays off or rooftops.   yes, rabbis and many christian pastors accept that gays are children of God,  but they do not condone their actions or lifestyles.



That's ISIS not Muslims. Don't you know the difference?


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Why are Conservatives obsessed with anal sex?



Actually, its the libs who are the obsessed ones, taking it to the Supreme Fucking Court to get it legalized in the Lawrence case in 2003.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> Yes it is a federal issue
> The courts job is to defend the 14th Amendment not to pander to the hatred of the far right


And that’s exactly what this activist Court is going to do: hobble the 14th Amendment and pander to the hatred of the right.


----------



## surada

Polishprince said:


> Not at all.  Cruz is a proud hispanic who oozes with machismo and just doesn't approve of this behavior that people choose to do.
> 
> No, it isn't "bigotry", people don't choose to be black or latino,   Equating sodomy with being black will get you punched in the face around here.  Tell that opinion to a group of black guys hanging on the corner drinking malt liquor and smoking newports and see what happens.



Machismo?  Cruz is so ugly. I don't see him as masculine at all.


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> quote from the 14th where it mentions gay marriage or abortion, show me those words in the 14th amendment and I will concede that you are right.



"... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" ...

Case 1]  I'm a biological man and my wife is a biological woman ... she withdraws all the money from the bank and runs off ... the courts will give me a judgement against her for half the money and I can garnish her wages ...

Case 2] I'm a biological man and my shack-up honey is also biological man ... he withdraws all the money from the bank and runs off ... the courts can do nothing ... I'm shit out of luck ...

Helpful to your understanding would be to re-read the judgement issued in the _Brown vs. Board of Education_ case ... separate is NOT equal ... therefore the courts must judge these two cases WITHOUT regard to biological sex ... if we're to have "marriage" available, it must be available to ALL ... 

Ultimately this is about whether marriage is an individual right or a government right ... not sure we want to live in a place where abortion is a government right ... they tried that in China and, well, it did work, but it was expensive to civil liberties ...


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Read the 14th Amendment



The 14th Amendment was passed by Dittoheads and Little Trumpsters.   Not the Democrats, who opposed it.

I think we need to ask the authors of the Amendment, guys like Senor Cruz what they intended.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> Thank GOD for a separation of Church and State


This activist Court is going to eliminate that as well.

Expect the Court to abandon decades of settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence codifying the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

Government endorsement of religion will be allowed, mandatory Christian prayer will be returned to public schools, government venues will be allowed to display and promote Christian dogma.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> Read the 14th Amendment


Read its case law – which is now in jeopardy.


----------



## Redfish

ReinyDays said:


> "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" ...
> 
> Case 1]  I'm a biological man and my wife is a biological woman ... she withdraws all the money from the bank and runs off ... the courts will give me a judgement against her for half the money and I can garnish her wages ...
> 
> Case 2] I'm a biological man and my shack-up honey is also biological man ... he withdraws all the money from the bank and runs off ... the courts can do nothing ... I'm shit out of luck ...
> 
> Helpful to your understanding would be to re-read the judgement issued in the _Brown vs. Board of Education_ case ... separate is NOT equal ... therefore the courts must judge these two cases WITHOUT regard to biological sex ... if we're to have "marriage" available, it must be available to ALL ...
> 
> Ultimately this is about whether marriage is an individual right or a government right ... not sure we want to live in a place where abortion is a government right ... they tried that in China and, well, it did work, but it was expensive to civil liberties ...


equal PROTEC TION,  does not say right to abort or right to marry same sex. nice try, but others have also tried that and lost in court.

Personally I have no issue with giving same sex committed couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.  I think the majority in most states would vote for that.  The issue here is whether it is a federal constitutional issue.  the SC says it is not.  so let the voters in each state decide,  why are you scared of the will of the people?


----------



## Redfish

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This activist Court is going to eliminate that as well.
> 
> Expect the Court to abandon decades of settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence codifying the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.
> 
> Government endorsement of religion will be allowed, mandatory Christian prayer will be returned to public schools, government venues will be allowed to display and promote Christian dogma.


the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits any state sponsored religion.  you libs are trying to make something out of nothing.


----------



## Redfish

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And that’s exactly what this activist Court is going to do: hobble the 14th Amendment and pander to the hatred of the right.


once again, why are you libs so scared of letting the voters in each state decide these issues?   There is no doubt that Cal, NY and others will vote your way.  What exactly are you so scared of?


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> if you wanted to work or travel you were forced, stop lying about this.



This must be where you live ... we have those laws, but we defunded our police decades ago so there's no one forcing anyone to vax or mask or social distance ... our local DA made a big public point about gathering with his family for Thanksgiving dinner, in spite Governor Kate Brown SCREAMING about throwing folks in prison ... too funny ... 

We don't have checkpoints on our freeways here in The West ... we can travel all we want ... 

Employment is up to the employer ... so this makes sense for hospital and school employment ... and we've had flu vax requirement for these jobs for as long as there's been flu vaccines ... there even a long list of required vaxxes for the students ... Texas is infamous for requiring vaccines for STDs in kindergarten ...

The problem is you do everything the government tells you to do ... without question ... we here in The West are much quicker to say "make me" ... here's the test, did your government remind you to NEVER to use a mask twice? ... or prohibit the use of polyester masks? ... didn't think so ...


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> That's ISIS not Muslims. Don't you know the difference?


ISIS is a muslim organizationl, based on their interpretation of the Koran, which happens to agree with the laws of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and others.   Have you read any of the Koran?  if not, STFU about that which you know nothing.


----------



## Redfish

ReinyDays said:


> This must be where you live ... we have those laws, but we defunded our police decades ago so there's no one forcing anyone to vax or mask or social distance ... our local DA made a big public point about gathering with his family for Thanksgiving dinner, in spite Governor Kate Brown SCREAMING about throwing folks in prison ... too funny ...
> 
> We don't have checkpoints on our freeways here in The West ... we can travel all we want ...
> 
> Employment is up to the employer ... so this makes sense for hospital and school employment ... and we've had flu vax requirement for these jobs for as long as there's been flu vaccines ... there even a long list of required vaxxes for the students ... Texas is infamous for requiring vaccines for STDs in kindergarten ...
> 
> The problem is you do everything the government tells you to do ... without question ... we here in The West are much quicker to say "make me" ... here's the test, did your government remind you to NEVER to use a mask twice? ... or prohibit the use of polyester masks? ... didn't think so ...


my state is much like yours, geographical generalizations are generally wrong.


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> once again, why are you libs so scared of letting the voters in each state decide these issues?   There is no doubt that Cal, NY and others will vote your way.  What exactly are you so scared of?



Because if California marries two men together ... Kentucky will be required to honor that marriage ... 
Just like an Alabama slave owner can bring his slaves with him into Michigan ... and not have his property taken away ...

Here's a question ... if a Texas girl travels to California for her abortion, will she be arrested and have her tubes tied when she returns to Texas? ... isn't the baby an official resident of Texas and does Texas have final say as to what's in the best interest of the child? ...


----------



## bodecea

Penelope said:


> Yes , I sure they are going to ban BC pills.


The Republican white-wing is talking about it already.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).


And they also believe that abortion is ok.....how long did that religious belief last under the Republican white-wing?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits any state sponsored religion.  you libs are trying to make something out of nothing.


“The Establishment Clause, Thomas concludes, was actually intended to protect these State-established churches against a uniform law of Congress; it thereby expressed the fundamental structural constitutional principle of federalism (and the Tenth Amendment), thus leaving religious issues to the States. (By contrast, the free exercise clause, he argues, does apply to the States .)”






						Greece the Establishment Clause: Thomas's Church-State Originalism - Ken Masugi
					

“As an initial matter, the Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion.” –Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Greece v. Galloway “Probably”? As if the May 5, 2014 Town of Greece v. Galloway decision, upholding prayers said at the beginning of...




					lawliberty.org
				




And by leaving religious issues to the states, allow the states to discriminate against religious minorities and compel state authorized religious indoctrination such as Christian prayer in public schools.

Thomas is wrong, of course. And like other rightwing jurists, Thomas is an enemy of the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate as well as being an inconsistent hypocrite.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> ISIS is a muslim organizationl, based on their interpretation of the Koran, which happens to agree with the laws of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and others.   Have you read any of the Koran?  if not, STFU about that which you know nothing.



Lol

You are so ignorant. ISIS was born in Camp Bucca prison in 2004. It has NOTHING in common with Islam in Saudi Arabia. If a Saudi goes to fight with ISIS they better not return to Arabia. It's a long prison sentence. 

Have you ever lived in Saudi Arabia? How about Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or Kuwait or Libya? Have you even visited?


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.



And then a married couple moves from one state to another and BOOM they are no longer married.  That would be a fine solution is Fed benefits did not rely on marriage.


----------



## there4eyeM

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


Perhaps all these divisive arguments will be less on a national basis and help to get Congress to concentrate on bigger common questions.


----------



## Mac1958

there4eyeM said:


> Perhaps all these divisive arguments will be less on a national basis and help to get Congress to concentrate on bigger common questions.


I can see that, theoretically.  It's just a shame to see us divide like this.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> once again, why are you libs so scared of letting the voters in each state decide these issues?   There is no doubt that Cal, NY and others will vote your way.  What exactly are you so scared of?


And it’s not just substantive due process that’s in jeopardy.

This activist Court is going to pander to the hatred of the right by attacking procedural due process as applied to the states.

_Mapp_, _Gideon v. Wainwright_, and _Miranda_ will likewise be overturned – residents of the states will no longer be entitled to Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment protections, allowing for invasive searches, indeterminate detentions, and lack of legal representation.

Again, a dream come true for the neo-fascist authoritarian right at liberty to create actual police states.


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> my state is much like yours, geographical generalizations are generally wrong.



There's daily riots in front of the ICE buildings in your state in order to prevent illegal Mexicans from being deported? ... pray tell ... which state would that be? ...

You posted "Big Easy" ... New Orleans? ... folks too stupid to charge enough tolls on the river to afford your own levees? ... or government too corrupt to be trusted with that money? ... yeah, sounds just like Oregon ...

Jefferson's State Constitution doesn't allow the legislature to meet ... ever ... there's a well marked detour around Redding ... if you get voted in, you gotta drive around ... NO NEW TAXES ...


----------



## Polishprince

Mac1958 said:


> I can see that, theoretically.  It's just a shame to see us divide like this.




I'd love to see Sleepy Joe mend the fences and engage in Bipartisanship, instead of continuing with the divisiveness.   But I just don't see it happening


----------



## rightwinger

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Read its case law – which is now in jeopardy.



The TRUMPCourt does not care

They swore to respect precidence and case law and have substituted their far right ideology


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> once again, why are you libs so scared of letting the voters in each state decide these issues?   There is no doubt that Cal, NY and others will vote your way.  What exactly are you so scared of?


Because you should not be able to vote on what rights others are allowed to have


----------



## there4eyeM

It is too bad that America has divided itself so. Given that it has, having the central government constantly tied up in dualistic, repetitive debate over every issue would be better avoided. It may be a sacrifice necessary to be made for unity.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> The TRUMPCourt does not care
> 
> They swore to respect precidence and case law and have substituted their far right ideology




Actually, the hearings for confirmation of conservative justices focused on alleged Gang Rape parties in Montgomery County and alleged public hairs on coke cans.   Not on legal issues at all.   You wouldn't be so misinformed if you liberal heroes asked pertinent questions, instead of just ones with a prurient interest.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Because you should not be able to vote on what rights others are allowed to have




Everyone has a right to get married already- to a broad.

Even if someone is extremely light in the loafers, that doesn't change their right to get married if they want.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Polishprince said:


> I'd love to see Sleepy Joe mend the fences and engage in Bipartisanship, instead of continuing with the divisiveness.   But I just don't see it happening



Funny how you all only want the Dems to engage in Bipartisanship and then attack your beloved Repubs when they do it.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> Everyone has a right to get married already- to a broad.
> 
> Even if someone is extremely light in the loafers, that doesn't change their right to get married if they want.


----------



## expat_panama

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


Interesting quote.  What we're working w/ here is a lot of different translators say different things (some say "effeminate" others "homosexual" etc.) and our choice is to say which translation is correct and just what it's supposed to mean.

Mean while, the original question of so called "same sex marriage" comes back to bite us.   Two years earlier the Supreme Court said that only the states can decide what a marriage is when they struck down the defense of marriage act, and then they turned right around by ruling soon afterward that the states had no jurisdiction w/ regard to so called "same sex-marriage".

Clearly the Supreme Court can do anything it damn well feels like and we can just lump it.


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> I'd love to see Sleepy Joe mend the fences and engage in Bipartisanship, instead of continuing with the divisiveness.   But I just don't see it happening


More gaslighting, I see.


----------



## GMCGeneral

ReinyDays said:


> Wrong ... God forgives all ... it is only Man who refuses to forgive ... first himself, then all others ...


No you are also wrong. Not everyone goes to Heaven. G-d is also Holy and righteous. He cannot allow sin in His presence at all. Now either we pay for our sin debt with our souls, or Christ pays that debt in our place.


----------



## Polishprince

bodecea said:


> More gaslighting, I see.



Sleepy Joe went to Israel and Saudi Arabia to mend fences, why can't he go to Mar a Lago and try to find common ground with the nation's 74 million Little Trumpsters?

Isn't that a smart idea if he wants to be a successful President?   Seeking enmity with a huge segment of America seems like a sure ticket for failure. 

Biden has the power, now he needs to use it for good by reaching across the aisle.


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> equal PROTEC TION,  does not say right to abort or right to marry same sex. nice try, but others have also tried that and lost in court.
> 
> Personally I have no issue with giving same sex committed couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.  I think the majority in most states would vote for that.  The issue here is whether it is a federal constitutional issue.  the SC says it is not.  so let the voters in each state decide,  why are you scared of the will of the people?



It is written law that speaks to marriage ... any protections given by these laws must be applied equally to all ... if Utah allows inter-racial marriage, must Kentucky recognize this union as marriage? ...  

It would be helpful if you would actually read and study the laws ... the protections we're discussing actually come at the end of the marriage ... who gets what when the sheets split ... if you think this sounds like contract law, you'd be right ...

Same sex contracts doesn't sound so un-Bibley ...


----------



## bodecea

GMCGeneral said:


> No you are also wrong. Not everyone goes to Heaven. G-d is also Holy and righteous. He cannot allow sin in His presence at all. Now either we pay for our sin debt with our souls, or Christ pays that debt in our place.


Which god?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


How come none of these people who claim that Obergefell and Roe were wrongly decided have the guts to say that Loving was wrongly decided?


----------



## GMCGeneral

bodecea said:


> Which god?


Sovereign G-d of Creation.


----------



## ReinyDays

GMCGeneral said:


> No you are also wrong. Not everyone goes to Heaven. G-d is also Holy and righteous. He cannot allow sin in His presence at all. Now either we pay for our sin debt with our souls, or Christ pays that debt in our place.



Christ begged God to forgive those who were _nailing Him to the cross_ ... are you suggesting God didn't? ... 

I didn't mention Heaven ... we pray that God will make things on Earth as they are in Heaven ... maybe sometimes they are ...


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How come none of these people who claim that Obergefell and Roe were wrongly decided have the guts to say that Loving was wrongly decided?




If you think that being black is the same as being a homosexual, you ought to drive up to a street corner in a ghetto near your domicile and share that information with the local gangstas.   I bet they'd be interested in your theorem.


----------



## GMCGeneral

ReinyDays said:


> Christ begged God to forgive those who were _nailing Him to the cross_ ... are you suggesting God didn't? ...
> 
> I didn't mention Heaven ... we pray that God will make things on Earth as they are in Heaven ... maybe sometimes they are ...


This world will be destroyed through man's sin and G-d's wrath. Revelation 21 and 22 speak of the NEW world without sin.


----------



## toobfreak

Penelope said:


> I just knew it would come up soon.



Well, you DO realize that he has to be right!  For the same reasons that the fed hasn't the constitutional authority to declare abortion laws are a federal decision for all of the states, likewise, the fed hasn't the constitutional authority to declare marriage laws either for all of the states!  It isn't in the Constitution!  And anything not laid out as a federal responsibility in the Constitution falls to the states.

Not that anyone is banning gay unions, just that it really should be each state's own decision under THEIR control.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> If you think that being black is the same as being a homosexual, you ought to drive up to a street corner in a ghetto near your domicile and share that information with the local gangstas.   I bet they'd be interested in your theorem.


I did not say that  they are the same, Fool! The point is that both were decided on the same constitutional principles.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> The TRUMPCourt does not care
> 
> They swore to respect precidence and case law and have substituted their far right ideology


And they’ll overturn settled accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence along with 14th Amendment precedent just as they did _Roe/Casey_.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How come none of these people who claim that Obergefell and Roe were wrongly decided have the guts to say that Loving was wrongly decided?


Or that _Brown_ was wrongly decided.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

1srelluc said:


> Another shit decision that should have been left to the states or at least legislated in congress.
> 
> Then again Cruz is a putz for even bringing it up.....Red meat for the dems.


He only says what you say. Sounds like you are calling yourself a putz.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GMCGeneral said:


> Sovereign G-d of Creation.


You magical spells and chants hold no weight,shaman.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You magical spells and chants hold no weight,shaman.


Not magic. G-d Himself condemns sorcery. Just THE objective absolute Truth!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

GMCGeneral said:


> Not magic. G-d Himself condemns sorcery. Just THE objective absolute Truth!


Again, shaman, your magical incantations and threats hold no weight, here.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Polishprince said:


> If you think that being black is the same as being a homosexual, you ought to drive up to a street corner in a ghetto near your domicile and share that information with the local gangstas.   I bet they'd be interested in your theorem.


Wrong.

If _Obergefell_ was wrongly decided, then so was_ Loving_ – if the states have the authority to deny same sex-couples access to state marriage law then the states likewise have the authority to deny interracial couples access to state marriage law.

Both _Loving_ and _Obergefell_ are the progeny of the same 14th Amendment jurisprudence, of the right to substantive due process, as incorporated to the states, where the states cannot deny American citizens residing in the states the right to equal protect of the law (such as access to marriage law) and due process of the law because of race or sexual orientation.

Conservatives are cowards, of course – they shy away from advocating _Loving_ be overturned because of its racist implications; as bigots, naturally, conservatives have no problem with the states discriminating against same-sex couples.


----------



## BackAgain

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


I don’t often disagree with Ted Cruz. But in this issue, I do. 

Try though I have, I have never seen a single logical basis to justify  the government sticking it’s head into the issue of which fully consenting adult person any other fully consenting adult person can marry.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I did not say that  they are the same, Fool! The point is that both were decided on the same constitutional principles.




A man taking it in the caboose may be a lot of things, but it isn't a "constitutional principle".


----------



## ReinyDays

GMCGeneral said:


> This world will be destroyed through man's sin and G-d's wrath. Revelation 21 and 22 speak of the NEW world without sin.



Doesn't leave much to discuss ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BackAgain said:


> I don’t often disagree with Ted Cruz. But in this issue, I do.
> 
> Try though I have, I have never seen a single logical basis to justify  the government sticking it’s head into the issue of which fully consenting adult person any other fully consenting adult person can marry.


Because you are neither a religious nutball or a person pandering to religious nuyballs for their votes.

Ted Cruz probably doesn't even agree with Ted Cruz.


----------



## BackAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because you are neither a religious nutball or a person pandering to religious nuyballs for their votes.
> 
> Ted Cruz probably doesn't even agree with Ted Cruz.


I realize that part of the analysis of folks who disagree with my view may be grounded in religion. That doesn’t make them religious nutballs. 

But I also see that it can be a difficult issue wherein there does exist *some* entanglement of religious beliefs into the public policy concerns.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BackAgain said:


> I realize that part of the analysis of folks who disagree with my view may be grounded in religion. That doesn’t make them religious nutballs.


If you think your religious beliefs shod be codified into law, you are, indeed,a religious nutball.

JMHO


----------



## BackAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you think your religious beliefs shod be codified into law, you are, indeed,a religious nutball.
> 
> JMHO


I partly agree with you. I partly disagree with you. 

Consider this example. There is a very well known religious command that says “thou shalt commit no murder.”  I suppose that makes it a religious belief. 

And I happen to believe it is properly codified in law. 

By contrast, the command against taking the name of God in vain is not one which should be codified.


----------



## SmokeALib

rightwinger said:


> Only they are born that way
> Did God make a mistake?


People are born sexual perverts?


----------



## rightwinger

Next targets for the TRUMPCourt

Gay Marriage/Gay Rights
School /Public Prayer
EPA
Obamacare
CDC
Worker Protections
OSHA


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BackAgain said:


> Consider this example. There is a very well known religious command that says “thou shalt commit no murder.” I suppose that makes it a religious belief.


But nobody has to rely on "cuz mah Bible says so" to make a forceful argument for why that should be illegal. And nobody is.


----------



## BackAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But nobody has to rely on "cuz mah Bible says so" to make a forceful argument for why that should be illegal. And nobody is.


I don’t know. I’ve heard people claim that all issues of morality are the insertion of religion into our codified law. 

I happen to believe there is an overlap but not necessarily any actual connection. Nonetheless, I still don’t understand why the government would believe that it is its business to deny consenting adults of the same sex the right to marry. I guess my question is this:

What genuine public policy purpose is served by denying anyone their right to marry each other because of their homosexuality?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BackAgain said:


> I don’t know. I’ve heard people claim that all issues of morality are the insertion of religion into our codified law.


Sure. Christians especially like to try to claim dominion over basic ethics and morality. It's part and parcel of the con.


----------



## BackAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sure. Christians especially like to try to claim dominion over basic ethics and morality. It's part and parcel of the con.


🙄

Your bigoted anti religious and primarily anti Christian views don’t further this conversation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BackAgain said:


> 🙄
> 
> Your bigoted anti religious and primarily anti Christian views don’t further this conversation.


Then bye.

But it is a fact that Christians like to try to claim domain. "Judeo Christian values"

*squawk*

"Judeo Christian values!"

As if anyone had to be exposed to any of their magical mythos to know murder is bad, mmkay.

They do it all the time. Politicians proudly do it.

If you can't discuss this material without acknowledging this basic fact, you aren't ready to have an honest discussion anyway.


----------



## GMCGeneral

ReinyDays said:


> Doesn't leave much to discuss ...


No need.  Man's future is bright in G-d's kingdom.  No more sin, sickness, etc.  And G-d Himself reclaims the world for His own and His people will reign with Him for all eternity.  Not a bad deal at all.


----------



## expat_panama

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sure. Christians especially like to try to claim dominion over basic ethics and morality. It's part and parcel of the con.


Wait a sec, you can't be saying that there was some kind of back room meeting at Christianity's headquarters were the evil henchmen agreed to "claim dominion over basic ethics and morality".   What say we drop the contention and agree that Christians pushing basic ethics etc. is good, and when Atheists do the same that's also good.

We also should be able to say that what we got here is an agreement of ideals but that comes later.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

expat_panama said:


> Wait a sec, you can't be saying that there was some kind of back room meeting at Christianity's headquarters were the evil henchmen agreed to "claim dominion over basic ethics and morality".


Not at all. No need. They do it in broad daylight. The preach it in their churches, and put it in their messaging. It's not a secret. Go anywhere in america that isn't an academic setting full of educated elites. Talk about America and the Constitution and wait 5 minutes.


----------



## ReinyDays

GMCGeneral said:


> No need.  Man's future is bright in G-d's kingdom.  No more sin, sickness, etc.  And G-d Himself reclaims the world for His own and His people will reign with Him for all eternity.  Not a bad deal at all.



With Christ ... it's our present that is bright ... why are you waiting to enter His kingdom? ... be wise, just because the path is well marked doesn't mean it's easy to follow ... the benches are there to rest, but do not tarry or you might get distracted and be lead off the path ...

Kill your TV ...


----------



## BackAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then bye.
> 
> But it is a fact that Christians like to try to claim domain. "Judeo Christian values"
> 
> *squawk*
> 
> "Judeo Christian values!"
> 
> As if anyone had to be exposed to any of their magical mythos to know murder is bad, mmkay.
> 
> They do it all the time. Politicians proudly do it.
> 
> If you can't discuss this material without acknowledging this basic fact, you aren't ready to have an honest discussion anyway.


As I said before: your bigoted views don’t further the conversation at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BackAgain said:


> As I said before: your bigoted views don’t further the conversation at all.


Maybe to a squealing little baby having a fit.

In what the rest of us call "reality", we just watched religious nutters cheat and lie their way to deleting a right, based on their apparently self declared dominion over morals.

So join us in reality,less whining please.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Note that all of Teddy's comments can be applied equally and fully to the ruling protecting interracial marriage.

But modern religious nutters are a'scared to talk about that. They know its a bad look. 50 years ago, they had no problem waving  their bibles and calling it a sin.


----------



## BackAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe to a squealing little baby having a fit.
> 
> In what the rest of us call "reality", we just watched religious nutters cheat and lie their way to deleting a right, based on their apparently self declared dominion over morals.
> 
> So join us in reality,less whining please.


Your self-view is very grandiose and way the hell off the charts lacking in basis. 

What you actually recently witnessed was not the deletion of any “right.”  It was the *correction* of a previously erroneous claim  that any such “right” ever existed in the first place. 

*You’ve* been doing nothing but whining about your delusional and mistaken views ever since.  I’d love to welcome you to the side of reality, but you refuse to even look at it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> A man taking it in the caboose may be a lot of things, but it isn't a "constitutional principle".


Yes I know. All you ever think about is gay sex. Tell us another one of your prison rape stories and how you fought for you manhood


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

You guys do at least understand that Ted Cruz does not give two shits about gay marriage,right?


----------



## Zincwarrior

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


Except the states have to respect the marriages that occur in other states. Las Vegas weddings are back baby.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Redfish said:


> quote the constitutional language that addresses gay marriage and abortion.   Show us those words in the constitution.


Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?


----------



## Zincwarrior

Redfish said:


> once again, why are you libs so scared of letting the voters in each state decide these issues?   There is no doubt that Cal, NY and others will vote your way.  What exactly are you so scared of?


Gerrymandered state districts that represent no one but the politicians infesting them.


----------



## GMCGeneral

ReinyDays said:


> With Christ ... it's our present that is bright ... why are you waiting to enter His kingdom? ... be wise, just because the path is well marked doesn't mean it's easy to follow ... the benches are there to rest, but do not tarry or you might get distracted and be lead off the path ...
> 
> Kill your TV ...


Because the Kingdom is the prize at the end of the day.  These mortal coils will be shed either through death or rapture.


----------



## Polishprince

Zincwarrior said:


> Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?



The 10th Amendment


----------



## GMCGeneral

Zincwarrior said:


> Gerrymandered state districts that represent no one but the politicians infesting them.


So?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> A man taking it in the caboose may be a lot of things, but it isn't a "constitutional principle".


Lawren ce v. Texas says that it is


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Theocracy Edward Reaches Around For Tyranny By Majority Whimsy Violations Of Establishment Clause "

* Blind Justice Contemplating Whether To Make Distinctions Between Individuals **


Redfish said:


> another brain dead lib disagrees,  So why doesn't one of you quote the language in the constitution that makes gay marriage and abortion federal constitutional issues that must be decided by the SC rather than the voters in each state?


In this republic , states are not allowed to dictate public policy based on whim .

Negative liberties represent protections , independence and individualism , and are to be equally protected .

Positive liberties represent endowments , dependence and collectivism , and are may not be equally endowed . 

The credo of this us republic is e pluribus unum that is based on individualism , where elements of individualism are self ownership with free roam , free association and progeny and self determination with private property and willful intents by contract that relies greatly upon informed consent .

States are to implement policy to protect the negative liberties of individuals based on a necessity for safety and security , and in so far that the negative liberties of one individual entitled to equal protection do not encroach on the negative liberties of other individuals entitled to equal protection .

Citizens must be born and by induction birth is a requirement for equal protection ; a state does not have a legitimate interest in protecting the wright to life of any which is not entitled to equal protection .

The wrights of negative liberty do not need to be enumerate and any intellectual neophyte that does not understand that , and claims otherwise , is a loathsome , despicable , traitorous piece of shit .

Based on negative liberties , two or more individuals may enter into a civil union that is made valid by informed consent , however the issue of marriage is " Which are the entitlements to negative liberties or positive liberties , if any , for the members of the private social civil agreement with respect to the state and with respect to other individuals ? " .

The declaration of independence states that all men are created equal which surreptitiously implies that women are not equal that us 19th amendment clearly exemplifies , and further per son means male and countable by census , hence born .

Classical liberalism views on marriage is that it is a private issue in which the state is without interest to provide positive liberties such as tax breaks or employer insurance .

Given a republic based on individualism , it becomes more difficult to challenge that a state may offer positive liberties for civil unions while making a distinction between the identity of those contract holders .

That is , if a state wishes to grant positive liberties for civil unions between two individuals , the specific identity of the two individual members of the civil union may not be a concern of the state , any more than a state finds it of interest to make a distinction between businesses models such as those selling pornography and those which do not .


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.



Obergefell was decided under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  There is far more Constitutional support for that decision than there ever was for Roe.  In Roe, the Berger Court literally invented a right to privacy in order to justify their ruling.


----------



## Mac1958

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Obergefell was decided under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  There is far more Constitutional support for that decision than there ever was for Roe.  In Roe, the Berger Court literally invented a right to privacy in order to justify their ruling.


Yeah, good point.  I would guess that the Supes, at least Thomas, will be looking for a way, though.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Obergefell was decided under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  There is far more Constitutional support for that decision than there ever was for Roe.  In Roe, the Berger Court literally invented a right to privacy in order to justify their ruling.


Wow, have you told the scotus judges this? At least one of them seems to think it's the same error and needs to be corrected in the same way.

And since the Roe decision relied 100% on the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, I imagine you will have an uphill climb.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Polishprince said:


> The 10th Amendment


No that says non-federal powers are reserved to the states. Where do states get the power to regulate a religious practice? It violates the First on it's face


----------



## expat_panama

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not at all. No need. They do it in broad daylight. The preach it in their churches, and put it in their messaging. It's not a secret. Go anywhere in america that isn't an academic setting full of educated elites. Talk about America and the Constitution and wait 5 minutes.


That simply doesn't compute, please help me out here.  

You can't be saying that every single Christian preaches and messages that they "claim dominion over basic ethics and morality".   Sure, you could probably find some Christian that might say something like that once in a while but hell I can name Atheists that gleefully murder 50 million Ukranians or 100 million Chinese --it proves nothing.

While we're on the subject. are u trying to allege that the Atheists themselves can rightfully claim dominion over basic ethics and mortality?  Like, the Atheists told the ancient Isrealites all about it because Moses and the gang was stuck at 5 and needed a few more to bring the list up to a full Ten Comandments?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

expat_panama said:


> You can't be saying that every single Christian...


I'm not. So you can toss that out right now.




expat_panama said:


> are u trying to allege that the Atheists themselves can rightfully claim dominion over basic ethics and mortality


Not at all! I am saying these things should be decided on rational arguments and evidence. Even a religious person can put aside their pet mythogy for 5 minutes and do that.


----------



## expat_panama

Zincwarrior said:


> Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?


That's what the US Supreme Court said back in 2010 when the declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.  They said the federal government had no business interfering w/ states rights on the marriage issue.

Yeah, I know they changed their mind a couple years later w/ homosexual unions but u got to admit the issue is controversial and there are lots of very good people on both sides.


----------



## Zincwarrior

GMCGeneral said:


> So?


You like that to defend your rights?


----------



## expat_panama

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I'm not. So you can toss that out right now...


Ah, so you misspoke and what you meant to say was that there are only "some" Christians that say that.  We agree that it's not Christianity as a whole making that claim.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...Not at all! I am saying these things should be decided on rational arguments and evidence...


We need to remember here that no matter how wonderful the tools of logic, reason, evidence may be, they are not appropriate for choosing values.  The decision to do what is right and to avoid harm to others can only be argued if it's in relation to other similar values and the goal is that of logical consistency.  Anyone who begins w/ the basic assumption of "might makes right" can logically justify all kinds of atrocities. 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ... Even a religious person can put aside their pet mythogy for 5 minutes and do that.


Sure, I'd even go further and say that there may be some Atheists sometime capable of putting aside their mindless partisan ideology to accept basic ethics and morality.  OK, please forgive, I just couldn't resist. 

Seriously I'm well aware that there are many very good people who allow themselves to be labeled "atheist".  I'd go even further and say personally my preference is for a profound respect for a complete unwillingness to put the forces of the universe in some kind of box.   Much better than my experience w/ too many Christians I've run into who may SAY they got Jesus in their hearts but in reality they got God up their ass.  

I digress.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> quote the constitutional language that addresses gay marriage and abortion.   Show us those words in the constitution.


Quote the Constitutional language that addresses an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense. Show us those words in the Constitution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

expat_panama said:


> Ah, so you misspoke and what you meant to say was that there are only "some" Christians that say that.


No, you made the mistake of inferring "all", and you did so dishonestly anyway to nitpick.  Either way, the error has been corrected. Moving on...




expat_panama said:


> Sure, I'd even go further and say that there may be some Atheists sometime capable of putting aside their mindless partisan ideology to accept basic ethics and morality


Sure, but you would sound like an idiot. Knock yourself out.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Polishprince said:


> A man taking it in the caboose may be a lot of things, but it isn't a "constitutional principle".


Wrong.

The Constitutional principle of individual liberty and self-determination:

“The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.” _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Polishprince said:


> The 10th Amendment


And the 14th Amendment requires the states to afford citizens residing in the states access to state laws, such as state marriage laws, regardless of race or sexual orientation.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> The 10th Amendment


And the 14th Amendment says, in effect that powers  reserved by the states must be excercised in keeping with the rest of the Constitution

It's interesting to note that neither you nor anyone else here has been able to explain-in legal terms-how and why Obergefell was decided improperly while Loving was a correct ruling.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GMCGeneral said:


> So?


So the conservative response that the political process can be used as a ‘remedy’ for denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is a lie.

Republican-controlled states are corrupt and gerrymandered to the extent that it’s impossible to have laws banning same-sex marriage repealed, or amend state constitutions repealing such prohibitions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> once again, why are you libs so scared of letting the voters in each state decide these issues?   There is no doubt that Cal, NY and others will vote your way.  What exactly are you so scared of?


Once again, why are conservatives frightened of allowing the voters in each state decide these issues? Why can’t the people of California and New York be allowed to regulate firearms as they see fit? What exactly are you so afraid of?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It's interesting to note that neither you nor anyone else here has been able to explain-in legal terms-how and why Obergefell was decided improperly while Loving was a correct ruling.


Rightwing bigots are comfortable exhibiting their hatred for gay Americans by overturning _Obergefell_.

Rightwing racists would have no problem overturning _Loving_, but they lack the courage to exhibit their racism.


----------



## Lesh

Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
					

The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”




					www.huffpost.com
				




Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.

We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


----------



## Astrostar

Ted Cruz says Supreme Court was 'clearly wrong' about 2015 same-sex marriage ruling
					

Sen. Ted Cruz believes the US Supreme Court was "clearly wrong" in its landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, the Texas Republican said Saturday.




					www.cnn.com
				




The Canadian, Cancun Teddy, must be caught up if he has time to exercise his hate and prejudice.  

Funny that he doesn't mention inter-racial marriage, but that would fly in the face of his favorite SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas wouldn't it?  Can't have that, nooooo.


----------



## iceberg

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Liberals do it cause they hate you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


As expected.

The neo-fascist authoritarian right won’t stop until the rights and protected liberties of all the people are destroyed.


----------



## rightwinger

iceberg said:


> Liberals do it cause they hate you.


?


----------



## Indeependent

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


We don't have enough Monkey Pox yet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> ?


It's iceberg. It won't make sense unless you get a botched lobotomy.


----------



## rightwinger

Mac1958 said:


> Yeah, good point.  I would guess that the Supes, at least Thomas, will be looking for a way, though.


Gotta love how Thomas opposes Obergfell but supports Loving

Guess it depends on whose marriage it is


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Already a thread on this ....


----------



## Oddball

What is this, the 4th or 5th thread on the topic?

Why can't you asswagon moonbats check the "similar threads" feature before posting your endless dupe threads?


----------



## Polishprince

The Hobbs case is about the precious Freedom of Choice.  Every state is given the right to choose whether or not they want to have common sense regulations regarding the Abortion Racket.

Overturning Obergefell would allow states that don't go for this new societal innovation to opt out.


----------



## Meathead

Astrostar said:


> Ted Cruz says Supreme Court was 'clearly wrong' about 2015 same-sex marriage ruling
> 
> 
> Sen. Ted Cruz believes the US Supreme Court was "clearly wrong" in its landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, the Texas Republican said Saturday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian, Cancun Teddy, must be caught up if he has time to exercise his hate and prejudice.
> 
> Funny that he doesn't mention inter-racial marriage, but that would fly in the face of his favorite SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas wouldn't it?  Can't have that, nooooo.


He can't voice his opinion because he went to Cancun?


----------



## johngaltshrugged

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As expected.
> 
> The neo-fascist authoritarian right won’t stop until the rights and protected liberties of all the people are destroyed.


Priceless progjection:


----------



## Leweman

What's Pedojoes opinion?


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


Oopsy, sounds like you may have a problem.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> Gotta love how Thomas opposes Obergfell but supports Loving
> 
> Guess it depends on whose marriage it is


Well of course.


----------



## rightwinger

Polishprince said:


> Overturning Obergefell would allow states that don't go for this new societal innovation to opt out.


States have to honor contracts issued in other states. It is in the Constitution

How do you handle Gay Couples married in another state?
How about married same sex military couples who are stationed in your state?


----------



## Polishprince

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW




What's so "radical" about marriage between a man and a broad? Hell, even in crazy left California, the people voted against Gay Marriage when they had a chance.


----------



## toobfreak

Lesh said:


> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW



I'm sure there are any number of ships and planes leaving for Australia, the Far East, S. America and Europe tonight.  Other than that, SCREW YOU, the one group that isn't budging an inch for you is we AMERICANS.   

PS: I didn't offer you Canada because I wouldn't wish you on them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

rightwinger said:


> States have to honor contracts issued in other states. It is in the Constitution
> 
> How do you handle Gay Couples married in another state?


He probably handles them with both hands at once. 

*rimshot

A dios mios


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

iceberg said:


> Liberals do it cause they hate you.


WHAT!!??


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> States have to honor contracts issued in other states. It is in the Constitution
> 
> How do you handle Gay Couples married in another state?



Do states have to do that at all?

After all, New York City won't honor the contract issued to me in Mercer County acknowledging my right to bear concealed firearms.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> Overturning Obergefell would allow states that don't go for this new societal innovation to opt out.


It would allow states to discriminate and deny access to marriage to gay couples despite the fact that no state -in all of the years of protracted litigation- was able to establish a compelling government /societal reason, or even a rational basis for banning same sex marriage


----------



## rightwinger

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It would allow states to discriminate and deny access to marriage to gay couples despite the fact that no state -in all of the years of protracted litigation- was able to establish a compelling government /societal reason, or even a rational basis for banning same sex marriage


But Ted Cruz doesn’t like it


----------



## Lesh

toobfreak said:


> I'm sure there are any number of ships and planes leaving for Australia, the Far East, S. America and Europe tonight.  Other than that, SCREW YOU, the one group that isn't budging an inch for you is we AMERICANS.
> 
> PS: I didn't offer you Canada because I wouldn't wish you on them.


I’m going nowhere. This is my country . But I will do everything in my power to rid our government of you radical scumbags


----------



## MisterBeale

If we're lucky, that State will get out of all marriage.


----------



## Centaur

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


Nothing radical about it at all, it's a pretty moderate position honestly, and not even a "left-right" issue, just an issue of normalcy versus extremism.

And good luck ridding yourself of Supreme Court justice who are appointed for life, he he he.

I predict it will be gone sometime this decade - maybe in other parts of the Western world as well, particularly if they have high percentages of Muslim immigrants or refugees.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


Absolutely. And the SCOTUS will overturn it.

And then an entrepreneurial leftist will bring a challenge to interracial marriage to force the court to blatantly contradict itself. Which it will do.


----------



## jc456

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


What’s that?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

rightwinger said:


> But Ted Cruz doesn’t like it


Fuck Ted Cruz


----------



## Centaur

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Absolutely. And the SCOTUS will overturn it.
> 
> And then an entrepreneurial leftist will bring a challenge to interracial marriage to force the court to blatantly contradict itself. Which it will do.


It doesn't matter if they "contradict" themselves - it won't have any bearing on same-sex marriage being overturned. They can make a reasonable exception for interaxial marriage.

Just how arguments for the basis of interracial marriages are on entirely different grounds than those for same-sex marriage anyway, and prohibiting the latter but not the former isn't contradictory to begin with.


----------



## DukeU

Marriage should be reserved for people who have the ability to procreate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Centaur said:


> It doesn't matter if they "contradict" themselves


*to you

Some people have a higher baseline of ethics and do think it matters.


----------



## lennypartiv

Lesh said:


> I’m going nowhere. This is my country . But I will do everything in my power to rid our government of you radical scumbags


We're radical just because we realize our Founding Fathers got it right?


----------



## Dekster

MisterBeale said:


> If we're lucky, that State will get out of all marriage.


Will never happen.  Putting a ring on it or having one put on it is too many people's greatest accomplishment in life.  They want the gubberment recognition


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Centaur said:


> Just how arguments for the basis of interracial marriages are on entirely different grounds than those for same-sex marriage anyway


Wrong.


----------



## Centaur

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *to you
> 
> Some people have a higher baseline of ethics and do think it matters.


No, it really doesn't - and there's nothing you can do about it. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.

It's perfectly consistent to allow interracial marriage but not same-sex marriage. Case closed.


----------



## Centaur

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong.


Right.

They're predicated on entirely different biological bases and other bases and not merely conflatible with each other. Science can easily testify to this.


----------



## jc456

DukeU said:


> Marriage should be reserved for people who have the ability to procreate.


That is marriage


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Centaur said:


> No, it really doesn't -


*to you

We have established this.

Good for you.


----------



## Centaur

jc456 said:


> That is marriage


Right, I'd include a grandfather clause for people who "had" the ability to procreate at some point in their life (e.x. elderly couples).

Or people who would normally have the ability to procreate except for some type of disease (e.x. a disease which prevents a man or woman from procreating who could otherwise procreate normally).

If they're born without the ability to procreate with their preferred partner at all, and not simply as a result of an abnormal disease - then no.


----------



## Centaur

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *to you
> 
> We have established this.
> 
> Good for you.


The law doesn't care, and it's not even contradictory to begin with except to some who are intentionally being pedantic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Centaur said:


> The law doesn't care, and it's not even contradictory to begin with except to some who are intentionally being pedantic.


I understand. People care. And they vote. And they vote for people who pass laws. 

But uh thanks


----------



## MisterBeale

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


I'm not sure I understand how folks like you think.

Please explain why it is all right for businesses to refuse service to Trump supporters, but not to folks that Christians believe are immoral?

Why should the 14th amendment take precedence over the First Amendment in some cases, but not others?


----------



## Calypso Jones

Redfish said:
			
		

> yeah some are so what?



cause they hate gays if they're conservatives.


----------



## Calypso Jones

well i think that's a good thing...let each state decide for themselves if they want to legalize same sex marriage.  You got a problem with letting the citizens decide?   is there a problem there??


----------



## Centaur

Plus even if the courts overturned interracial marriage, the worst thing that would happen is that it would just become a "states' rights" issue.

Some states might ban it, but even that is unlikely - and some states would codify it and become popular destinations for "marriage tourism" akin to Las Vegas. That is all.


----------



## Polishprince

Centaur said:


> Plus even if the courts overturned interracial marriage, the worst thing that would happen is that it would just become a "states' rights" issue.
> 
> Some states might ban it, but even that is unlikely - and some states would codify it and become popular destinations for "marriage tourism" akin to Las Vegas. That is all.




Considering the fact that both blacks and whites belong to the same race- The Human Race- I can't see who this would affect?   Maybe someone who wants to marry a horse, sheep or monkey?


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


The same thing will happen as RvW.  Marriage laws are a states issue.


----------



## Centaur

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


It should just be overruled - there shouldn't be any "religious reason" necessary to deny it - it should be denied solely for reasons based on reality, and if anything a "religious reason" should be needed to to allow it to begin with, not the other way around..


----------



## rightwinger

BS Filter said:


> The same thing will happen as RvW.  Marriage laws are a states issue.


14th amendment is not

States don’t get to pick which marriages they like and which they consider “yucky”


----------



## rightwinger

Centaur said:


> It should just be overruled - there shouldn't be any "religious reason" necessary to deny it - it should be denied solely for reasons based on reality, and if anything a "religious reason" should be needed to to allow it to begin with, not the other way around..


what is your reality?


----------



## Circe

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Now THAT idea I like!! Homosexuals "marrying" is just nuts. 

At least, they can do as they like, but it shouldn't be state-sanctioned and called "marriage."  Sick.


----------



## Centaur

rightwinger said:


> what is your reality?


There's no "my" reality - there's just reality and those out of harmony with it, as I attempted to address.


----------



## Lesh

DukeU said:


> Marriage should be reserved for people who have the ability to procreate.


So if a woman is “barren” or a man can’t produce viable sperm they shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

Interesting


----------



## Centaur

rightwinger said:


> 14th amendment is not
> 
> States don’t get to pick which marriages they like and which they consider “yucky”


It's not a matter of "picking marriage" - it's just a matter of distinguishing marriage from that which is not a marriage (e.x. same-sex unions) to begin with.


----------



## Circe

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


I don't approve of the hypocritical "religious reasons" excuse. We don't bake cakes for that kind of wedding because ITS PERVERTED!!!!!!!

That's a good-enough reason.


----------



## Centaur

Lesh said:


> So if a woman is “barren” or a man can’t produce viable sperm they shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
> 
> Interesting


Yes they can - since they were born with the natural ability to procreate with their spouse, and are only unable to do so because of age or disease.

Since same-sex couples never have the natural ability to procreate with their spouse, then they can't.


----------



## rightwinger

Centaur said:


> It's not a matter of "picking marriage" - it's just a matter of distinguishing marriage from that which is not a marriage (e.x. same-sex unions) to begin with.



Really?

Why does the state get to pick which consensual relationships you can have?


----------



## Circe

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...


The schools would be a whole lot safer and education would be a lot more effective -------

At least in the white schools.


----------



## Centaur

Circe said:


> I don't approve of the hypocritical "religious reasons" excuse. We don't bake cakes for that kind of wedding because ITS PERVERTED!!!!!!!
> 
> That's a good-enough reason.


Right, the only ones who should have to give a "religious" reason are same-sex couples who want an exception to the laws prohibiting them from marrying - and even then, it shouldn't be guaranteed.


----------



## Centaur

rightwinger said:


> Really?
> 
> Why does the state get to pick which consensual relationships you can have?


Why doesn't it? It has every legal right to pick which relationships people have, "consensual" or not. (Such as the various and perfectly Constitutional laws some states have prohibiting incestuous relations whether or not they involve legally consenting "adults").

Why does the state get to pick whether or not you have to stop at a red light or go at a green light?


----------



## Circe

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex? It's weird.


Right. As you say. Because it's weird.


----------



## rightwinger

Centaur said:


> Yes they can - since they were born with the natural ability to procreate with their spouse, and are only unable to do so because of age or disease.
> 
> Since same-sex couples never have the natural ability to procreate with their spouse, then they can't.


What does procreation have to do with a marriage?

It says nothing about procreating on the license the state issues


----------



## rightwinger

Centaur said:


> Why doesn't it? It has every legal right to pick which relationships people have, "consensual" or not.
> 
> Why does the state get to pick whether or not you have to stop at a red light or go at a green light?



Like when they passed laws saying blacks could not marry whites?


----------



## Centaur

rightwinger said:


> Like when they passed laws saying blacks could not marry whites?


Yes. But there's no sound or rational basis for preventing interracial marriage - the same can't be said about the other unions mentioned here.


----------



## Centaur

rightwinger said:


> What does procreation have to do with a marriage?
> 
> It says nothing about procreating on the license the state issues


The licenses presume by default that the couple have the ability to naturally procreate with each other, so that factor simply needs to be stated in black and white at this point.


----------



## DukeU

Lesh said:


> So if a woman is “barren” or a man can’t produce viable sperm they shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
> 
> Interesting



Man and woman.


----------



## jc456

Centaur said:


> Plus even if the courts overturned interracial marriage, the worst thing that would happen is that it would just become a "states' rights" issue.
> 
> Some states might ban it, but even that is unlikely - and some states would codify it and become popular destinations for "marriage tourism" akin to Las Vegas. That is all.


Funny how it’s always demofks eroding our laws, and going around the legislative branch


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


in accordance with the 10th A no where in the constitution does it give marriage powers to the feds,,,


----------



## Calypso Jones

Govt shouldn't be involved in marriage.  That's religions role.  See.... govt usurping religions role.  Just like barr said.


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> 14th amendment is not
> 
> States don’t get to pick which marriages they like and which they consider “yucky”




A Gay Marriage isn't a marriage at all, because marriage is a relationship between a dude and a broad, not two dudes.  Its not a question about "yucky"


----------



## DukeU

rightwinger said:


> Really?
> 
> Why does the state get to pick which consensual relationships you can have?



They don't.

You can have a relationship with anyone you choose.


----------



## Centaur

progressive hunter said:


> in accordance with the 10th A no where in the constitution does it give marriage powers to the feds,,,


Then if it doesn't give it to the feds, then that means Obergfell vs. Hodges is unconstitutional.

And no, overturning Obergfell vs Hodges would't be "giving it to the feds" - it would simply be returning it to the states and allowing them the discretion to ban or allow it.


----------



## Centaur

DukeU said:


> They don't.
> 
> You can have a relationship with anyone you choose.


No you can't. 

There are plenty of state laws which prohibit relationships regardless of "consent" - such as state laws which prohibit certain types of incestuous relationships. And nobody's challenged them, and not ever likely going to.


----------



## Centaur

Calypso Jones said:


> Govt shouldn't be involved in marriage.  That's religions role.  See.... govt usurping religions role.  Just like barr said.


States have a legal right to be involved with it is they so wish - I'm not sure about the federal government as per the 10th Amendment, though.


----------



## Circe

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.


Yeah ---- there are several serious taboos that cross nearly all geographic, racial, cultural, religious barriers. I've been thinking about this, and it's always about disease. Cannibalism, notably: you eat other people, you catch WHATEVER they've got because human to human disease transmission is a given in that case, from both butchering and consuming. I grokked that in the Sterling dystopic novel _Dies the Fire _when the cannibal bandits all had sores and boils all over and were generally sick and running down.  In our lifetimes there has continued cannibalism in New Guinea, Africa, and I think Utter Pradesh in India, a totally wild area. New Guinea has kuru, that brain disease like Mad Cow that is directly from cannibalism and none of them live long there. The WHO has tried to stop it, I don't know with what success.

Incest of course is a terrible problem with retardation and many really disfiguring defects, such as the Hapsburg jaw --- European royalty was so inbred that one Hapsburg monarch could not chew and a number had hemophilia, including the last crown prince of Russia. Today incest is a problem among Moslems, who marry first cousins routinely, Mormon polygamists, and Ashkenazi Jews, and all have terrible birth defects.

Homosexuality (among men: women don't seem to matter, disease-wise) has always been taboo, as you point out, everywhere, and I guess we have learned why in our time!! Some 70 million dead of AIDS by now; monkeypox spreading fast; a meningitis outbreak in Florida. The catalog of diseases spread by the very dangerous, unhealthy practices these men "enjoy" is just amazing, and yet they continue to do it. They bring in diseases to the normal people of their societies and these diseases spread, as presumably this monkeypox will. I hope not the recent meningitis --- that's a killer.

It's very stupid for any society to affirm and even celebrate and normalize homosexuality (and the other taboos) as this one has started doing. It just brings in disease after disease. And leads to the seduction and ruin of so many young boys.


----------



## DukeU

Centaur said:


> No you can't.
> 
> There are plenty of state laws which prohibit relationships regardless of "consent" - such as state laws which prohibit certain types of incestuous relationships. And nobody's challenged them, and not ever likely going to.



My bad, I didn't consider the open minds of democrats. LOL

My normal way of thinking gets in the way sometimes, I forget that there are predators out there who would screw goats if we didn't have laws.


----------



## Circe

DukeU said:


> My bad, I didn't consider the open minds of democrats. LOL
> 
> My normal way of thinking gets in the way sometimes, I forget that there are predators out there who would screw goats if we didn't have laws.


They do anyway. And cows. Don't ask me how I know.  [Sigh]


----------



## progressive hunter

Centaur said:


> Then if it doesn't give it to the feds, then that means Obergfell vs. Hodges is unconstitutional.
> 
> And no, overturning Obergfell vs Hodges would't be "giving it to the feds" - it would simply be returning it to the states and allowing them the discretion to ban or allow it.


except they couldnt ban it,, read the 1st amendment,,,


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> 14th amendment is not
> 
> States don’t get to pick which marriages they like and which they consider “yucky”


The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or abortion.  Don't you get it yet?  Trump fixed the Supreme Court.  You morons can no longer twist and manufacture something that you want the Constitution to say that isn't there.  Move along now. Take a deep breath of democracy.


----------



## rightwinger

DukeU said:


> They don't.
> 
> You can have a relationship with anyone you choose.


And?


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> 14th amendment is not
> 
> States don’t get to pick which marriages they like and which they consider “yucky”


Yes they do.  Why do you hate democracy?


----------



## rightwinger

BS Filter said:


> The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or abortion.  Don't you get it yet?  Trump fixed the Supreme Court.  You morons can no longer twist and manufacture something that you want the Constitution to say that isn't there.  Move along now. Take a deep breath of democracy.


14th amendment has everything to do with equal treatment under the law?

Why wouldn’t it apply to marriage laws?


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> 14th amendment has everything to do with equal treatment under the law?
> 
> Why wouldn’t it apply to marriage laws?


Because anything not covered in the Constitution is left to the States.  Did you ever read the Constitution?


----------



## rightwinger

BS Filter said:


> Because anything not covered in the Constitution is left to the States.  Did you ever read the Constitution?


14th Amendment is covered
Read it


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> 14th Amendment is covered
> Read it


Here we go again.  Have you had your nap today?


----------



## initforme

Abolish all marriages.   Then it's all a done  no more bickering.   And I e been married to the same woman for almost 50 years.  But since most marriages end in divorce well what's the point?


----------



## MisterBeale

rightwinger said:


> 14th amendment has everything to do with equal treatment under the law?











						Judge rules New York City bar can refuse service to Trump supporter wearing MAGA hat
					

Greg Piatek of Philadelphia claims he was refused service and then eventually removed from a New York City bar in January 2017 for wearing a “Make American Great Again” hat.




					www.foxnews.com
				












						Here's why some businesses can deny you service - but others can't | CNN
					

A Virginia restaurant's decision not to serve White House press secretary Sarah Sanders raises a major question: Can businesses serving the public legally do that?




					www.cnn.com
				




". . .However, under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination in public businesses in the United States is prohibited on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin – but it does not include specific sexual orientation or gender identity protections. . . "


----------



## MisterBeale

rightwinger said:


> 14th Amendment is covered
> Read it


The equal protection clause has to do with the federal government, not the state governments.

The federal government does not issue marriage licenses.


----------



## BS Filter

The 14th amendment is the default for the left.  Thank God President Trump finally fixed the Supreme Court.  It's been broken for years.


----------



## rightwinger

MisterBeale said:


> The equal protection clause has to do with the federal government, not the state governments.
> 
> The federal government does not issue marriage licenses.



Now, read the Supremacy Clause and get back to me


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> Now, read the Supremacy Clause and get back to me


Nothing there about marriage laws.  What was the origin of the 14th Amendment?


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> Now, read the Supremacy Clause and get back to me


You don't understand the Supremacy Clause.


----------



## tahuyaman

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...


Lol.     Next you'll say there will be a return to slavery.


----------



## Lesh

It’s pretty damn apparent that gay marriage is next on the chopping block


----------



## BS Filter

Lesh said:


> It’s pretty damn apparent that gay marriage is next on the chopping block


You bet.  It's as good as done.


----------



## initforme

As a white traditionally married man I can't figure out why other Christians are such cowards because of .0000001 percent of the population.   Fakes they are.


----------



## rightwinger

BS Filter said:


> You don't understand the Supremacy Clause.


Afraid I do

The US Constitution has precedence over state laws
You learn that in Fourth Grade


----------



## rightwinger

initforme said:


> As a white traditionally married man I can't figure out why other Christians are such cowards because of .0000001 percent of the population.   Fakes they are.


Judgemental


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> Afraid I do
> 
> The US Constitution has precedence over state laws
> You learn that in Fourth Grade


There's nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage law.


----------



## rightwinger

BS Filter said:


> There's nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage law.



Read the 14th amendment on equal protection under the law


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> Read the 14th amendment on equal protection under the law


I have.  Nothing there regarding marriage.  I guess you're gonna be surprised when same-sex marriage is overturned and left up to the states.


----------



## ReinyDays

tahuyaman said:


> Lol.     Next you'll say there will be a return to slavery.



That's specifically dealt with in the 13th Amendment ... when 2/3's of each house of Congress, and 3/4's the State agree to give the Federal government the right in question ... or to outlaw something across the United Stated ...

The issue here is the rights covered in the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment that aren't explicitly spelled out ... our forefathers decided to leave this up to the courts, and the ebb and flow of social consciousness ...

I'd hate to go back to _Plessy_ ... so I guess I have to accept SCOTUS can reverse itself ... I'm a Christian so my fight is against extramarital sex ... the leading cause of the need for abortions ... maybe ban gratuitous unwed sex on TV ... but as long as divorce is legal, we'll all be going to hell anyway ...


----------



## iceberg

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's iceberg. It won't make sense unless you get a botched lobotomy.


You're cute when you're whatever this is


----------



## GMCGeneral

Lesh said:


> Sen. Ted Cruz Says Supreme Court Was Wrong In Same-Sex Marriage Ruling
> 
> 
> The Republican said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, "was clearly wrong" and "overreaching.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas made that clear in the Roe ruling and now Cruz is trying to set the ground work for it.
> 
> We need to rid ourselves of these radical Republicans...NOW


No, we need to rid the US of far Left whackjobs like YOU!!!!


----------



## GMCGeneral

rightwinger said:


> Read the 14th amendment on equal protection under the law


Except of course for straight white Conservative Evangelical MEN, then discriminate away with impunity.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DukeU said:


> Marriage should be reserved for people who have the ability to procreate.


So heterosexual couples who, for whatever reason, can't procreate one on one in the usual way should not be allowed to marry? Perhapps there should be a law that states that any married couple whpo does not produce a child in-say 5 years - will have their marriage annulled, Do you support that?

Oh by the way, gay people do procreate


----------



## rightwinger

BS Filter said:


> I have.  Nothing there regarding marriage.  I guess you're gonna be surprised when same-sex marriage is overturned and left up to the states.


You didn’t do well in school did you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Centaur said:


> Nothing radical about it at all, it's a pretty moderate position honestly, and not even a "left-right" issue, just an issue of normalcy versus extremism.


Here is a news flash. Same sex marriage is accepted as NORMAL by a large majority of the public. For most people, it is not even a topic of discussion.


----------



## Lesh

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here is a news flash. Same sex marriage is accepted as NORMAL by a large majority of the public. For most people, it is not even a topic of discussion.


And it is now a target of the Republicans.

Newsflash...abortion was accepted by the majority of the population as well


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> You didn’t do well in school did you?


Well enough to spank your pathetic scrawny ass.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Centaur said:


> It doesn't matter if they "contradict" themselves - it won't have any bearing on same-sex marriage being overturned. They can make a reasonable exception for interaxial marriage.
> 
> Just how arguments for the basis of interracial marriages are on entirely different grounds than those for same-sex marriage anyway, and prohibiting the latter but not the former isn't contradictory to begin with.


Really? Please elaborate. Show us how sharp your legal mind is not


----------



## BS Filter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here is a news flash. Same sex marriage is accepted as NORMAL by a large majority of the public. For most people, it is not even a topic of discussion.


Then the states should have no problem legalizing same-sex marriage when the Supremes overturn it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Lesh said:


> And it is now a target of the Republicans.
> 
> Newsflash...abortion was accepted by the majority of the population as well


That is true, Goes to show you. The high court that I once respected has devolved into something akin to the Mullahs of the Taliban


----------



## Lesh

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is true, Goes to show you. The high court that I once respected has devolved into something akin to the Mullahs of the Taliban


Yup.

We need to fix that by expanding the Court and to do that we need more Dem SENATORS ELECTED


----------



## Centaur

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Please elaborate. Show us how sharp your legal mind is not


The biological grounds are entirely different, and certainly not conflatible or not equal.

They don't have to meet your personal definition of "consistent", just as people whine about "legal inconsistencies" all the time and it usually amounts to nothing.


----------



## Centaur

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is true, Goes to show you. The high court that I once respected has devolved into something akin to the Mullahs of the Taliban


Honestly, the Mullahs of the Taliban would probably make wiser decisions than some elements of the fringe left and its assorted subcultures.

Oh, and I think you meant Iran, not the Taliban.


----------



## Lesh

Centaur said:


> Honestly, the Mullahs of the Taliban would probably make wiser decisions than some elements of the fringe left and its assorted subcultures.
> 
> Oh, and I think you meant Iran, not the Taliban.


Fringe left?

The problem is that the fringe RIGHT has control of the SCOTUS


----------



## Centaur

Lesh said:


> Fringe left?
> 
> The problem is that the fringe RIGHT has control of the SCOTUS


Oh please, SCOTUS is moderate or centrist, if anything. Only someone completely beyond the "left/right" fringe altogether could believe otherwise.


----------



## Lesh

Centaur said:


> Oh please, SCOTUS is moderate or centrist, if anything


The hell it is.

This is the most radical right wing activist Court in my lifetime...and I'm 68


----------



## rightwinger

BS Filter said:


> Well enough to spank your pathetic scrawny ass.



Short bus weren’t you


----------



## Centaur

Lesh said:


> The hell it is.
> 
> This is the most radical right wing activist Court in my lifetime...and I'm 68


There's nothing radical about it - unless you're so far off the fringe that you believe that America was a "fascist" country from 1776 all the way up until the 1970s - just because elective abortion was a right under the federal Constitution.


----------



## Lesh

Centaur said:


> There's nothing radical about it - unless you're so far off the fringe that you believe that America was a "fascist" country from 1776 all the way up until the 1970s - just because elective abortion was a right under the federal Constitution.


WHAT?


----------



## Centaur

Lesh said:


> WHAT?


Abortion was not Constitutionally-protected for 90% of America's history, and no serious scholar considers America to have been a "fascist country" or "theocracy" up until the 1970s when abortion was recognized as protected by the Constitution.

In your own little world, "moderate" or "centrism" is "fascist - which shows that this is even a matter of "left / right" - it's just some people being so far off the lunatic fringe that it's barely even worth trying to enlighten them.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Lesh said:


> The hell it is.
> 
> This is the most radical right wing activist Court in my lifetime...and I'm 68


And thank G-d it IS.  We don't need more Communists on the court like you do, scumbag.


----------



## Lesh

Centaur said:


> Abortion was not Constitutionally-protected for 90% of America's history, and no serious scholar considers America to have been a "fascist country" or "theocracy" up until the 1970s when abortion was recognized as protected by the Constitution.


Abortion wad not outlawed until the late 1800s

It was unremarkable when the country was founded.


----------



## Indeependent

Centaur said:


> There's nothing radical about it - unless you're so far off the fringe that you believe that America was a "fascist" country from 1776 all the way up until the 1970s - just because elective abortion was a right under the federal Constitution.


Let me introduce you to LESH...
LESH = *LibTard*.


----------



## BS Filter

rightwinger said:


> Short bus weren’t you


Smegma brain.


----------



## Dekster

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.



Well on the plus side, you don't have to worry about Ted surviving long in the primaries.  Even conservative christians I know are fine with gay marriage.  Not keen on all the T+ crap, but they are okay with the LGB part.


----------



## BS Filter

Dekster said:


> Well on the plus side, you don't have to worry about Ted surviving long in the primaries.  Even conservative christians I know are fine with gay marriage.  Not keen on all the T+ crap, but they are okay with the LGB part.


The issue has nothing to do with religion.  The issue is the jurisdiction.


----------



## Dekster

BS Filter said:


> The issue has nothing to do with religion.  The issue is the jurisdiction.



Good luck arguing that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not in the constitution.


----------



## toobfreak

Lesh said:


> I’m going nowhere.


Wanna bet? 



Lesh said:


> This is my country .


Sorry, its already taken.



Lesh said:


> But I will do everything in my power to rid our government of you radical scumbags


If you think the flag, constitution, guns and family are radical, you're in the wrong country and we will help you find your way out back to whatever shithole you worship.


----------



## BS Filter

Dekster said:


> Good luck arguing that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not in the constitution.


Yeah, for ex-slaves and their descendants regarding citizenship and rights.  The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with marriage laws.  You people have swallowed that crap hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> well i think that's a good thing...let each state decide for themselves if they want to legalize same sex marriage.


Of course you do. And it's not because of States' rights.


----------



## BS Filter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course you do. And it's not because of States' rights.


Don't you believe in democracy?


----------



## DukeU

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh by the way, gay people do procreate


Oh by the way, not as a gay couple.


----------



## TNHarley

I dont agree with him. The fed gov is involved in marriage. Which would make gay marriage a federal right.


----------



## BS Filter

TNHarley said:


> I dont agree with him. The fed gov is involved in marriage. Which would make gay marriage a federal right.
> It shouldn't be, and that's what needs to be fixed.


----------



## TNHarley

If they get the govt out of marriage, then fine. I mean, its a religious ceremony to begin with. Maybe it should be left up to the church.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DukeU said:


> Oh by the way, not as a gay couple.


So what? Many straight couples can't either. You did not answer my question. Should the government void marriages that do not produce a child in acertain amount of time?

Better than that should couples be required to undergo a physical exam to ensure that they are able to conceive as a couple, before being allowed to marry?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TNHarley said:


> If they get the govt out of marriage, then fine. I mean, its a religious ceremony to begin with. Maybe it should be left up to the church.


Brilliant! So then, only people who belong to a chuch can marry?


----------



## TNHarley

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Brilliant! So then, only people who belong to a chuch can marry?


Its a religious institution. They should be able to do what they want if the govt gets their ass out of it.


----------



## Mashmont

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Cruz is right. Once you open up marriage to any arbitrary arrangement you choose,  you've usurped the fundamental definition of marriage.  It's pure common sense.  Obergefell lacked logic as so many leftwing decisions do.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TNHarley said:


> Its a religious institution. They should be able to do what they want if the govt gets their ass out of it.


It is a legal/civil matter for many people.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Mashmont said:


> Obergefell lacked logic


Really? Obviously you have not read the opinion


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Mashmont said:


> Cruz is right. Once you open up marriage to any arbitrary arrangement you choose, you've usurped the fundamental definition of marriage.


Nothing arbitrary about it. It still  involves two consenting adults. The only difference is that gender is no longer a factor

The arbitrary part was the states ban on same sex marriage for no rational or compelling reasons that theyu could articulate


----------



## TNHarley

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It is a legal/civil matter for many people.


And if the govt gets out of it, it isnt.


----------



## Redfish

ReinyDays said:


> Because if California marries two men together ... Kentucky will be required to honor that marriage ...
> Just like an Alabama slave owner can bring his slaves with him into Michigan ... and not have his property taken away ...
> 
> Here's a question ... if a Texas girl travels to California for her abortion, will she be arrested and have her tubes tied when she returns to Texas? ... isn't the baby an official resident of Texas and does Texas have final say as to what's in the best interest of the child? ...


ridiculous things to worry about.  you libs are crazy


----------



## Golfing Gator

Mashmont said:


> Once you open up marriage to any arbitrary arrangement



Marriage has always been an arbitrary arrangement


----------



## Redfish

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Once again, why are conservatives frightened of allowing the voters in each state decide these issues? Why can’t the people of California and New York be allowed to regulate firearms as they see fit? What exactly are you so afraid of?


the difference is that the 2nd amendment is part of the US constitution, abortion and gay marriage are not.   its really quite simple.


----------



## Redfish

Zincwarrior said:


> Where in the Constitution do states have the power to regulate marriage?


no where, that's why it should be a state by state issue.


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> I dont agree with him. The fed gov is involved in marriage. Which would make gay marriage a federal right.


but it should not be involved, that's the point here.


----------



## Redfish

ReinyDays said:


> It is written law that speaks to marriage ... any protections given by these laws must be applied equally to all ... if Utah allows inter-racial marriage, must Kentucky recognize this union as marriage? ...
> 
> It would be helpful if you would actually read and study the laws ... the protections we're discussing actually come at the end of the marriage ... who gets what when the sheets split ... if you think this sounds like contract law, you'd be right ...
> 
> Same sex contracts doesn't sound so un-Bibley ...


the voters of each state should decide this, if you don't like a state's laws, don't to to that state, simple.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Because you should not be able to vote on what rights others are allowed to have


but you want congress to do exactly that,  but not the states,  hypocrisy much?


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> If they get the govt out of marriage, then fine. I mean, its a religious ceremony to begin with. Maybe it should be left up to the church.



All the feds care about marriage by the constitution is that is is accepted as any other contract is accepted from State to State. States set marriage requirements as they are the ones issuing the licenses. 

Obergfell should have allowed States to issue or not issue SSM licenses as they saw fit, but forced them to recognize any out of State marriage as they had to in the past. 

I had no issue when NY as a State made SSM legal via legislative action, my issue is with Obergfell, and the issue is the same as Thomas' and Cruz's issue, substantive due process.


----------



## TNHarley

martybegan said:


> All the feds care about marriage by the constitution is that is is accepted as any other contract is accepted from State to State. States set marriage requirements as they are the ones issuing the licenses.
> 
> Obergfell should have allowed States to issue or not issue SSM licenses as they saw fit, but forced them to recognize any out of State marriage as they had to in the past.
> 
> I had no issue when NY as a State made SSM legal via legislative action, my issue is with Obergfell, and the issue is the same as Thomas' and Cruz's issue, substantive due process.


Bottom line is, they are heavily involved in marriage. They shouldnt be.
Either get them out of marriage or accept the gays will marry each other.


----------



## Zincwarrior

martybegan said:


> All the feds care about marriage by the constitution is that is is accepted as any other contract is accepted from State to State. States set marriage requirements as they are the ones issuing the licenses.
> 
> Obergfell should have allowed States to issue or not issue SSM licenses as they saw fit, but forced them to recognize any out of State marriage as they had to in the past.
> 
> I had no issue when NY as a State made SSM legal via legislative action, my issue is with Obergfell, and the issue is the same as Thomas' and Cruz's issue, substantive due process.


We're going to have to...agree.


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> Bottom line is, they are heavily involved in marriage. They shouldnt be.
> Either get them out of marriage or accept the gays will marry each other.



As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract. 

I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract.
> 
> I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.



Guess what? Even states must abide by the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## TNHarley

martybegan said:


> As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract.
> 
> I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.


Ummm OK Boomer





						Partners Task Force - GAO: Federal Marriage Laws - 1997
					






					buddybuddy.com
				




Its unconstitutional but it creates a right with all this legislation. 
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> no where, that's why it should be a state by state issue.



As soon as you get the Fed Govt to remove all marriage related benefits then I would be cool with it only being a state issue


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> As I said, they aren't, It's the STATES that are involved, as they issue the contract.
> 
> I don't have to "accept" jack shit. Obergfell was just as wrong as Roe as it assumed a right that doesn't exist.



False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.


----------



## TNHarley

Faun said:


> False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to *provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.*


If it goes back to being a religious institution, that could very well be the case.


----------



## Faun

TNHarley said:


> If it goes back to being a religious institution, that could very well be the case.



States cannot craft laws based on religion.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> Guess what? Even states must abide by the U.S. Constitution.



Where in the US Constitution does it say States have to issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses?


----------



## TNHarley

Faun said:


> States cannot craft laws based on religion.


Marriage is a religious institution. Except in our Country, it has been made a government institution. If the SC were to rule that the fed gov has no business in marriage and get the govt out of it, that would mean married people lose all those awesome perks, and power would go back to the states. Where it is supposed to be.
Right now, gays just want the same benefits hetero married couples get. Why would they want it if they didnt get those perks? To be all godly and shit? No, God makes it clear that homos are full of sin.


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> Ummm OK Boomer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partners Task Force - GAO: Federal Marriage Laws - 1997
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buddybuddy.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its unconstitutional but it creates a right with all this legislation.
> You are trying to compare apples and oranges.



DOMA was a response, and to me overstepped the federal governments powers.

All of the other laws are based on STATE licenses for Federal Benefits. That isn't the feds "all in on marriages"

I am saying the documents are made at the State level, and are State controlled.


----------



## TNHarley

martybegan said:


> Where in the US Constitution does it say States have to issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses?


With the federal govt being so involved in marriage, the 14th does just that.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.



There is plenty of reason to say it isn't in the Federal Constitution. SSM is a new concept, less than a few decades old, and has nothing to do with "equal application" because it isn't equal to Marriage as a heterosexual institution and contract. 

States can make it equivalent via legislation, but there is nothing in the Federal Constitution forcing the issue, except of course in the mind of legislating progressive jurists.


----------



## TNHarley

martybegan said:


> for Federal Benefits.


Hey, you are starting to come around. Good job, bro.


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> With the federal govt being so involved in marriage, the 14th does just that.



SSM and heterosexual marriage aren't equal unless made equal by legislation. All the feds should do is make all States recognize valid marriage licenses from other States, regardless of if said marriage meets the States requirements or not, just like now.


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> Hey, you are starting to come around. Good job, bro.



That isn't being "all involved". It's taking the State document and using it for other contractual purposes.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Where in the US Constitution does it say States have to issue Same Sex Marriage Licenses?



LOL

You're such a fucking idiot, marty. 

There are many laws states enact which are not mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution; but what IS in the U.S. Constitution is that all laws are to be applied equally. There's no equality in telling one person they can obtain a state-issued marriage license for one adult to marry the love of their life while denying another person that same freedom, as long as they're seeking to marry a consenting adult or consenting minor with parental approval in accordance with each states' respective laws.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> There is plenty of reason to say it isn't in the Federal Constitution. SSM is a new concept, less than a few decades old, and has nothing to do with "equal application" because it isn't equal to Marriage as a heterosexual institution and contract.
> 
> States can make it equivalent via legislation, but there is nothing in the Federal Constitution forcing the issue, except of course in the mind of legislating progressive jurists.



False. Marriage is marriage no matter who it's between; as long is it involves two consenting adults or consenting minors with parental approval in accordance with state age of consent laws.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> You're such a fucking idiot, marty.
> 
> There are many laws states enact which are not mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution; but what IS in the U.S. Constitution is that all laws are to be applied equally. There's no equality in telling one person they can obtain a state-issued marriage license for one adult to marry the love of their life while denying another person that same freedom, as long as they're seeking to marry a consenting adult or consenting minor with parental approval in accordance with each states' respective laws.



The thing is Obergfell made States issue SSM licenses regardless of the will of their legislatures, based on the made up concept of substantive due process. A concept I agree with Justice Thomas is made up crap.

Once you start bringing in emotion bait like "love" you show you don't actually have a legal based argument, simply "I think X and and I will follow any jiggery pokery some SJW justice makes up like the good little lemming I am"


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> False. Marriage is marriage no matter who it's between; as long is it involves two consenting adults or consenting minors with parental approval in accordance with state age of consent laws.



That hasn't been marriage for centuries and even millennia. Hell polygamy has a better historical argument than SSM. SSM is a concept made up in the past 2-3 decades.

Want to make it valid via legislative processes? Fine by me, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee it.


----------



## TNHarley

martybegan said:


> SSM and heterosexual marriage aren't equal unless made equal by legislation. All the feds should do is make all States recognize valid marriage licenses from other States, regardless of if said marriage meets the States requirements or not, just like now.


So let the govt discriminate. Keep letting the federal govt discriminate.
Whatever dude.


----------



## TNHarley

martybegan said:


> That isn't being "all involved". It's taking the State document and using it for other contractual purposes.


Round' here, we call that "dumb shit"


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> As soon as you get the Fed Govt to remove all marriage related benefits then I would be cool with it only being a state issue


the so-called marriage benefits were put in the tax code to encourage marriage and families way back when the country still was based on morals and ethics.   And I have no issue with those benefits being available to same sex marriages of two people, but not all variations and numbers of marriage "partners".    besides the tax code how does the federal govt give benefits for marriage?


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> So let the govt discriminate. Keep letting the federal govt discriminate.
> Whatever dude.


no one is supporting discrimination of any kind.  but we understand, its where you libs always go when you cannot make your case using logic and facts.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> The thing is Obergfell made States issue SSM licenses regardless of the will of their legislatures, based on the made up concept of substantive due process. A concept I agree with Justice Thomas is made up crap.
> 
> Once you start bringing in emotion bait like "love" you show you don't actually have a legal based argument, simply "I think X and and I will follow any jiggery pokery some SJW justice makes up like the good little lemming I am"



Love is actually the reason most people marry; followed by commitment and companionship. You can't discount it because it's inconvenient to you.


----------



## Redfish

the only issue here is whether marriage is a federal constitutional issue of an individual state issue, same applies to abortion and other things that are not addressed in the constitution.  Only constitutionally addressed issues are federal issues, all others belong to the individual states.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> That hasn't been marriage for centuries and even millennia. Hell polygamy has a better historical argument than SSM. SSM is a concept made up in the past 2-3 decades.
> 
> Want to make it valid via legislative processes? Fine by me, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee it.



It doesn't matter when it started. Laws still must be applied equally. States can't deny one person a license where they give it to another because they don't like who the person is marrying.


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> no one is supporting discrimination of any kind.  but we understand, its where you libs always go when you cannot make your case using logic and facts.


Not receiving the same fed benefits because you arent married is discrimination, retard.
I have been posting here for over a decade and your dumb ass is going to call me a lib?
Arent you old as fuck? Shouldnt you have grown up a bit by now? The world isnt binary.
Dumbfuck.


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> Marriage is a religious institution. Except in our Country, it has been made a government institution. If the SC were to rule that the fed gov has no business in marriage and get the govt out of it, that would mean married people lose all those awesome perks, and power would go back to the states. Where it is supposed to be.
> Right now, gays just want the same benefits hetero married couples get. Why would they want it if they didnt get those perks? To be all godly and shit? No, God makes it clear that homos are full of sin.





TNHarley said:


> Not receiving the same fed benefits because you arent married is discrimination, retard.
> I have been posting here for over a decade and your dumb ass is going to call me a lib?
> Arent you old as fuck? Shouldnt you have grown up a bit by now? The world isnt binary.
> Dumbfuck.


so you think single people should get marriage benefits?   How about those "married" to a sex robot or their dog?   The marriage benefits in the tax code were put there to encourage marriage and families because the previous generations of legislators believed that a country was better off with marriages and families.   You are free to disagree and post bullshit,  no one really cares.   Yes, I have been around a long time and have learned a lot from the school of hard knocks and real life.  Grow up, kid.


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> so you think single people should get marriage benefits?   How about those "married" to a sex robot or their dog?   The marriage benefits in the tax code were put there to encourage marriage and families because the previous generations of legislators believed that a country was better off with marriages and families.   You are free to disagree and post bullshit,  no one really cares.   Yes, I have been around a long time and have learned a lot from the school of hard knocks and real life.  Grow up, kid.


No, dummy. Im sitting here saying the govt shouldnt be involved in marriage. Can you not read?
That would be called DISCRIMINATION
Are you seriously this fucking dumb? Like no joke man. Be real with me.
Mr. Binary tells me to grow up 
Fucking priceless


----------



## ReinyDays

martybegan said:


> All the feds care about marriage by the constitution is that is is accepted as any other contract is accepted from State to State. States set marriage requirements as they are the ones issuing the licenses.
> 
> Obergfell should have allowed States to issue or not issue SSM licenses as they saw fit, but forced them to recognize any out of State marriage as they had to in the past.
> 
> I had no issue when NY as a State made SSM legal via legislative action, my issue is with Obergfell, and the issue is the same as Thomas' and Cruz's issue, substantive due process.



I'm all for State's Rights ... you know that ... but in Obergefell, the couple were lawfully married in Maryland (state's rights) ... when they moved to Ohio, the state refused to accept them as married ...

Does one State have to honor the protections promised by another State? ... the right to refuse is usually reserved for nationhood ... we fought a war over that a long time ago, and we won ... and unless you think you can get a conservitive majority on SCOTUS, you're just gonna have to live with it ...


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> No, dummy. Im sitting here saying the govt shouldnt be involved in marriage. Can you not read?
> That would be called DISCRIMINATION
> Are you seriously this fucking dumb? Like no joke man. Be real with me.
> Mr. Binary tells me to grow up
> Fucking priceless


and as usual you resort to juvenile insult attempts when your cognitive abilities fail you.  Are you trying to mimic senile joey?


----------



## Redfish

ReinyDays said:


> I'm all for State's Rights ... you know that ... but in Obergefell, the couple were lawfully married in Maryland (state's rights) ... when they moved to Ohio, the state refused to accept them as married ...
> 
> Does one State have to honor the protections promised by another State? ... the right to refuse is usually reserved for nationhood ... we fought a war over that a long time ago, and we won ... and unless you think you can get a conservitive majority on SCOTUS, you're just gonna have to live with it ...


Is my Louisiana concealed carry permit honored in New Jersey?  Duh, no.   WTF is the difference?


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> and as usual you resort to juvenile insult attempts when your cognitive abilities fail you.  Are you trying to mimic senile joey?


You get those insults because you are willfully retarded.
Please grow up one day. Maybe then we can have an adult conversation.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> Is my Louisiana concealed carry permit honored in New Jersey?  Duh, no.   WTF is the difference?



you do not get Fed benefits for your CC


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


This lesbian agrees







People are fleeing the left faster than speedy taco Gonzalez


----------



## ReinyDays

Redfish said:


> Is my Louisiana concealed carry permit honored in New Jersey?  Duh, no.   WTF is the difference?



Wear it on you hip ... duh ... you non-Americans don't understand rights ...


----------



## marvin martian

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.



The government shouldn't have _anything _to do with marriage, of any kind.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> but you want congress to do exactly that,  but not the states,  hypocrisy much?


Example


----------



## rightwinger

marvin martian said:


> The government shouldn't have _anything _to do with marriage, of any kind.



Who enforces the contract?


----------



## Zincwarrior

rightwinger said:


> Who enforced the contract?


Private action usually, seeking enforcement, damages, void, etc. . I may be misinterpreting your statement.


----------



## DukeU

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So what? Many straight couples can't either. You did not answer my question. Should the government void marriages that do not produce a child in acertain amount of time?


So what?

Many couples choose not to have children also. But that don't take away from the fact that children can ONLY be produced by a man and woman, by design.


----------



## DukeU

Faun said:


> False. Everyone is entitled to have laws applied to them equally. There is zero justification to provide a marriage license to one guy who wants to marry the love of his life because she's a woman; but then deny another guy a marriage license because the love of his life is a man.


What if the love of his life is a cat, should we allow them to marry also?


----------



## rightwinger

DukeU said:


> What if the love of his life is a cat, should we allow them to marry also?


That would be against the law

Homosexual Relationships are legal in every state


----------



## DukeU

rightwinger said:


> That would be against the law
> 
> Homosexual Relationships are legal in every state



And you're good with that? Why?

You can't love your cat?


----------



## DGS49

Getting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy.  Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.

But even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed.  Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state.  So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages.  A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.

So if Cruz' point of view prevails in a future case, the worst that would happen to any gay couple is that they might have to travel to another state to get married.

Getting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.

For example, if the State of Utah prosecuted one of its old-fashioned Mormons for polygamy and the convicted defendant decided to appeal the conviction up to the Supreme Court, HE WOULD WIN, under Oberkfell.  Same for incest. Same for bestiality.  The right of privacy would prevail and those laws would be overturned.

Rick Santorum was RIGHT! Deal with it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DukeU said:


> So what?
> 
> Many couples choose not to have children also. But that don't take away from the fact that children can ONLY be produced by a man and woman, by design.


What exactly is your point ? If you're trying to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry because only a man and a woman can produce a child, you are doing a piss poor job of it, on many levels


----------



## DukeU

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What exactly is your point ? If you're trying to argue that gays should not be allowed to marry because only a man and a woman can produce a child, you are doing a piss poor job of it, on many levels


And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.


----------



## Stann

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


He's a total idiot, there is no good reason to oppose two loving people for marrying each other who just happened to be gay.


----------



## Stann

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).


And I say the judgmental religions based this hatred and prejudice on Jewish tribal laws ( admonitions ) which were designed to increase the growth of the tribe and their strength so they could fight off their enemies. Masturbation, abortion and adultery we're also forbidden. Sex outside of marriage, and sex without the purpose of procreation was also not allowed. Imagine what a beautiful world this would be if all those admonitions were enforced.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> And I say the judgmental religions based this hatred and prejudice on Jewish tribal laws ( admonitions ) which were designed to increase the growth of the tribe and their strength so they could fight off their enemies. Masturbation, abortion and adultery we're also forbidden. Sex outside of marriage, and sex without the purpose of procreation was also not allowed. Imagine what a beautiful world this would be if all those admonitions were enforced.


Right, it would be a living hell.


----------



## Faun

DukeU said:


> What if the love of his life is a cat, should we allow them to marry also?



I specified a consenting adults to avoid such a ridiculous post.


----------



## Faun

DukeU said:


> And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.



I take it you believe blow jobs are also not "normal?"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DukeU said:


> And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.


It’s this sort of ignorance, bigotry, and hate that the Constitution defends against, and why conservatives want to see _Obergefell_ reversed – so conservatives can discriminate against and disadvantage gay and transgender Americans.


----------



## Stann

DukeU said:


> And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.


Why are you into that ? You mean sex is the reason you got married, if not married the reason you think people get married ? I pity you.


----------



## Stann

DGS49 said:


> Getting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy.  Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.
> 
> But even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed.  Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state.  So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages.  A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.
> 
> So if Cruz' point of view prevails in a future case, the worst that would happen to any gay couple is that they might have to travel to another state to get married.
> 
> Getting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.
> 
> For example, if the State of Utah prosecuted one of its old-fashioned Mormons for polygamy and the convicted defendant decided to appeal the conviction up to the Supreme Court, HE WOULD WIN, under Oberkfell.  Same for incest. Same for bestiality.  The right of privacy would prevail and those laws would be overturned.
> 
> Rick Santorum was RIGHT! Deal with it.


This would be worse than segregation ever was. The federal government would block any attempt by the states to disrespect and disenfranchise it's gay people. Wrong is simply wrong.


----------



## SweetSue92

DGS49 said:


> Getting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy.  Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.
> 
> But even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed.  Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state.  So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages.  A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.
> 
> So if Cruz' point of view prevails in a future case, the worst that would happen to any gay couple is that they might have to travel to another state to get married.
> 
> Getting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.
> 
> For example, if the State of Utah prosecuted one of its old-fashioned Mormons for polygamy and the convicted defendant decided to appeal the conviction up to the Supreme Court, HE WOULD WIN, under Oberkfell.  Same for incest. Same for bestiality.  The right of privacy would prevail and those laws would be overturned.
> 
> Rick Santorum was RIGHT! Deal with it.



I'm very surprised no one has done this yet to be honest. And yes, Constitutionally, "gay marriage" by Judicial fiat was another Roe v Wade. But less likely to fall like Roe IMO because in Roe you have the issue of life AND you now have gay marriages coast to coast and what happens to them if the issue goes back to the states?


----------



## Stann

SweetSue92 said:


> I'm very surprised no one has done this yet to be honest. And yes, Constitutionally, "gay marriage" by Judicial fiat was another Roe v Wade. But less likely to fall like Roe IMO because in Roe you have the issue of life AND you now have gay marriages coast to coast and what happens to them if the issue goes back to the states?


If the case was dismissed I'm sure the supreme Court would come up with another reason it should remain the law. Simple discrimination would do it. Hatred has no place in our laws.


----------



## SweetSue92

Stann said:


> If the case was dismissed I'm sure the supreme Court would come up with another reason it should remain the law. Simple discrimination would do it. Hatred has no place in our laws.



Try to wrap your head around this:

Endorsing a counterproductive lifestyle, such as homosexual marriage, does not mean a person "hates" homosexuals. 

People can disagree without hatred.


----------



## Stann

SweetSue92 said:


> Try to wrap your head around this:
> 
> Endorsing a counterproductive lifestyle, such as homosexual marriage, does not mean a person "hates" homosexuals.
> 
> People can disagree without hatred.


Counterproductive ? What the hell are you talking about ? GOD made all of us and with good reason he doesn't make mistakes. People make hatred and prejudice.


----------



## SweetSue92

Stann said:


> Counterproductive ? What the hell are you talking about ? GOD made all of us and with good reason he doesn't make mistakes. People make hatred and prejudice.



You're typing to hear yourself preach about hate and prejudice. You don't need me for the virtue signal, so have fun


----------



## Stann

SweetSue92 said:


> You're typing to hear yourself preach about hate and prejudice. You don't need me for the virtue signal, so have fun


I'm simply trying to tell you that what religion teaches about GOD is not true. People made up their own religious laws and morals. God made the human population mostly heterosexual, but new that they couldn't control themselves you were overpopulate the world in no time because they lack the wisdom to control themselves so he made adjustments by making some people homosexual. Had things gone according to plan all along the world would not be so overpopulated now. What we have done is what we've done to ourselves.


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> I'm very surprised no one has done this yet to be honest. And yes, Constitutionally, "gay marriage" by Judicial fiat was another Roe v Wade. But less likely to fall like Roe IMO because in Roe you have the issue of life AND you now have gay marriages coast to coast and what happens to them if the issue goes back to the states?



Most states had already made it legal before Obergefell.


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> So what?
> 
> Many couples choose not to have children also. But that don't take away from the fact that children can ONLY be produced by a man and woman, by design.



By design one many can impregnate multiple women so you must favor polygamy since that fits the design .


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> Endorsing a counterproductive lifestyle, such as homosexual marriage, does not mean a person "hates" homosexuals.



What makes it counterproductive?

I work with a woman in a same sex marriage.  They have a 16 year old daughter.   They are no different than any other married couple in the country except maybe they have been together longer than most straight people stay together. 

I think one could argue you calling it counterproductive is hateful.


----------



## rightwinger

DukeU said:


> And you're good with that? Why?
> 
> You can't love your cat?


No Harm, No Foul


----------



## NoNukes

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


I wonder how Clarence Thomas is going to feel when they bring slavery back.


----------



## rightwinger

NoNukes said:


> I wonder how Clarence Thomas is going to feel when they bring slavery back.



It is funny how opposed he is to Obergfel but is married because of Loving v Virginia

Conservative view of the Constitution


----------



## Burgermeister

There is no massive advantage that Republicans can't sabotage. Regardless of the correctness of the ruling, Cruz should have shut up about it. There is nothing urgent about returning this back to the states.


----------



## rightwinger

Burgermeister said:


> There is no massive advantage that Republicans can't sabotage. Regardless of the correctness of the ruling, Cruz should have shut up about it. There is nothing urgent about returning this back to the states.



Throwing meat to his base


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DukeU said:


> And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.


This is not about sex at all. It is about the right for 2 consenting adults to enter into a union andform a family. Stop being such a coward and answer my question instead of dancingaround the issue, You stated that only people who have children should be able to marry, I asked if that rule should aply equally to same sex and opposite sex couples but you do not seem to have the courage to answer  it.


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> So let the govt discriminate. Keep letting the federal govt discriminate.
> Whatever dude.



If the things aren't equal how is it discrimination?


----------



## martybegan

TNHarley said:


> Round' here, we call that "dumb shit"



It's called expediency, instead of having to write a new contract over and over, you just use an existing one.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> Love is actually the reason most people marry; followed by commitment and companionship. You can't discount it because it's inconvenient to you.



It has nothing to do with the contract at hand, nor the historical fact that marriage has always involved both sexes in some way until recently.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> It doesn't matter when it started. Laws still must be applied equally. States can't deny one person a license where they give it to another because they don't like who the person is marrying.



SSM and heterosexual marriage are not the same thing. We can allow both to use the same word, but they are not the same. One has millennia of precedent, the other is a recent creation.


----------



## martybegan

ReinyDays said:


> I'm all for State's Rights ... you know that ... but in Obergefell, the couple were lawfully married in Maryland (state's rights) ... when they moved to Ohio, the state refused to accept them as married ...
> 
> Does one State have to honor the protections promised by another State? ... the right to refuse is usually reserved for nationhood ... we fought a war over that a long time ago, and we won ... and unless you think you can get a conservitive majority on SCOTUS, you're just gonna have to live with it ...



Well that's what Obergfell SHOULD have done, is tell Ohio you have to accept them. It shouldn't have said Ohio you HAVE to issue SSM licenses.


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> And if you're trying to argue that butt sex is normal, you are too.



Is oral sex "normal"?


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> you do not get Fed benefits for your CC


but you want fed benefits for abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms, etc.  Don't you see the hypocrisy there?


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> What makes it counterproductive?
> 
> I work with a woman in a same sex marriage.  They have a 16 year old daughter.   They are no different than any other married couple in the country except maybe they have been together longer than most straight people stay together.
> 
> I think one could argue you calling it counterproductive is hateful.



It is not productive to a society, for one thing. They cannot produce children, obviously. And the children they adopt/graft in or whatever....the science and that data are ironclad: children do best when raised in a home with their biological, married parents. 

That is not to say that these two women don't have a right to live together, nor even to declare each other next of kin, beneficiaries, etc. They do, and they have a right to live peacefully. But society should have no pressing obligation to advance such unions. They are at best neutral in benefit. 

That's not hateful. It just is.


----------



## Redfish

NoNukes said:


> I wonder how Clarence Thomas is going to feel when they bring slavery back.


all anyone, including Thomas has said is that it may be time to review whether SSM is a federal constitutional issue or a state issue.  That's all.   NO ONE has said SSM should be banned.  Stop the lies about this. all you libs do is lie.


----------



## Redfish

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s this sort of ignorance, bigotry, and hate that the Constitution defends against, and why conservatives want to see _Obergefell_ reversed – so conservatives can discriminate against and disadvantage gay and transgender Americans.


bullshit, the only thing being discussed is whether these things are federal constitutional issues or state issues.   No one is advocating banning anything.   Do you lefties ever tell the truth about anything?


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> but you want fed benefits for abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms, etc. Don't you see the hypocrisy there?



I do not want Fed benefits for any of those things.  But if the Feds are going to give them they need not discriminate based on sex.


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> I do not want Fed benefits for any of those things.  But if the Feds are going to give them they need not discriminate based on sex.


we agree on both points.   Wow!!!!!


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> It is not productive to a society, for one thing. They cannot produce children, obviously. And the children they adopt/graft in or whatever....the science and that data are ironclad: children do best when raised in a home with their biological, married parents.
> 
> That is not to say that these two women don't have a right to live together, nor even to declare each other next of kin, beneficiaries, etc. They do, and they have a right to live peacefully. But society should have no pressing obligation to advance such unions. They are at best neutral in benefit.
> 
> That's not hateful. It just is.



My SIL/BIL, who have two adopted children, would love to discus with you what failings they had by not being the biological parents.   And I would love to sit and watch it.

50% of "real" marriages end in divorce, the children end up not living with both  biological parents.   Our son was just talking about this 2 nights ago, he literally has not one friend whose parents are not divorced.    If a two parent household is the optimum setting then it seems society should support that no matter the sex of the parents.

Also, should married couples with no children not be receiving any societal benefit since they have not done their duty and reproduced?   I work with a lady who has Type-1 diabetes and her husband has Crohn's.  They have made the choice to never had children because they would be cursing them with one or more life long disease.     Since they are not being productive for society, should we take away all the benefits of marriage from them?


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> but you want fed benefits for abortion, gay marriage, trans bathrooms, etc.  Don't you see the hypocrisy there?


Why do you just make shit up?


----------



## Stann

rightwinger said:


> Throwing meat to his base


And that is just plain sick.


----------



## JohnDB

What I want to see overturned is the Texas v Lawrence decision....

The Sodomy Decision.   

Statutes do not have to have a remedy when deemed illegal.   

Such as in TN it is the law that employers must deduct money from your paycheck when you are in arears for child support payments or the court orders that they must.  But there's no remedy for employers who do not do this.  Meaning no fines or jail time for employers who don't deduct child support payments.   But it's still illegal for them to not do it.  
The majority follow the law but some small businesses don't bother and just holler at their employees.   (It is a shitty thing to do by being behind....mine kept getting notices that they needed to pay me the amount I had overpaid...pissed them off something fierce "How do I deduct a negative $837.24 from your paycheck?"   "Well I believe that they are telling you that you need to pay me more" "And when you do send the State of TN the bill" 

But at any rate....
It's a state decision....one that needs to be in State's hands as it is not specifically outlined in the Federal Constitution.  

That would instantly do away with the Obergefell decision surrounding same sex unions.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> My SIL/BIL, who have two adopted children, would love to discus with you what failings they had by not being the biological parents.   And I would love to sit and watch it.
> 
> 50% of "real" marriages end in divorce, the children end up not living with both  biological parents.   Our son was just talking about this 2 nights ago, he literally has not one friend whose parents are not divorced.    If a two parent household is the optimum setting then it seems society should support that no matter the sex of the parents.
> 
> Also, should married couples with not children not be receiving any societal benefit since they have not done their duty and reproduced?   I work with a lady who has Type-1 diabetes and her husband has Crohn's.  They have made the choice to never had children because they would be cursing them with one or more life long disease.     Since they are not being productive for society, should we take away all the benefits of marriage from them?



1. They would get no argument from me. It was much better to adopt those children than to have them in foster care with no family. Those children had no shot at the "ideal" and it sounds like your family has given them a good home. Overall stats don't always bear out in individual circumstances. Read that again if need be because I won't address it again.

2. The divorce rate is not 50% anymore, unless you have ALREADY been divorced, in which case the home is "broken up" in any case. And note I did not say "children do best in a two parent household". No. Children do best in the home of their MARRIED, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS.









						The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce
					

Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				












						When Mom and Dad Are Married, Kids Do Better
					

What exactly is the advantage of being raised by parents who are married rather than divorces parents? It’s complicated.




					www.fatherly.com
				




3. See #1. "Overall stats, individual circumstances", etc.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> My SIL/BIL, who have two adopted children, would love to discus with you what failings they had by not being the biological parents.   And I would love to sit and watch it.
> 
> 50% of "real" marriages end in divorce, the children end up not living with both  biological parents.   Our son was just talking about this 2 nights ago, he literally has not one friend whose parents are not divorced.    If a two parent household is the optimum setting then it seems society should support that no matter the sex of the parents.
> 
> Also, should married couples with no children not be receiving any societal benefit since they have not done their duty and reproduced?   I work with a lady who has Type-1 diabetes and her husband has Crohn's.  They have made the choice to never had children because they would be cursing them with one or more life long disease.     Since they are not being productive for society, should we take away all the benefits of marriage from them?



Here. Divorce rates for first marriages are around 30%. Less if the woman is college educated and over 25 at time of marriage.









						The Myth of the High Rate of Divorce
					

A few years ago, my wife and I celebrated our 25th anniversary. It is the second marriage for both of us and t




					psychcentral.com


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> 1. They would get no argument from me. It was much better to adopt those children than to have them in foster care with no family. Those children had no shot at the "ideal" and it sounds like your family has given them a good home. Overall stats don't always bear out in individual circumstances. Read that again if need be because I won't address it again.
> 
> 2. The divorce rate is not 50% anymore, unless you have ALREADY been divorced, in which case the home is "broken up" in any case. And note I did not say "children do best in a two parent household". No. Children do best in the home of their MARRIED, BIOLOGICAL PARENTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce
> 
> 
> Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Mom and Dad Are Married, Kids Do Better
> 
> 
> What exactly is the advantage of being raised by parents who are married rather than divorces parents? It’s complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fatherly.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. See #1. "Overall stats, individual circumstances", etc.



1.  Yet they were not as good a parent as if they were the biological ones, according to you. 

2.              4.  Currently, the divorce rate per 1000 married women is 16.9.  Many experts feel that this is a much more accurate measure of true divorce rate than the crude rate.
                 5.  The divorce rate per 1000 married women is nearly double that of 1960, but down from the all-time high of 22.6 in the early 1980s.
                 6. Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation.
                 7.  Researchers estimate that 41 percent of all first marriages end in divorce.
                 8.  60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.
                9.  73 percent of all third marriages end in divorce.
                10. The United States has the 6th highest divorce rate in the world. Here is a chart of the top twenty









						Divorce Statistics and Facts | What Affects Divorce Rates in the U.S.?
					

We found every divorce statistic, study and fact you need to know - over 115 in all. Find out what impacts divorce (spoiler: almost everything).



					www.wf-lawyers.com
				




Yet you would punish same sex couples that stay together.  

3.  But we are talking about those that are productive for society, it would be easy to exclude every marred couple with no children, since they are not being productive.   Why should these couples get things that are only for productive couples?


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> Here. Divorce rates for first marriages are around 30%. Less if the woman is college educated and over 25 at time of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Myth of the High Rate of Divorce
> 
> 
> A few years ago, my wife and I celebrated our 25th anniversary. It is the second marriage for both of us and t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> psychcentral.com



Maybe we should only give benefits to married couples with a college degree then.


----------



## DukeU

Faun said:


> I take it you believe blow jobs are also not "normal?"



Can you point to something that says it's not?


----------



## DukeU

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s this sort of ignorance, bigotry, and hate that the Constitution defends against, and why conservatives want to see _Obergefell_ reversed – so conservatives can discriminate against and disadvantage gay and transgender Americans.



Arguing in support of 2 men having butt sex while calling someone ignorant is.....well, ignorant.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> Getting back to the point, Oberkfell was wrongly decided because it was based on a non-existent "Constitutional right," the right of privacy. Cruz' point is that the decision should be overturned on that basis.


Actually *Obergefell *was based on equal protection under the law and due process


----------



## DukeU

Stann said:


> Why are you into that ? You mean sex is the reason you got married, if not married the reason you think people get married ? I pity you.


I'm not into that.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> By design one many can impregnate multiple women so you must favor polygamy since that fits the design .


You guys sure spin a thick web.


----------



## JohnDB

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Actually *Obergefell *was based on equal protection under the law and due process


Only because of the 2003 Texas v Lawrence decision....the Sodomy Decision.   

Before then it was illegal in Texas to be in a same sex relationship.   And the equal protection law did not apply.


----------



## DukeU

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This is not about sex at all. It is about the right for 2 consenting adults to enter into a union andform a family. Stop being such a coward and answer my question instead of dancingaround the issue, You stated that only people who have children should be able to marry, I asked if that rule should aply equally to same sex and opposite sex couples but you do not seem to have the courage to answer it.



Sorry I have to draw you a picture, I guess I forgot who I was talking to.

I said marriage should be limited to 2 people that were capable of producing children, meaning a man and woman.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> Is oral sex "normal"?


Can you point to something that says it isn't?


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> You guys sure spin a thick web.



odd you too chickenshit to answer the question....well not really


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> Can you point to something that says it isn't?



I asked you as simple question, yet you cannot answer them. 

Here is a thread you should probably read.....https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/as-a-general-principle-a-universal-truism-if-your-political-philosophy-often-leaves-you-unwilling-to-answer-simple-questions-about-it.980479/


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> Sorry I have to draw you a picture, I guess I forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> I said marriage should be limited to 2 people that were capable of producing children, meaning a man and woman.



Thus anyone infertile should not be allowed to marry


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> odd you too chickenshit to answer the question....well not really



Which question did I not answer?


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> Thus anyone infertile should not be allowed to marry



In general, men and women can produce children.

Anything else you need spelled out?


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> Which question did I not answer?



Two of them.

Post 385 and 398


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> Two of them.
> 
> Post 385 and 398



385 is ignorant.

As for 398, I believe I did answer that. Can you point to something that says it isn't normal?


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> In general, men and women can produce children.
> 
> Anything else you need spelled out?



That is irrelevant, it would be easy to exclude anyone that does not have children. .


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> As for 398, I believe I did answer that. Can you point to something that says it isn't normal?



That is not an answer, do you consider it normal is the question.   I am not asking about others.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> That is irrelevant, it would be easy to exclude anyone that does not have children. .



LOL

Easy?  We can't even exclude people that can't have children because their sex is the same.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> That is not an answer, do you consider it normal is the question. I am not asking about others.



Yes.


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> LOL
> 
> Easy?  We can't even exclude people that can't have children because their sex is the same.



But that is what you all are pushing for.  So, while you are at it you can just exclude everyone that does not have children.


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> Yes.



See, that was not so hard.

So, now explain what makes it any more "normal" than anal sex.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> But that is what you all are pushing for. So, while you are at it you can just exclude everyone that does not have children.


That would be stupid and go against common sense.

I guess it's not so common anymore.


----------



## Circe

Golfing Gator said:


> But that is what you all are pushing for.  So, while you are at it you can just exclude everyone that does not have children.


And all the time we talk about these angels who can't procreate on the head of a pin, monkeypox is spreading rapidly all over the world owing purely to the foul practices of disease-ridden homosexual men.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> See, that was not so hard.
> 
> So, now explain what makes it any more "normal" than anal sex.


Figure it out dude. I can't draw but so many pictures in a day, and today I'm done.


----------



## ReinyDays

I find it interesting how many here think SSM is a new thing ... when the Bible addressed the issue, and in the _Old_ Testament to boot ...

Men marrying men was a big problem 4,000 years ago ... such that Moses had to forbid the behaviors ... and it wasn't just marrying men, they were marrying their sheep, their mothers, the trees, holes in the ground ... there's a lengthy list in Leviticus of holes men are NOT to shove their 'units' into ... this didn't come out of thin air, these were real issues causing real problem for Moses and the Hebrews ... semen gets slippery when enough of it collects on the ground ...

The biggest problem is men and women marrying their right hand ... let's be honest here ... that's _very_ bad for a religion that commands us to "go forth, be fruitful and multiply" ... interesting, that's also very bad for a science that measures success by number of offspring ... just saying ...


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> That would be stupid and go against common sense.
> 
> I guess it's not so common anymore.



Yet you it is what you all are pushing.   Weird


----------



## Golfing Gator

DukeU said:


> Figure it out dude. I can't draw but so many pictures in a day, and today I'm done.



I assumed you would be unable. 

Thanks.


----------



## DukeU

ReinyDays said:


> The biggest problem is men and women marrying their right hand ... let's be honest here ... that's _very_ bad for a religion that commands us to "go forth, be fruitful and multiply" ... interesting, that's also very bad for a science that measures success by number of offspring ... just saying ...



Well, God did say it is better to put your seed in the belly of a whore than on the ground. But, he didn't forbid it.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> Yet you it is what you all are pushing. Weird


Another swing and miss.


----------



## DukeU

Golfing Gator said:


> I *ass*umed you would be unable.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> It has nothing to do with the contract at hand, nor the historical fact that marriage has always involved both sexes in some way until recently.



For a long time in this country, it was illegal for a black to marry a white in some states. Your logic means it should still be illegal.


----------



## Papageorgio

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Like marijuana and abortion, marriage is a states issue not a federal issue.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> SSM and heterosexual marriage are not the same thing. We can allow both to use the same word, but they are not the same. One has millennia of precedent, the other is a recent creation.



Of course they are the same thing. They are both just marriage; a legal contract between two consenting adults and/or minors of the age of consent with parental approval, recognized by the state.


----------



## Faun

SweetSue92 said:


> It is not productive to a society, for one thing. They cannot produce children, obviously. And the children they adopt/graft in or whatever....the science and that data are ironclad: children do best when raised in a home with their biological, married parents.
> 
> That is not to say that these two women don't have a right to live together, nor even to declare each other next of kin, beneficiaries, etc. They do, and they have a right to live peacefully. But society should have no pressing obligation to advance such unions. They are at best neutral in benefit.
> 
> That's not hateful. It just is.



Your logic reads people who cannot have a child due to a medical condition should not be allowed to marry.


----------



## Papageorgio

Penelope said:


> He actually believe this stuff.
> 
> *Marriage*: As Solicitor General, Ted Cruz led the charge to deny Texas couples marriage equality. In the Senate, he has supported a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from recognizing marriage equality and an amendment placing members of the Supreme Court up for election. He even said that Justice Anthony Kennedy should resign and that the Obergefell ruling threw the Supreme Court’s “very legitimacy into question.” He has said a ruling in favor of marriage equality was “fundamentally illegitimate.” Cruz has promised to campaign “front and center” on his opposition to marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz: Not a Fan of Pride Parades - HRC
> 
> 
> Withdrew CandidacyWhether the issue is marriage equality or critical protection from discrimination, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has consistently opposed equality for LGBT Americans. And he’s gone even further, attacking fellow…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hrc.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he is so religious he probably cheats on his wife and incest his children, we don't know whatever he does.


And the things you accuse Cruz of doing, you are more than likely doing. Seems to be the way it works with people like yourself.


----------



## Faun

DukeU said:


> Can you point to something that says it's not?



It's the same as butt sex in that it's not heterosexual sexual intercourse. It's just another hole to fill.

So other than being a different hole, what's the difference between anal sex and oral sex?


----------



## Faun

DukeU said:


> Figure it out dude. I can't draw but so many pictures in a day, and today I'm done.



LOL

If there was a difference other than it being a different hole, you could have easily explained. Instead, you just showed the forum your position on the matter is rooted in bigotry.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Papageorgio said:


> Like marijuana and abortion, marriage is a states issue not a federal issue.



This would be true if the Fed Govt did not tie benefits to marriage.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Faun said:


> Your logic reads people who cannot have a child due to a medical condition should not be allowed to marry.



Not to mention how insulting it is to anyone that has ever adopted a child, telling them they are lesser parents because they are not the biological ones.


----------



## Papageorgio

Golfing Gator said:


> This would be true if the Fed Govt did not tie benefits to marriage.


Nor should they, it is still a state issue. The feds need sued to end the breaks for marriage.


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> Why do you just make shit up?


I merely restated what you libs have been screaming about.   why can't you acknowledge what you say you want?


----------



## Golfing Gator

Papageorgio said:


> Nor should they, it is still a state issue. The feds need sued to end the breaks for marriage.



And everything else tied to marriage, social security benefits, survivor benefits, health insurance benefits and more


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> what you libs


As i said, you are a binary dumbfuck. Grow up.


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> This would be true if the Fed Govt did not tie benefits to marriage.


the question is really:  should the government do things to encourage marriage and families by giving tax benefits.   The people who wrote the tax code thought it should.  Why not have a national referendum on it to see what the will of the american voters really is?   Or since you libs like polls so much, someone should do a poll (a real poll) asking americans if they think marriage tax benefits should continue.  you ok with that?


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> As i said, you are a binary dumbfuck. Grow up.


our country is binary, dingleberry.  you need to get up to speed,


----------



## Papageorgio

Golfing Gator said:


> And everything else tied to marriage, social security benefits, survivor benefits, health insurance benefits and more


Yep, get rid of it.


----------



## Circe

Golfing Gator said:


> Not to mention how insulting it is to anyone that has ever adopted a child, telling them they are lesser parents because they are not the biological ones.


That, they already know.


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> And everything else tied to marriage, social security benefits, survivor benefits, health insurance benefits and more


so, you think the government should discourage marriage and families?   Because if those policies were ended it would result in fewer marriages (of all kinds) and fewer families.  How would that make the country better?


----------



## Golfing Gator

Circe said:


> That, they already know.



No, they do not.  My BIL/SIL are not lesser parents because they adopted, if anything it makes them even better parents as the process to adopt is far harder than just giving birth. 

But bigoted fucks will be bigots, nothing to be done about it


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> For a long time in this country, it was illegal for a black to marry a white in some states. Your logic means it should still be illegal.



Race isn't the same as sexuality. 

Inter-tribal/racial marriages have existed for millennia. 

SSM's, for the last decade or two.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> so, you think the government should discourage marriage and families?   Because if those policies were ended it would result in fewer marriages (of all kinds) and fewer families.  How would that make the country better?



I think if the Govt is going to encourage marriage it needs to do so without discriminations based on sex of the married partners.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> Of course they are the same thing. They are both just marriage; a legal contract between two consenting adults and/or minors of the age of consent with parental approval, recognized by the state.



No, they are not. One if a concept going back millennia, the other something made up the last 20-30 years or so.


----------



## Circe

Golfing Gator said:


> the process to adopt is far harder than just giving birth.


Boy, there speaks a male who knows nothing about it.


----------



## Circe

Golfing Gator said:


> No, they do not.  My BIL/SIL are not lesser parents because they adopted,


They know; it's you who don't know.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Race isn't the same as sexuality.
> 
> Inter-tribal/racial marriages have existed for millennia.
> 
> SSM's, for the last decade or two.



Legally speaking, in this country, they are the same in that the government cannot discriminate based on race or sex.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> Legally speaking, in this country, they are the same in that the government cannot discriminate based on race or sex.



Only because of a shit SC decision, just as bad as Roe. 

In NY they did the right thing and changed the law to allow for it.

Still not the same as a heterosexual marriage even if changed legislatively.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Circe said:


> They know; it's you who don't know.



Nope, they do not know.  They could not love the children any more if they were their own, they could not have given them a better home if they were their own.   

But as I said, bigots have no choice but to be bigoted.    it is pieces of shit like you that keep people from adopting, telling the they are lesser beings for their inability to conceive



Circe said:


> Boy, there speaks a male who knows nothing about it.



I was pretty involved from start to finish.  Never once did we have anyone come inspect our home to make sure we were giving the soon to be born child a safe place.  Never once did we have to provide 12 grand up front, never once did we have to provide financial statements proving we could provide for either child.  Never once after either child was born did people show up at our house to make sure all was well.


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> our country is binary, dingleberry.  you need to get up to speed,


The world isnt binary. However, you and your partisan ilk are.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> Only because of a shit SC decision, just as bad as Roe.
> 
> In NY they did the right thing and changed the law to allow for it.
> 
> Still not the same as a heterosexual marriage even if changed legislatively.



LOL

No one really cares that you're upset with a Supreme Court ruling.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> No one really cares that you're upset with a Supreme Court ruling.



And yet you respond.

Baaaaaa.


----------



## Faun

martybegan said:


> And yet you respond.
> 
> Baaaaaa.



To laugh at the nonsense you post. I'm only here for the entertainment value I get from you rightards.


----------



## martybegan

Faun said:


> To laugh at thd nonsense you post. I'm only here for the entertainment value I get from you rightards.



Right back at ya, SJW NPC.


----------



## Peace

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex? It's weird.
> 
> "all men are created equal".... it's right there in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> And they want to ignore such documents because.....


Why?

Because most them ( far right ) have no style and their sex lives are lacking, so they believe everyone else must suffer because they fear if they let out their closet self they might discover they ain’t straight…


----------



## Circe

Golfing Gator said:


> ...they are lesser beings for their inability to conceive


You do understand; you just don't want to admit it.

Okay.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Circe said:


> You do understand; you just don't want to admit it.
> 
> Okay.



I understand fully.  you are a bigot that looks down on people due to their inability to conceive their own children.   You think that parents of adopted children are lesser parents due to that inability to conceive.  My SIL had to deal with a lot of pieces of shit like you through the years.


----------



## Circe

Golfing Gator said:


> You think that parents of adopted children are lesser parents due to that inability to conceive.  My SIL had to deal with a lot of pieces of shit like you through the years.


No, but I think they know and feel keenly that they are barren. It's a natural thing for women to feel, if they are. If your sister-in-law has to deal with a lot of "that" through years and years, I suppose they adopted blacks --- nothing says "barren" like a white mom with a couple black babies. I saw one just yesterday --- at Wegmans, of course. It's that kind of "progressive" store. I always wonder why they get them in pairs; you see that often. Because of the lower intelligence problem, I will guess all that money and time they spent won't prove a good investment. Not my problem. Enjoy.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Circe said:


> No, but I think they know and feel keenly that they are barren. It's a natural thing for women to feel, if they are.



It does not make them lesser beings no matter how much your hate says it does 



Circe said:


> If your sister-in-law has to deal with a lot of "that" through years and years, I suppose they adopted blacks --- nothing says "barren" like a white mom with a couple black babies



One of the two is of mixed races, the other was not.  But yes, that did bring her a ton of hate from people like you.   



Circe said:


> I always wonder why they get them in pairs; you see that often. Because of the lower intelligence problem, I will guess all that money and time they spent won't prove a good investment.



They got them 5 years apart.  No problem with intelligence with either of their adopted children.   The only real low intelligence person in this discussion is you.  The idea that parents adopt children as an investment is a new low even for people like you.


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> I think if the Govt is going to encourage marriage it needs to do so without discriminations based on sex of the married partners.


what discriminations would those be?   I agree that same sex marriages should be treated as heterosexual marriages are treated.  

But the point of this thread and the comments made by Cruz, Thomas and others is that it is not a federal constitutional issue.  Now if congress and the states want to ratify a new constitutional amendment then they should do so.  Until then it is up to the voters or each state.   Sorry if you don't like it, but thats the way it is.


----------



## martybegan

Redfish said:


> what discriminations would those be?   I agree that same sex marriages should be treated as heterosexual marriages are treated.
> 
> But the point of this thread and the comments made by Cruz, Thomas and others is that it is not a federal constitutional issue.  Now if congress and the states want to ratify a new constitutional amendment then they should do so.  Until then it is up to the voters or each state.   Sorry if you don't like it, but thats the way it is.



I am OK with them being treated the same as long as enacted through State legislatures, but they are not the same in a historical context. SSM is a new concept, less than 3 decades old. 

To me, as I stated before, all Obergfell should have addressed is the acceptance of out of State SSM licenses, and not the issuance of said licenses.


----------



## Redfish

martybegan said:


> I am OK with them being treated the same as long as enacted through State legislatures, but they are not the same in a historical context. SSM is a new concept, less than 3 decades old.
> 
> To me, as I stated before, all Obergfell should have addressed is the acceptance of out of State SSM licenses, and not the issuance of said licenses.


good points, I say let the voters of each state decide what licenses that state will issue and whether SSM from other states will be recognized.  

my issue, is telling kids that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can simply make that choice at any time in their lives.  It is a mental aberration, no matter how much the libs try to call it normal----------it is NOT NORMAL


----------



## Circe

Redfish said:


> good points, I say let the voters of each state decide what licenses that state will issue and whether SSM from other states will be recognized.
> 
> my issue, is telling kids that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can simply make that choice at any time in their lives.  It is a mental aberration, no matter how much the libs try to call it normal----------it is NOT NORMAL


Yeah, if it were normal, _we wouldn't be so worried about it._


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> The world isnt binary. However, you and your partisan ilk are.


are you really going to claim that the libs and dems are not binary and partisan?   Are you that ignorant?


----------



## Circe

martybegan said:


> To me, as I stated before, all Obergfell should have addressed is the acceptance of out of State SSM licenses, and not the issuance of said licenses.


No, that's the Full Faith and Credit issue: all the states have to recognize others' laws, which means such new customs spread all over fast, like the quickie Reno divorces back in the 1940s.

Lots of states didn't approve of that, but Zoom --- here it comes and now everyone does it.


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> are you really going to claim that the libs and dems are not binary and partisan?   Are you that ignorant?


I didnt even come close to saying such a thing. 
Are you really this fucking stupid, or are you just trolling? For the love of gawd, tell me you are just trolling


----------



## martybegan

Redfish said:


> good points, I say let the voters of each state decide what licenses that state will issue and whether SSM from other states will be recognized.
> 
> my issue, is telling kids that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can simply make that choice at any time in their lives.  It is a mental aberration, no matter how much the libs try to call it normal----------it is NOT NORMAL



To me the licenses are required to be recognized under full faith and credit, much like drivers licenses and other things that involve crossing State lines. 

It is not the biological normal, and that holds no moral judgement on it. To me let them figure it out after 18.


----------



## martybegan

Circe said:


> No, that's the Full Faith and Credit issue: all the states have to recognize others' laws, which means such new customs spread all over fast, like the quickie Reno divorces back in the 1940s.
> 
> Lots of states didn't approve of that, but Zoom --- here it comes and now everyone does it.



And that's how Obergfell should have been ruled. Alabama doesn't have to issue SSM licenses, but it would have to accept valid SSM licenses from other States just as they were already doing for hetero marriage licenses.


----------



## Circe

martybegan said:


> And that's how Obergfell should have been ruled. Alabama doesn't have to issue SSM licenses, but it would have to accept valid SSM licenses from other States just as they were already doing for hetero marriage licenses.


Then it would just be like abortion: people from, say, Alabama go out to do a homosexual wedding (no doubt with a homosexual cake) in some other state and then all come back home to Alabama. It wouldn't impede them, just take a few days longer.


----------



## martybegan

Circe said:


> Then it would just be like abortion: people from, say, Alabama go out to do a homosexual wedding (no doubt with a homosexual cake) in some other state and then all come back home to Alabama. It wouldn't impede them, just take a few days longer.



And that's what the Constitution mandates. 

As I said, I had no issue with NY State legislatively changing marriage laws to allow SSM. My issue has always been with courts making up rights. 

That, and things like bakers and photographers being ruined because they take religious exception to working a SSM ceremony or reception.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DukeU said:


> Sorry I have to draw you a picture, I guess I forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> I said marriage should be limited to 2 people that were capable of producing children, meaning a man and woman.





Circe said:


> No, but I think they know and feel keenly that they are barren.


That is over the top stupid! Lesbians have a uterus and overies . Gay men produce sperm.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Circe said:


> No, but I think they know and feel keenly that they are barren. It's a natural thing for women to feel, if they are. If your sister-in-law has to deal with a lot of "that" through years and years, I suppose they adopted blacks --- nothing says "barren" like a white mom with a couple black babies. I saw one just yesterday --- at Wegmans, of course. It's that kind of "progressive" store. I always wonder why they get them in pairs; you see that often. Because of the lower intelligence problem, I will guess all that money and time they spent won't prove a good investment. Not my problem. Enjoy.


Well stepdads don't feel keenly they are barren. You are a strange...bird...
I guess all those babies needing adoption Post Roe are SLOL in your world.


----------



## Circe

martybegan said:


> And that's what the Constitution mandates.
> 
> As I said, I had no issue with NY State legislatively changing marriage laws to allow SSM. My issue has always been with courts making up rights.
> 
> That, and things like bakers and photographers being ruined because they take religious exception to working a SSM ceremony or reception.


Forget "religious objection" --- I don't see why they have to do anything like that if they just plain don't want to!! I sure wouldn't, and wouldn't cry "religion, religion."


----------



## Circe

Zincwarrior said:


> Well stepdads don't feel keenly they are barren. You are a strange...bird...
> I guess all those babies needing adoption Post Roe are SLOL in your world.


They ain't gonna get adopted: all those black babies? What there are don't usually get adopted now. They'll just get abused and neglected, for the most part. And then become criminals.

Bad policy.


----------



## martybegan

Circe said:


> Forget "religious objection" --- I don't see why they have to do anything like that if they just plain don't want to!! I sure wouldn't, and wouldn't cry "religion, religion."



And yet they are forced to, sacrificed to the god of forced acceptance vs. tolerance.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> But even if the Court were to do such a thing, it would have NO EFFECT on existing marriages regardless of where or when they were performed.


You don't know that. States might try to invalidate marriages that had already been performed


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> Further, regardless of the marriage law in any state, that state would have to recognize marriages legally performed in any other state. So imagine that Utah passes a law that absolutely prohibits gay marriages. A Utah couple could then drive to California, meet California's requirements for marriage, marry there (in CA), and Utah would be required to recognize that marriage, including handling divorces, inheritance, child support, and so on.


Wrong again. You are just making stuff up. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution did not mandate reccognition of same sex marriage accross state lines before Obergefell, and it would not post Obergefell. You seem to be trying to find reasons why overturning Ibergefll is no big deal.









						Full faith and credit clause does not mandate gay marriage
					

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"  "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and...



					www.renewamerica.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> Getting back to the phony right of privacy, under Oberkfell, no state could outlaw incest or polygamy (polygyny), or even bestiality, because those institutions would also be protected under the right of privacy. All it would take would be for such a law to come under scrutiny because of an actual case for the precedent to be confirmed.


You have NO idea what you are talking about. Gays won the right to marry because, for the most part, the states trying to ban it could not establish a compelling government societal interest, or even a rational basis  for doing so. Incest, poygamy and beastiality have for different implications for society and each would have to be litigated as a separate issue. Ya think the government might beable to defend a law against fucking dogs a bit more easily than they could defent a law prohibiting the marriage of two consenting adults? THINK!! And it is not about privacy. It is about equal ptotection under the law


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> what discriminations would those be? I agree that same sex marriages should be treated as heterosexual marriages are treated.
> 
> But the point of this thread and the comments made by Cruz, Thomas and others is that it is not a federal constitutional issue.



Equal treatment by the Fed Govt is a federal constitutional issue.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> But the point of this thread and the comments made by Cruz, Thomas and others is that it is not a federal constitutional issue.


You should read the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy. It's an eye opener


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> good points, I say let the voters of each state decide what licenses that state will issue and whether SSM from other states will be recognized.


Bad idea for the same reason it would have been a bad idea to let the voters of Mississippi decide if black people couldsit at the same lunch counter with whites, or ride in the front of the bus in 1960. Civil rights are not to be put to a referendum


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> I didnt even come close to saying such a thing.
> Are you really this fucking stupid, or are you just trolling? For the love of gawd, tell me you are just trolling


you said it was only the right that was pushing the divide.  are you retracting that stupid statement?


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> you said it was only the right that was pushing the divide.  are you retracting that stupid statement?


No, I said you and your partisan ilk. That means dems, too.
You guys are 2 sides of the same coin.
As i said, stop being so stupid and grow up. and try hooked on phonics. Apparently you cant read either.
Good luck!


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bad idea for the same reason it would have been a bad idea to let the voters of Mississippi decide if black people couldsit at the same lunch counter with whites, or ride in the front of the bus in 1960. Civil rights are not to be put to a referendum


nice try, but shitty analogy attempt.  not even close to the same thing


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> No, I said you and your partisan ilk. That means dems, too.
> You guys are 2 sides of the same coin.
> As i said, stop being so stupid, grow up and try hooked on phonics.


your post 270, now you are trying to claim you did not say what you said,  typical brain dead liar.  go away stop wasting my time


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> your post 270, now you are trying to claim you did not say what you said,  typical brain dead liar.  go away stop wasting my time


270 isnt my post 
Wanna fail again?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> nice try, but shitty analogy attempt.  not even close to the same thing


It is exactly the same thing!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bad idea for the same reason it would have been a bad idea to let the voters of Mississippi decide if black people couldsit at the same lunch counter with whites, or ride in the front of the bus in 1960. Civil rights are not to be put to a referendum


Spot on.

But that’s exactly what the racist, bigoted right wants to do – eliminate all Constitutional protections at the state level.


----------



## Innocynioc

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).


You left out an important group.  That is the substantial goup who believe in no organized religion.  Freedom of religion also includes freedom from having a religion imposed on you.


----------



## theHawk

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Well he’s right.

Why not let the people vote on it?


----------



## DukeU

Faun said:


> It's the same as butt sex in that it's not heterosexual sexual intercourse. It's just another hole to fill.
> 
> So other than being a different hole, what's the difference between anal sex and oral sex?



One is an entrance and the other an exit.


----------



## DukeU

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> If there was a difference other than it being a different hole, you could have easily explained. Instead, you just showed the forum your position on the matter is rooted in bigotry.


If you don't know the difference between your mouth and your ass, I can't help you.


----------



## DukeU

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is over the top stupid! Lesbians have a uterus and overies . Gay men produce sperm.



Are they marrying each other?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DukeU said:


> Are they marrying each other?


Yes,,,,and so?Do you ever get tired of asking stupid, pointless questions? Oh, right. You don't know that they are stupid, pointless questions?


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes,,,,and so?


I heard a comedian come up with the natural fix for the concern about gay marriage. He said lesbians should just marry gay men.


----------



## initforme

I'm for abolishing all marriages.   Just call them all unions.  As a Christian I am all for it.  It's loooong overdue.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> Not to mention how insulting it is to anyone that has ever adopted a child, telling them they are lesser parents because they are not the biological ones.



Arguing exceptions and at the margins. Anti-science.


----------



## SweetSue92

Circe said:


> Boy, there speaks a male who knows nothing about it.



Rank ignorance on display. Since you like to argue exceptions and then go on an emotional weep fest about it, here you go: the women who had high-risk pregnancies and were on bedrest in the hospital for four months--away from their other children, husbands, homes and maybe jobs--would beg to differ.

Now I'm gonna cry about these exceptions every time I post for the next six pages. HIGH RISK PREGNANCIES THO!


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> Arguing exceptions and at the margins. Anti-science.



Adoptive parents loving and raising their children no different than if they had conceived them are not the exceptions.



SweetSue92 said:


> Since you like to argue exceptions and then go on an emotional weep fest about it, here you go: the women who had high-risk pregnancies and were on bedrest in the hospital for four months--away from their other children, husbands, homes and maybe jobs--would beg to differ.



You are your own worst enemy.  Those are the exceptions, but the process I described to adopt is not the exception, it is the norm.

Look, we get it, you hate gay people and look down upon parents that have adopted children.   Its cool, this is a free country you are allowed to have those views.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> Adoptive parents loving and raising their children no different than if they had conceived them are not the exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> You are your own worst enemy.  Those are the exceptions, but the process I described to adopt is not the exception, it is the norm.
> 
> Look, we get it, you hate gay people and look down upon parents that have adopted children.   Its cool, this is a free country you are allowed to have those views.





I don't hate gay people. I guess you can't dispute the data and science I put forth--well-cited--so you're just going to lob insults. Okay, have at it, but don't say you "follow the science". You don't.


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> I don't hate gay people. I guess you can't dispute the data and science I put forth--well-cited--so you're just going to lob insults. Okay, have at it, but don't say you "follow the science". You don't.



There is no data that says gay people should not be married.

There is not data that shows gay people are not good parents.

There is no data that shows adoptive parents are 'lesser" parents than biological ones.

All there is is bigotry for those not like you.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> There is no data that says gay people should not be married.
> 
> There is not data that shows gay people are not good parents.
> 
> There is no data that shows adoptive parents are 'lesser" parents than biological ones.
> 
> All there is is bigotry for those not like you.



Why do you hate children?


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> Why do you hate children?



I don't.  That is why I support them being adopted and do not call the parents that do so "lesser parents".

It is why I support stable, loving households regardless of the sex of the parents. 

But then again, I am not a bigot


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Honestly I don't give a shit about gay marriage what two consenting adults do is between them it's none of my business don't toss your gayness in my face and I won't parade my heterosexual manliness in yours, but this is not something the Federal Government should decide either. The 10th Amendment applies.


----------



## DukeU

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes,,,,and so?Do you ever get tired of asking stupid, pointless questions? Oh, right. You don't know that they are stupid, pointless questions?


Hey dum dum, if they are marrying each other what difference does it make whether lesbians have ovaries and gay men have sperm? It's wasted on both counts.

Duh.


----------



## Faun

DukeU said:


> One is an entrance and the other an exit.



LOL

And that's all it takes for you to define one as "normal" but the other is not??


----------



## Golfing Gator

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> but this is not something the Federal Government should decide either.



had the Fed Govt not tied benefits to marriage I would agree with you.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Golfing Gator said:


> had the Fed Govt not tied benefits to marriage I would agree with you.


The Government shouldn't be in that business either. The Fed has gone way beyond it's original mandate.


----------



## Golfing Gator

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The Government shouldn't be in that business either. The Fed has gone way beyond it's original mandate.



I agree with both statements.

But, as long as it is, they should not be treating people differently based on sex


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> 270 isnt my post
> Wanna fail again?


470,


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> There is no data that says gay people should not be married.
> 
> There is not data that shows gay people are not good parents.
> 
> There is no data that shows adoptive parents are 'lesser" parents than biological ones.
> 
> All there is is bigotry for those not like you.


But there is a lot of data showing that being gay is a mental aberration and not a normal human condition.  But having said that, I have no issue with gays being given the same rights as heterosexual people.   Your claim that others hate gays is nothing but political rhetoric that has nothing to do with reality.


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> 470,


I have already addressed that on the previous page. By "partisan ilk" i meant you partisans on both sides. You 2 groups are two sides of the same coin.
Did you understand it THAT time, Mr.INeedHookedOnPhonics, or do i need to color you a picture?


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> I have already addressed that on the previous page. By "partisan ilk" i meant you partisans on both sides. You 2 groups are two sides of the same coin.
> Did you understand it THAT time, Mr.INeedHookedOnPhonics, or do i need to color you a picture?


got it clearly the first time, it remains bullshit.   The partisan division in this country began in the 60s with free love and pot, and "if it feels good do it".   Those same idiots are now running the dem party and are determined to turn this country into a lawless large copy of Cuba or Venezuela.   
The partisan bullshit factor and lie factor is much higher on the dem/lib left.   
Are BLM and Antifa right or left???  I rest my case.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> I don't.  That is why I support them being adopted and do not call the parents that do so "lesser parents".
> 
> It is why I support stable, loving households regardless of the sex of the parents.
> 
> But then again, I am not a bigot



You play Leftist games really well. I never said they were "lesser parents". Scientifically, CHILDREN DO BEST in the homes of their biological, married parents.

Now, how many names do you want to call me to dance around this?


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> got it clearly the first time, it remains bullshit.   The partisan division in this country began in the 60s with free love and pot, and "if it feels good do it".   Those same idiots are now running the dem party and are determined to turn this country into a lawless large copy of Cuba or Venezuela.
> The partisan bullshit factor and lie factor is much higher on the dem/lib left.
> Are BLM and Antifa right or left???  I rest my case.


You *clearly* cant comprehend what im typing. You are a lost cause.


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> You play Leftist games really well. I never said they were "lesser parents". Scientifically, CHILDREN DO BEST in the homes of their biological, married parents.
> 
> Now, how many names do you want to call me to dance around this?



You did not, but the person whose post I responded to in the post you called me ignorant did call them that.   

And there is no scientific data that shows CHILDREN DO BEST in the homes of their biological, married parents.   The number of parents is far more important than the biological part or the married part.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> You did not, but the person whose post I responded to in the post you called me ignorant did call them that.
> 
> And there is no scientific data that shows CHILDREN DO BEST in the homes of their biological, married parents.   The number of parents is far more important than the biological part or the married part.



Maybe you can take it up with the CDC. You like them, right? "Trust the science"



			https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> You did not, but the person whose post I responded to in the post you called me ignorant did call them that.
> 
> And there is no scientific data that shows CHILDREN DO BEST in the homes of their biological, married parents.   The number of parents is far more important than the biological part or the married part.



You did, however, call me a bigot several times. After what we did with our Covid mess these last two years, I am not also willing to say that children do equally well with gay parents, mixed households and etc as they do their married, biological parents. It's just not true, and it's damaging. Again, not saying there aren't exceptions. But I'm not selling kids out because some adults want to feel better about their choices. And I will NEVER be sorry about that.


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> Maybe you can take it up with the CDC. You like them, right? "Trust the science"
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr074.pdf



The problem is not with the science, it is with your understanding of it.    Children living with adoptive parents are not in nonparental care, just as those living with two same sex parents are not.

You will note that your study covers time before Same sex marriage was even allowed so the data does not include a time when two parents of the same sex could be a marriage relationship.



SweetSue92 said:


> You did, however, call me a bigot several times



Yep, you jumped in an attacked me for saying that adoptive parents are not lesser parents.   



SweetSue92 said:


> I am not also willing to say that children do equally well with gay parents, mixed households and etc as they do their married, biological parents. It's just not true, and it's damaging.



yes, that is because you are a bigot and it would never occur to you that gay people could be good parents or that adoptive parents could be just as good as biological ones.


----------



## Redfish

TNHarley said:


> You *clearly* cant comprehend what im typing. You are a lost cause.


attempting to insult your betters only makes you look like a fool, well done!


----------



## TNHarley

Redfish said:


> attempting to insult your betters only makes you look like a fool, well done!


You wish, boomer. I think 16 ounces of metamucil is calling your name.


----------



## BackAgain

TNHarley said:


> You wish, boomer. I think 16 ounces of metamucil is calling your name.


Oh my!  Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> The problem is not with the science, it is with your understanding of it.    Children living with adoptive parents are not in nonparental care, just as those living with two same sex parents are not.
> 
> You will note that your study covers time before Same sex marriage was even allowed so the data does not include a time when two parents of the same sex could be a marriage relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you jumped in an attacked me for saying that adoptive parents are not lesser parents.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, that is because you are a bigot and it would never occur to you that gay people could be good parents or that adoptive parents could be just as good as biological ones.



You keep changing what the science says. You have to I guess.

It says: children do best in the homes of their BIOLOGICAL, MARRIED PARENTS.

BIOLOGICAL. It doesn't say other parents are not parents. Why do you argue things that I didn't say--that no one said? 

It is the place where no explanations need to be made. "We married; our marriage created you; you live with us. You have your daddy's eyes, your mother's sense of humor, your grandma's hair, etc." The child's legacy is all right there.

Adoption happened for a reason that will need to be explained. That is not to say it's a bad situation. In many cases it's a better situation than the child would have been in. But it's not the BEST situation for children. This is easily borne out in the fact that many children adopted by loving parents still are quite curious about their background.

SSM is even less ideal, because now you have to explain how the child was created at some point. On top of everything else. And you are without a dad or a mom in the child's life. Adults think this is not a big deal. Children would beg to differ. 

I'm sorry you hate children so much that none of this matters to you--and yes, every time you call me a bigot I will say you hate children. Same ridiculous charges.


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> You keep changing what the science says. You have to I guess.
> 
> It says: children do best in the homes of their BIOLOGICAL, MARRIED PARENTS.



And when comparing that to "nonparental care" it is accurate.  But adoptive parents do not qualify as nonparental care, nor does same sex couples. 



SweetSue92 said:


> It is the place where no explanations need to be made. "We married; our marriage created you; you live with us. You have your daddy's eyes, your mother's sense of humor, your grandma's hair, etc." The child's legacy is all right there.



Yet you just gave the explanation.  



SweetSue92 said:


> Adoption happened for a reason that will need to be explained. That is not to say it's a bad situation. In many cases it's a better situation than the child would have been in. But it's not the BEST situation for children. This is easily borne out in the fact that many children adopted by loving parents still are quite curious about their background.



A child caring about their background is not a sign of things not being the best.  Hell there is a major industry devoted to people that care about their background that will let you find all sorts of things about it.  Does anyone that uses Ancestory.com not in the "best" situation? 



SweetSue92 said:


> SSM is even less ideal, because now you have to explain how the child was created at some point. On top of everything else. And you are without a dad or a mom in the child's life. Adults think this is not a big deal. Children would beg to differ.



You must not have kids of your own, because even opposite sex parents end up explaining how the child was created.   It is something most all parents have had to answer. 



SweetSue92 said:


> I'm sorry you hate children so much that none of this matters to you--and yes, every time you call me a bigot I will say you hate children. Same ridiculous charges.



Except my charge is true and yours is you acting like a child.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> And when comparing that to "nonparental care" it is accurate.  But adoptive parents do not qualify as nonparental care, nor does same sex couples.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you just gave the explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> A child caring about their background is not a sign of things not being the best.  Hell there is a major industry devoted to people that care about their background that will let you find all sorts of things about it.  Does anyone that uses Ancestory.com not in the "best" situation?
> 
> 
> 
> You must not have kids of your own, because even opposite sex parents end up explaining how the child was created.   It is something most all parents have had to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Except my charge is true and yours is you acting like a child.



Go argue it out with the science of the CDC.


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> Go argue it out with the science of the CDC.



No need.  The decade old CDC study does not say what you claim it does.


----------



## SweetSue92

Golfing Gator said:


> No need.  The decade old CDC study does not say what you claim it does.



I claim it says the ideal situation in which to raise a child is the home of their biological, married parents. And that research bears this out. That is statistics, not each individual case, of course.


----------



## Golfing Gator

SweetSue92 said:


> I claim it says the ideal situation in which to raise a child is the home of their biological, married parents. And that research bears this out. That is statistics, not each individual case, of course.



Decades old research done before same sex couples were legally allowed to marry and during which they were constantly under attack. 

Got anything current?


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


 For people who so clearly have no respect for law and order down at our border, you should be pleased when businesses get the freedom to ignore our laws, right?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Golfing Gator said:


> Decades old research done before same sex couples were legally allowed to marry and during which they were constantly under attack.
> 
> Got anything current?


Instead of asking for current research, why don't you actually go find it yourself mate? You could easily win this debate with newer research, yet you seemingly don't have it. 

So, this leads me to believe this chronological argument is all you have.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Golfing Gator said:


> All there is is bigotry for those not like you.


Now do those who treat Christians the same way.


----------



## TemplarKormac

And before anyone starts hitting me with their pre-loaded "bigot" responses. I'm gay. I came out in 2017 to my elderly fundamentalist Christian grandmother to see if everything leftists said about people like her was true, and the only thing she did was smile. She didn't excommunicate me or drive me out of her home. She didn't shove a Bible in my face while screaming about how much homosexuality is a sin. She smiled. She still loves me.

Her love knows no affiliation or political party. Now, if only I could get past this sick political dichotomy the way she has.


----------



## Golfing Gator

TemplarKormac said:


> And before anyone starts hitting me with their pre-loaded "bigot" responses. I'm gay. I came out in 2015 to my elderly fundamentalist Christian grandmother and the only thing she did was smile. She didn't excommunicate me or drive me out of her home. She still loves me.



That is good to hear.  That is how it should be.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> For people who so clearly have no respect for law and order down at our border, you should be pleased when businesses get the freedom to ignore our laws, right?


No idea what you are babbling about


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> No idea what you are babbling about


You have every idea, actually. Don't feign ignorance with me.

One law matters while the other doesn't. That's how people like you work. If our laws on the border don't matter to you, then it shouldn't matter when businesses violate public accommodation laws either.

I'm simply using your garbage logic against you.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> You do, actually. Don't feign ignorance with me.
> 
> One law matters while the other doesn't. That's how people like you work. If our laws on the border don't matter to you, then it shouldn't matter when businesses violate public accommodation laws either.
> 
> I'm simply using your garbage logic against you.



Personally, I am not afraid of Brown People or Gay People

Both of which repulse Republicans


----------



## TemplarKormac

Golfing Gator said:


> That is good to hear.  That is how it should be.


Indeed. And it makes me jealous. She's one of those who gets it. Her faith doesn't preach hate, and thus why it's mine as well. 

Go look up John 13:34. That's exactly what drove her response that day when I came out.


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> Personally, I am not afraid of Brown People or Gay People
> 
> Both of which repulse Republicans


I'm a gay conservative. I vote Republican.

Take your presumptive arguments elsewhere.

I resent people like you pigeonholing me into pre-packaged categories because you seemingly think the LGB(T) community belongs to you.  Well screw you, and screw that line of reasoning.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> I'm a gay conservative. I vote Republican.
> 
> Take your presumptive arguments elsewhere.
> 
> I resent people like you pigeonholing me into pre-packaged categories because you seemingly think the LGB(T) community belongs to you.  Well screw you, and screw that line of reasoning.



I can’t account for you supporting those who hate you


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> I can’t account for you supporting those who hate you


Because you can't account for those who see past that lie. 

The leash is taut, the collar firm. Your owner will be along for you soon.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> Because you can't account for those who see past that lie.
> 
> The leash is taut, the collar firm. Your owner will be along for you soon.



As a gay man, you support a party with Ted Cruz and many others who want each state to decide whether they discriminate against you.

Republicans believe states should be allowed to ban your marriage to someone you love, they support employers and landlords being able to fire you and deny you services

Again, I can’t account for your decisions


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Personally, I am not afraid of Brown People or Gay People
> 
> Both of which repulse Republicans


bullshit.  that is another dem/lib talking point LIE.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> As a gay man, you support a party with Ted Cruz and many others who want each state to decide whether they discriminate against you.
> 
> Republicans believe states should be allowed to ban you marriage to someone you love, they support employers and landlords being able to fire you and deny you services
> 
> Again, I can’t account for your decisions


you keep stating the issue incorrectly and with political talking points.   The issue is whether these things are federal constitutional issues or not.  If they are then a federal law would prevail, if they are not then the voters of each state must decide for their state.   That's all this is about.  If you don't like the way your state votes, then move, its simple.   I do think that marriages sanctioned by one state should be accepted by all states and abortions legal in the state where they are performed should not be punished in any other state.   Maybe we can settle this civilly, maybe we can't, we shall see.   So far all of the violence has been instigated and conducted by the left.  Is there a message there?   I think so.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> bullshit.  that is another dem/lib talking point LIE.



Just look at how they vote

Republicans oppose DACA, a path to citizenship, immigration reform
They also oppose same sex marriage, employment and housing rights for gays, gays in the military, gay adoption


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> you keep stating the issue incorrectly and with political talking points.   The issue is whether these things are federal constitutional issues or not.  If they are then a federal law would prevail, if they are not then the voters of each state must decide for their state.   That's all this is about.  If you don't like the way your state votes, then move, its simple.   I do think that marriages sanctioned by one state should be accepted by all states and abortions legal in the state where they are performed should not be punished in any other state.   Maybe we can settle this civilly, maybe we can't, we shall see.   So far all of the violence has been instigated and conducted by the left.  Is there a message there?   I think so.



LOL

I don’t hate gays, I just support a States right to discriminate against gays


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Just look at how they vote
> 
> Republicans oppose DACA, a path to citizenship, immigration reform
> They also oppose same sex marriage, employment and housing rights for gays, gays in the military, gay adoption


no they do not.   DACA would reward violation of our immigration laws.  Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation in anarchy.  Why do you libs want our immigration laws ignored?   I know the answer,  because somehow you have convinced yourselves that you can turn illegals into dem voters because you know that you can never win another election with only american citizens voting.   That is all the open border dem policy has ever been about, and you fricken well know it.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> LOL
> 
> I don’t hate gays, I just support a States right to discriminate against gays


not what I said or even close.   I have gay relatives and friends and love each and every one of them.   This is about what the constitution covers and what it does not,  and that is all its about.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> no they do not.   DACA would reward violation of our immigration laws.  Either we are a nation of laws or we are a nation in anarchy.  Why do you libs want our immigration laws ignored?   I know the answer,  because somehow you have convinced yourselves that you can turn illegals into dem voters because you know that you can never win another election with only american citizens voting.   That is all the open border dem policy has ever been about, and you fricken well know it.


A nation of laws until we try to pass laws allowing gay rights or a path to citizenship

Then Republicans throw a fit

There is nothing preventing immigrants or gays from voting Republican……except their oppressive policies


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> A nation of laws until we try to pass laws allowing gay rights or a path to citizenship
> 
> Then Republicans throw a fit


If congress passes such a law and the president signs it, then it would be the law of the land and everyone would have to follow it.  Same thing if any state passed such a law.  What are you so scared of?

question 2.  why do you want to reward violation of our immigration laws?   why do you want some laws followed and others ignored?


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> As a gay man, you support a party with Ted Cruz and many others who want each state to decide whether they discriminate against you.
> 
> Republicans believe states should be allowed to ban your marriage to someone you love, they support employers and landlords being able to fire you and deny you services
> 
> Again, I can’t account for your decisions


As if I would take any explanation of my worldview from you seriously.

I don't support that behavior,  I'm simply pointing our the liberal hypocrisy regarding obedience to the law.


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> LOL
> 
> I don’t hate gays, I just support a States right to discriminate against gays


"I don't hate gays, unless they vote republican"


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> "I don't hate guys, unless they vote republican"



Again, don’t ask me to justify you voting for those who seek to oppress you


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> As if I would take any explanation of my worldview from you seriously.
> 
> I don't support that behavior,  I'm simply pointing our the liberal hypocrisy regarding obedience to the law.



You support that behavior by voting Republican

A party seeking to oppress gays


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> Again, don’t ask me to justify you voting for those who seek to oppress you


That veiled language of yours isn't fooling anyone.


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> You support that behavior by voting Republican
> 
> A party seeking to oppress gays



How are they oppressing me?


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> You support that behavior by voting Republican


Odd, then by that metric you support illegal immigration by voting for Democrats.

Don't play this game with me.  I will obliterate you.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> Odd, then by that metric you support illegal immigration by voting for Democrats.
> 
> Don't play this game with me.  I will obliterate you.


Unlike Republicans, I don’t fear Brown People

I realize they are not Murderers, Rapists and Drug Dealers but the overwhelming majority are here to make our beds, mow our lawns and do other menial labor 

I support temporary work visas so these workers can come and go, I also support a path to citizenship for those who work and pay taxes


----------



## AsherN

TNHarley said:


> Marriage is a religious institution. Except in our Country, it has been made a government institution. If the SC were to rule that the fed gov has no business in marriage and get the govt out of it, that would mean married people lose all those awesome perks, and power would go back to the states. Where it is supposed to be.
> Right now, gays just want the same benefits hetero married couples get. Why would they want it if they didnt get those perks? To be all godly and shit? No, God makes it clear that homos are full of sin.


It's a civil contract in every country. Some countries like the US and Canada allow clergy to act as Agents of the State and certify the civil contract. The religious certificate/contract has no force of law.


----------



## TNHarley

AsherN said:


> It's a civil contract in every country. Some countries like the US and Canada allow clergy to act as Agents of the State and certify the civil contract. The religious certificate/contract has no force of law.


I get that. But marriage, as everyone calls it, is a religious institution. If the religious dont want gays getting married, they need to take it back from the state.


----------



## AsherN

TNHarley said:


> I get that. But marriage, as everyone calls it, is a religious institution. If the religious dont want gays getting married, they need to take it back from the state.


No, it's not. it's an English word describing the status of 2 people towards each other. it is called differently in other languages. It has a definition in a religious and a definition in a secular context. it's not hard to understand. If you want the gov to call it something else, then don't complain when legislatures and agencies across the country spend countless time and money making all those changes. Because unlike what some people here are saying, it's not a matter of electronic find and replace. It's a change to a legal document. That requires debate and approval. And when it's done, people will still call it marriage. A couple will not say they are going to City Hall to get civil-unioned, they'll say they are getting married. 

A properly crafted law affords protection to religious institutions who don't want to marry same sex couples so there is no slippery slope.


----------



## TNHarley

AsherN said:


> No, it's not. it's an English word describing the status of 2 people towards each other. it is called differently in other languages. It has a definition in a religious and a definition in a secular context. it's not hard to understand. If you want the gov to call it something else, then don't complain when legislatures and agencies across the country spend countless time and money making all those changes. Because unlike what some people here are saying, it's not a matter of electronic find and replace. It's a change to a legal document. That requires debate and approval. And when it's done, people will still call it marriage. A couple will not say they are going to City Hall to get civil-unioned, they'll say they are getting married.
> 
> A properly crafted law affords protection to religious institutions who don't want to marry same sex couples so there is no slippery slope.


It has a secular meaning because govt got involved. Marriage, historically, is a religious institution. UNTIL govt got their greedy asses involved.


----------



## rightwinger

TNHarley said:


> I get that. But marriage, as everyone calls it, is a religious institution. If the religious dont want gays getting married, they need to take it back from the state.


Religions can make any rules they want 
The state must apply it’s laws equally


----------



## TNHarley

rightwinger said:


> The state must apply it’s laws equally


And they dont. Our fucking govt cant even handle marriage properly.
And then idiots like you want them to control every aspect of our lives. Blows my mind.


----------



## rightwinger

TNHarley said:


> And they dont. Our fucking govt cant even handle marriage properly.
> And then idiots like you want them to control every aspect of our lives. Blows my mind.


The government is handling it properly

It is religions applying unnecessary rules


----------



## TNHarley

rightwinger said:


> The government is handling it properly
> 
> It is religions applying unnecessary rules


Thats why it is applied unequally? The shit you were just talking about? Jesus fucking christ man


----------



## rightwinger

TNHarley said:


> Thats why it is applied unequally? The shit you were just talking about? Jesus fucking christ man


Wtf are you babbling about?


----------



## TNHarley

rightwinger said:


> Wtf are you babbling about?


You said they need to apply the laws equally, but they dont. and then said it is handling it properly.
Are you drunk?


----------



## rightwinger

TNHarley said:


> You said they need to apply the laws equally, but they dont. and then said it is handling it properly.
> Are you drunk?


Give me an example of unequal laws


----------



## TNHarley

rightwinger said:


> Give me an example of unequal laws


tax credits


----------



## rightwinger

TNHarley said:


> tax credits


Still not following you


----------



## bodecea

GMCGeneral said:


> Sovereign G-d of Creation.


Which one?   There are so many depending on where you are and what culture.


----------



## TNHarley

rightwinger said:


> Still not following you


How people get favored by tax credits for doing shit the govt likes. Marriage, having kids etc.
Jesus man, have you been under a rock the last 50 years?


----------



## bodecea

rightwinger said:


> Next targets for the TRUMPCourt
> 
> Gay Marriage/Gay Rights
> School /Public Prayer
> EPA
> Obamacare
> CDC
> Worker Protections
> OSHA


Wait!   Didn't the disgraced twice-impeached former occupant of the WH get rid of Obamacare like he promised?


----------



## GMCGeneral

bodecea said:


> Which one?   There are so many depending on where you are and what culture.


Doesn't depend on anything.  The one and only G-d, YHWH who sent His Son, Jesus to die for the sins of man.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

rightwinger said:


> Another example of why secular law is more just than Biblical law


And I agree, which is why it is a good thing liberals no longer revere court decisions as though they were gospel [remember the bad old days?] now they must play by the rules they set out and that is some nasty tasting medicine...just listen to their rants and look at their faces as it goes down.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Religions can make any rules they want
> The state must apply it’s laws equally


yes, and the voters of each state should decide what laws apply in their state.  That is all the SC decision did, put it back to the states where it belongs.   abortion and gay marriage are NOT federal constitutional issues.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> yes, and the voters of each state should decide what laws apply in their state.  That is all the SC decision did, put it back to the states where it belongs.   abortion and gay marriage are NOT federal constitutional issues.



What do you do when a gay couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage?

What about gay Military couples who are stationed in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage?


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> What do you do when a gay couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage?
> 
> What about gay Military couples who are stationed in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage?


a reasonable federal law would require marriages sanctioned in any state to be recognized by all states.  same with abortion, if you get it legally in any state no state should prosecute you if you enter that state.  

there are common sense solutions to all this,  its you on the left that demand your way or no way.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> a reasonable federal law would require marriages sanctioned in any state to be recognized by all states.  same with abortion, if you get it legally in any state no state should prosecute you if you enter that state.
> 
> there are common sense solutions to all this,  its you on the left that demand your way or no way.


So what do you gain by banning gay marriage if someone in your state can just skip out to Vegas to get married?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> yes, and the voters of each state should decide what laws apply in their state.  That is all the SC decision did, put it back to the states where it belongs.   abortion and gay marriage are NOT federal constitutional issues.


Would you also be ok with having some states that banned interracial marriage?


----------



## Couchpotato

rightwinger said:


> What do you do when a gay couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage?
> 
> What about gay Military couples who are stationed in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage?


Artice IV sec 1 of the Constitution.   Any more toughies?


----------



## Couchpotato

rightwinger said:


> So what do you gain by banning gay marriage if someone in your state can just skip out to Vegas to get married?


They wouldnt even have to do that.   









						Online Marriage - Get Legally Married Completely Online!
					

Online Marriage is the easiest way to get legally married in the United States no matter where you are located - all couples are welcome!




					onlinemarriage.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> Artice IV sec 1 of the Constitution.   Any more toughies?


Full faith and credit was found to not apply to same sex marriage. States were not recognizing it before Obergefell and they won't,  post obergefell


----------



## Weatherman2020

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Time to reverse the normalization of groomers. Can’t wait until they find a genetic link to homosexuality so people can get abortions.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> So what do you gain by banning gay marriage if someone in your state can just skip out to Vegas to get married?


that is up to the voters of each state, if they do not want their state to sanction gay marriage so be it.  Why would a gay couple want to live in a state where they could not marry legally?  This "in your face" stuff from you radical perverts must be ended.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> that is up to the voters of each state, if they do not want their state to sanction gay marriage so be it.  Why would a gay couple want to live in a state where they could not marry legally?  This "in your face" stuff from you radical perverts must be ended.



Yeah, nothing screams "radical pervert" more than two people wanting to get married


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> Why would a gay couple want to live in a state where they could not marry legally?


Why would you think that a gay couple should not be able live *any damned place they want to live* without having to consider what rights they might or might not have depending where they live.....JUST LIKE YOU CAN?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Weatherman2020 said:


> Time to reverse the normalization of groomers. Can’t wait until they find a genetic link to homosexuality so people can get abortions.


You people need to stop grooming kids to be ignorant bigots and bullies

By the way, there is a genetic link to homosexuality.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> that is up to the voters of each state, if they do not want their state to sanction gay marriage so be it.  *Why would a gay couple want to live in a state where they could not marry legally*?  This "in your face" stuff from you radical perverts must be ended.


Maybe because they were born and raised in that state
Maybe because their family lives in that state
Maybe because their job is in that state


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> Yeah, nothing screams "radical pervert" more than two people wanting to get married


homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition,  perversion may be too strong, how about aberration?

but having said that, I have no issue with gays marrying or forming a civil union or whatever you choose to call it.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Redfish said:


> homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition, perversion may be too strong, how about aberration?



and yet oddly enough it has been around as long as humans have been.

weird.


----------



## Couchpotato

Golfing Gator said:


> and yet oddly enough it has been around as long as humans have been.
> 
> weird.


So have a lot of genetic mutations.     Doesnt make them the "normal human state".        That doesnt mean they are somehow less than or dont get the same rights as everyone else but homosexuality isnt not how humans were "meant to be" whether you believe in God or evolution.


----------



## Redfish

Golfing Gator said:


> and yet oddly enough it has been around as long as humans have been.
> 
> weird.


yes, it probably has,  but that does not make it normal.   In most ancient civilizations it was considered a perversion and was prosecuted,  it still is in muslim countries.   The major religions all condemn it as a wrongful act.  But if you want to marry your male friend, go for it.  I don't care.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Full faith and credit was found to not apply to same sex marriage. States were not recognizing it before Obergefell and they won't,  post obergefell


That's exactly what Obergefell found isnt it?


----------



## Golfing Gator

Couchpotato said:


> So have a lot of genetic mutations.     Doesnt make them the "normal human state".        That doesnt mean they are somehow less than or dont get the same rights as everyone else but homosexuality isnt not how humans were "meant to be" whether you believe in God or evolution.



Maybe under god I would agree, but if it has survived all these millennia of changes that it is now a normal state of being for some humans


----------



## Couchpotato

Golfing Gator said:


> Maybe under god I would agree, but if it has survived all these millennia of changes that it is now a normal state of being for some humans


Is a 2 headed snake "normal"   Conjoined twins?    Down syndrome?  Autism?   There are countless genetic "defects" that are persistent and also not "normal".    If anything homosexuality would be less "normal" under an evolution paradigm than a creation one.     What evolutionary advantage does being gay grant someone?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> That's exactly what Obergefell found isnt it?


Obergefell does not invoke full faith and credit. The fact remains that if Obergefell is overturned, states will again be under no obligation to honoe out of etate marriages


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Obergefell does not invoke full faith and credit. The fact remains that if Obergefell is overturned, states will again be under no obligation to honoe out of etate marriages


They should have.   Seems that it fits there better than the 14th amendment.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You people need to stop grooming kids to be ignorant bigots and bullies
> 
> By the way, there is a genetic link to homosexuality.


I thought they went back on the "gay genes" existence.    

Certainly, now it's "cool" to be "gay" or at least say your open to it though you've never actually had sex with someone of the same sex.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> I thought they went back on the "gay genes" existence.


I didn't say that there was a gay gene. I said there is a genetic link. Google "epigenetics"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> Certainly, now it's "cool" to be "gay" or at least say your open to it though you've never actually had sex with someone of the same sex.


Whether or no it's cool depends on your social environment. There is still alot of dicrimination and I doubt that there are a lot of people claiming to begay who are not. We need to get to a point where the question is not whether or not it's "cool" The question should be "why concern yourself with someones sexuality unless your looking for a date"?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> They should have.   Seems that it fits there better than the 14th amendment.


Read the Constitution. Then fread Obergefell


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Whether or no it's cool depends on your social environment. There is still alot of dicrimination and I doubt that there are a lot of people claiming to begay who are not. We need to get to a point where the question is not whether or not it's "cool" The question should be "why concern yourself with someones sexuality unless your looking for a date"?



In pop culture being gay is most certainly "cool"   The only reason that's significant is that children are impressionably and stupid.   If you think that being gay being cool doesnt have a significant effect on whether young people say they are gay you arent paying attention.    









						Nearly 40% Of U.S. Gen Zs, 30% Of Christians Identify as LGBTQ, Poll Shows
					

The results differed significantly from a February Gallup poll that showed just 5.6 percent of U.S. adults of all ages are not "heterosexual or straight."




					www.newsweek.com
				




"
The pollster who worked on the new study, George Barna, attributes the unusually high number he found to social and news media coverage that makes it "safe and cool" for young Americans to identify as LGBTQ—whether or not it represents their actual sexual orientation.

"It's a subset of a larger issue, that this is a generation where three out of four are searching for meaning. This is a group that doesn't have a reason to get out of bed in the morning," Barna says. "Therefore, the LGBTQ identity gives them comfort. A lot of this generation claim to be moving in that direction, but there's a big difference between claiming the identity and living the lifestyle.""

If that percentage of the population were truly LGBT the world population wouldn't keep going up.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Read the Constitution. Then fread Obergefell



  There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ for a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage to be treated as anything comparable to a genuine marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ for a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage to be treated as anything comparable to a genuine marriage.


Right. But there is plenty in the Constitution about due process and equal protection under the law.

There is also the judicial review standard of strict scrutiny requiring the government, when when seeking to restrict or deny rights-such as marriage - to establish a compelling government interest to do so. The states failed miserably in that regard . The rantings of a bigoted fool like you suffering from a religious psychosis does not meet that standard

Strict scrutiny | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information …​








						Strict scrutiny
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




Strict scrutiny is* a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain* laws. Strict scrutiny is often used by courts when a plaintiff sues the government for discrimination. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly ta...
See more on law.cornell.edu


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> In pop culture being gay is most certainly "cool"   The only reason that's significant is that children are impressionably and stupid.   If you think that being gay being cool doesnt have a significant effect on whether young people say they are gay you arent paying attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 40% Of U.S. Gen Zs, 30% Of Christians Identify as LGBTQ, Poll Shows
> 
> 
> The results differed significantly from a February Gallup poll that showed just 5.6 percent of U.S. adults of all ages are not "heterosexual or straight."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> The pollster who worked on the new study, George Barna, attributes the unusually high number he found to social and news media coverage that makes it "safe and cool" for young Americans to identify as LGBTQ—whether or not it represents their actual sexual orientation.
> 
> "It's a subset of a larger issue, that this is a generation where three out of four are searching for meaning. This is a group that doesn't have a reason to get out of bed in the morning," Barna says. "Therefore, the LGBTQ identity gives them comfort. A lot of this generation claim to be moving in that direction, but there's a big difference between claiming the identity and living the lifestyle.""
> 
> If that percentage of the population were truly LGBT the world population wouldn't keep going up.


Well I must say, this is all quite interesting. There is a lot to unpack there . Please read to the end where I make my main point
For starters, while I will give the author the benefit of the doubt, they do not present the actual study or provide information such as the size of the study, how the sample was drawn and the specific questions asked. In addition, it should be noted  that the author heads a market research group with a religious perspective and is associated with the Family Research Council that is known for its anti gay bias:



> George Barna (born 1954) is the founder of The Barna Group, a market research firm specializing in studying the religious beliefs and behavior of Americans, and the intersection of faith and culture. From 2013 - 2018 he served as the executive director of the American Culture & Faith Institute, the research division of United in Purpose.[3] In 2019 he became a professor at Arizona Christian University in Phoenix, Arizona, where he also started the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University.[4] He is also the Senior Research Fellow for Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council.


In any case, I do not doubt that the number of people-adults and minors- who identify as gay, or LGBT has increased. The question is why. Barna suggests, as you do, that it is because “gay “ has become safe and cool, and provides meaning for young lives who are searching. Maybe for some, but he offers no evidence of that being responsible for the majority of, or even a significant percentage of those newly identifying as LGBT. It may well be that the increase in numbers is not due to their being influenced to identify as LGBT regardless  of their sexual orientation, but rather, the  fact that these are people who are actually LGBT who now feel safe enough to come out. And, while there is a certain degree of acceptance, being gay or trans still carries significant risks, Violence against LGBT people-especially trans people is at an all time high and on the increase. Discrimination is still ramped making it improbable that a significant number of people would “fake it”.

Even more absurd is the idea-pushed by some- that young  people are being  groomed to be gay or trans. Ask yourself; what would it take to convince YOU to be gay or trans?

NOW FOR MY MAIN POINT
We have been, and continue to be a hetero-centric culture. Gay and other LGBT people have historically been marginalized and denied full participation in society. In recent decades, LGBT people have been demanding and to a degree gaining  acceptance and rights. Many people are highly threatened and have responded with the rhetoric of  “grooming “ and pushing the “gay agenda” with the implication that the goal is to shift society from hetero-centric to homo-centric. That is just an irrational paranoid reaction to a movement who’s goal is simply equality. The idea that ones sexual orientation or gender identity is either” good or bad”....desirable or undesirable is destructive to individuals, and society. The goal of the LGBT  community is to get equal time, equal recognition and equal respect. “I’m ok, Your OK” Just stop the divisive obsession over these matter and we will all be better for it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> If that percentage of the population were truly LGBT the world population wouldn't keep going up.


PS: Gay people have children


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BS Filter said:


> Don't you believe in democracy?


Why don't you? You and your orange authoritarian don't seem to care for it.


----------



## BS Filter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why don't you? You and your orange authoritarian don't seem to care for it.


Ruling by politburo isn't democracy.  It's totalitarian.  Confused twat.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BS Filter said:


> Ruling by politburo isn't democracy.  It's totalitarian.  Confused twat.


Haha,someone needs a dictionary for Christmas. You've had plenty of time to learn what words mean, old man. You have no excuse.


----------



## BS Filter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha,someone needs a dictionary for Christmas. You've had plenty of time to learn what words mean, old man. You have no excuse.


I know America was in much better shape than it is now.  Who are you going to blame after election day?  The old man you support can't even wipe his own ass.  Yep, you're confused.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BS Filter said:


> know America was in much better shape than it is now.


And, as a good cultist sheep should, you attribute that to your orange lard and master. I know. You're like  parrot with Tourette's. Get a new act.


----------



## BS Filter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And, as a good cultist sheep should, you attribute that to your orange lard and master. I know. You're like  parrot with Tourette's. Get a new act.


Your old man isn't gonna be President much longer.  Deranged cockroach.


----------



## initforme

Get rid of the term marriage altogether.  Since most of those end in divorce anyway.   Problem solved.   I've been unioned to the same woman for 49 years now.   One more year and it will be 50 years.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> Get rid of the term marriage altogether.  Since most of those end in divorce anyway.   Problem solved.   I've been unioned to the same woman for 49 years now.   One more year and it will be 50 years.


There is no problem that needs solvingSame sex marriage is only  problem for those who choose to make it a problen, but it's really just their problem. Just get ovef it. Problem solved


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> Get rid of the term marriage altogether.  Since most of those end in divorce anyway.   Problem solved.   I've been unioned to the same woman for 49 years now.   One more year and it will be 50 years.


So,  people on civil unions split up at a lower rate than those who are married?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BS Filter said:


> Your old man isn't gonna be President much longer.  Deranged cockroach.


I am not a squealing cult sheep like you, so that doesn't bother me. You cultists always make this same error.


----------



## BS Filter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am not a squealing cult sheep like you, so that doesn't bother me. You cultists always make this same error.


Blah, blah blah.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> Get rid of the term marriage altogether.  Since most of those end in divorce anyway.   Problem solved.   I've been unioned to the same woman for 49 years now.   One more year and it will be 50 years.


2.7 divorces per 1,000 mariages is no where near 'most"





__





						divorce rate in america - Search
					






					www.bing.com
				




And the divorce rate among same sex couples is far lower





__





						divorce rate same sex marriages - Search
					






					www.bing.com
				




Evidence that same sex marriage has strengthened the institution of marriage......Problem Solved


----------



## tahuyaman

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Actually that was another issue we whitch should have been left up to each state.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

tahuyaman said:


> Actually that was another issue we whitch should have been left up to each state.


Then can I assume that you also think that interracial marriage should have been left to the states?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then can I assume that you also think that interracial marriage should have been left to the states?


Along with segregated schools.

The neo-fascist authoritarian right won’t just stop with _Roe_.


----------



## toobfreak

Penelope said:


> I just knew it would come up soon.



What's that, the fact that gays don't need to get married because they already had civil unions available to them which does all the same things?  Same other than sticking a finger in the eye of half the nation who knows that real marriage is a union between a man and woman for the sake of raising a family under God.


----------



## toobfreak

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The neo-fascist authoritarian right won’t just stop with _Roe_.



Good then, since you know that, you should stop complaining.

Yeah, we really did a number of Roe, huh---- that must be why Kansas just approved keeping abortion the same!


----------



## Couchpotato

toobfreak said:


> What's that, the fact that gays don't need to get married because they already had civil unions available to them which does all the same things?  Same other than sticking a finger in the eye of half the nation who knows that real marriage is a union between a man and woman for the sake of raising a family under God.


A "real marriage" is whatever that individual state defines it as (until the Federal Gov got involved anyway).   At least as it pertains to the law.      There's no doubt I dont think that the "state" incentivized marriage because it was beneficial to grow the population, and stable marriages are the best place for a child to grow up.    Whether that's still a good reason for states to incentivize marriage is something we should probably examine.    Whether or not a state's marriage laws conform to what God sanctifies as a marriage is irrelevant.    If you want you get married in the eyes of God you dont go to the Government.


----------



## toobfreak

Couchpotato said:


> A "real marriage" is whatever that individual state defines it as (until the Federal Gov got involved anyway).



No thanks.  Don't need the government "telling me" or "defining" anything when marriage was already defined and set forth as a meaningful, divine act by God.

All man and government have accomplished is changed it into a meaningless perversion.


----------



## Penelope

toobfreak said:


> What's that, the fact that gays don't need to get married because they already had civil unions available to them which does all the same things?  Same other than sticking a finger in the eye of half the nation who knows that real marriage is a union between a man and woman for the sake of raising a family under God.


Are you going to check bedrooms?


----------



## Couchpotato

toobfreak said:


> No thanks.  Don't need the government "telling me" or "defining" anything when marriage was already defined and set forth as a meaningful, divine act by God.
> 
> All man and government have accomplished is changed it into a meaningless perversion.


Then why are you going to the government for a marriage license?


----------



## POM

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...


In 1977 Joe Biden said that forced busing to desegregate schools would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.”


----------



## AsherN

toobfreak said:


> No thanks.  Don't need the government "telling me" or "defining" anything when marriage was already defined and set forth as a meaningful, divine act by God.
> 
> All man and government have accomplished is changed it into a meaningless perversion.


Exactly how has legalizing same sex marriage turned your own marriage into a meaningless perversion?


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> Exactly how has legalizing same sex marriage turned your own marriage into a meaningless perversion?


If you are using the biblical definition of marriage then he's essentially correct.   The problem with his argument is that God doesn't need the Government to define what marriage is; however, the Government certainly needs to define it in the law.      Which it has done.   The question is whether the Federal or State Government should be doing the defining.


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> If you are using the biblical definition of marriage then he's essentially correct.   The problem with his argument is that God doesn't need the Government to define what marriage is; however, the Government certainly needs to define it in the law.      Which it has done.   The question is whether the Federal or State Government should be doing the defining.


Both State and Federal confer rights and benefits to married couples. Therefore, both have a say.


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> Both State and Federal confer rights and benefits to married couples. Therefore, both have a say.


1 Governments don’t confer rights.  They can only protect and take away rights you already have.   The fed only confers benefits through taxes.  They do that to all kinds of things they don’t define.   

2. They really dont.  We can’t have states define it one way and the fed another.


----------



## rightwinger

Couchpotato said:


> 1 Governments don’t confer rights.  They can only protect and take away rights you already have.   The fed only confers benefits through taxes.  They do that to all kinds of things they don’t define.
> 
> 2. They really dont.  We can’t have states define it one way and the fed another.


Yes they do confer rights and make sure they are applied equitably


----------



## toobfreak

AsherN said:


> Exactly how has legalizing same sex marriage turned your own marriage into a meaningless perversion?


You read that wrong.


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> 1 Governments don’t confer rights.  They can only protect and take away rights you already have.   The fed only confers benefits through taxes.  They do that to all kinds of things they don’t define.
> 
> 2. They really dont.  We can’t have states define it one way and the fed another.


So what do you call the right of a spouse to make medical decision on behalf of the other spouse, if not a right granted by the state? Which is, BTW, one of the fundamental thing denied to same sex partner.


----------



## Couchpotato

rightwinger said:


> Yes they do confer rights and make sure they are applied equitably


No they don’t.   If the Government didn’t exost what rights would you not have that you have now?


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> So what do you call the right of a spouse to make medical decision on behalf of the other spouse, if not a right granted by the state? Which is, BTW, one of the fundamental thing denied to same sex partner.


If the Government didn’t exist why wouldn’t you have that right?   The only thing keeping SS partners from having that right was GOVERNMENT


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> If the Government didn’t exist why wouldn’t you have that right?   The only thing keeping SS partners from having that right was GOVERNMENT


Nope. The gov gives that right to supersede other family members.


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> Nope. The gov gives that right to supersede other family members.


Can you answer the question?    Why would you not have those rights if the Government doesnt exist?     

Why would you want the Government to be the source of your rights anyway?  If they are the grantor of your rights they have every right to deny you any right they see fit.     If there is some man made entity or institution that's granting you your "rights" you have no rights just privileges that they can grant or take away for whatever reason they can come up with.    If your rights are innate and Government's role is to but protect those rights YOU have actual real rights.


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> Nope. The gov gives that right to supersede other family members.


Who says other family member's opinions supercede the partner's?    Oh that pesky Government again.....


----------



## rightwinger

Couchpotato said:


> No they don’t.   If the Government didn’t exost what rights would you not have that you have now?



Government does exist. 
Without Government, who would enforce your rights as a citizen?


----------



## Couchpotato

rightwinger said:


> Yes they do confer rights and make sure they are applied equitably


If the Government is the grantor of rights why is it under any obligation to grant them equitably unless it serves the purposes of the Government?


----------



## rightwinger

Couchpotato said:


> If the Government is the grantor of rights why is it under any obligation to grant them equitably unless it serves the purposes of the Government?



Because they are a Government of We the People


----------



## Couchpotato

rightwinger said:


> Government does exist.
> Without Government, who would enforce your rights as a citizen?


I have all the rights in the world without the Government.    What rights dont I have if the Government doesnt exist?      Can you name a single one?    

I said the Government's job was to protect my rights.


----------



## Couchpotato

rightwinger said:


> Because they are a Government of We the People


But you said the Government is the holder of the power to confer or not confer rights.  Correct?  That they are the source of our rights.    If that's true (which I do not believe) why would the Government grant anyone any rights that arent to the Government's advantage?   

"We the people" means that the Government exists to serve US not the other way around.  If that's true how is it possible for the Government to hold power to grant me my rights?   I am the Government.    As are you.     So we are granting ourselves our own rights?


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> Can you answer the question?    Why would you not have those rights if the Government doesnt exist?
> 
> Why would you want the Government to be the source of your rights anyway?  If they are the grantor of your rights they have every right to deny you any right they see fit.     If there is some man made entity or institution that's granting you your "rights" you have no rights just privileges that they can grant or take away for whatever reason they can come up with.    If your rights are innate and Government's role is to but protect those rights YOU have actual real rights.


Rights that are not codified are subject to interpretation. In my example, society will generally side with immediate blood family over spouse/partner. Overriding this, giving the spouse the right to make those decisions is codified in law.


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> Rights that are not codified are subject to interpretation. In my example, society will generally side with immediate blood family over spouse/partner. Overriding this, giving the spouse the right to make those decisions is codified in law.


You keep using the Government to stop me from having my rights....


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> Rights that are not codified are subject to interpretation. In my example, society will generally side with immediate blood family over spouse/partner. Overriding this, giving the spouse the right to make those decisions is codified in law.


I can enter into any agreement I want with whomever I want unless there's some entity that stops me for doing so.       What could that entity be called.....


----------



## Mashmont

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


All forgiving if you're sorry.  I don't know why that is such a difficult concept.


----------



## Mashmont

Penelope said:


> He actually believe this stuff.
> 
> *Marriage*: As Solicitor General, Ted Cruz led the charge to deny Texas couples marriage equality. In the Senate, he has supported a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from recognizing marriage equality and an amendment placing members of the Supreme Court up for election. He even said that Justice Anthony Kennedy should resign and that the Obergefell ruling threw the Supreme Court’s “very legitimacy into question.” He has said a ruling in favor of marriage equality was “fundamentally illegitimate.” Cruz has promised to campaign “front and center” on his opposition to marriage equality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz: Not a Fan of Pride Parades - HRC
> 
> 
> Withdrew CandidacyWhether the issue is marriage equality or critical protection from discrimination, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has consistently opposed equality for LGBT Americans. And he’s gone even further, attacking fellow…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hrc.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh he is so religious he probably cheats on his wife and incest his children, we don't know whatever he does.


So you're saying someone who doesn't believe in lying or cheating probably lies or cheats.  Makes perfect sense.

I would guess those who do not believe lying or cheating are immoral are more likely those who lie or cheat.


----------



## miketx

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


I don't care if queers get married if that's what they want to do. Just shut up about their sickness and stop grooming kids.


----------



## Mashmont

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex? It's weird.


Guys, let me help with this.  Whenever a man puts his thing somewhere it doesn't belong, bad things happen.  Monkeypox, AIDS, STDs, devastating psychological damage, harm to society,  etc.  It's just the way it is.  Complaining about it is as silly as whining when you get shocked after sticking your finger in an electrical socket.


----------



## pknopp

Mashmont said:


> Guys, let me help with this.  Whenever a man puts his thing somewhere it doesn't belong, bad things happen.  Monkeypox, AIDS, STDs, devastating psychological damage, harm to society,  etc.  It's just the way it is.  Complaining about it is as silly as whining when you get shocked after sticking your finger in an electrical socket.



 Gonorrhea, syphilis, unintended pregnancies, divorce, etc.


----------



## Mashmont

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


Good.  That's better than the whole country being forced to follow immoral leftwing atheist laws.


----------



## Redfish

What Cruz said is that marriage (gay or straight) is not a federal issue that should be decided by the SC of the US.  That is all he said.  Let the voters of each state decide, and for the record that is all the SC opinion on abortion said----------not a federal constitutional issue, but a state by state issue to be decided by the voters of each state.

the misquotes and down right lies about this are destroying any chance for a sane discussion of it.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


And damn sure, next thing you know, they'll be forcing you to live in the state you hate the most!

The rascals!


----------



## pknopp

Redfish said:


> What Cruz said is that marriage (gay or straight) is not a federal issue that should be decided by the SC of the US.  That is all he said.  Let the voters of each state decide, and for the record that is all the SC opinion on abortion said----------not a federal constitutional issue, but a state by state issue to be decided by the voters of each state.
> 
> the misquotes and down right lies about this are destroying any chance for a sane discussion of it.



That can't be done until the Federal government is out of marriage.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> What Cruz said is that marriage (gay or straight) is not a federal issue that should be decided by the SC of the US.  That is all he said.  Let the voters of each state decide, and for the record that is all the SC opinion on abortion said----------not a federal constitutional issue, but a state by state issue to be decided by the voters of each state.
> 
> the misquotes and down right lies about this are destroying any chance for a sane discussion of it.


Equal treatment under the law is a federal issue


----------



## GMCGeneral

rightwinger said:


> Equal treatment under the law is a federal issue


Special treatment based on sexual behavior is not.


----------



## rightwinger

GMCGeneral said:


> Special treatment based on sexual behavior is not.



Nobody is receiving special treatment
Marriage is about who you love, not how you have sex 

The State can’t say…….I support your marriage but those others I find yucky

We saw that in Loving vs Virginia


----------



## Redfish

Mashmont said:


> Good.  That's better than the whole country being forced to follow immoral leftwing atheist laws.





pknopp said:


> That can't be done until the Federal government is out of marriage.


exactly what the SC said.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Equal treatment under the law is a federal issue


yes, but that does not include abortion and marriage,  those are up to each state's voters.  Don't worry,  your perversions will remain legal in the blue states, and you will still be allowed to kill baby humans in those states too.


----------



## AsherN

GMCGeneral said:


> Special treatment based on sexual behavior is not.


Being able to marry the one you love is not special treatment.


----------



## Redfish

AsherN said:


> Being able to marry the one you love is not special treatment.


would that include your dog or cat, or plastic woman?  or maybe your goldfish?


----------



## Polishprince

rightwinger said:


> Nobody is receiving special treatment
> Marriage is about who you love, not how you have sex
> 
> The State can’t say…….I support your marriage but those others I find yucky
> 
> We saw that in Loving vs Virginia



Loving v Virginia has nothing to do with Gay Marriage, which wasn't even invented when that ruling came down.

But if the Libs think that its a smart idea to say the being black is the same as taking it in the caboose, its their political grave.

It doesn't go over very well to go up to black guys and suggest to them that they are homos.


----------



## pknopp

Redfish said:


> would that include your dog or cat, or plastic woman?  or maybe your goldfish?



 Can they consent?


----------



## Lesh

Redfish said:


> What Cruz said is that marriage (gay or straight) is not a federal issue that should be decided by the SC of the US.  That is all he said.  Let the voters of each state decide, and for the record that is all the SC opinion on abortion said----------not a federal constitutional issue, but a state by state issue to be decided by the voters of each state.
> 
> the misquotes and down right lies about this are destroying any chance for a sane discussion of it.


Kinda like Roe huh?


----------



## Stann

Mashmont said:


> All forgiving if you're sorry.  I don't know why that is such a difficult concept.


And what did Paul base this on. Jesus never mentioned this. It has to be based on the Old testament tribal religious laws. Which have nothing to do with Christianity.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Stann said:


> And what did Paul base this on. Jesus never mentioned this. It has to be based on the Old testament tribal religious laws. Which have nothing to do with Christianity.


Wrong. OT has EVERYTHING to do with Christ.


----------



## pknopp

GMCGeneral said:


> Wrong. OT has EVERYTHING to do with Christ.



 Jesus came to do away with the laws of the OT.


----------



## Bezukhov

Redfish said:


> yes, and the voters of each state should decide what laws apply in their state.  That is all the SC decision did, put it back to the states where it belongs.   abortion and gay marriage are NOT federal constitutional issues.


So a state can ignore the 13th Amendment if that's what the voters in that state want to?


----------



## GMCGeneral

pknopp said:


> Jesus came to do away with the laws of the OT.


Not do away with, fulfill them. Big difference. G-d's Moral Law remains in effect and in force for all Eternity.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Bezukhov said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, and the voters of each state should decide what laws apply in their state.  That is all the SC decision did, put it back to the states where it belongs.   abortion and gay marriage are NOT federal constitutional issues.
> 
> 
> 
> So a state can ignore the 13th Amendment if that's what the voters in that state want to?
Click to expand...


  Of course not.

  The Thirteenth Amendment is a valid part of the Constitution, an d it explicitly forbids slavery.  No state has the authority to override the Constitution.


  There is nothing in the Constitution that states nor implies anything about abortion, nor about the idea that a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage should be recognized as comparable to genuine marriage; so, perhaps the Tenth Amendment, these issues belong to the states and not to the federal government.

  The Supreme Court was dead wrong when it issued the Roe vs. Wade ruling, asserting a right to murder innocent human beings in cold blood, and it was correct, much more recently to overturn that ruling.

  The Supreme Court was also dead-wrong when it issued the ruling compelling disgusting homosexual mockeries of marriage to be treated as genuine marriages.

  The only valid way to establish the murder of innocent children, or disgusting homosexual mockeries of marriage as rights in this nation, would be to amend the Constitution to so affirm them; just as the Constitution had to be amended to establish the right not to be kept as a slave.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

pknopp said:


> Jesus came to do away with the laws of the OT.



  So, it's OK to steal then?  And to murder?  To bear false witness?  To commit adultery?

  You make it sound like Jesus was a Democrap.


----------



## pknopp

GMCGeneral said:


> Not do away with, fulfill them. Big difference. G-d's Moral Law remains in effect and in force for all Eternity.



 Do you still insist on stoning adulterers?


----------



## Stann

pknopp said:


> That can't be done until the Federal government is out of marriage.


If the federal government was out of marriage we would have polygamy all across this country. Momons would of sustained their right to that. And all the new Muslims would really enjoy that.


----------



## Stann

Bob Blaylock said:


> So, it's OK to steal then?  And to murder?  To bear false witness?  To commit adultery?
> 
> You make it sound like Jesus was a Democrap.


He did say those were wrong he said nothing about homosexuality. And homosexuality in the holy land was a lot more common because of the Greek population 30%, then it is today in the US. It's odd he never addressed it.


----------



## Stann

pknopp said:


> Do you still insist on stoning adulterers?


An eye for an eye and stoning were from the Old testament too.


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> Special treatment based on sexual behavior is not.


It's not special treatment it's the right to marry everyone has that right straight people have had it all the time so they don't know what it's like to go without it gay people finally have got it and they're not going to give it up no matter what you say. This is worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews when they annulled all their marriages. Quote, " Animals do not have the right to marry. " And that's what they said the Jews were animals. For millenia Christians have condemned homosexuals to non-existence. That is even a bigger sin than you could ever imagine. When you meet your maker you'll find out.


----------



## pknopp

Stann said:


> If the federal government was out of marriage we would have polygamy all across this country. Momons would of sustained their right to that. And all the new Muslims would really enjoy that.



 So, then the Federal government stays in marriage and will always have a say.


----------



## Stann

pknopp said:


> So, then the Federal government stays in marriage and will always have a say.


They should after all we are the United States of America. We can't let individual states divide us. Equality and justice under the law are meant for everyone not just the people you think deserve it everyone


----------



## pknopp

Stann said:


> They should after all we are the United States of America. We can't let individual states divide us. Equality and justice under the law are meant for everyone not just the people you think deserve it everyone



 People I think? As long as they are consenting adults I really don't care who marries who.


----------



## Stann

pknopp said:


> People I think? As long as they are consenting adults I really don't care who marries who.


Some people on here think they own marriage and it only belongs to them. Ted Cruz is obviously one of those people.


----------



## Riff Raff

All citizens should be equal before the law. If the government affords certain rights and benefits to those it sanctions as legally married then any two citizens of legal age should have access without discrimination.


----------



## Death Angel

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex? It's weird


The OP is LEFT wing.


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> The OP is LEFT wing.


Most of those who talk about gay sex explicitly are the far-right nut jobs. They must watch a lot of porno or something, because most of the information is incorrect or at least long outdated. The usual, living in the pastor not gearing up for the future.


----------



## Death Angel

Stann said:


> Most of those who talk about gay sex explicitly are the far-right nut jobs. They must watch a lot of porno or something, because most of the information is incorrect or at least long outdated. The usual, living in the pastor not gearing up for the future.


We only REACT to your need to destroy the culture.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Death Angel said:


> We only REACT to your need to destroy the culture.


The "culture" or "society" is not being destroyed. It is evolving. Evolution is a natural and necessary procees for all living entities and culture is very much alive. The alternative to evolution is stagnation which leads to an inability to adapt to change  and ultimatly death. You should try evolving least you join the dinosaures in extinction


----------



## Blues Man

As far as the government is concerned marriage in nothing but a property contract


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Some people on here think they own marriage and it only belongs to them. Ted Cruz is obviously one of those people.


Or he believes that the Fed G should t be involved in matters that they are not explicitly given dominion over in the Constitution (Our federalist syste)  Marriage being one of the vast majority of things.    So I would agree with him that the court was wrong in its ruling in so much as the Fed G just shouldnt be involved.     That said now that they are involved I don’t see a way for them to extricate themselves because of legal dependence.   Which is one of the reasons Alito cited in Dobbs for that decision not being used as legal reasoning for overturning past decisions like Obergfell.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The "culture" or "society" is not being destroyed. It is evolving. Evolution is a natural and necessary procees for all living entities and culture is very much alive. The alternative to evolution is stagnation which leads to an inability to adapt to change  and ultimatly death. You should try evolving least you join the dinosaures



the issue is less about the evolution and more about how the evolution is coming about.


----------



## Stann

Death Angel said:


> We only REACT to your need to destroy the culture.


Destroy the culture ? You don't understand civilization at all. Gay people are subculture. They could not destroy civilization, even if they wanted to. They are not anarchists like many of the extremists are in the far-right. Those are the creeps you got to watch out for, if you're concerned about something like that.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Stann said:


> Destroy the culture ? You don't understand civilization at all. Gay people are subculture. They could not destroy civilization, even if they wanted to. They are not anarchists like many of the extremists are in the far-right. Those are the creeps you got to watch out for, if you're concerned about something like that.


Ahem, Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> Ahem, Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?


Yes and if you know that hopefully you know the truth of the story that was just an allegory. In the original telling of that story the cities were destroyed because of in hospitality to strangers. Egypt almost went to war with those allied cities of the plain because a beleaguered Royal Egyptian caravan that had been attacked by Marauders arrived late to the city of Sodom. The gates were already closed, they played it with the men in the towers to reopen the gates to allow them in for safety. They refused they told them they have to wait till morning. During the night they were attacked again in all murdered. They had to pay a massive tribute to the Pharaoh in order to avoid being destroyed for their in hospitality. That is not an allegory that really did happen. The story / allegory that you and most people know was made up / embellished by Josephus in the first century ad. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed approximately 1650 BC.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Yes and if you know that hopefully you know the truth of the story that was just an allegory. In the original telling of that story the cities were destroyed because of in hospitality to strangers. Egypt almost went to war with those allied cities of the plain because a beleaguered Royal Egyptian caravan that had been attacked by Marauders arrived late to the city of Sodom. The gates were already closed, they played it with the men in the towers to reopen the gates to allow them in for safety. They refused they told them they have to wait till morning. During the night they were attacked again in all murdered. They had to pay a massive tribute to the Pharaoh in order to avoid being destroyed for their in hospitality. That is not an allegory that really did happen. The story / allegory that you and most people know was made up / embellished by Josephus in the first century ad. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed approximately 1650 BC.


Sodom was destroyed by a " shower of fire from the heavens " also known as a meteor shower.


----------



## Mashmont

Stann said:


> It's not special treatment it's the right to marry everyone has that right straight people have had it all the time so they don't know what it's like to go without it gay people finally have got it and they're not going to give it up no matter what you say. This is worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews when they annulled all their marriages. Quote, " Animals do not have the right to marry. " And that's what they said the Jews were animals. For millenia Christians have condemned homosexuals to non-existence. That is even a bigger sin than you could ever imagine. When you meet your maker you'll find out.


Being gay is not a sin.  Gays living together as roommates is not a sin.  Having gay sex is.  I wish people would understand this.  My gay brother understands it.  He's a devout Catholic, and as fine a man as there is.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The "culture" or "society" is not being destroyed. It is evolving. Evolution is a natural and necessary procees for all living entities and culture is very much alive. The alternative to evolution is stagnation which leads to an inability to adapt to change  and ultimatly death. You should try evolving least you join the dinosaures in extinction



  It's funny how you invoke _“evolution”_ in defense of the futile efforts to mainstream and normalize defects and disorders that evolution serves to eliminate.


----------



## Stann

Mashmont said:


> Being gay is not a sin.  Gays living together as roommates is not a sin.  Having gay sex is.  I wish people would understand this.  My gay brother understands it.  He's a devout Catholic, and as fine a man as there is.


They don't understand, they are the ones committing a sin.


----------



## Stann

Bob Blaylock said:


> It's funny how you invoke _“evolution”_ in defense of the futile efforts to mainstream and normalize defectsdefects and disorders that evolution serves to eliminate.


Sorry to see it that way, how about just plain common decency. But I understand you, I consider your thinking on the subject as flawed or defective.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Stann said:


> Sorry to see it that way, how about just plain common decency. But I understand you, I consider your thinking on the subject as flawed or defective.



  A foul creature that defends the sick, immoral perversions that you do, is in no position to speak of _“just plain common decency”_.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> They don't understand, they are the ones committing a sin.


Just like everyone else.   It's literally the theme of Christianity.   Everyone sins, thus the need for Christ.   If there was a possibility that humans could exist without sin, Christ would not have had to come to earth and die to atone for those sins.    

The issue with the gay lifestyle in Christianity is not that the individual is/has sinned, we all do that.  It's the denial that it is in fact a sin and repentance for that sin is required.


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> Just like everyone else.   It's literally the theme of Christianity.   Everyone sins, thus the need for Christ.   If there was a possibility that humans could exist without sin, Christ would not have had to come to earth and die to atone for those sins.
> 
> The issue with the gay lifestyle in Christianity is not that the individual is/has sinned, we all do that.  It's the denial that it is in fact a sin and repentance for that sin is required.


what does that have to do with a secular government allowing gay marriage? we don't live in a theocracy.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Stann said:


> Yes and if you know that hopefully you know the truth of the story that was just an allegory. In the original telling of that story the cities were destroyed because of in hospitality to strangers. Egypt almost went to war with those allied cities of the plain because a beleaguered Royal Egyptian caravan that had been attacked by Marauders arrived late to the city of Sodom. The gates were already closed, they played it with the men in the towers to reopen the gates to allow them in for safety. They refused they told them they have to wait till morning. During the night they were attacked again in all murdered. They had to pay a massive tribute to the Pharaoh in order to avoid being destroyed for their in hospitality. That is not an allegory that really did happen. The story / allegory that you and most people know was made up / embellished by Josephus in the first century ad. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed approximately 1650 BC.


And yet you are Biblically illiterate once again.  When the men demanded to "know" the angels, they wanted to rape and sodomize them, not have them over for tea and cookies.


----------



## GMCGeneral

AsherN said:


> what does that have to do with a secular government allowing gay marriage? we don't live in a theocracy.


It has everything to do with homosexuality compromising the very foundation of marriage, that it is first and foremost G-d ordained.


----------



## Stann

Bob Blaylock said:


> A foul creature that defends the sick, immoral perversions that you do, is in no position to speak of _“just plain common decency”_.


Okay then how about your way to remind me all rights that human beings are supposed to have. You are quite the " humanitarian ".


----------



## GMCGeneral

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The "culture" or "society" is not being destroyed. It is evolving. Evolution is a natural and necessary procees for all living entities and culture is very much alive. The alternative to evolution is stagnation which leads to an inability to adapt to change  and ultimatly death. You should try evolving least you join the dinosaures in extinction


It IS being destroyed by far Left whackjobs like you.  Marriage, in G-d's economy will always be one man-one woman no exceptions no matter how much the queer, shemale, pedophile caucus wants to screech.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Just like everyone else.   It's literally the theme of Christianity.   Everyone sins, thus the need for Christ.   If there was a possibility that humans could exist without sin, Christ would not have had to come to earth and die to atone for those sins.
> 
> The issue with the gay lifestyle in Christianity is not that the individual is/has sinned, we all do that.  It's the denial that it is in fact a sin and repentance for that sin is required.


You don't get it, if homosexual love is a sin, then heterosexual love is also a sin. I don't believe that. A true GOD wouldn't do that.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Stann said:


> Okay then how about your way to remind me all rights that human beings are supposed to have. You are quite the " humanitarian ".


In your sick perverted view, white male Conservative Christians deserve to be discriminated against with impunity now.  You know, revenge?


----------



## GMCGeneral

Stann said:


> You don't get it, if homosexual love is a sin, then heterosexual love is also a sin. I don't believe that. A true GOD wouldn't do that.


Uhh yes HE would!  He designed the sexual relationship to be enjoyed exclusively within heterosexual monogamous marriage.  That is the ONLY way He will bless it.


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> And yet you are Biblically illiterate once again.  When the men demanded to "know" the angels, they wanted to rape and sodomize them, not have them over for tea and cookies.


That is an allegory, embellished story of old twisted with the intent of furthering some kind of tribal religious beliefs. If you don't understand that, you are not using your mind at all. And guess what, GOD gave you that mind to use not to abuse.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Stann said:


> That is an allegory, embellished story of old twisted with the intent of furthering some kind of tribal religious beliefs. If you don't understand that, you are not using your mind at all. And guess what, GOD gave you that mind to use not to abuse.


Wrong yet again, reprobate.  Sodom and Gomorrah was a real account.  Your problem is you are not saved, you do not have the Holy Spirit within you to properly teach you Scripture, I do, as does each and every Evangelical believer.


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> In your sick perverted view, white male Conservative Christians deserve to be discriminated against with impunity now.  You know, revenge?


Wait one second ! How is allowing gays to get married and recognized by the state ( and the churches who condone it ) discriminate against white male Christian conservatives in any way ? If you mean it offends your beliefs. That's okay. Your beliefs have been me. So I guess we're even and equality and justice under the law have served their purpose in this case.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> the issue is less about the evolution and more about how the evolution is coming about.


Please continue


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> Wrong yet again, reprobate.  Sodom and Gomorrah was a real account.  Your problem is you are not saved, you do not have the Holy Spirit within you to properly teach you Scripture, I do, as does each and every Evangelical believer.


Southern and Gomorrah were part of a Confederacy of the cities of the pain. They were real. Song but not all of those cities, or destroyed by " fire from the heavens " or what we know as a meteor shower. A very intense one. Tribal religious leaders of the time attached meaning to their destruction. No one during that time knew any better to dispute it. We now know better. You take that to mean that we know better than GOD, that is your problem. GOD, did after all give us brains, I believe he meant us to use them.


----------



## Stann

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please continue


I know this is going to get interesting. If he answers. I can't imagine what he's going to come up with.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> Southern and Gomorrah were part of a Confederacy of the cities of the pain. They were real. Song but not all of those cities, or destroyed by " fire from the heavens " or what we know as a meteor shower. A very intense one. Tribal religious leaders of the time attached meaning to their destruction. No one during that time knew any better to dispute it. We now know better. You take that to mean that we know better than GOD, that is your problem. GOD, did after all give us brains, I believe he meant us to use them.


First word is Sodom in post 735. Another typo, sorry again.


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> Wrong yet again, reprobate.  Sodom and Gomorrah was a real account.  Your problem is you are not saved, you do not have the Holy Spirit within you to properly teach you Scripture, I do, as does each and every Evangelical believer.


I guess you'll never be saved. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.


----------



## AsherN

GMCGeneral said:


> It has everything to do with homosexuality compromising the very foundation of marriage, that it is first and foremost G-d ordained.


Marriage, predates the Bible. And God ordained marriage was polygamous. Also allowed to have unmarried concubines. Want to go back to that?

Gay marriage may not be compatible with YOUR views, but you are not the final authority. we live in a secular society. Your Church is welcome to not want to perform gay marriages. But you ave no right to impose your morality on others.


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> Uhh yes HE would!  He designed the sexual relationship to be enjoyed exclusively within heterosexual monogamous marriage.  That is the ONLY way He will bless it.


 I was into religion when I was a child. Then I grew up and new better. Have you ever heard the saying, " Religion is the bastion of fools." It's very much true, much to your chagrin.


----------



## Stann

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please continue


Still no reply. Typical


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Stann said:


> Still no reply. Typical


He is busy eating potatoes on the couch


----------



## Stann

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> He is busy eating potatoes on the couch


You have a good day. Two fish were swimming up River, they hit a wall. The one fish turns to the other fish and says,     " Dam ! " . I've got a pretty busy day I'll check in later on this evening just to see if he ever answers.


----------



## Matt National

I haven't read the thread but Cruz is right for the same reason the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade. The court does not have the power to create new rights. Congress doesn't either; unless a convention of states is called and a new amendment codifying such a right is ratified. So, nothing he said is wrong. The SCOTUS over the past half century has made a series of serious oversteps that passed by the boundaries of their authority. Ultimately, it's a states rights issue. I am not opposed to creating a gay rights amendment as long as it is done in the proper way - a convention of states.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Stann said:


> You have a good day. Two fish were swimming up River, they hit a wall. The one fish turns to the other fish and says,     " Dam ! " . I've got a pretty busy day I'll check in later on this evening just to see if he ever answers.


You have a good day too. I feel like that fish sometimes, especially when dealing with some of the knuckheads here


----------



## Rye Catcher

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


A Marriage is a contract.  Cruz is an attorney and knows better; he seeks to get votes from the bigots.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Rye Catcher said:


> A Marriage is a contract.  Cruz is an attorney and knows better; he seeks to get votes from the bigots.


No. Marriage is a covenant between G-d and the couple.


----------



## AsherN

GMCGeneral said:


> No. Marriage is a covenant between G-d and the couple.


A religious marriage is. The civil marriage that accompanies it is a contract between 2 people and the state recognizes it and confers certain rights to the couple.


----------



## Stann

GMCGeneral said:


> No. Marriage is a covenant between G-d and the couple.


If you cannot distinguish the difference between the many, varied religious rites of marriage and the government's secular marriage. Then you shouldn't even be in this conversation.


----------



## Stann

Matt National said:


> I haven't read the thread but Cruz is right for the same reason the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade. The court does not have the power to create new rights. Congress doesn't either; unless a convention of states is called and a new amendment codifying such a right is ratified. So, nothing he said is wrong. The SCOTUS over the past half century has made a series of serious oversteps that passed by the boundaries of their authority. Ultimately, it's a states rights issue. I am not opposed to creating a gay rights amendment as long as it is done in the proper way - a convention of states.


So roe versus Wade was settled precident for almost 50 years. The three supreme Court judges sworn in under trump under oath swore that it was settled precident. Yet when it came down to the vote, they voted against it. So we now have three judges on the supreme Court that are untrustworthy, that are liars. I guess it goes with the territory you have a president that lies all the time why not have supreme Court judges that do nothing but lie. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came to existence was because states were passing such egregious laws women were killing themselves left and right. The federal government stepped in because of the abuse of the states on this issue. Now several states are passing laws that are even more egregious. Like saying you can't have an abortion after 6 weeks. Or even trying to say you can't have an abortion at all. Or saying the exception for saving the woman's life depends on what the state decides like they know better than the medical doctors treating the woman. And several States say no exceptions for rape or incest. Boy is that going to negatively impact the intelligence levels of those States over time. These laws will be disposed of quickly. All abortion laws are essentially illegal. It is a medical procedure best decided by the doctor and the woman involved in the situation no one else needs to get involved especially the state or the courts. If the supreme Court had any balls they would have said this to begin with abortion is a personal issue and best decided by the doctor and the woman involved. As far as gay marriage goes, the federal government was again obliged to take action because several states were passing laws saying it was illegal. Our country does have a quality and justice under the law as part of its model. Not just a motto, it's actually supposed to happen. Just like when the Mormons practice polygamy and the federal government told them it was illegal to do so so they moved to territories not fully governed by the laws of the United States. The long-standing practice of denying gay people the right to  secular marriage was absolutely wrong. Right now in the state of Michigan they're putting it to a vote of the people and I'm sure they're going to vote out abortion laws entirely. That's what this current act of stupidity is during to the nation. Getting people against people, wasting more time correcting the situation. Each and every state will go through this process. How has that helped anything what good has it done none.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Matt National said:


> I haven't read the thread but Cruz is right for the same reason the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade. The court does not have the power to create new rights. Congress doesn't either; unless a convention of states is called and a new amendment codifying such a right is ratified. So, nothing he said is wrong. The SCOTUS over the past half century has made a series of serious oversteps that passed by the boundaries of their authority. Ultimately, it's a states rights issue. I am not opposed to creating a gay rights amendment as long as it is done in the proper way - a convention of states.


Really?? Well, you are stating just one view of how  the constitution should be interpreted, while presenting it as the only view. The fact is that your view – relying on elements of textualism and originalism, both of which deny the existence of any rights beyond those that are enumerated. That however is the minority view among constitutional scholars embraced by the likes of Scalia and Thomas .

Most take a much more expansive view of the constitution and believe that many other unenumerated rights may flow from the basic rights of the bill of rights and the 14th Amendment

They also understand that rights, including states rights and the 10th Amendment are not without limitations and must be excercised in a way that does not violated rights, enimerated or not , that the constitution provides . If you think that Obergefell was a bad decision, you would also have to believe that Loving v Virginia was also flawed. Hoever, Thomas did not want to touch that with a ten foot poll. I wonder why




> *Textualism* refers to the literal interpretation of language of the Constitution and of its scope, whereas the *originalist* resorts to non-lexicographic criteria (primarily history and the Founders' political writings) to purport that certain proposition is in line with what the "Founders" of the nation had in mind.





> us supreme court - *Textualism and originalism* - *Law Stack Exchange*​
> 
> 
> 
> law.stackexchange.com/questions/32190/textualism-and-originalism
> 
> There is also the concept of Penumbra of the constitution:
> 
> Penumbra is the* implied rights* provided in the U.S. constitution, or in a rule. Literally, the term penumbra was created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. The term penumbra is used in legal sense as a metaphor describing implied powers of the federal government.
> *Penumbra* Law and Legal Definition | *USLegal*, Inc.​


I find that most of those who take your position are not really constitutional wonks but have a political and idiological agenda and use that interpretaion of the constitution to that end.

You may or  may not really be in favor of a gay rights amendment but you know damned well that is unlikley to happen in our lifetime, so at best, you are indifferent to gay rights. How long would you be  willing to wait for your rights if the tables were turned?


----------



## Matt National

Stann said:


> So roe versus Wade was settled precident for almost 50 years. The three supreme Court judges sworn in under trump under oath swore that it was settled precident. Yet when it came down to the vote, they voted against it. So we now have three judges on the supreme Court that are untrustworthy, that are liars. I guess it goes with the territory you have a president that lies all the time why not have supreme Court judges that do nothing but lie. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came to existence was because states were passing such egregious laws women were killing themselves left and right. The federal government stepped in because of the abuse of the states on this issue. Now several states are passing laws that are even more egregious. Like saying you can't have an abortion after 6 weeks. Or even trying to say you can't have an abortion at all. Or saying the exception for saving the woman's life depends on what the state decides like they know better than the medical doctors treating the woman. And several States say no exceptions for rape or incest. Boy is that going to negatively impact the intelligence levels of those States over time. These laws will be disposed of quickly. All abortion laws are essentially illegal. It is a medical procedure best decided by the doctor and the woman involved in the situation no one else needs to get involved especially the state or the courts. If the supreme Court had any balls they would have said this to begin with abortion is a personal issue and best decided by the doctor and the woman involved. As far as gay marriage goes, the federal government was again obliged to take action because several states were passing laws saying it was illegal. Our country does have a quality and justice under the law as part of its model. Not just a motto, it's actually supposed to happen. Just like when the Mormons practice polygamy and the federal government told them it was illegal to do so so they moved to territories not fully governed by the laws of the United States. The long-standing practice of denying gay people the right to  secular marriage was absolutely wrong. Right now in the state of Michigan they're putting it to a vote of the people and I'm sure they're going to vote out abortion laws entirely. That's what this current act of stupidity is during to the nation. Getting people against people, wasting more time correcting the situation. Each and every state will go through this process. How has that helped anything what good has it done none.



The problem being something settled by someone without the authority to settle something cannot become a settled precedent. Just because you catch an error 50 years later doesn't make it any less of an error; and an error cannot be allowed to stand regardless of society's feelings. If we want to make such a change there is a proper way to do it and we are free do it that way. I appreciate the rest of your post but the buck stops with the error. The SCOTUS exceeded their authority, plain and simple, and that doesn't get a pass because some people are upset. If you're upset go do something about it. Go ask your representative to propose a convention of states. Words < Actions.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please continue



We have to enact societal/legal change within the bounds and framework of our system.    Even if that means it may take longer (and sometimes much longer) than we might like.     In this specific case (gay marriage) the Federal Government involving itself IMO is outside that framework and we would have been better off allowing the individual states to figure it out.  The same can be said of Roe v Wade.   It's arguable that had that happened we would be farther along in the overall general acceptance of gay marriage across the board.   Forcing the issue without allowing for the societal debate to conclude, only causes people to retreat to their ideological corners.   (which is where a large part of the country is now)  At least in the past we (the country) debated/aruged about these things and eventually came to some consensus on issues.    Now for the most part all people do is stand on either side of a wall and scream obscenities and throw stones at each other neither side bothering to even listen to what's the other is saying.   

To continue your evolutionary example you cant jump from single celled organism straight to one that has numerous complex systems with specialized cells all working together you'll end up with a broken organism.


----------



## Stann

Matt National said:


> The problem being something settled by someone without the authority to settle something cannot become a settled precedent. Just because you catch an error 50 years later doesn't make it any less of an error; and an error cannot be allowed to stand regardless of society's feelings. If we want to make such a change there is a proper way to do it and we are free do it that way. I appreciate the rest of your post but the buck stops with the error. The SCOTUS exceeded their authority, plain and simple, and that doesn't get a pass because some people are upset. If you're upset go do something about it. Go ask your representative to propose a convention of states. Words < Actions.


I don't agree with your opinion. And the American public doesn't either.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> So roe versus Wade was settled precident for almost 50 years. The three supreme Court judges sworn in under trump under oath swore that it was settled precident. Yet when it came down to the vote, they voted against it. So we now have three judges on the supreme Court that are untrustworthy, that are liars. I guess it goes with the territory you have a president that lies all the time why not have supreme Court judges that do nothing but lie. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came to existence was because states were passing such egregious laws women were killing themselves left and right. The federal government stepped in because of the abuse of the states on this issue. Now several states are passing laws that are even more egregious. Like saying you can't have an abortion after 6 weeks. Or even trying to say you can't have an abortion at all. Or saying the exception for saving the woman's life depends on what the state decides like they know better than the medical doctors treating the woman. And several States say no exceptions for rape or incest. Boy is that going to negatively impact the intelligence levels of those States over time. These laws will be disposed of quickly. All abortion laws are essentially illegal. It is a medical procedure best decided by the doctor and the woman involved in the situation no one else needs to get involved especially the state or the courts. If the supreme Court had any balls they would have said this to begin with abortion is a personal issue and best decided by the doctor and the woman involved. As far as gay marriage goes, the federal government was again obliged to take action because several states were passing laws saying it was illegal. Our country does have a quality and justice under the law as part of its model. Not just a motto, it's actually supposed to happen. Just like when the Mormons practice polygamy and the federal government told them it was illegal to do so so they moved to territories not fully governed by the laws of the United States. The long-standing practice of denying gay people the right to  secular marriage was absolutely wrong. Right now in the state of Michigan they're putting it to a vote of the people and I'm sure they're going to vote out abortion laws entirely. That's what this current act of stupidity is during to the nation. Getting people against people, wasting more time correcting the situation. Each and every state will go through this process. How has that helped anything what good has it done none.


And for how many years before that it was "settled law" that it was illegal?    This idea that once a decision is made that future courts can never overturn that decision is insane.   If that were actually the case, we'd still have slavery and segregation.     That shit was "settled law" around the world for millennia.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> I don't agree with your opinion. And the American public doesn't either.


Then why is it an issue that the States (in accordance with the Constitution) pass laws that reflect what their populations want?   If the country overwhelmingly wants unfettered access to abortion on demand it should be really easy to get those bills passed through the State Legislatures.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> We have to enact societal/legal change within the bounds and framework of our system.    Even if that means it may take longer (and sometimes much longer) than we might like.     In this specific case (gay marriage) the Federal Government involving itself IMO is outside that framework and we would have been better off allowing the individual states to figure it out.  The same can be said of Roe v Wade.   It's arguable that had that happened we would be farther along in the overall general acceptance of gay marriage across the board.   Forcing the issue without allowing for the societal debate to conclude, only causes people to retreat to their ideological corners.   (which is where a large part of the country is now)  At least in the past we (the country) debated/aruged about these things and eventually came to some consensus on issues.    Now for the most part all people do is stand on either side of a wall and scream obscenities and throw stones at each other neither side bothering to even listen to what's the other is saying.
> 
> To continue your evolutionary example you cant jump from single celled organism straight to one that has numerous complex systems with specialized cells all working together you'll end up with a broken organism.


If a Creator entity exists at all; and I believe it does. ( Viewing GOD in man's image is very tribal and insult to the real GOD. ) The plan for mankind was seated in genetic material in the oceans millions of years ago. ( Time is irrelevant to GOD. ) And yes you are correct in a fashion. It's been stepped after step with us as the final outcome of a very,very long process GOD created called evolution. That's it in a nutshell. You get minimal points for your minimal effort.


----------



## Matt National

Stann said:


> I don't agree with your opinion. And the American public doesn't either.



I agree that you don't agree with my opinion but you don't speak for the American public.

The situation is what it is regardless of emotions or wants. You have the power to ask your elected official to call for a convention of states. If you don't, then we see how much you really care for this.

To me, this is petty. This is like arguing about the color of the sky. No matter how much you berate someone it will not change the facts of the situation. I only wish Twitter would learn that as well.


----------



## Stann

Matt National said:


> I agree that you don't agree with my opinion but you don't speak for the American public.
> 
> The situation is what it is regardless of emotions or wants. You have the power to ask your elected official to call for a convention of states. If you don't, then we see how much you really care for this.
> 
> To me, this is petty. This is like arguing about the color of the sky. No matter how much you berate someone it will not change the facts of the situation. I only wish Twitter would learn that as well.



Correct I do not have the right to speak for all Americans but I agree with the majority of Americans that wanted Roe versus Wade to stay in place. The enactment of more egregious abortion laws is just starting to backfire on the anti-abortion crowd I think it will end up with the nation declaring all abortion laws are illegal.


----------



## Stann

Matt National said:


> I agree that you don't agree with my opinion but you don't speak for the American public.
> 
> The situation is what it is regardless of emotions or wants. You have the power to ask your elected official to call for a convention of states. If you don't, then we see how much you really care for this.
> 
> To me, this is petty. This is like arguing about the color of the sky. No matter how much you berate someone it will not change the facts of the situation. I only wish Twitter would learn that as well.


You talk about emotions. The whole argument about abortion is all emotional. Not practical at all.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Then why is it an issue that the States (in accordance with the Constitution) pass laws that reflect what their populations want?   If the country overwhelmingly wants unfettered access to abortion on demand it should be really easy to get those bills passed through the State Legislatures.


You're going to find out the hard way the states that just passed these egregious abortion laws are going to all be turned around because the people don't want what you think they want. Most people are sensible.


----------



## Matt National

Stann said:


> Correct I do not have the right to speak for all Americans but I agree with the majority of Americans that wanted Roe versus Wade to stay in place. The enactment of more egregious abortion laws is just starting to backfire on the anti-abortion crowd I think it will end up with the nation declaring all abortion laws are illegal.



There you go again. "Majority of Americans". Does exaggerating your position really help you? Who are you trying to convince? ME? It just seems like a wasted effort but you do you. The nation cannot declare all laws illegal because that in and of itself would be unconstitutional. We're going in circles.


----------



## Matt National

Stann said:


> You talk about emotions. The whole argument about abortion is all emotional. Not practical at all.



It's only emotional to emotional people. Many of us tend to be rational. The facts are there whether you choose to agree with them, like them, or even acknowledge them. Some of us pay attention. 

I do not want an argument over this and you're not going to listen. I'm moving on.


----------



## Stann

Matt National said:


> There you go go again. "Majority of Americans". Does exaggerating your position really help you? Who are you trying to convince? ME? It just seems like a wasted effort but you do you. The nation cannot declare all laws illegal because that in and of itself would be unconstitutional. We're going in circles.


I'm sorry your side doesn't accept facts. That's the whole problem with your people.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Then why is it an issue that the States (in accordance with the Constitution) pass laws that reflect what their populations want?   If the country overwhelmingly wants unfettered access to abortion on demand it should be really easy to get those bills passed through the State Legislatures.


You don't get it, everyone was able to live with Roe versus Wade. You guys let the match now. It's going to be a whole bunch of waste of time and money in my fridge but one by one all these abortion laws will fall to the right side. Maybe we'll even get lucky and the federal government will step in again and say all abortion laws are illegal. That's what needed to happen to begin with. To address all the nosy bodies and they're fake concerns for others.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> And for how many years before that it was "settled law" that it was illegal?    This idea that once a decision is made that future courts can never overturn that decision is insane.   If that were actually the case, we'd still have slavery and segregation.     That shit was "settled law" around the world for millennia.


Please don't get sidetracked with other issues you need to focus on this one if you're going to make any headway. The first abortion law by any state was in 1821 and that only occurred because of a side issue in a sexual scandal. Abortion laws didn't become popular until about 1914. People were hopelessly misguided at that time also. It really got bad in the 1960s. So the federal government find the scripture in 1973 and did the right thing, reaching what they thought was a reasonable compromise. Obviously it wasn't for the emotional anti-abortionist people. It took the biggest liar ever to become president and appoint three supreme Court judges who are also liars to pull this Injustice over on the American people. That's the sad State of affairs were in today.


----------



## Redfish

Stann said:


> You're going to find out the hard way the states that just passed these egregious abortion laws are going to all be turned around because the people don't want what you think they want. Most people are sensible.


the vast majority of americans do not want babies killed before they are born-----or after.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> You don't get it, everyone was able to live with Roe versus Wade.


No.  Sane, moral people could never live with such a travesty.

And now we don't have to.


----------



## Redfish

Stann said:


> You're going to find out the hard way the states that just passed these egregious abortion laws are going to all be turned around because the people don't want what you think they want. Most people are sensible.


why exactly is abortion so darn important to you on the left?   Why is that your number one issue?


----------



## Redfish

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No.  Sane, moral people could never live with such a travesty.
> 
> And now we don't have to.


correct but killing babies will remain legal in the land of fruits and nuts--------california, and most other blue states.  so all the baby killers need to do is move to one of those states.


----------



## Matt National

Redfish said:


> why exactly is abortion so darn important to you on the left?   Why is that your number one issue?



My question is why are they so intent to force it upon the rest of us. They can still get their abortions in all their favorite left wing states....why are they so upset other states have shown they don't want it? I've noticed the left is very totalitarian. You're either with them or against them.


----------



## Stann

Redfish said:


> the vast majority of americans do not want babies killed before they are born-----or after.


The lowest figure I could find for people who wanted roe versus Wade to stay in place as the law of the lounge was 58%, other poles or 64% and 77% relatively. The people that were satisfied that wanted roe versus raid overturn were only 17% of the American population.


Matt National said:


> My question is why are they so intent to force it upon the rest of us. They can still get their abortions in all their favorite left wing states....why are they so upset other states have shown they don't want it? I've noticed the left is very totalitarian. You're either with them or against them.


Oh my gosh.! No one can force you to have an abortion. Just as you shouldn't have the right to tell someone they cannot have an abortion. It's that simple.


----------



## Moonglow

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Ted is feeling the seven year itch to hook up with a dude


----------



## Stann

Redfish said:


> the vast majority of americans do not want babies killed before they are born-----or after.


First of all that is not correct in any form. Most abortions occur while the embryo is still in the embryonic stage. It is an embryo. So you can't even call it a fetus yet. Never mind calling it a baby. You have been brainwashed by the anti-abortion crowd. The terminology used tells it the whole story it's incorrect and designed to bring about an emotional reaction.


----------



## Stann

Redfish said:


> correct but killing babies will remain legal in the land of fruits and nuts--------california, and most other blue states.  so all the baby killers need to do is move to one of those states.


We're saying case after case in the red States where women are forced to carry fetuses that will never survive, or ones that are terribly deformed, or children that were the victims of incest, none of this makes sense. You wouldn't wish it on your own family why would you try to force it on other people.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> Just as you shouldn't have the right to tell someone they cannot have an abortion.


No, moral and insane people can and have to insist upon not allowing needless violence against others.

We have just as much "right to tell someone they cannot" rob or rape.


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> No, moral and insane people can and have to insist upon not allowing needless violence against others.
> 
> We have just as much "right to tell someone they cannot" rob or rape.


You're comparing crimes with a medical procedure. You're not making any sense. You want the right to have children. People who don't want to have children should have the same rights as you.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> You're comparing crimes with a medical procedure.


You're falsely calling needless violence that should be criminal a "medical procedure," which is bullshit.


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You're falsely calling needless violence that should be criminal a "medical procedure," which is bullshit.


What your spewing is bullshit.  For most of the world's history abortion has been an accepted part of life and death on this planet.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> What your spewing is bullshit.  For most of the world's history abortion has been an accepted part of life and death on this planet.


It's an old human rights abuse, like slavery.  It being old defends neither practice.

It needs to be consigned to oblivion, like slavery.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> First of all that is not correct in any form. Most abortions occur while the embryo is still in the embryonic stage. It is an embryo. So you can't even call it a fetus yet. Never mind calling it a baby. You have been brainwashed by the anti-abortion crowd. The terminology used tells it the whole story it's incorrect and designed to bring about an emotional reaction.


Is it a human life?    Because you're just listing the names we have assigned to different stages of a humans life.   It's no different than toddler, child, pre teen, teen, young adult, adult, middle aged, elderly etc.    

The ending of innocent human life is always wrong.

Abortion ends an innocent human life.

Therefore, abortion is always wrong.


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> It's an old human rights abuse, like slavery.  It being old defends neither practice.
> 
> It needs to be consigned to oblivion, like slavery.


I believe what we're going to see now in the United States is a move to do away with all abortion laws, they don't make sense. Thanks largely due to the overreaction efforts of the far right. So thank you in advance you've done a great job to get rid of abortion laws completely.


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> Is it a human life?    Because you're just listing the names we have assigned to different stages of a humans life.   It's no different than toddler, child, pre teen, teen, young adult, adult, middle aged, elderly etc.
> 
> The ending of innocent human life is always wrong.
> 
> Abortion ends an innocent human life.
> 
> Therefore, abortion is always wrong.


There's a very important difference, all the stages you listed were of people who had been born. I'm sure all of those people have names too. Birth dates and names create individual human beings. A zygote, blastula, embryo and fetus are composed of human tissue, but they do not qualify as a person an individual person. No matter what your sidewalks to say.


----------



## Stann

Stann said:


> There's a very important difference, all the stages you listed were of people who had been born. I'm sure all of those people have names too. Birth dates and names create individual human beings. A zygote, blastula, embryo and fetus are composed of human tissue, but they do not qualify as a person an individual person. No matter what your sidewalks to say.


No matter what your side says.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> There's a very important difference, all the stages you listed were of people who had been born. I'm sure all of those people have names too. Birth dates and names create individual human beings. A zygote, blastula, embryo and fetus are composed of human tissue, but they do not qualify as a person an individual person. No matter what your sidewalks to say.


So you're argument for being able to kill one human and not another is location?  Inside vs outside the womb?  

So when does the magic happen?  At what point does the embryo/fetus magically gain its rights?   At what point does it begin to have intrinsic value?


----------



## Stann

Couchpotato said:


> So you're argument for being able to kill one human and not another is location?  Inside vs outside the womb?
> 
> So when does the magic happen?  At what point does the embryo/fetus magically gain its rights?   At what point does it begin to have intrinsic value?


Unfortunately you view abortion as killing they are not the same thing. If a person kills a newborn or toddler or a child that is murder. But to not allow a blob of flesh to become a human being can a no way be interpreted as murder. The magic date according to government is a birth date. You cannot get a social security number without a birth date. You actually have to exist as an individual before you can be considered a citizen.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).


There's no death penalty for homosexuals in the Koran.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> I believe what we're going to see now in the United States is a move to do away with all abortion laws, they don't make sense.


You can believe such stupidity.  It seems appropriate for you to believe stupid things.


----------



## Couchpotato

Stann said:


> Unfortunately you view abortion as killing they are not the same thing. If a person kills a newborn or toddler or a child that is murder. But to not allow a blob of flesh to become a human being can a no way be interpreted as murder. The magic date according to government is a birth date. You cannot get a social security number without a birth date. You actually have to exist as an individual before you can be considered a citizen.


So it’s just location.   Inside the womb no rights.   Outside the womb rights.    Is there some magical thing that happens as the fetus passes through the birth canal that makes it intrinsically more valuable than before it did so?      If the fetus’s hand is sticking out of the vaginal canal does that part of the fetus have rights while the rest doesn’t?    

Are there any other locations it’s ok to kill a human being?


----------



## Stann

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).


Correct most primitive peoples in the West looked upon homosexuality as a curse more or less. When Christian monks arrived in China they were surprised at the number of same-sex couples walking around normally with everyone else. Many were in high positions in business and in government. It only took a couple of centuries are contamination from Christian thinking that led to their demise and ridicule by other Chinese, probably so they could get their positions and property. The same situations occurred in the Americas and in the Polynesian Islands. In Hawaii, Prince has the best culture that ever existed, everything was love there was no discrimination and that also included pedophilia and incest as cultural norms. Their culture had the perfect solution for problems with incest. If a child at any type of defense even as simple as a birth defection they were offered up to the volcano God or the god of the seas. They were the purest race that ever existed on the Earth. No one knew hatred no one knew famine no one was left out. Everyone was lost.


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You can believe such stupidity.  It seems appropriate for you to believe stupid things.


Well it already happened to Kansas and Michigan's voting on it soon we'll see what Michigan does I'm sure they're going to fight the anti-abortion people and make it illegal for them to pass new abortion laws.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Matt National said:


> The problem being something settled by someone without the authority to settle something cannot become a settled precedent. Just because you catch an error 50 years later doesn't make it any less of an error; and an error cannot be allowed to stand regardless of society's feelings. If we want to make such a change there is a proper way to do it and we are free do it that way. I appreciate the rest of your post but the buck stops with the error. The SCOTUS exceeded their authority, plain and simple, and that doesn't get a pass because some people are upset. If you're upset go do something about it. Go ask your representative to propose a convention of states. Words < Actions.


See post 751


----------



## Matt National

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 751



No point. Too many insults and assumptions. My time is valuable.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Matt National said:


> No point. Too many insults and assumptions. My time is valuable.


What insults and assumptions? I made my point. Deal with it. My time is valuable too


----------



## Bob Blaylock

GMCGeneral said:


> It has everything to do with homosexuality compromising the very foundation of marriage, that it is first and foremost G-d ordained.



  It doesn't even take a belief in or understanding of God to see the importance of marriage as the foundation of family, and of society as a whole.

  And it is not ignorance of God that results in undermining marriage, and for putting forth a disgusting homosexual mockery thereof; it is willful, knowing rebellion against God.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Stann said:


> Okay then how about your way to remind me all rights that human beings are supposed to have. You are quite the " humanitarian ".



  There is little point in trying to discuss ethics with a Godless sociopath.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

GMCGeneral said:


> Wrong yet again, reprobate.  Sodom and Gomorrah was a real account.  Your problem is you are not saved, you do not have the Holy Spirit within you to properly teach you Scripture, I do, as does each and every Evangelical believer.



  In place of the Holy Ghost, Stann is under the direct influence of the being whose name is a near-anagram of his own.


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You can believe such stupidity.  It seems appropriate for you to believe stupid things.


You're calling my idea stupid when overturning Roe versus Wade is the worst thing that they could have done. Returning Roe versus Wade to the books or making all abortion laws illegal and removing the perjured supreme Court justices from the bench would be a good start I'm getting the nation back on track to embrace the future.


----------



## Stann

Bob Blaylock said:


> In place of the Holy Ghost, Stann is under the direct influence of the being whose name is a near-anagram of his own.


Remember all the things you attributed to me. You're going to be reminded of them on your day of judgment.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Stann said:


> Have you ever heard the saying, " Religion is the bastion of fools." It's very much true, much to your chagrin.



Psalms 14:1:  _“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”_


----------



## Stann

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is little point in trying to discuss ethics with a Godless sociopath.


I am not trump, he believes he is God and he is definitely a sociopath or psychopath take your pic k. And I keep reminding you I do believe in the real GOD. You are the one that believes in a fake tribal god.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> We have to enact societal/legal change within the bounds and framework of our system.    Even if that means it may take longer (and sometimes much longer) than we might like.     In this specific case (gay marriage) the Federal Government involving itself IMO is outside that framework and we would have been better off allowing the individual states to figure it out.  The same can be said of Roe v Wade.   It's arguable that had that happened we would be farther along in the overall general acceptance of gay marriage across the board.   Forcing the issue without allowing for the societal debate to conclude, only causes people to retreat to their ideological corners.   (which is where a large part of the country is now)  At least in the past we (the country) debated/aruged about these things and eventually came to some consensus on issues.    Now for the most part all people do is stand on either side of a wall and scream obscenities and throw stones at each other neither side bothering to even listen to what's the other is saying.
> 
> To continue your evolutionary example you cant jump from single celled organism straight to one that has numerous complex systems with specialized cells all working together you'll end up with a broken organism.


See post 751. I will ask you the same question. How much longer would you waite if the tables were turned?

My sense is that you care less about the intergrety of the constitution and more about finding ways to use it to support and further your political and idiological agenda

Allowing individual states to decide questions like abortion and same sex marriage flies in the faceof the spirit of the 14th amendment that binds the states to the bill of rights.

We are already quite far along in the debate over same sex marriage, and there is in fact general acceptance of it. But that does not change the fact that there are some backward states that will not allow it.

Lastly, I was referring to social evolution so your example
biological seems to be a feeble attempt to brush that aside.


----------



## Stann

Bob Blaylock said:


> Psalms 14:1:  _“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”_


You see that's the truism about tribal gods. They are revengeful, they are corrupt, they are prejudiced; that's what belies their nature as being man-made. They have all the undesirable qualities a human being could have. The ancient stock evil was stronger than good.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Stann said:


> I am not trump, he believes he is God and he is definitely a sociopath or psychopath take your pic k. And I keep reminding you I do believe in the real GOD. You are the one that believes in a fake tribal god.


Blaylock is just a zombie troll bot who does not know he is dead. Don't let him eat your brains.!!


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> You're calling my idea stupid when overturning Roe versus Wade is the worst thing that they could have done.


You spelled “best” wrong.  Probably because you’re stupid.




Stann said:


> removing the perjured supreme Court justices


Did I say “stupid?”  I’m sorry, I meant retarded.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 751.



  See post 125.


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You spelled “best” wrong.  Probably because you’re stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say “stupid?”  I’m sorry, I meant retarded.


I don't see best anything that you quoted. You might be the one that stupid or retarded. And a troll obviously.


----------



## MagicMike

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


You do realize most of The Bible is just superstious fantasy-fiction don't you?

NOT to be taken literally.
Or even seriously.


----------



## San Souci

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Good. Pervert mairrage should be disallowed.


----------



## toobfreak

Penelope said:


> I just knew it would come up soon.



Its not too late for the current SCOTUS to overturn that terrible 2015 decision.


----------



## toobfreak

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...



That might actually not be a bad idea.  Kids could not only go to school closer to home, but schools could focus better on the different educational needs and interests of each group, allowing both groups to benefit and learn better.  But we will continue to pretend that all people are the same with the same needs regardless of social and environmental differences.


----------



## toobfreak

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.



What a horrible idea!  Follow the Constitution that only those things not delineated out to the states are within the domain of the Fed!


----------



## toobfreak

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex?



Maybe because that is all we see in the news coming from the Left from the WH down to the schools?  Wherever the government gets involved is always FUCKED UP.


----------



## toobfreak

Penelope said:


> MY BODY, MY CHOICE comes to mind.



Except where vaccines are concerned?


----------



## Stann

San Souci said:


> Good. Pervert mairrage should be disallowed.


Your idiots are in for a big surprise, and you're not going to like it.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> I don't see best anything that you quoted. You might be the one that stupid or retarded. And a troll obviously.


Well you seem to think that the insane Roe decision being overturned is a bad thing, and you think that contract killing is a “medical treatment,” so I’m pretty sure no, you’re just fucking retarded.


----------



## rightwinger

toobfreak said:


> Except where vaccines are concerned?


Did you get a vaccine?


----------



## Redfish

Stann said:


> The lowest figure I could find for people who wanted roe versus Wade to stay in place as the law of the lounge was 58%, other poles or 64% and 77% relatively. The people that were satisfied that wanted roe versus raid overturn were only 17% of the American population.
> 
> Oh my gosh.! No one can force you to have an abortion. Just as you shouldn't have the right to tell someone they cannot have an abortion. It's that simple.


OK,  Abortion remains legal.  All the SC ruling said was that it is not a federal constitutional issue and that the voters of each state should decide whether to legalize it or not.  If the polls you cite are correct then a majority of states will keep it legal----------so WTF is your issue?


----------



## Redfish

Stann said:


> You see that's the truism about tribal gods. They are revengeful, they are corrupt, they are prejudiced; that's what belies their nature as being man-made. They have all the undesirable qualities a human being could have. The ancient stock evil was stronger than good.


good description of the Biden administration.  thanks.


----------



## Redfish

Stann said:


> You're calling my idea stupid when overturning Roe versus Wade is the worst thing that they could have done. Returning Roe versus Wade to the books or making all abortion laws illegal and removing the perjured supreme Court justices from the bench would be a good start I'm getting the nation back on track to embrace the future.


just for clarity, the SC did not outlaw abortion or "overturn Roe v Wade".   What that ruling said is that abortion is not a federal constitutional issue and as such the decision to legalize abortion rests with the voters of each state.  That's all it did.


----------



## Redfish

MagicMike said:


> You do realize most of The Bible is just superstious fantasy-fiction don't you?
> 
> NOT to be taken literally.
> Or even seriously.


I agree that much of the Bible can not be taken literally, but it is to be taken seriously.  It is not fiction, but the word of God and his son Jesus.   Ignore and ridicule it at your peril.


----------



## postman

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


The funny thing about ignoring two centuries of our nations history, would also mean throwing out the 13th and 14 amendments, going back to Plessy v Ferguson, and a "do over" n the civil war.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> OK,  Abortion remains legal.  All the SC ruling said was that it is not a federal constitutional issue and that the voters of each state should decide whether to legalize it or not.  If the polls you cite are correct then a majority of states will keep it legal----------so WTF is your issue?


The issue is Congress will try to pass a law making it illegal nationwide


----------



## Stann

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Well you seem to think that the insane Roe decision being overturned is a bad thing, and you think that contract killing is a “medical treatment,” so I’m pretty sure no, you’re just fucking retarded.


No I'm just being practical. You bought into the hole emotional view of abortion. How sad is that.


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> In this specific case (gay marriage) the Federal Government involving itself IMO is outside that framework and we would have been better off allowing the individual states to figure it out.


So what is the point of having a country if individual states can deny basic human rights? All citizens of a country should have the same rights wherever they live.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Stann said:


> No I'm just being practical. You bought into the hole emotional view of abortion. How sad is that.


No, I didn’t say anything emotional.

Contract killing shouldn’t be legal.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> The issue is Congress will try to pass a law making it illegal nationwide


Do you really think such a bill would pass?  you are seeing ghosts that do not exist.  Why do you libs fear the will of the voters in each state?   Even if congress passed such a bill the recent SC ruling would make if null and void.   Admit it, this whole abortion thing is about scaring people and getting them to vote for more libs in congress.   you know that,  I know that, everyone knows that.   Its a political game, nothing more.


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> There's no death penalty for homosexuals in the Koran.


maybe not, but muslims toss them off rooftops.  Is that not a death penalty?


----------



## Redfish

AsherN said:


> So what is the point of having a country if individual states can deny basic human rights? All citizens of a country should have the same rights wherever they live.


only to the extent that such rights are enumerated in the constitution.  Abortion is not in the constitution, neither is marriage in any form.   Libs try to stretch "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to include these but the SC has ruled against that.


----------



## postman

Redfish said:


> Do you really think such a bill would pass?  you are seeing ghosts that do not exist.  Why do you libs fear the will of the voters in each state?   Even if congress passed such a bill the recent SC ruling would make if null and void.



Actually Dobbs said that the federal government could enact laws governing abortion.  Either protecting it or outlawing it.  They left it to the states, because congress dis not  act.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

AsherN said:


> So what is the point of having a country if individual states can deny basic human rights? All citizens of a country should have the same rights wherever they live.


Anyone can claim anything is a “right,” but our United States Constitution does not declare many of these things you / others think of as “basic human rights” to be constitutional rights.

If the Constitution is silent on a topic, it is not the federal government’s authority to set nation-wide policy by fiat.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

postman said:


> Actually Dobbs said that the federal government could enact laws governing abortion.  Either protecting it or outlawing it.  They left it to the states, because congress dis not  act.


Such laws would be flagrantly unconstitutional.


----------



## postman

Redfish said:


> only to the extent that such rights are enumerated in the constitution.  Abortion is not in the constitution, neither is marriage in any form.   Libs try to stretch "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to include these but the SC has ruled against that.


Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> Do you really think such a bill would pass?  you are seeing ghosts that do not exist.  Why do you libs fear the will of the voters in each state?   Even if congress passed such a bill the recent SC ruling would make if null and void.   Admit it, this whole abortion thing is about scaring people and getting them to vote for more libs in congress.   you know that,  I know that, everyone knows that.   Its a political game, nothing more.



I didn’t think SCOTUS would overturn Roe v Wade after swearing it was safe

Republicans are plotting long term
They are dangerous at all levels of Government


----------



## Riff Raff

postman said:


> The funny thing about ignoring two centuries of our nations history, would also mean throwing out the 13th and 14 amendments, going back to Plessy v Ferguson, and a "do over" n the civil war.


Some of America's biggest problems stem from the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments.


----------



## rightwinger

Riff Raff said:


> Some of America's biggest problems stem from the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments.


you are a moron


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

rightwinger said:


> I didn’t think SCOTUS would overturn Roe v Wade after swearing it was safe


You are delusional if you think that ever happened.


----------



## postman

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Such laws would be flagrantly unconstitutional.


How so?  They come under the "general welfare" clause.
It's no different than congress passing a law against murder.  That's not enumerated in the constitution either.


----------



## postman

Riff Raff said:


> Some of America's biggest problems stem from the passage of the 13th and 14th amendments.


They were what made us a "more perfect" union.


----------



## postman

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You are delusional if you think that ever happened.


Actually every republican coming up for confirmation in the senate swore up and down that Roe v Wade was precedent, settled law, and they believed in stare decisis


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

postman said:


> Actually every republican coming up for confirmation in the senate swore up and down that Roe v Wade was precedent, settled law, and they believed in stare decisis


Actually, no.  You heard what you wanted to hear as someone who supports this abomination.

I am fine with you feeling deceived and honestly I would be fine with you and anyone else who believes in this human rights abuse being deceived, as you are awful people and tricking you to stop you is laudable - but they didn’t lie with their answers.  Not one bit.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

postman said:


> How so?  They come under the "general welfare" clause


Okay.  Got it.  You are a monstrous and insane tyrant. 

To you, Mandating the legality of killing kids “promotes the general welfare of the states” and thus Congress has infinite power to inflict your vague and insidious will…

By that argument, on the contrary, let’s just legalize killing pro-aborts if they don’t leave the country - it would vastly improve the country.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> I didn’t think SCOTUS would overturn Roe v Wade after swearing it was safe
> 
> Republicans are plotting long term
> They are dangerous at all levels of Government


bullshit, what is dangerous long term at all levels of government is the dem/lib ideology that if it feels good it should be legal and that bribery of federal officials is fine as long as they are democrats, and that a senile old fool who campaigned from his basement and could not get more than 25 people to a rally got the most votes in history and won over a guy who routinely got 50,000 people to a rally and represented the views and beliefs of a majority of americans (except on the west coast and northeast where idiocy reigns supreme).


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> So what is the point of having a country if individual states can deny basic human rights? All citizens of a country should have the same rights wherever they live.


1. That’s the system we have.  A federalist one.  

2. No one was barred from being married, there were just restrictions on who you could be married to.    Which by the way is still the case.    And that differs from state to state.    You can’t marry anyone you want currently.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> maybe not, but muslims toss them off rooftops.  Is that not a death penalty?



You don't know one country from another. That was in Iraq. ISIS has bastardized Islam and they are the enemy of all Muslims.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> bullshit, what is dangerous long term at all levels of government is the dem/lib ideology that if it feels good it should be legal and that bribery of federal officials is fine as long as they are democrats, and that a senile old fool who campaigned from his basement and could not get more than 25 people to a rally got the most votes in history and won over a guy who routinely got 50,000 people to a rally and represented the views and beliefs of a majority of americans (except on the west coast and northeast where idiocy reigns supreme).



Biden has more regard for the American people than to hold super spreader events for his ego. I think Americans got it since Biden won the election by a wide margin.


----------



## surada

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Okay.  Got it.  You are a monstrous and insane tyrant.
> 
> To you, Mandating the legality of killing kids “promotes the general welfare of the states” and thus Congress has infinite power to inflict your vague and insidious will…
> 
> By that argument, on the contrary, let’s just legalize killing pro-aborts if they don’t leave the country - it would vastly improve the country.



You must be one of those Dominionist evangelical Christians.


----------



## Couchpotato

surada said:


> You don't know one country from another. That was in Iraq. ISIS has bastardized Islam and they are the enemy of all Muslims.


You are wildly misreading the Muslim community overseas if you believe that.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

surada said:


> You must be one of those Dominionist evangelical Christians.


I don’t believe in any gods.

So, wrong.


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> 1. That’s the system we have.  A federalist one.
> 
> 2. No one was barred from being married, there were just restrictions on who you could be married to.    Which by the way is still the case.    And that differs from state to state.    You can’t marry anyone you want currently.


The restrictions as they stand deal with issues of consent and cosanguinity that can lead to genetic abnormality.  2 non related consenting adults should be able to marry each other.


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> The restrictions as they stand deal with issues of consent and cosanguinity that can lead to genetic abnormality.  2 non related consenting adults should be able to marry each other.


What business is it of yours what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom?    Why can’t I marry 2 different women at the same time?    Why can’t I marry whomever I’m in love with?  

I get it as long as you agree with the restrictions you’re cool with it.   Otherwise the restrictions are bigoted.


----------



## AsherN

Couchpotato said:


> What business is it of yours what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom?    Why can’t I marry 2 different women at the same time?    Why can’t I marry whomever I’m in love with?
> 
> I get it as long as you agree with the restrictions you’re cool with it.   Otherwise the restrictions are bigoted.


I personally have no issue with polygamist marriages. Close relationships are a bit iffy, but I'm not 100% against as long as there is free consent.


----------



## Couchpotato

AsherN said:


> I personally have no issue with polygamist marriages. Close relationships are a bit iffy, but I'm not 100% against as long as there is free consent.


The point being States have in the past and continue to regulate who can marry who and those restrictions vary from state to state.   And that’s ok.   Marriage isn’t the only issue either.   There are countless laws That vary from state to state.     That’s the beauty of a federalist system.    We (the country) all agree ( though I question whether this is still true) on core values and over arching concepts for the country,  but because States can have varying laws within those confines we can choose to live in states that best suit our individual way of thinking.     It also allows us to experiment on a smaller scale than the whole nation with different ideas and ways of doing things.    And hopefully the good spreads and the bad gets weeded out.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> bullshit, what is dangerous long term at all levels of government is the dem/lib ideology that if it feels good it should be legal and that bribery of federal officials is fine as long as they are democrats, and that a senile old fool who campaigned from his basement and could not get more than 25 people to a rally got the most votes in history and won over a guy who routinely got 50,000 people to a rally and represented the views and beliefs of a majority of americans (except on the west coast and northeast where idiocy reigns supreme).




Don‘t believe you got all that into one sentence


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> What business is it of yours what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom?


This is not about what anyone does in their bedroom. What you do not seem to get is that it is not about sex at all. Marriage is not required for sex

This  about the ability of two people, regardless of their respective gender, to live openly as a couple and enjoy the legal protections, finacial benefits and social status of being married.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> Why can’t I marry 2 different women at the same time?


That is a separate issue with different legal and social implications. If you want to marry 2  or more people, or your Dog or your gun you are free to pursue that through the courts of the legislative process. Gay couples made the case that there is no compelling govrnment interest in banning their marriage and therefor such  bans were found to be unconstitutional. You would have to do the same. However it may be an uphill fight because unlike with two consenting sanme  sex couples, the government my be able articulate a compelling reason for not allowing it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> I get it as long as you agree with the restrictions you’re cool with it. Otherwise the restrictions are bigoted.


No one is saying that. See post 856


----------



## JustAGuy1

surada said:


> You must be one of those Dominionist evangelical Christians.



You must be one of those Preterist Bible haters.


----------



## JustAGuy1

Couchpotato said:


> You are wildly misreading the Muslim community overseas if you believe that.



No, no, she is an expert on the subject. Just ask her.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> The point being States have in the past and continue to regulate who can marry who and those restrictions vary from state to state.   And that’s ok.   Marriage isn’t the only issue either.   There are countless laws That vary from state to state.     That’s the beauty of a federalist system.    We (the country) all agree ( though I question whether this is still true) on core values and over arching concepts for the country,  but because States can have varying laws within those confines we can choose to live in states that best suit our individual way of thinking.     It also allows us to experiment on a smaller scale than the whole nation with different ideas and ways of doing things.    And hopefully the good spreads and the bad gets weeded out.


Really? So that is your solution? If someone feels that they are being treated unfairly, or discriminated against because the majority of the people and/or lawmakers in their state are bigots, they can just pack up and move elsewhere? THINK about what you are saying!

Lets say there is a gay person who grew up in the deep south who wants to get married. Or a mixed race couple who want to marry. You think that they should have to move, possibly thousands of miles away from family and friends? They should have to leave their jobs and the familiar environment and culture where they have deep roots? How is that fair? How is that equal protection under the law

When you suggest shit like that, I have to wonder what real life experiences, if any,  you have actually had. You should get off of the couch and get out more. Talk to people outside of your bubble.

The fact is that your narrow interpretation of theConstitution is more important to you than civil and human rights. I wonder also, how strongly you would cling to your conservative beliefs if the shoe were on the other foot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> bullshit, what is dangerous long term at all levels of government is the dem/lib ideology that if it feels good it should be legal and that bribery of federal officials is fine as long as they are democrats, and that a senile old fool who campaigned from his basement and could not get more than 25 people to a rally got the most votes in history and won over a guy who routinely got 50,000 people to a rally and represented the views and beliefs of a majority of americans (except on the west coast and northeast where idiocy reigns supreme).


_GISH GALLOP




_


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? So that is your solution? If someone feels that they are being treated unfairly, or discriminated against because the majority of the people and/or lawmakers in their state are bigots, they can just pack up and move elsewhere? THINK about what you are saying!
> 
> Lets say there is a gay person who grew up in the deep south who wants to get married. Or a mixed race couple who want to marry. You think that they should have to move, possibly thousands of miles away from family and friends? They should have to leave their jobs and the familiar environment and culture where they have deep roots? How is that fair? How is that equal protection under the law
> 
> When you suggest shit like that, I have to wonder what real life experiences, if any,  you have actually had. You should get off of the couch and get out more. Talk to people outside of your bubble.
> 
> The fact is that your narrow interpretation of theConstitution is more important to you than civil and human rights. I wonder also, how strongly you would cling to your conservative beliefs if the shoe were on the other foot.


You and I have discussed this before Im not going to rehash the topic with you.   We disagree, and Im fine with that.   There's no sense in you replying to my posts on this issue anymore since this will be the last post of yours on the topic I'll reply to.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No one is saying that. See post 856



  See post 125.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is a separate issue with different legal and social implications. If you want to marry 2 or more people, or your Dog or your gun you are free to pursue that through the courts of the legislative process.



  Or a three-year-old boy?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> You and I have discussed this before Im not going to rehash the topic with you.   We disagree, and Im fine with that.   There's no sense in you replying to my posts on this issue anymore since this will be the last post of yours on the topic I'll reply to.


You can run but you can't hide! The fact is that you disply no empathy or concern for others whatsoever. You seem to claim that you would support gay rights but are not concerned that, in order to gain those rights, they would have to overcome insurmountable hurdles under your consevative interpretation of constitutional law.  You place ststes rights over human rights and the tenth Amendment over the 14th and the bill of rights. Having documented that, my work is done here .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> 2. No one was barred from being married, there were just restrictions on who you could be married to. Which by the way is still the case.


No one besides gays were barred from marrying another unrelated consenting adult just because of gender.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can run but you can't hide! The fact is that you disply no empathy or concern for others whatsoever. You seem to claim that you would support gay rights but are not concerned that, in order to gain those rights, they would have to overcome insurmountable hurdles under your consevative interpretation of constitutional law.  You place ststes rights over human rights and the tenth Amendment over the 14th and the bill of rights. Having documented that, my work is done here .


Yeah you showed me alright.  I’ll probably cry myself to sleep tonight.    Oh wait, probably I won’t.


----------



## Stann

Redfish said:


> I agree that much of the Bible can not be taken literally, but it is to be taken seriously.  It is not fiction, but the word of God and his son Jesus.   Ignore and ridicule it at your peril.


Unless it was written by God or Jesus it doesn't have much validity. It was written by men throughout the ages. Talking about different gods of different times. Ask any religious historian.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> You and I have discussed this before Im not going to rehash the topic with you.   We disagree, and Im fine with that.   There's no sense in you replying to my posts on this issue anymore since this will be the last post of yours on the topic I'll reply to.


PS: I do not give a rats hind parts whether you respond to me or not. I will call you out on your bullshit at will. If you choose to not try to defend yourself-as though you had any defense- it is not my problem


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


Since when has this country been purple?  With only a few swing states, the country's states are regularly blue or red from year to year.


----------



## Couchpotato

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> PS: I do not give a rats hind parts whether you respond to me or not. I will call you out on your bullshit at will. If you choose to not try to defend yourself-as though you had any defense- it is not my problem


Ok little buddy.   You do that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> Yeah you showed me alright.  I’ll probably cry myself to sleep tonight.    Oh wait, probably I won’t.


I think that you're crying right now. You got beat up and have no defense for your bullshit so you are running home to mommy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Couchpotato said:


> Ok little buddy.   You do that.


I thought that you were not going to respond to me any more? You just can't stay away, can you? You are hooked.


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> You don't know one country from another. That was in Iraq. ISIS has bastardized Islam and they are the enemy of all Muslims.


Ok, fine. but they are still Muslims and the still toss gays off of rooftops,  and do it in the name of Islam, the same Islam that the 9/11 murderers used as their justification for killing 3000 innocent people.  Why don't the "normal" muslims that  you claim to be one of, condemn the murdering muslims?   Why are they allowed to exist in Muslim countries?   I think we all know the answer:  because Islam teaches its followers that Islam must take over the world and to do it my murder is OK with Allah.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> Ok, fine. but they are still Muslims and the still toss gays off of rooftops,  and do it in the name of Islam, the same Islam that the 9/11 murderers used as their justification for killing 3000 innocent people.  Why don't the "normal" muslims that  you claim to be one of, condemn the murdering muslims?   Why are they allowed to exist in Muslim countries?   I think we all know the answer:  because Islam teaches its followers that Islam must take over the world and to do it my murder is OK with Allah.



The terrorists get the death penalty in Arabia.

You are extremely ignorant.


----------



## Redfish

Stann said:


> Unless it was written by God or Jesus it doesn't have much validity. It was written by men throughout the ages. Talking about different gods of different times. Ask any religious historian.


yes, by men who received the message from God or. in the case of Jesus, in most Bibles his words are printed in red.

whether you believe is of no interest to me.   I know what I believe and that's all I need.


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> The terrorists get the death penalty in Arabia.
> 
> You are extremely ignorant.


So does anyone who possesses a Bible,  So is anyone who preaches Christianity,  what's your point?  

the ignorance is all yours, my little friend.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> So does anyone who possesses a Bible,  So is anyone who preaches Christianity,  what's your point?
> 
> the ignorance is all yours, my little friend.



There's lots of Bibles in Arabia, you moron. I lived there and went to Sunday school and church.


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> The terrorists get the death penalty in Arabia.
> 
> You are extremely ignorant.


some do,   but only the terrorists that threaten the royal family of Saud.  Terrorists who attack Christian or western nations are revered as some kind of special people, given money and fine houses.  You really know nothing about this topic.


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> There's lots of Bibles in Arabia, you moron. I lived there and went to Sunday school and church.



We had a Pakistani houseboy who was beheaded for owning a Bible.  you are lying.


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> We had a Pakistani houseboy who was beheaded for owning a Bible.  you are lying.



When did you live in Arabia?


----------



## surada

Redfish said:


> some do,   but only the terrorists that threaten the royal family of Saud.  Terrorists who attack Christian or western nations are revered as some kind of special people, given money and fine houses.  You really know nothing about this topic.



All terrorists get the death penalty. How long did you live in Arabia? Where in Arabia? You could have gone to Catholic mass, or Protestant Fellowship or the small Episcopalian services.


----------



## buttercup

surada said:


> There's lots of Bibles in Arabia, you moron. I lived there and went to Sunday school and church.



You’re either lying through your teeth, or things changed dramatically in recent years. When did you live there?  My family lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for a couple years and there were no churches and we were not allowed to openly practice our faith.


----------



## surada

buttercup said:


> You’re either lying through your teeth, or things changed dramatically in recent years. When did you live there?  My family lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for a couple years and there were no churches and we were not allowed to openly practice our faith.




Was that around 1979? I lived in the Eastern province nearly 2 decades.


----------



## buttercup

surada said:


> Was that around 1979? I lived in the Eastern province nearly 2 decades.



I asked you the question. Eastern province of what?  You’re lying, and you’re counting on the fact that most people have never been there, much less lived there.


----------



## surada

buttercup said:


> I asked you the question. Eastern province of what?  You’re lying, and you’re counting on the fact that most people have never been there, much less lived there.



Dhahran, Abqaiq, Ras Tanura, Dammam... Al Hasa. There's 40,000 Americans in Arabia. There was a reunion in Albuquerque last week end.


----------



## buttercup

surada said:


> Dhahran, Abqaiq, Ras Tanura, Dammam... Al Hasa. There's 40,000 Americans in Arabia. There was a reunion in Albuquerque last week end.



Americans living there doesn’t mean that there are Christian churches where people can openly practice their faith.  Again, unless things changed dramatically in recent years* (which I have not heard at all) then you're BSing. As usual.  

Thankfully most of us have caught on to you.

*but you didn't say what years you lived there


----------



## surada

buttercup said:


> Americans living there doesn’t mean that there are Christian churches where people can openly practice their faith.  Again, unless things changed dramatically in recent years* (which I have not heard at all) then you're BSing. As usual.
> 
> Thankfully most of us have caught on to you.
> 
> *but you didn't say what years you lived there



I lived there from 1950 to 1965 and then in Libya and Kuwait. I have been back to visit several times. Church services were held at the school or theater or Girl Scout Annex.


----------



## Redfish

surada said:


> When did you live in Arabia?


1980s


----------



## PoliticalChic

Redfish said:


> We had a Pakistani houseboy who was beheaded for owning a Bible.  you are lying.




I've been in Israel, where the Jewish folks actually turned control of the upper wall over to the Muslims.....and the Muslims don't allow Bibles there.




"It’s absurd that the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – is the only place in the Western World where Jews can’t pray.”Islamic Waqf Takes Advantage of Temple Mount Closure to Conduct Illegal Digs


----------



## San Souci

Stann said:


> Your idiots are in for a big surprise, and you're not going to like it.


Well , I hope they all get Monkey Pox.


----------



## tahuyaman

It should be a state issue.  It was at one time.   

States were putting the issue on the ballot years ago and it was mostly being defeated.


----------



## tahuyaman

surada said:


> The terrorists get the death penalty in Arabia.
> 
> You are extremely ignorant.


Saudi Arabia is not the only Muslim nation on earth.


----------



## tahuyaman

Redfish said:


> We had a Pakistani houseboy who was beheaded for owning a Bible.  you are lying.


A woman was just arrested and beaten to death in Iran because her hijab was worn too loosely and a few hairs on her head fell out from under it


----------



## surada

PoliticalChic said:


> I've been in Israel, where the Jewish folks actually turned control of the upper wall over to the Muslims.....and the Muslims don't allow Bibles there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It’s absurd that the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest site – is the only place in the Western World where Jews can’t pray.”Islamic Waqf Takes Advantage of Temple Mount Closure to Conduct Illegal Digs



I purchased several Bibles with mother of pearl covers before the six day war.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

tahuyaman said:


> It should be a state issue.  It was at one time.
> 
> States were putting the issue on the ballot years ago and it was mostly being defeated.


Then can I assume that  you would also believe that  Loving V. Virginia was wrongly decided?


----------



## tahuyaman

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then can I assume that  you would also believe that  Loving V. Virginia was wrongly decided?


I'm not familiar with that decision


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

tahuyaman said:


> I'm not familiar with that decision


It struck down bans on interracial marriage beased on the 14th Amendment, the same as Obergefell


----------



## Seymour Flops

So what if the USSC overturns Obergefell?

All the dems have to do is pass state laws to allow same sex marriage and a federal law requiring states recognize all legal marriages whether they agree with them or not.

A strong Democrat president can lead that effort.

In other words, do the opposite of what Clinton and Obama did.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> All the dems have to do is pass state laws to allow same sex marriage and a federal law requiring states recognize all legal marriages whether they agree with them or not.


Once again, you disappoint me. I thought you were smarter  than that. "All the Dems have to do"?? Good luck with that in the shit hole red southern states. How long would YOU wait for justice if YOUR rights were  denied?

As far as Federal law goes, the Defence of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal goverment from recognising same sex marriages performed in the states is still on the books. It is currently unenforcable because of the US V. Windsor decision 0f 2013, but that ruling may also be in jeopardy .

The Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognise same sex marriages from other states has passed in the house but is stalled out by the Republican bigots. We need 60 votes

Furthermore the bill stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses so gay couples. I suppose that would be a bridge too far. Those couples  would have to travel, perhapps thousands of miles from home, friends and family to get married, and then return to a state that is hostile to their marriage and may or may not actually recognise it.

In short, it is not so simple and easy-peasy as you pretend.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It struck down bans on interracial marriage beased on the 14th Amendment, the same as Obergefell


Well?  What say you now?  tahuyaman


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Once again, you disappoint me. I thought you were smarter  than that. "All the Dems have to do"?? Good luck with that in the shit hole red southern states. How long would YOU wait for justice if YOUR rights were  denied?


I guess more Dems will move out of red states.  Not sure I'm seeing the downside to that.


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> As far as Federal law goes, the Defence of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal goverment from recognising same sex marriages performed in the states is still on the books. It is currently unenforcable because of the US V. Windsor decision 0f 2013, but that ruling may also be in jeopardy .


Yeah, why did Bill Clinton sign that thing?  

Was it because he was from a shit hole red southern state?



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and require states to recognise same sex marriages from other states has passed in the house but is stalled out by the Republican bigots. We need 60 votes


Work harder Democrats!  Gay marriage is one issue I agree with you on, and you punted it.

Lament that  your leaders were so cowardly that they waited for the Supremes to do their work of protecting the right to gay marriage.


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Furthermore the bill stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses so gay couples. I suppose that would be a bridge too far.


Considering that the US Constitution leaves marriage laws to states it would be.  But the full faith and credit clause could be enforced to require them to recognize same sex marriage from other states.  I married in a state that requires no blood test, and when I came back to Texas, Texas had to recognize my marriage.  The same could work for same-sex marriage if Democrats would stop obsessing about Trump and get to work for their constituents.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Those couples  would have to travel, perhapps thousands of miles from home, friends and family to get married, and then return to a state that is hostile to their marriage and may or may not actually recognise it.


That's life in a federal system.  Canada awaits.


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> In short, it is not so simple and easy-peasy as you pretend.


I never said it was easy.  I said it's all they have to do.

By Allah!  You participation trophy babies think the only place you work up a sweat is in a sauna.  

Get to work!  Clarence Thomas' father told him "there is no problem elbow grease can't solve."  Take it to heart.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> I guess more Dems will move out of red states. Not sure I'm seeing the downside to that.


Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Yeah, why did Bill Clinton sign that thing?
> 
> Was it because he was from a shit hole red southern state?


Wrong. He signed it because Republicans were threatening to introduce  a contitutional amendment declaring that marriage is a man and a woman. It was around the time that the first states were moving towards allowing same sex marriage . In addition, Clinton was promised legislation that provided protection for gays in employment but they reneged on it.


----------



## flan327

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...


Keep all the gals barefoot and pregnant!


----------



## flan327

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi


No

Google it yourself


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Work harder Democrats! Gay marriage is one issue I agree with you on, and you punted it.


You agree? I have not gotten a sense of they from you. How did we punt?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Considering that the US Constitution leaves marriage laws to states it would be.


The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment . However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights. I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> But the full faith and credit clause could be enforced to require them to recognize same sex marriage from other states. I married in a state that requires no blood test, and when I came back to Texas, Texas had to recognize my marriage. The same could work for same-sex marriage if Democrats would stop obsessing about Trump and get to work for their constituents.


Invoking FFC to force states to reccognise gay marriages from elsewhere was tried prior to Obergefell and failed . I forget the details. I'll look it up when I have nothing better to do.

States reccognise hetero marriages from other states -not because of FFC but because they choose to


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Blue and purple states will get bluer and the red states will be left to self destruct under the weight of their draconian laws and policies. Left unchecked, they will further devolve into shitholes of diseas, death including infant mortality, poverty and ignorance. Google Mississippi


The good people of Miss sippy were finally improving their lives after decades of Democratic Party led slavery, segregation, and the new slavery of welfare.  

Trump brought their unemployment rate to the lowest point in history. Then the Dems destroyed it and then flooded the state with illegals to steal entry level jobs.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment .


Correct.


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights.


In Texas, I could marry one of my first cousins if I wanted (too country for my taste), but in other states, others cannot.  I married in Virginia without a blood test, but in other states, I could not have. 

Is refusing plural marriage to people whose faith allows it violating their individual rights?  What about denying a bisexual plural marriage so they can’t have a spouse of each sex?  Or denying multiple marriage to those desiring several spouses all of different genders?

Do different marriage laws in different states violate individual rights or is that states exercising the powers reserved to them by the constitution?  When we get married, we invite government to approve or disapprove of our union.  That’s the problem in the first place. 


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.


I strongly support the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  But the constitution does not require states to do so. 

If Obergefell is overturned I hope every state or most states allows same sex marriage.  I also hope that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton and supported by Obama, is struck down so that people who marry in one state have their marriage recognized in all states as the founders intended.

Clinton and Obama were loathsome homophobes, while I cried when Cam and Mitch got married.  Fit that in with your pre-conceived ideas about me.

Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided because when the equal protection clause was added, the legislatures clearly meant to protect racial equality, and Loving v. Virginia was decided after Brown v Topeka Board which established the principle that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal.

For the same reasoning to have applied in Obergefell, the lawmakers who passed the fourteenth amendment must have intended to require states to recognize same-sex marriage.  I often ask Democrats if they believe that was the intent, and I have never gotten a reasonable answer.

Your turn.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> I never said it was easy. I said it's all they have to do


Same thing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> The good people of Miss sippy were finally improving their lives after decades of Democratic Party led slavery, segregation, and the new slavery of welfare.


That was a different Democratic party and you know it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Trump brought their unemployment rate to the lowest point in history. Then the Dems destroyed it and then flooded the state with illegals to steal entry level jobs.


You'll have to document that


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> I strongly support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. But the constitution does not require states to do so.


I doubt that you feel strongly about it at all. If you did, you would not be clinging to the dubious constitional theory of texturalism which few constitutional scholars adhere to .


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That was a different Democratic party and you know it.


No, the are still racist just in different form.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You'll have to document that


You'd ignore it if I did.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I doubt that you feel strongly about it at all. If you did, you would not be clinging to the dubious constitional theory of texturalism which few constitutional scholars adhere to .


Why ask me anything if you tjen claim to already be an expert on my feelings?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Is refusing plural marriage to people whose faith allows it violating their individual rights? What about denying a bisexual plural marriage so they can’t have a spouse of each sex? Or denying multiple marriage to those desiring several spouses all of different genders?


Perhapps it does violate their rights. I have not argued against any of that. However, they all represent different issues with different social and legal ramifications. Anyone who wishes to engage in any of those practices is free to tey to drum  up public support and pursue it through the courts or the legislative process life same sex couples did. It would be incumbent upon those seeking stop them to provethat ther is a compelling government interest, or at minimum a rational basis for doing so. The states were unable to in the case of one on one gay marriage. They may or may not be able to in any or all of those cases


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Why ask me anything if you tjen claim to already be an expert on my feelings?


Based on  my experience with people who take that position


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> If Obergefell is overturned I hope every state or most states allows same sex marriage. I also hope that the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Clinton and supported by Obama, is struck down so that people who marry in one state have their marriage recognized in all states as the founders intended.


As a texturalist, you sure take liberties in deciding what the founder intended with respect to marriage


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided because when the equal protection clause was added, the legislatures clearly meant to protect racial equality, and Loving v. Virginia was decided after Brown v Topeka Board which established the principle that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal.
> 
> For the same reasoning to have applied in Obergefell, the lawmakers who passed the fourteenth amendment must have intended to require states to recognize same-sex marriage. I often ask Democrats if they believe that was the intent, and I have never gotten a reasonable answer.


The 14th amenment was inspired by  the need to  correct racial injustice but it does not mention race and for many decades, has been interpreted by the courts to have a broader application. For someone who had seemed to be clinging to the written word of the constitution, you now seem willing to read into it the interpretation that suits you.

The fact is that both cases were rightly decided on the equal protection and dues process clause of the 14th. You cant support one while making exuses for not supporting the other.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Perhapps it does violate their rights. I have not argued against any of that. However, they all represent different issues with different social and legal ramifications. Anyone who wishes to engage in any of those practices is free to tey to drum  up public support and pursue it through the courts or the legislative process life same sex couples did. It would be incumbent upon those seeking stop them to provethat ther is a compelling government interest, or at minimum a rational basis for doing so. The states were unable to in the case of one on one gay marriage. They may or may not be able to in any or all of those cases


What would be an example of a compelli g government interest in preventing an omnisexual from marrying several people of all different genders?

I suspect you oppose the idea but don't want to say so.


----------



## Blaster

ReinyDays said:


> Didn't Ted Cruz pee his pants hiding like a scare little chicken during the Jan 6th episode? ... what a coward ...


AOC was traumatized even though she wasn't there.


----------



## Blaster

Redfish said:


> Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Based on  my experience with people who take that position


The debate becomes pointless if I accept your challenge, answer your questions and the you explain my own feelings to me in response.

Based on my experience with people who compare same sex marriage to interracial marriage but oppose plural marriage, I know that you have deepseated anxiety stemming from being bullied as a child by your sisters.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> What would be an example of a compelli g government interest in preventing an omnisexual from marrying several people of all different genders?
> 
> I suspect you oppose the idea but don't want to say so.


I don't know I am not here to make that argument. I am just describing how things work. So now you are going to tell me what I think afet getting all pissy when I speculated about what you thought? Listen, I don't have a dog in that fight. If I opposed it I would say so. I am only saying that the ramifications need to be considered. Forinstance, our family law system is set up for marriage between two people only. Gay marriage did not upset that . 

If we introduce plural marriage into the mix,  that system would need to be overhauled to address a whole host of issues. Forinstance, if one of three people wanted a divorce from just one other, exactly how would that work? Would all three be the legal parent of a child born to one of them? What about taxes? The IRS would also have a headache  on their hands.  No opposed. Just saying that it could be a mine field


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The 14th amenment was inspired by  the need to  correct racial injustice but it does not mention race and for many decades, has been interpreted by the courts to have a broader application. For someone who had seemed to be clinging to the written word of the constitution, you now seem willing to read into it the interpretation that suits you.
> 
> The fact is that both cases were rightly decided on the equal protection and dues process clause of the 14th. You cant support one while making exuses for not supporting the other.


Starting a sentence with the fact is and then giving your opinion is a little lame. Let me give you a couple of facts. Both Obama and Clinton oppose gay marriage. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama supported it. Those are facts now here's my opinion those two facts mean that Obama and Clinton were hateful homophobes. Do you agree, yes or no?

Obviously, I would expect you to give them some kind of pass. But first please say yes or no.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> The debate becomes pointless if I accept your challenge, answer your questions and the you explain my own feelings to me in response.
> 
> Based on my experience with people who compare same sex marriage to interracial marriage but oppose plural marriage, I know that you have deepseated anxiety stemming from being bullied as a child by your sisters.


Holy shit Seymour ! You are clearly  losing you shit with that one.! I was bullied by my sisters?? And, didn't  I just say that I was not opposed to plural marriage? I have had enough of you for now


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Starting a sentence with the fact is and then giving your opinion is a little lame. Let me give you a couple of facts. Both Obama and Clinton oppose gay marriage. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and Obama supported it. Those are facts now here's my opinion those two facts mean that Obama and Clinton were hateful homophobes. Do you agree, yes or no?
> 
> Obviously, I would expect you to give them some kind of pass. But first please say yes or no.



Of course the  both PUBLICLY opposed gay marriage . To do otherwise back then would have been political suicide!


Nothing that I said there is opinion. It is all fact

Regarding the 14th, if those who drafted it ment for it to apply only to racial issues they would have said so. It seems that you are a texturalist only when it works in your favor


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I don't know I am not here to make that argument. I am just describing how things work. So now you are going to tell me what I think afet getting all pissy when I speculated about what you thought? Listen, I don't have a dog in that fight. If I opposed it I would say so. I am only saying that the ramifications need to be considered. Forinstance, our family law system is set up for marriage between two people only. Gay marriage did not upset that .
> 
> If we introduce plural marriage into the mix,  that system would need to be overhauled to address a whole host of issues. Forinstance, if one of three people wanted a divorce from just one other, exactly how would that work? Would all three be the legal parent of a child born to one of them? What about taxes? The IRS would also have a headache  on their hands.  No opposed. Just saying that it could be a mine field


My experience with people who take that position is that they hate mormons, do not believe that there are more than two genders, and believe that they can Define the word woman.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit Seymour ! You are clearly  losing you shit with that one.! I was bullied by my sisters?? And, didn't  I just say that I was not opposed to plural marriage? I have had enough of you for now


Yes Sir!

Come back anytime for either an honest debate OR an amateur psychoanalysis contest. Im happy with either, but not with me doing the first and you doing the second.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Of course the  both PUBLICLY opposed gay marriage . To do otherwise back then would have been political suicide!


That's what Ted Cruz is doing.

Fact.


----------



## flan327

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The constitution says nothing about marriage. It is largely the purview of the states as per the ten Amendment . However, neither marriage of any other power that is left to the states gives the states authority to excercise that power in a way that violates individual rights. I keep asking people, if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer . Your turn.


NEVER EVER?

Maybe no one likes you…


----------



## flan327

Seymour Flops said:


> That's what Ted Cruz is doing.
> 
> Fact.


Ted Cruz is a pathetic loser


----------



## ReinyDays

*if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer .*



flan327 said:


> NEVER EVER?
> 
> Maybe no one likes you…



Maybe you're too chicken to answer as well? ...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

flan327 said:


> NEVER EVER?
> 
> Maybe no one likes you…


Give it a try hot shot. Seymour tried but fell short as they all do


----------



## Leo123

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Like Roe it should have been left up to the States.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> That's what Ted Cruz is doing.
> 
> Fact.


Cruz is a bigot and a moron. The year is now 2022. No such excuse is valid any longer. No even in Texas


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes Sir!
> 
> Come back anytime for either an honest debate OR an amateur psychoanalysis contest. Im happy with either, but not with me doing the first and you doing the second.


I was attempting to have an honest debat but then you went off of the rails


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> My experience with people who take that position is that they hate mormons, do not believe that there are more than two genders, and believe that they can Define the word woman.


Good grief! No you're just trolling. I will not allow you to derail the thread with red herring logical fallacies like the issue of how many genders there are. The fact is that you cannot defend your position on Obergefell so now your just throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks. Nothing is sticking


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Leo123 said:


> Like Roe it should have been left up to the States.


The fall back position of bigots and misoynists who are too cowardly to admit what they are


----------



## theHawk

rightwinger said:


> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


But it’s okay for businesses to fire someone for personal and religious choices?


----------



## theHawk

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The fall back position of bigots and misoynists who are too cowardly to admit what they are


Yea…the “fall back position” is to let people vote on it.  That clearly triggers you.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give it a try hot shot. Seymour tried but fell short as they all do


If that were true, it would seem you would have pointed out the flaws in my statement instead of turning to amateur psychology to derail your own question.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wrong. He signed it because Republicans were threatening to introduce  a contitutional amendment declaring that marriage is a man and a woman. It was around the time that the first states were moving towards allowing same sex marriage . In addition, Clinton was promised legislation that provided protection for gays in employment but they reneged on it.


So he wanted protection for employment in exchange for him signing off on gays not having  human rights?

That reminds me an aweful lot of the three fifths compromise, and it came right at a time when actual leadership was needed.

If a Republican had signed that, it would be held over their heads forever.  Clinton gets a pass because of the Demo-Klux-Klan.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Good grief! No you're just trolling. I will not allow you to derail the thread with red herring logical fallacies like the issue of how many genders there are. The fact is that you cannot defend your position on Obergefell so now your just throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks. Nothing is sticking


It was you who started making it personal after you asked for a logical argument:






So, I gave it back to you.  Seems the medicine you spoon out doesn't please you as much when you get a taste of it.

BTW, it should be "to which few constitutional scholars adhere."  Also followed by, "which I cannot prove, of course."

Also, I think you mean "textualism," not "texturalism?"  *Texturalism* would have something to do with the roughness or smoothness of the surface of the paper the US Constitution is written on and I give that very little importance.


It seems that is your method:





Just be honest and say, "If you disagree with me, I'll call you names, instead of making a logical argument."


----------



## ThisIsMe

Many of the leftys rightly point to the 14th ammendment. That no state can deny equal protection under the law. They also like to say that scotus had no right to overturn roe, denying women the right to abortion,  even though they thought it was OK when scotus created roe originally.

So, if the 14th ammendment is the argument you want to use here, and you also agree that scotus has the power to force states to perform abortions, then that also would mean that if scotus decided that Americans should enjoy gun reciprocity nationally, a right specified in the Constitution,  and that no state can deny a citizen it's right to bear arms by denying them reciprocity across state lined, you're good with that?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

theHawk said:


> Yea…the “fall back position” is to let people vote on it.  That clearly triggers you.


People do not get to vote on the civil rights of others. That is contrary to the principles of a constitutional republic


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Many of the leftys rightly point to the 14th ammendment. That no state can deny equal protection under the law. They also like to say that scotus had no right to overturn roe, denying women the right to abortion,  even though they thought it was OK when scotus created roe originally.
> 
> So, if the 14th ammendment is the argument you want to use here, and you also agree that scotus has the power to force states to perform abortions, then that also would mean that if scotus decided that Americans should enjoy gun reciprocity nationally, a right specified in the Constitution,  and that no state can deny a citizen it's right to bear arms by denying them reciprocity across state lined, you're good with that?


You might want to try and clean that up so that we know what the fuck you're jabbering about


----------



## ThisIsMe

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.


Isn't this the best course?  Adhere to the constitution?  The problem with giving the federal government too much power is, eventually there will be a government you don't like or agree with, and then you'll be stuck with their policies. 

At least with states rights, only the people that live in the state have to deal with bad policy.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You might want to try and clean that up so that we know what the fuck you're jabbering about


It's clearly written


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Also, I think you mean "textualism," not "texturalism?" *Texturalism* would have something to do with the roughness or smoothness of the surface of the paper the US Constitution is written on and I give that very little importance.


Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. My bad. You know what I mean so stop trying to avoid it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It's clearly written


Really. ? You might want to start by  comparing and contrasting the issue of gun rights to civil rights. And then there was that bit about "forcing states to perform abortions" Are you fucking serious?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Isn't this the best course?  Adhere to the constitution?  The problem with giving the federal government too much power is, eventually there will be a government you don't like or agree with, and then you'll be stuck with their policies.
> 
> At least with states rights, only the people that live in the state have to deal with bad policy.


Why should they have to when the constitution is supposed to protect everyone equally?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> BTW, it should be "to which few constitutional scholars adhere." Also followed by, "which I cannot prove, of course."


Look it up!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> So he wanted protection for employment in exchange for him signing off on gays not having human rights?


It was a rational tactive decision in the context of the times


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> If that were true, it would seem you would have pointed out the flaws in my statement instead of turning to amateur psychology to derail your own question.


I did poit out the flaws. The legal flaws. The historical flaws. Go back and read it again, this timewith comprehension


----------



## flan327

ReinyDays said:


> *if you disagee with Obergefell based on states rights, do you also disagree with Loving v Virginia? I never get a reasonable answer .*
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're too chicken to answer as well? ...


Nope


----------



## flan327

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Good grief! No you're just trolling. I will not allow you to derail the thread with red herring logical fallacies like the issue of how many genders there are. The fact is that you cannot defend your position on Obergefell so now your just throwing dung at the wall to see what sticks. Nothing is sticking


You will NOT ALLOW?!!!!

LMAO


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. My bad. You know what I mean so stop trying to avoid it


Actually, I've heard of originalism, but not "textualism."  I'm sure it is a thing, but all this constitutional analyis and pigeonholing of people into such categories is usually an excuse to pretend that the constitution says something that it does not say.  I'd be happy to see you in your own words explain what you mean by textualism, so I know how you perceive my position.

Whatever your perception, the constitution leaves marriage to states.  

I will agree with one thing, though probably not in the way you mean it:  The equal protection clause does not specify race.  It specifies nothing, except "any person."

Section 1​*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*

You could read anything you want into "equal protection," and who it applies to, which is why it is a deeply flawed amendment.   For example, a pro-lifer could say that "any person," certainly includes unborn persons.  Using exact words, it does.  But, in its historical context, abortion was legal and not very controversial at the time, so clearly the authors did not mean unborn persons.  

Just as they clearly did not mean that states have to allow sibling marriage, plural marriage, or same-sex marriage.

The Flawed Fourteenth does mention race in the next section:

Section 2​*Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.*

Shameful, truly shameful.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It was a rational tactive decision in the context of the times


I'm sorry, did you mean "tactical?"  Are you typing this on your phone?  I make my share of errors, but yours make it nearly impossible to understand your points.

If you did mean tactical, the Ted Cruz is doing exactly the same.

Do you see some moral difference between Obama and Clinton opposing gay marriage for tactical reasons, and Ted Cruz doing the same?

Or are you going to tell me that Cruz is going against his voters by opposing same sex marriage?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really. ? You might want to start by  comparing and contrasting the issue of gun rights to civil rights. And then there was that bit about "forcing states to perform abortions" Are you fucking serious?


My comparison is not about gun rights vs civil rights, but about the Lefts willingness to use the constitution and scotus to push one set of rights, but ignore cotus when it comes to other things. I'm measly saying if you believe in the 14th, and the scotus, as a way to argue your stance, then you must also agree that those same principles apply to other things, such as freely carrying a weapon across state lines. 

For the record, I agree with you, the 14th ammendment does apply here. Gay marriages are protected under the 14th, but, I also think that Cruz was right in that it's not the federal governments job to create laws on marriage. All they can do is make sure that people's rights are not being violated


And yes, I'm serious. What roe did was tell states that they had to allow abortions.  Forcing states to perform medical procedures is not the scope of scotus. All they should have done is said that people have a right to privacy with their doctor, which is essentially what they did, but somehow it went from that to being a "constitutional right".

The left was all too happy to allow scotus that kind of leeway, which is why I asked the question, if you agree that scotus makes a ruling that says abortion is a constitutionally protected right, and thus states have to allow them, then you should also agree that if scotus said that "shall not be infringed" means that citizens will have national carry reciprocity, then you should be for that too.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Why should they have to when the constitution is supposed to protect everyone equally?


His point was, giving states back as much power as possible.  If we are to adhere to the constitution, then does it not say that the there are certain things that we designate the federal government to do, the rest is reserved to the states and then the people?  

My point was, how can that be wrong?  The constitution protects everyone equally insomuch as the power and responsibility that we designate to the federal government allows,  but if we grant the federal government unlimited power, and the ability to do things outside of the scope originally designated to it, eventually it goes into roles it was never meant to, and that's where disagreement comes.  One side wants the federal government to do this, and the other side wants it to do that, and neither side likes what it is doing. That is a problem that we created by allowing the government to exceed its authority. 

Keeping the government small and constrained, and only allowing it to do what it's supposed to do, and let the states have control over the rest means that you are only affected by the policies your state enacts.

And your next question is "how do we keep states from enacting laws that violate our rights".  My answer to that is, if it's something the constitution designates to the federal government, then they step in, if not, then the state is the first place where majority rules is viable, and since the left loves majority rules, they should be in favor of this. It's up to the people of that state to make their voices heard to their local and state government, and vote out the people if they are not doing what the people want. This also means that politicians from across the country are not having a voice in what goes on in your state, unless it is a constitutionally designated function of the federal government. 

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## theHawk

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> People do not get to vote on the civil rights of others. That is contrary to the principles of a constitutional republic


And what “civil rights” do queers not have?


----------



## initforme

It's hard to understand that any hatred exists towards people of different races or orientation in the year 2022.   Move on folks.  Someone else explain how people can be so naive.


----------



## Redfish

its amazing how many on the left have misquoted or misunderstood what Cruz said.  All he said is that gay marriage is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore the SC should not have ruled on it.  It should be decided by the voters of each state.  There is no rule or law that says all states must have the same laws.   Fear not dems,  Cal and NY will continue to allow your perversions, and in fact encourage them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> I'm sorry, did you mean "tactical?"  Are you typing this on your phone?  I make my share of errors, but yours make it nearly impossible to understand your points.
> 
> If you did mean tactical, the Ted Cruz is doing exactly the same.
> 
> Do you see some moral difference between Obama and Clinton opposing gay marriage for tactical reasons, and Ted Cruz doing the same?
> 
> Or are you going to tell me that Cruz is going against his voters by opposing same sex marriage?


Yes I meant tactical. As far as Cruz vs Clinton / Obama goes , there is a big moral difference. While Clinton and Obama voiced opposition to samesex marriage, Cruz introduced a radicial anti LGBT constitutional amendment









						Ted Cruz’s Heinously Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment
					

Ted Cruz’s Heinously Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment Forces Other Presidential Candidates To Take a Position




					www.hrc.org
				




So do not try to tell me that what Cruz says is just for political survival


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes I meant tactical. As far as Cruz vs Clinton / Obama goes , there is a big moral difference. While Clinton and Obama voiced opposition to samesex marriage, Cruz introduced a radicial anti LGBT constitutional amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz’s Heinously Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz’s Heinously Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendment Forces Other Presidential Candidates To Take a Position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hrc.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do not try to tell me that what Cruz says is just for political survival


Quote the most radical anti LBGT part of Cruz proposed amendment. But first explain why the DOMA isn't anti-LGBT.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Seymour Flops said:


> Quote the most radical anti LBGT part of Cruz proposed amendment. But first explain why the DOMA isn't anti-LGBT.


Of course TheProgressivePatriot posts an article with a description of Cruz' supposed amendment and no quotes from it.

Just based on that description it is the same as Clinto and Obama's DOMA.

If Dems had no double standards, they'd have no standards at all.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Quote the most radical anti LBGT part of Cruz proposed amendment.


"Cruz’s bills as reported by Bloomberg “would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action” and “bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.”

I know that you don't have a problem with that being all in on states rights and pretending that the 14th Amendment does not exist, but this is pretty hateful shit. But the main pont is that it shows that he is different -and his motives are different that Clinton and Obama


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> But first explain why the DOMA isn't anti-LGBT.


Common on Seymour!! Stop with the straw man logical fallacy bullshit! I never said that it was not anti LGBT> I said that there were reasons for it-to ward off more draconian anti LGBT actions


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> My comparison is not about gun rights vs civil rights, but about the Lefts willingness to use the constitution and scotus to push one set of rights, but ignore cotus when it comes to other things. I'm measly saying if you believe in the 14th, and the scotus, as a way to argue your stance, then you must also agree that those same principles apply to other things, such as freely carrying a weapon across state lines.


The problem with that argument is obvious, or atleast should be. Same sex marriage was decided on the equal protect under the law clause and due process clause of the 14th Amendment . Simply put, gay people were not afforded equal protection under the law because marriage for  heterosexual couples was treated as a right while gays were denied that opportunity. In short it was discrimination.  Gays were denied due process until the federal courts interviened.

Guns are not a 14 amendment issue because, unlike  same sex marriage, a law limiting where and how you can carry a gun applies equally to everyone. There is no discrimination  or issue of unequal protection under the law. In addition, gun advocates have had ample access to due process in the courts at all levels. The courts and law makers must ballance public safet against the vague meaning of the second Amendment which says nothing about the right to bring a gun accross state lines. 

In conclusion, yiu have fallen back on a false equivalency logical fallacy rather than actually arguing you point on its merits.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> For the record, I agree with you, the 14th ammendment does apply here. Gay marriages are protected under the 14th, but, I also think that Cruz was right in that it's not the federal governments job to create laws on marriage. All they can do is make sure that people's rights are not being violated


Wait!! What? What a glaring contadiction...! The 14 applies and gay marriage is protected by it BUT you agree with Cruz??? For the record, the federal government did not "create a law" The federal court determind that state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional. So yes , as YOU said made  sure that people's rights are not being violated


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> "Cruz’s bills as reported by Bloomberg “would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action” and “bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue until such an amendment is adopted.”


I actually asked you to quote from the proposed amendment, not Bloomberg's interpretation of it.  If you are going to link to a source that is paywalled, and expect me to read it, I'll have to ask you to paypal me the money.  It's semourflops2020@gmail.com.  

Since you did not quote the proposed amendment, I assume there is nothing more "hateful" in the bill than that, or you would have quoted it.  For the sake of argument, since you don't know how to back up a claim, let's pretend Bloomberg got it right.

How is that more hateful than DOMA which Clinton gleefully signed and Obama fully supported?  Section 3 reads as follows:








			https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-104hr3396enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3396enr.pdf
		


This was not some sneakly language that they fooled poor Bill and unwitting Barack into signing and supporting.  It is the definition of marriage that they campaigned on, same as Ted Cruz does.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I know that you don't have a problem with that being all in on states rights and pretending that the 14th Amendment does not exist, but this is pretty hateful shit. But the main pont is that it shows that he is different -and his motives are different that Clinton and Obama


It doesn't show that his motives are different.  If you want to argue that Clinton and Obama really actually supported gay marriage all along, but voted to prevent it in order to get elected, I'd say that makes them much worse than Cruz, who is acting from his actual beliefs.

Cruz really believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman and he really believes that states should decide on marriage laws.  Or at least he has been consistent in saying so.

Obama and Clinton threw gays under the bus to get elected, what makes you think they wouldn't throw them in a gas chamber to get elected?


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Common on Seymour!! Stop with the straw man logical fallacy bullshit! I never said that it was not anti LGBT> I said that there were reasons for it-to ward off more draconian anti LGBT actions


That's too absurd to even argue.  Clinton and Obama acted hatefully to gays, to keep the Republicans from acting even more hatefully?

Any other issues on which they used that strategy?  Abortion for example?  Or any example?

But by co-ink-ee-dink, they both used it for gay rights?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> His point was, giving states back as much power as possible. If we are to adhere to the constitution, then does it not say that the there are certain things that we designate the federal government to do, the rest is reserved to the states and then the people?


Yes, but states have often thumbed their noses at the constitution as they did with bans on gay marriage. In that case the federal courts can and must step in. No rights or powers deligated to the states or the people are absolute


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> That's too absurd to even argue.  Clinton and Obama acted hatefully to gays, to keep the Republicans from acting even more hatefully?
> 
> Any other issues on which they used that strategy?  Abortion for example?  Or any example?
> 
> But by co-ink-ee-dink, they both used it for gay rights?


Believe what you want Seymour. Or, pretend to believe it. What ever


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> I actually asked you to quote from the proposed amendment, not Bloomberg's interpretation of it. If you are going to link to a source that is paywalled, and expect me to read it, I'll have to ask you to paypal me the money. It's semourflops2020@gmail.com.
> 
> Since you did not quote the proposed amendment, I assume there is nothing more "hateful" in the bill than that, or you would have quoted it. For the sake of argument, since you don't know how to back up a claim, let's pretend Bloomberg got it right.
> 
> How is that more hateful than DOMA which Clinton gleefully signed and Obama fully supported? Section 3 reads as follows:


Now I  think that you are just trying to be annoying. I documented what Cruz did. Nothing that Obama or Clinton did comes close .Deal with it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> its amazing how many on the left have misquoted or misunderstood what Cruz said.  All he said is that gay marriage is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore the SC should not have ruled on it.  It should be decided by the voters of each state.  There is no rule or law that says all states must have the same laws.   Fear not dems,  Cal and NY will continue to allow your perversions, and in fact encourage them.


There is no misunderstanding on our part." All that he said...." It is bullshit and hateful. Decided by voters? More bullshit! Voters do not get to decide a question of the rights of others. Read Anthony Kennedy's words





__





						124 Words From Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever
					

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.



					www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> His point was, giving states back as much power as possible. If we are to adhere to the constitution, then does it not say that the there are certain things that we designate the federal government to do, the rest is reserved to the states and then the people?


Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Keeping the government small and constrained, and only allowing it to do what it's supposed to do, and let the states have control over the rest means that you are only affected by the policies your state enacts.


States need to be constrained as well...by the federal courts


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> nd your next question is "how do we keep states from enacting laws that violate our rights". My answer to that is, if it's something the constitution designates to the federal government, then they step in, if not, then the state is the first place where majority rules is viable, and since the left loves majority rules, they should be in favor of this.


We do not love majority rule when it comes to civil rights. We love the rules of law


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The problem with that argument is obvious, or atleast should be. Same sex marriage was decided on the equal protect under the law clause and due process clause of the 14th Amendment . Simply put, gay people were not afforded equal protection under the law because marriage for  heterosexual couples was treated as a right while gays were denied that opportunity. In short it was discrimination.  Gays were denied due process until the federal courts interviened.
> 
> Guns are not a 14 amendment issue because, unlike  same sex marriage, a law limiting where and how you can carry a gun applies equally to everyone. There is no discrimination  or issue of unequal protection under the law. In addition, gun advocates have had ample access to due process in the courts at all levels. The courts and law makers must ballance public safet against the vague meaning of the second Amendment which says nothing about the right to bring a gun accross state lines.
> 
> In conclusion, yiu have fallen back on a false equivalency logical fallacy rather than actually arguing you point on its merits.


Again, my statement want specifically about gay marriage vs gun rights, it was about believing that scotus has the power to create rights and laws governing abortion, forcing states to allow abortions, but then saying scotus doesn't have the power to say that no state can deny a citizen its right to bear arms. It's a double standard. 



> a law limiting where and how you can carry a gun applies equally to everyone



But the constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If a state denies a citizen the right to carry a firearm, then his right is being infringed. Your argument that scotus has the power to create abortion laws that force states to allow abortions would also mean that scotus has the power to force states to allow nationwide reciprocity.



> second Amendment which says nothing about the right to bring a gun accross state lines.



Again, "shall not be infringed".  If a state says I can't bear arms, then they are infringing on a constitutional right.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wait!! What? What a glaring contadiction...! The 14 applies and gay marriage is protected by it BUT you agree with Cruz??? For the record, the federal government did not "create a law" The federal court determind that state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional. So yes , as YOU said made  sure that people's rights are not being violated


Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed.  Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes, but states have often thumbed their noses at the constitution as they did with bans on gay marriage. In that case the federal courts can and must step in. No rights or powers deligated to the states or the people are absolute





> Yes, but states have often thumbed their noses at the constitution as they did with bans on gay marriage.


.  

And those states should have been sued for equal rights violation, and the federal government could have made sure that states were following the constitution, but that could have all been solved without the federal creating a law for a protection that already exists. 



> No rights or powers deligated to the states or the people are absolute



Actually, I think they are. I generally stick to a literal interpretation of the cotus. I think powers delegated to the federal government are absolute, everything not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people, which are also absolute.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> States need to be constrained as well...by the federal courts


Only as far as if a state is violating the rights of the people or not following cotus, then i think it's the duty of the federal government to step in and make sure equal protections are being adhered to. Beyond that, the federal government needs to remain neutral.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> We do not love majority rule when it comes to civil rights. We love the rules of law


I meant majority rule when it comes to voting.


----------



## AsherN

ThisIsMe said:


> Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed.  Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.


You are pretty much describing what's already happened. All the way to the USSC. And they declared State laws that banned same-sex marriages unconstitutional.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.


I'm not disagreeing with that. States must adhere to the 14th ammendment because it's spelled out in cotus. Federal government must adhere to the 10th ammendment for the same reason.


----------



## ThisIsMe

AsherN said:


> You are pretty much describing what's already happened. All the way to the USSC. And they declared State laws that banned same-sex marriages unconstitutional.


Because it would violate their 14th ammendment rights. I agree with this. I'm not advocating states be allowed to ban gay marriage, I'm saying the federal government has no right creating laws regulating marriage, especially since there are already protections in place for it.


----------



## AsherN

ThisIsMe said:


> Because it would violate their 14th ammendment rights. I agree with this. I'm not advocating states be allowed to ban gay marriage, I'm saying the federal government has no right creating laws regulating marriage, especially since there are already protections in place for it.


If States keep trying to undermine same-sex marriage, then a Federal law would be required. The federal gov has "skin in the game" as a number of tax and legal benefits are confered to married couples from the Feds.


----------



## San Souci

rightwinger said:


> The issue is Congress will try to pass a law making it illegal nationwide


Good. Should also bring back all VICE laws.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.


To whom?

Seriously, to whom does the 14th apply, and for what issues?

Does it apply to a deadbeat dad applying for a concealed carry permit?  A non-citizen going to the voting place?  A man wanting to be on the women's volleyball team?  A defenseless child in the womb?  Remember the relevant part says "any person," not "whoever TheProgressivePatriot decides deserves equal protection on certain issues."

Your answer to those question will be something along the lines of "that's different."  It sure is.  So is same-sex marriage.  So is everything.  You can either say "differences matter when applying the XIV," or "differences don't matter when applying the XIV."  

What you want do say doesn't work.  You want to say "Fourteenth amendment so I win!"


----------



## ThisIsMe

AsherN said:


> If States keep trying to undermine same-sex marriage, then a Federal law would be required. The federal gov has "skin in the game" as a number of tax and legal benefits are confered to married couples from the Feds.


No, federal law wouldn't be required, federal enforcement of the 14th ammendment would. Again, this is what the 14th ammendment is for.  It was put into cotus for things like this.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Does it apply to a deadbeat dad applying for a concealed carry permit?


Possibly. If the deadbeat claimed discrinination and if the state could not articulate a compelling government interest in denying the permit, then it could be a case of discrination. There was a SCOTUS case a while back where a state law prohibited men from remarrying if they owed child support. It was shot down. The state can't do that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> A non-citizen going to the voting place?


No it does not apply. No non citizens can vote. It is not discrimination


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> A man wanting to be on the women's volleyball team?


There are no men on womens teams. Transwomen are women. To ban then is discrimination


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> A defenseless child in the womb?


Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a child


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> So is everything. You can either say "differences matter when applying the XIV," or "differences don't matter when applying the XIV."
> 
> What you want do say doesn't work. You want to say "Fourteenth amendment so I win!"


You are sure twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to make me into some sort of hypocrite while trying to justify your opposition to Obergefell. Not working . All that you have done is, out of deparation, employed a logical fallacy....my favorite actually A Tu quoque.

*Appeal* *to* *Hypocrisy* This is also known as Tu quoque. This is the fallacy where what one person says something that appears out of character according to another person's view of him, therefore it is rejected by that other person.
Logical fallacy: *Appeal to Hypocrisy* - firmitas.org​firmitas.org/logic-tuquoque.php


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Possibly. If the deadbeat claimed discrinination and if the state could not articulate a compelling government interest in denying the permit, then it could be a case of discrination. There was a SCOTUS case a while back where a state law prohibited men from remarrying if they owed child support. It was shot down. The state can't do that.





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No it does not apply. No non citizens can vote. It is not discrimination





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There are no men on womens teams. Transwomen are women. To ban then is discrimination





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a child


So, just as I predicted.   You pick and choos who the XIV covers and does not cover according to your own feelings about who should be covered.  If you can say that it isn't discrimination because no non-citizen can vote, then  I can say banning same-sex marriage is not discrimination because no one, regardless of orientation, can  marry a person of the same sex.  What if you called the team, "the cis-women's team?  Then it isn't discrimination, right?  Your party cannot even define "woman," but you can insist that transwomen are women?  How does that work?  All persons are clumps of cells, so that silliness doesn't work.

The problem with your line of reasoning is exactly what I said:  

*Remember the relevant part says "any person," not "whoever TheProgressivePatriot decides deserves equal protection on certain issues."*


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are sure twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to make me into some sort of hypocrite while trying to justify your opposition to Obergefell. Not working . All that you have done is, out of deparation, employed a logical fallacy....my favorite actually A Tu quoque.
> 
> *Appeal* *to* *Hypocrisy* This is also known as Tu quoque. This is the fallacy where what one person says something that appears out of character according to another person's view of him, therefore it is rejected by that other person.
> Logical fallacy: *Appeal to Hypocrisy* - firmitas.org​firmitas.org/logic-tuquoque.php


That was nonsensical, even for you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Transwomen are women.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a child


You are a clump of cells, moron.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> So, just as I predicted. You pick and choos who the XIV covers and does not cover according to your own feelings about who should be covered.


Bullshit! It has nothing to do with my feeling. It is common sense and the appropriate appliation of the 14th


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> If you can say that it isn't discrimination because no non-citizen can vote, then I can say banning same-sex marriage is not discrimination because no one, regardless of orientation, can marry a person of the same sex.


More bullshit. Another false equivalancy logical fallacy. Bans on same sex marriage were indeed discriminatory because, while straight people could arry the person who they are romantcly and sexually attracted to, gays could not


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> That was nonsensical, even for you.


Too close to home Seymour?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed.  Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.


Good grief!! Once  the court did not "make a law saying that gay marriage is legal" That is just complete nonsense! They struck down state laws that banned it. That is all that they did

And yes  "If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations," and that is exactly what happened. And in most cases that state courts sided with the state. So then what should they have done if not go to federal court?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, federal law wouldn't be required, federal enforcement of the 14th ammendment would. Again, this is what the 14th ammendment is for.  It was put into cotus for things like this.


Here you are contradicting yourself again. You seem terribly confused. You are saying here that the application  of the 14th was correct, but elsewhere you say that the federal court should not have interviened.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More bullshit. Another false equivalancy logical fallacy. Bans on same sex marriage were indeed discriminatory because, while straight people could arry the person who they are romantcly and sexually attracted to, gays could not


Let me ask you this:  Is it possible for there to be a right that you think people should have, that is not covered by the XIV?

If so, what are some of them?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> They struck down state laws that banned it. That is all that they did



Which is terrible and tyrannical, an abuse of the court, federal authority, and the Constitution.

That decision was pure nonsense on stilts, almost as bad as Roe and it should be likewise overturned.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Let me ask you this:  Is it possible for there to be a right that you think people should have, that is not covered by the XIV?
> 
> If so, what are some of them?


I don't know what the point of that question is but I'll play. Any of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights can statnd on their own. Forinstance, if the right to peacfully assemble is violated one need only invoke the 1st amendment. However, if it is a matter of one group being treated differently than another and the claim involves discrimination, the due process andequal protection clause of the 14th may be invoked. Same goes for any of those enumerated rights as well as unenumerated rights such as marriage rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Which is terrible and tyrannical, an abuse of the court, federal authority, and the Constitution.
> 
> That decision was pure nonsense on stilts, almost as bad as Roe and it should be likewise overturned.


So denying people the ability to marry the person who they love, and enjoy all of the legal rights, financial advantages and social status for themselves and their children-that others take for granted-is not terrible and tyrannical?


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I don't know what the point of that question is but I'll play. Any of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights can statnd on their own. Forinstance, if the right to peacfully assemble is violated one need only invoke the 1st amendment. However, if it is a matter of one group being treated differently than another and the claim involves discrimination, the due process andequal protection clause of the 14th may be invoked. Same goes for any of those enumerated rights as well as unenumerated rights such as marriage rights.


You did not know the point of the question, becuase you did not understand it.

I'll give an example:

I believe that there is a natural right to plural marriage.  The fact that a major religion that was founded in the United States includedd plural marriage means that it is a legitimate part of the free exercise of religion and it is an important right for Americans.  Aside frrom that, I believe that there is a  natural right to claim whomever one chooses to be next of kin, second next of kin, etc,, and that we are not bound by genetic relations as plants and lower animals are.  

If the courts decide not to protect that as an un-enumerated right, I will disagree.  Plural marriage was in the bible, the Koran, and the history books that our founders were well-versed in.  It was not a new idea.  But, having denied plular marriage as an enumerated right and allowed states to ban it, I cannot logically argue the XIV amendment because it is not a question of equal protection.  No person is allowed to have multiple spouses, so no one is being denied equal protection.  The dedicated religious polygamist will prosecuted the same as a person who practices bigamy as a form of fraud. 

So I can argue that there is a right to something, even if I can't argue that the XIV is what protects it. 

Do you have any examples like that for yourself?  Or do you believe - as most people do, I suppose - that the XIV protects what you want it to protect?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> I believe that there is a natural right to plural marriage. The fact that a major religion that was founded in the United States includedd plural marriage means that it is a legitimate part of the free exercise of religion and it is an important right for Americans. Aside frrom that, I believe that there is a natural right to claim whomever one chooses to be next of kin, second next of kin, etc,, and that we are not bound by genetic relations as plants and lower animals are.


OK, no argument there


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> If the courts decide not to protect that as an un-enumerated right, I will disagree. Plural marriage was in the bible, the Koran, and the history books that our founders were well-versed in. It was not a new idea. But, having denied plular marriage as an enumerated right and allowed states to ban it, I cannot logically argue the XIV amendment because it is not a question of equal protection. No person is allowed to have multiple spouses, so no one is being denied equal protection. The dedicated religious polygamist will prosecuted the same as a person who practices bigamy as a form of fraud.


Pretty much agree. But I have to wonder what legal theory would be employed for the courts to rule that it is a right.As you said it is not an equal protection issue. Perhapps religious freedome, but then what about non religious people who want to enter into a plural marriage. If it is only allowed for religious reasons, then you might be setting up grounds for a discrimination case involving the 14th. And around and around


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> So I can argue that there is a right to something, even if I can't argue that the XIV is what protects it.


Point well taken


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> Do you have any examples like that for yourself? Or do you believe - as most people do, I suppose - that the XIV protects what you want it to protect?


I have already made it clear that is not what I believe. And we were doing so well.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Good grief!! Once  the court did not "make a law saying that gay marriage is legal" That is just complete nonsense! They struck down state laws that banned it. That is all that they did
> 
> And yes  "If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations," and that is exactly what happened. And in most cases that state courts sided with the state. So then what should they have done if not go to federal court?


Then the federal courts can take up the case, but a law is not required to do this. Laws codifying marriage are not a role of the federal government. The 14th ammendment already protects gay marriages. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here you are contradicting yourself again. You seem terribly confused. You are saying here that the application  of the 14th was correct, but elsewhere you say that the federal court should not have interviened.


No, I didn't say that. I said the federal courts can hear, and rule on a case of 14th ammendment violation, but the federal government (congress, senate) shouldn't be making laws governing marriages.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have already made it clear that is not what I believe. And we were doing so well.


Then you started lying again.

Of course you believe that the XIV protects what you would like it to protect.  You've offered no other guiding principle for what it protects or what it doesn't.  Instead you just take individual example as arbitrarily say it protects this, but not that.

Not completely your fault, because the XIV was written in flawed manner such that it is difficult to find a guiding principle.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, I didn't say that. I said the federal courts can hear, and rule on a case of 14th ammendment violation, but the federal government (congress, senate) shouldn't be making laws governing marriages.


Well it is still a contradiction. The Federal Courts as well as Congress are part of the federal government. You'll have to explain why one branch of the federal gove has juridiction and another does not.

You might know that the Defense of Marriage that was passed in 1996, in part  said that states  that banned same sex marriage need not honor marriages under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. ( as well as to bar the federal governmentfrom reccognisingsame sex marriages ) That act. however, was rendered unenforcable by the Windsior and Obergefell rulings

Currently, the Respect for Marriage act is pending in congress. It would fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and  require states that, in the future might ban same sex marriages, to honor marriages from other states. However, it stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses, which, arguably might be out of bounds

Congress could also introduce a Constitutional Amendment to full protect same sex marriage. So while congres may be limited in terms of what they can do and how they can do it, but it is incorrect to say that it is powerless to do anything


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well it is still a contradiction. The Federal Courts as well as Congress are part of the federal government. You'll have to explain why one branch of the federal gove has juridiction and another does not.
> 
> You might know that the Defense of Marriage that was passed in 1996, in part  said that states  that banned same sex marriage need not honor marriages under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. ( as well as to bar the federal governmentfrom reccognisingsame sex marriages ) That act. however, was rendered unenforcable by the Windsior and Obergefell rulings
> 
> Currently, the Respect for Marriage act is pending in congress. It would fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and  require states that, in the future might ban same sex marriages, to honor marriages from other states. However, it stops short of requiring states to issue same sex marriage licenses, which, arguably might be out of bounds
> 
> Congress could also introduce a Constitutional Amendment to full protect same sex marriage. So while congres may be limited in terms of what they can do and how they can do it, but it is incorrect to say that it is powerless to do anything


Not to dredge this up, but you know who signed DOMA, right?  

Anyway, I don't find it a contradiction,the issue I have with federal courts ruling on things like obergefell is not that they upheld the 14th ammendment, it's that, as in with roe, the left took it to mean that it was law (many people state that roe is settled law, but it wasn't a law).  Courts don't create law, they only interpret existing law. 

I also disagree with federal government (legislators) codifying into law, as it's not a function designated by the constitution (as with a lot of things they do).  It's a states rights issue first, and if states  violate constitutional rights, then the federal courts have power to enforce the constitution.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Not to dredge this up, but you know who signed DOMA, right?


Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Anyway, I don't find it a contradiction,the issue I have with federal courts ruling on things like obergefell is not that they upheld the 14th ammendment, it's that, as in with roe, the left took it to mean that it was law (many people state that roe is settled law, but it wasn't a law). Courts don't create law, they only interpret existing law.


Yes the courts interpret existing law. And the interpre the constitution, and then apply that interpretation to existing law as they did in Obergefell and quite a few other matter on marrige such as Loving v. Virginia

"Settled law referrs to binding precidents such as Obergefell and Roe. For most of the courts history, the principle of stare decisis respect for and deference  those rulings but this court has shown a popensity to disregard that tradition. And it is not only "the left" that believes that the court has run off the rails

But "settled law" in that regard is not legislation and no new laws were written by the court. "Law in the broad sense if far more than legislation  If you think that they were please explain. In the case of same sex marriage they simply invalidated existing state laws.  So please tell the class, when you say that the federal court can only interpret the law, how , if at all, can they apply that interpretation to existing law to bring it into compliance with the constitution? To put it differently, what recourse do plaintiffs  have in cases such  as Obergefell if the Federals Courts cannot go beyond interpretation of the law, but have no way of enforcing it?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I also disagree with federal government (legislators) codifying into law, as it's not a function designated by the constitution (as with a lot of things they do). It's a states rights issue first, and if states violate constitutional rights, then the federal courts have power to enforce the constitution.


Then you should support the Respect for Marriage Act which I described earlier because, what it basically does is repeal the so called Defense of Marriage Act and clears the way for the Full Faith and Credit clause to take effect with respect to gay marriage.

After all of this, I am not clear as to where you stand on gay marriage. Are you just a wannabee legal wonk who supports it but just wants it to happen in what you consider the "right way"? Or it this your way of trying to undermine gay marriage without admitting that you are against it?


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?


To save his political ass.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> To save his political ass


It's a little more complicated than that.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It's a little more complicated than that.


The excuses are but not the reality.

What's your excuse for his behavior with Monica? Using her for a cum dump to keep a worse guy from using her more cruelly?

Because that's what your excuse for his signing DOMA sounds like.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?


Doesn't matter why. Did he sign it?


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes I do. BUT, do you know why?


Because there was a movement for a constitutional ammendment. So, rather than letting that play out in the courts, and testing whether or not they could have gotten 2/3 of the house and senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify such an ammendment, he jumped the gun and just enacted it himself. 

Did clinton actually believe that it could have been made a cotus ammendment?  Surely not. Even if it passed house and senate, you would have never had 3/4 of the states to ratify it. 

It seems he also wasn't keen on marriage being decided by Congress, granted for different reasons.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes the courts interpret existing law. And the interpre the constitution, and then apply that interpretation to existing law as they did in Obergefell and quite a few other matter on marrige such as Loving v. Virginia
> 
> "Settled law referrs to binding precidents such as Obergefell and Roe. For most of the courts history, the principle of stare decisis respect for and deference  those rulings but this court has shown a popensity to disregard that tradition. And it is not only "the left" that believes that the court has run off the rails
> 
> But "settled law" in that regard is not legislation and no new laws were written by the court. "Law in the broad sense if far more than legislation  If you think that they were please explain. In the case of same sex marriage they simply invalidated existing state laws.  So please tell the class, when you say that the federal court can only interpret the law, how , if at all, can they apply that interpretation to existing law to bring it into compliance with the constitution? To put it differently, what recourse do plaintiffs  have in cases such  as Obergefell if the Federals Courts cannot go beyond interpretation of the law, but have no way of enforcing it?


Plantiffs have recourse in courts for 14th A violations.  A law is not needed to do this. If a state tries to ban gay marriage the federal courts can strike them down in thr basis of the 14th.

By the way, are there actually any states left that have outright bans on gay marriage?  I thought they all pretty much were recognizing them anyway.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then you should support the Respect for Marriage Act which I described earlier because, what it basically does is repeal the so called Defense of Marriage Act and clears the way for the Full Faith and Credit clause to take effect with respect to gay marriage.
> 
> After all of this, I am not clear as to where you stand on gay marriage. Are you just a wannabee legal wonk who supports it but just wants it to happen in what you consider the "right way"? Or it this your way of trying to undermine gay marriage without admitting that you are against it?


From a religious perspective, gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, believe the government or a  state has a right to deny gay marriage based on religious reasons. Not everyone is religious, nor do they worship the same religions, so the gov nor a state should be able to apply that religious standard to them. 

I also don't think the gov should be able to make laws regarding gay marriage.  I'll explain in a little bit. Gott go!..


----------



## DudleySmith

The term 'gay' isn't correct; the terms homosexual fetishists or faggots is the correct term. They wouldn't use euphemisms if they truly thought their sicko neurosis was a good thing.


----------



## DudleySmith

ThisIsMe said:


> From a religious perspective, gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, believe the government or a  state has a right to deny gay marriage based on religious reasons. Not everyone is religious, nor do they worship the same religions, so the gov nor a state should be able to apply that religious standard to them.
> 
> I also don't think the gov should be able to make laws regarding gay marriage.  I'll explain in a little bit. Gott go!..



Doesn't have shit to do with religion; that's just a strawman mentally ill deviants dreamed up. The Christian organizations were very tolerant of sicko faggots, and all it got them a lot of molested boys and bankruptcy from lawsuits from the faggots' victims.  We can see the infestations in our schools now, with faggots earnestly promoting sexual mutilations to 6 year olds. 

Screw 'libertoons' and their stupid absolutist NAMBLA Logic. They're part of the problem, not a solution.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then you should support the Respect for Marriage Act which I described earlier because, what it basically does is repeal the so called Defense of Marriage Act and clears the way for the Full Faith and Credit clause to take effect with respect to gay marriage.
> 
> After all of this, I am not clear as to where you stand on gay marriage. Are you just a wannabee legal wonk who supports it but just wants it to happen in what you consider the "right way"? Or it this your way of trying to undermine gay marriage without admitting that you are against it?


So, the problem with making anything a law is that laws mean it can be regulated. What one hand giveth, one taketh away.

An example of why I wouldn't want to see gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night. Every liberal gay person with an axe to grind would be going into bakeries and other businesses across the country,.or they would be applying to church leadership positions, knowing that for religious reasons, they couldn't grant these people their wishes. Many of them would be legitimate, many others would just be for spite, to see if they could get a lawsuit against then, in an attempt to ruin them.

If someone walks into a kosher deli and requests a ham and bacon sub, if the deli says they can't prepare that kind of food because of their laws, nobody is going to bat an eye at that. Same with a butcher ran by Muslims. Nobody is going to make an issue out of that because people understand. Hey, it's a religious thing...move along. But when it comes to Christian beliefs against gay marriage, we'll now we have to make a big deal over it, because they think it's "hate"!  They won't even entertain the religious liberty aspect of it, or maybe they do but just don't care.  Some of them are like "we have to GET those Christian people because  they don't agree with us, and we're going to force OUR lives onto them!".

For the same reason a kosher deli, or a muslim butcher wont handle foods that biolate their laws are the same reasons christian businesses wont participate in gay weddings. 

if you make gay marriage a law, then religious freedom will be gone. 

Now,.i know you're going to say "well, businesses and churches shouldn't discriminate".  I don't see thus as discrimination. Firstly, you have to get rid of this notion that Christians do these things out of hate. In some cases, sure, that happens, but in others, it's really about their beliefs. Many of these Christians don't hate gay people, they just don't agree with their lifestyle. 

If you make a law on it, then it means everyone, regsrdless of their own civil rights,  has to abide by it, you open up the possibility for people being sued for breaking the law, and it will likely lead to these people being charged with hate crimes.


----------



## Seymour Flops

ThisIsMe said:


> Doesn't matter why. Did he sign it?
> 
> Because there was a movement for a constitutional ammendment. So, rather than letting that play out in the courts, and testing whether or not they could have gotten 2/3 of the house and senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify such an ammendment, he jumped the gun and just enacted it himself.


Lamest excuse I ever heard.  If true it would be worse than if his fanboys just admitted that he did it to save his political ass.  You think it is a coincidence that the Repubs sent it to him less than two monthis before his re-election vote?  He signed it because his campaign pollsters told him to and because he had run on favoring gay rights, but not including same-sex marriage:

*While he was pressed for commitments on a range of concerns to the LGBT community, marriage rights were not one of them. The only documented statement Clinton made about the topic was in a brief written response to a Reader’s Digest that questioned whether he agreed that “homosexual couples should have the right to get married.” “I’ve taken a very strong stand against any discrimination against gays and lesbians,” the then-governor of Arkansas responded, “but I don’t favor a law to legalize marriages.”*

Had he not signed, Hawaii would have performed same-sex marriages that same-sex couples could have demanded be recognized in other states due to the full faith and credit clause.  The court would likely rule correctly that same-sex marriages must be recognized in other states just as states with higher legal ages to marry, states that don't allow first cousin marriages, and states that require blood tests, must recognize marriages from other states.  That would have been the correct procedure, not signing an unconsitiutional law that let states out of the full faith and credit clause for one type of marriage only.



ThisIsMe said:


> Did clinton actually believe that it could have been made a cotus ammendment?  Surely not. Even if it passed house and senate, you would have never had 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
> 
> It seems he also wasn't keen on marriage being decided by Congress, granted for different reasons.


What he wasn't keen on is letting voters decide the issue.  Except that he didn't want to stop them voting for him by vetoing that terrible law.


----------



## DudleySmith

Seymour Flops said:


> Lamest excuse I ever heard.  If true it would be worse than if his fanboys just admitted that he did it to save his political ass.  You think it is a coincidence that the Repubs sent it to him less than two monthis before his re-election vote?  He signed it because his campaign pollsters told him to and because he had run on favoring gay rights, but not including same-sex marriage:
> 
> *While he was pressed for commitments on a range of concerns to the LGBT community, marriage rights were not one of them. The only documented statement Clinton made about the topic was in a brief written response to a Reader’s Digest that questioned whether he agreed that “homosexual couples should have the right to get married.” “I’ve taken a very strong stand against any discrimination against gays and lesbians,” the then-governor of Arkansas responded, “but I don’t favor a law to legalize marriages.”*
> 
> Had he not signed, Hawaii would have performed same-sex marriages that same-sex couples could have demanded be recognized in other states due to the full faith and credit clause.  The court would likely rule correctly that same-sex marriages must be recognized in other states just as states with higher legal ages to marry, states that don't allow first cousin marriages, and states that require blood tests, must recognize marriages from other states.  That would have been the correct procedure, not signing an unconsitiutional law that let states out of the full faith and credit clause for one type of marriage only.
> 
> 
> What he wasn't keen on is letting voters decide the issue.  Except that he didn't want to stop them voting for him by vetoing that terrible law.



lol Clinton was forced to deny faggots NGO status at the UN because one of the ILGA's proud founding member organizations was NAMBLA, the kiddie raper gang. Your silly attempts at normalizing faggot neuroses isn't original nor even remotely true. Faggots wanted 'marriages' so they could milk health insurance bennies from their 'spouses' employee benefits, and that's it; they could care less about 'marriage', but they do like the added bonus of getting to adopt kids and warp them into perverts, too. Your babbling about 'unconstitutional' is just idiot dimwittery.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

DudleySmith said:


> lol Clinton was forced to deny faggots NGO status at the UN because one of the ILGA's proud founding member organizations was NAMBLA, the kiddie raper gang. Your silly attempts at normalizing faggot neuroses isn't original nor even remotely true. Faggots wanted 'marriages' so they could milk health insurance bennies from their 'spouses' employee benefits, and that's it; they could care less about 'marriage', but they do like the added bonus of getting to adopt kids and warp them into perverts, too. Your babbling about 'unconstitutional' is just idiot dimwittery.



  Look at the Afghan tradition of bacha bāzī.  Boys forced to dress and dance effeminately, and to be sexually abused by older men.

  What do you suppose the motive is, here in the U.S., behind grooming boys to think their are girls, while teaching them about homosexuality?  What do you think the real desire is, of every man who supports this shit?  What do you really think the motive is for faggot couples adopting children, especially boys?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> From a religious perspective, gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, believe the government or a state has a right to deny gay marriage based on religious reasons. Not everyone is religious, nor do they worship the same religions, so the gov nor a state should be able to apply that religious standard to them.


A brief glimmer of sensability


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I also don't think the gov should be able to make laws regarding gay marriage. I'll explain in a little bit. Gott go!..


Can I assume that includes all of laws and referendums passed by the states that said marriage in between a man and a woman?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, the problem with making anything a law is that laws mean it can be regulated. What one hand giveth, one taketh away.


What in the name of holy franken fuck does that mean!!???


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> An example of why I wouldn't want to see gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night. Every liberal gay person with an axe to grind would be going into bakeries and other businesses across the country,.or they would be applying to church leadership positions, knowing that for religious reasons, they couldn't grant these people their wishes. Many of them would be legitimate, many others would just be for spite, to see if they could get a lawsuit against then, in an attempt to ruin them.


I find it interesting how you segue from one  argument to the  next without bothering to address the points that I made or seeming to have learned anything. Previously you  were dwelling on the role of the courts and what settled law is and how it is different than legislation. You were struggling find fault with the Obergfell decision but dropped that argument after I schooled you the role of the court 

 Now suddenly you’ve moved on from that argument a discussion the erosion of religious freedom. You say with certainty that if  “gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night.  “ And go on to blather about how “gay liberals” would target businesses that don’t want to serve them. That is just plain stupid! First of all  religious freedom does not entitle anyone to discriminate . Somes states have laws against discrimination that include sexual orientation and they will be enforced. Second of all, you need to explain what codifying gay marriage has to do with this and how it would be any different from what we have now.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> If someone walks into a kosher deli and requests a ham and bacon sub, if the deli says they can't prepare that kind of food because of their laws, nobody is going to bat an eye at that. Same with a butcher ran by Muslims. Nobody is going to make an issue out of that because people understand. Hey, it's a religious thing...move along. But when it comes to Christian beliefs against gay marriage, we'll now we have to make a big deal over it, because they think it's "hate"! They won't even entertain the religious liberty aspect of it, or maybe they do but just don't care. Some of them are like "we have to GET those Christian people because they don't agree with us, and we're going to force OUR lives onto them!".


More  stupidity. Once again, discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. Religious liberty mean being free to openly practice your religion without fear. It does not mean using it as an excuse to punish those who you disapprove of

And business that do not normally supply an product or a service  to anyone are not obligated to do so for anyone.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Plantiffs have recourse in courts for 14th A violations. A law is not needed to do this. If a state tries to ban gay marriage the federal courts can strike them down in thr basis of the 14th.


So then you agree with the Obergefell ruling, or is there some twist to this? Afterall, you have made some pretty convoluted statements about what the court can and cannpt do


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> By the way, are there actually any states left that have outright bans on gay marriage? I thought they all pretty much were recognizing them anyway.


No, all states must allow gay marriage, mostly because they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the federal courts culminating with Obergefell. But give the current makeup of the court, that ruling is vulnerable so that is why legislation is needed, or better yet a constitutional amendment protecting marriage equality


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> If you make a law on it, then it means everyone, regsrdless of their own civil rights, has to abide by it, you open up the possibility for people being sued for breaking the law, and it will likely lead to these people being charged with hate crimes.


Holy shit! What???!! We should not have laws against discrimination? Why?  because someone might actually be held accountable for....discrimination.??Have you lost your fucking mind? No one has a civil right to violate someone elses civil rights FOR ANY REASON

And what the fuck is that about hate crimes. This has nothing to do with hate crimes....the more you post, the less impressed I am with your knowledge and level of functioning


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Now,.i know you're going to say "well, businesses and churches shouldn't discriminate". I don't see thus as discrimination. Firstly, you have to get rid of this notion that Christians do these things out of hate. In some cases, sure, that happens, but in others, it's really about their beliefs. Many of these Christians don't hate gay people, they just don't agree with their lifestyle.


No that is not what I am going to say. Business and churches are entirely different. Businees are places of public accodation and must abide by laws against discrimination. While churches are also places of public accomodation, they have a religious exemption and -unfortuatly-can discriminate. 

You are right in saying that fr the most part they do not hate gays. They act out of fear,  ignorance and superstition. Hoever, the outcome is the same


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Can I assume that includes all of laws and referendums passed by the states that said marriage in between a man and a woman?


Correct, saying marriage is only between a man and a woman would exclude gay marriage and violate their civil rights. 

Maybe I am a "wonk" as you put it. I just don't think the gov has any business defining marriage or making laws about it. Again, gay marriage is protected by the 14th, why does the gov have to go in and make a law that is outside of their designated authority?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! What???!! We should not have laws against discrimination? Why?  because someone might actually be held accountable for....discrimination.??Have you lost your fucking mind? No one has a civil right to violate someone elses civil rights FOR ANY REASON
> 
> And what the fuck is that about hate crimes. This has nothing to do with hate crimes....the more you post, the less impressed I am with your knowledge and level of functioning


If you'd read the rest before posting, it would have cleared this up. I don't think religious freedom is discrimination, for reasons I listed below. Organizations of all types have requirements. Churches may not allow gay people to serve in leadership, businesses may have religious convictions about participating in gay events. It doesn't mean they Haye them, they just believe it would violate their own personal beliefs.

As to your question about hate crimes, it's a valid concern. If congress codified gay marriage into law, with recent hate crime legislation, someone exercising their religious views could be accused of hate crimes, and sued for them.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No that is not what I am going to say. Business and churches are entirely different. Businees are places of public accodation and must abide by laws against discrimination. While churches are also places of public accomodation, they have a religious exemption and -unfortuatly-can discriminate.
> 
> You are right in saying that fr the most part they do not hate gays. They act out of fear,  ignorance and superstition. Hoever, the outcome is the same


I think a person, or a business has the right to their religious freedoms, and can't be forced to violate their own civil rights to honor PA laws.  That would be a conflict of constitutional rights and the law. I think the cotus should win here. 

I'm not going to deny some act out of fear, I just don't think it's as many as those on the left would think. I think the left inflates the issue I order to demonize Christians and Christianity. Ever notice that the left never goes after Muslims for their anti gay beliefs?  It's always an attack on the Christian faith.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What in the name of holy franken fuck does that mean!!???


It means exactly what you see going on right now. Roe was made into "law", and the left was happy, then that same body took roe away.  

The same can happen with gay marriage.  If the left uses a cotus interpretation to make gay marriage a law, another congress could use a different interpretation to repeal that law. 

At least leaving it in the hands of the 14th Amnd. take it out of the hands of politicians. The 14th is rock solid, can't change it, and that means gay marriage is protected by it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DudleySmith said:


> The term 'gay' isn't correct; the terms homosexual fetishists or faggots is the correct term. They wouldn't use euphemisms if they truly thought their sicko neurosis was a good thing.


You seem rather threatened by the existence of those who do not share your sexual orientation. Why do you suppose that is? Doubts about yourself perhaps?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I think a person, or a business has the right to their religious freedoms, and can't be forced to violate their own civil rights to honor PA laws. That would be a conflict of constitutional rights and the law. I think the cotus should win here.


For christ fucking sake... no one is violating their civil rights or their religous freedom. If you have a business that is open to the public, everyone who walks through the doors sholuld be treated the same. If you can't do yhat, find another line of work. No one has the right to discrimiante for any reason .Get fucking real!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I find it interesting how you segue from one  argument to the  next without bothering to address the points that I made or seeming to have learned anything. Previously you  were dwelling on the role of the courts and what settled law is and how it is different than legislation. You were struggling find fault with the Obergfell decision but dropped that argument after I schooled you the role of the court
> 
> Now suddenly you’ve moved on from that argument a discussion the erosion of religious freedom. You say with certainty that if  “gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night.  “ And go on to blather about how “gay liberals” would target businesses that don’t want to serve them. That is just plain stupid! First of all  religious freedom does not entitle anyone to discriminate . Somes states have laws against discrimination that include sexual orientation and they will be enforced. Second of all, you need to explain what codifying gay marriage has to do with this and how it would be any different from what we have now.





> I find it interesting how you segue from one  argument to the  next without bothering to address the points that I made or seeming to have learned anything.



I was giving you and example of what I feel would happen if gay marriage was codified into law. I'm not segue-ing anywhere. 



> You were struggling find fault with the Obergfell decision but dropped that argument after I schooled you the role of the court



I understand your argument about obergefell, and strictly on the basis of the 14th, I find no fault with it. I just get hesitant when courts make rulings like this, because the left will call it "law", as they did with roe, when it's not actually law, it's just an enforcement of civil rights. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, for some reason, in mind, there is a difference. 



> And go on to blather about how “gay liberals” would target businesses that don’t want to serve them. That is just plain stupid!



With the animosity the left has with Christians, combined with the constant push from the left that Christians hate gay people, you honestly don't think if gay marriage was law that you wouldn't have angry gay people trying to ruin businesses by dragging them through court?  I'm pretty sure this would happen. 



> First of all  religious freedom does not entitle anyone to discriminate .



No doubt, but religious freedom is protected by the constitution. Again, just because someone denies services to a gay couple because of sincere religious beliefs, then who is in the wrong?  The Christians for exercising their beliefs, or the gay people for trying to get that business to violate those beliefs?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm not going to deny some act out of fear, I just don't think it's as many as those on the left would think. I think the left inflates the issue I order to demonize Christians and Christianity. Ever notice that the left never goes after Muslims for their anti gay beliefs? It's always an attack on the Christian faith.


I am not aware of any cases where Muslim Americans have refused services to gays, or where they have activly worked to roll back gay rights as many Christians and Christian organizations are doing. Islam may condemn homosexualitybut Muslim Americans-unlike many Christians understand that this is a secular society and that religious  beliefs takes a back set to the rule of law. They appreciate the religious freedom that they have here, that doesn't exist in many of the places that they came from and respect the Constitution


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I was giving you and example of what I feel would happen if gay marriage was codified into law. I'm not segue-ing anywhere.


You are not making any sense! Why would that happen?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I understand your argument about obergefell, and strictly on the basis of the 14th, I find no fault with it. I just get hesitant when courts make rulings like this, because the left will call it "law", as they did with roe, when it's not actually law, it's just an enforcement of civil rights. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, for some reason, in mind, there is a difference.


I explained to you what "settled law" means as opposed to legislation. It is also referred to as case law. It is how things work. It is not just "the left calling it law"  The fact that you don't learn to well is not my problem.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> With the animosity the left has with Christians, combined with the constant push from the left that Christians hate gay people, you honestly don't think if gay marriage was law that you wouldn't have angry gay people trying to ruin businesses by dragging them through court? I'm pretty sure this would happen.


More inane equine excrement. Many of us on the left are Christias as are many gay people. The narative that Christians hate gays-and that gays hate christians is the crap emanating from you people who constantly work to divide people.

Gay marriage is law. Get fucking used to it. Where are you getting this bizarre idea that gay people would somehow behave differently if marriage equality were legislated? There is something seriously wrong with your thought process.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No doubt, but religious freedom is protected by the constitution. Again, just because someone denies services to a gay couple because of sincere religious beliefs, then who is in the wrong? The Christians for exercising their beliefs, or the gay people for trying to get that business to violate those beliefs?


I made clear who is in the wrong. It is the Christian who has bastarized , perverted and weaponized the concept of religious freedom.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> For christ fucking sake... no one is violating their civil rights or their religous freedom. If you have a business that is open to the public, everyone who walks through the doors sholuld be treated the same. If you can't do yhat, find another line of work. No one has the right to discrimiante for any reason .Get fucking real!


Actually, in the case of masterpiece bakery, they were treated the same, right up until the point where they asked the bakery to make a special cake for the wedding. The bakery said they would sell then any of their pre made cakes, but they felt like making a cake especially for the wedding would be akin to them participating, thats where the trouble started. 

Rather than the gay couple honoring the religious views of the baker, they decided to take them to court, which I believe the bakery won that lawsuit. 

The gay couple got upset, likely because they have been hearing for years, from leftist media, about how "Christians hate them" , instead of finding a bakery that could accommodate them, they took them to court to punish them for exercising their own rights. Again, who's in the wrong here?  As I stated before, if it were any other business refusing a service that violated their religious beliefs, nobody would bat an eye, and most people would shrug it off and move on, but because this involved gay people, now it's different. Why?  Because it's based on emotion? Just because it's a gay couple?  For me to agree that it was discrimination, you'd have to prove there was hate displayed from the business toward the gay couple. Simply saying "I'm sorry, but serving you in that way would violate my beliefs" doesn't convey hate.

You would have me to believe that all business would have to serve every customer, without exception, and that they would have to give up their religious rights, or not own a business?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More inane equine excrement. Many of us on the left are Christias as are many gay people. The narative that Christians hate gays-and that gays hate christians is the crap emanating from you people who constantly work to divide people.
> 
> Gay marriage is law. Get fucking used to it. Where are you getting this bizarre idea that gay people would somehow behave differently if marriage equality were legislated? There is something seriously wrong with your thought process.





> The narative that Christians hate gays-and that gays hate christians is the crap emanating from you people who constantly work to divide people.



You must not listen to progressive radio. I can assure you, that narrative is real, it's spewed on Sirius xm progress for over 6 hours a day from 2 extremely leftist hosts. It's also spoken a lot across these very forums. 


Post in thread 'How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law' How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law

Post in thread 'How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law' How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law

Post in thread 'Florida School Tells "others" to leave' Zone1 - Florida School Tells "others" to leave

Post in thread 'How should non-Jews fix antisemitism?' Zone1 - How should non-Jews fix antisemitism?

Post in thread 'I Adore This Meme. That's All.' Zone1 - I Adore This Meme. That's All.

Thread 'I'm Not Sure If I Asked This Before, but How Can You Claim To Be A Christian and Be A Homophobe At The Same Time?' Zone1 - I'm Not Sure If I Asked This Before, but How Can You Claim To Be A Christian and Be A Homophobe At The Same Time?

Post in thread 'I Adore This Meme. That's All.' Zone1 - I Adore This Meme. That's All.



> Gay marriage is law. Get fucking used to it. Where are you getting this bizarre idea that gay people would somehow behave differently if marriage equality were legislated



It's not Law.  Please point to where there is law on the books making it legal?

They wouldn't act any differently, nor should they. I don't think the courts should make laws, and I don't think the federal government should make marriage laws. 

So, if congress codified gay marriage into law, should they then also codify hetero marriage into law?  Where does the constitution say that marriage, of any kind, is a right?  Where are there laws on the books saying that the federal government has legalized hetero marriage?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am not aware of any cases where Muslim Americans have refused services to gays, or where they have activly worked to roll back gay rights as many Christians and Christian organizations are doing. Islam may condemn homosexualitybut Muslim Americans-unlike many Christians understand that this is a secular society and that religious  beliefs takes a back set to the rule of law. They appreciate the religious freedom that they have here, that doesn't exist in many of the places that they came from and respect the Constitution





> I am not aware of any cases where Muslim Americans have refused services to gays,











						Video puts Muslim bakeries, florists in gay-rights spotlight
					

Muslim bakers and florists have flown under the media radar during the recent uproar over Christian-owned businesses and gay rights, but a hidden-camera video may have changed that.




					m.washingtontimes.com
				




It does happen. The reason its not in the news is probably because you dont have a lot of gay people trying to go into muslim businesses asking them to participate in a gay wedding. But my comment on that was not specifically related to Muslim business, rather about the Lefts willingness to condemn Christianity for taking an anti gay stance, while completely ignoring other religions anti gay stance, as an example of how the left is just waging a war against Christianity.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More  stupidity. Once again, discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. Religious liberty mean being free to openly practice your religion without fear. It does not mean using it as an excuse to punish those who you disapprove of
> 
> And business that do not normally supply an product or a service  to anyone are not obligated to do so for anyone.


So if I do not normally supply wedding cakes with same-sex figures on the top to anyone, I am not obligated to do so for anyone?

Awesome!


----------



## Seymour Flops

ThisIsMe said:


> Video puts Muslim bakeries, florists in gay-rights spotlight
> 
> 
> Muslim bakers and florists have flown under the media radar during the recent uproar over Christian-owned businesses and gay rights, but a hidden-camera video may have changed that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m.washingtontimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does happen. The reason its not in the news is probably because you dont have a lot of gay people trying to go into muslim businesses asking them to participate in a gay wedding. But my comment on that was not specifically related to Muslim business, rather about the Lefts willingness to condemn Christianity for taking an anti gay stance, while completely ignoring other religions anti gay stance, as an example of how the left is just waging a war against Christianity.


The reason that you don't hear of Muslim businesses refusing serves to gays, is that the gay activists target businesses run by Christians, not businesses run by Muslims.

How else to make the bizarre claim of being unable to find a gay-friendly bakery?


----------



## ThisIsMe

Seymour Flops said:


> The reason that you don't hear of Muslim businesses refusing serves to gays, is that the gay activists target businesses run by Christians, not businesses run by Muslims.
> 
> How else to make the bizarre claim of being unable to find a gay-friendly bakery?


Right.


----------



## DudleySmith

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You seem rather threatened by the existence of those who do not share your sexual orientation. Why do you suppose that is? Doubts about yourself perhaps?



You seem rather stupid and still think that pop reverse psychobabble invented by mentally ill faggots is going make us all skeered n stuff. We know kiddie groomers when we see them, you aren't bright enough to fool anybody, except 6 year olds.


----------



## DudleySmith

ThisIsMe said:


> Actually, in the case of masterpiece bakery, they were treated the same, right up until the point where they asked the bakery to make a special cake for the wedding. The bakery said they would sell then any of their pre made cakes, but they felt like making a cake especially for the wedding would be akin to them participating, thats where the trouble started.
> 
> Rather than the gay couple honoring the religious views of the baker, they decided to take them to court, which I believe the bakery won that lawsuit.
> 
> The gay couple got upset, likely because they have been hearing for years, from leftist media, about how "Christians hate them" , instead of finding a bakery that could accommodate them, they took them to court to punish them for exercising their own rights. Again, who's in the wrong here?  As I stated before, if it were any other business refusing a service that violated their religious beliefs, nobody would bat an eye, and most people would shrug it off and move on, but because this involved gay people, now it's different. Why?  Because it's based on emotion? Just because it's a gay couple?  For me to agree that it was discrimination, you'd have to prove there was hate displayed from the business toward the gay couple. Simply saying "I'm sorry, but serving you in that way would violate my beliefs" doesn't convey hate.
> 
> You would have me to believe that all business would have to serve every customer, without exception, and that they would have to give up their religious rights, or not own a business?



This creep knows he's lying, no need to waste your breath schooling the mutant, we all know they're just harassing people. They politicized their perversions themselves, then run around claiming Christians have no rights to say anything about their sicko crap cuz 'religion n stuff'. They're morons, as are their enablers and fans who fall for the marketing gimmick that 'the educated n intelligent' support their idiotic claims; it makes the suckers feel all tolerant and enlightened. Faggot marriage was nothing but a way to swindle insurance companies into paying for their mindless self-inflicted AIDS epidemic. 'Libertoons' of course jumped on the bandwagon like lemmings, because of their own moronic mantras re 'gubmint is bad n stuff'.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DudleySmith said:


> You seem rather stupid and still think that pop reverse psychobabble invented by mentally ill faggots is going make us all skeered n stuff. We know kiddie groomers when we see them, you aren't bright enough to fool anybody, except 6 year olds.





ThisIsMe said:


> Correct, saying marriage is only between a man and a woman would exclude gay marriage and violate their civil rights.
> 
> Maybe I am a "wonk" as you put it. I just don't think the gov has any business defining marriage or making laws about it. Again, gay marriage is protected by the 14th, why does the gov have to go in and make a law that is outside of their designated authority?


Obergefell is not a law. It is a ruling. Yes it may be referred to as case law,or constitutional law  but  that is different than lrgislation. You keep insisting that you are ok with the 14th protecting gay marriage but you don't want it to be called law. Too bad. it is what it is


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It's not Law. Please point to where there is law on the books making it legal?


Obergefell is is case law. It is not legislation but it carries the force of law just the same. Just get over this crap about it not being law. It it were not law, there would be states that would refuse to let gays marry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, if congress codified gay marriage into law, should they then also codify hetero marriage into law?


The reason for codifying same sex marriage is to protect it from those who oppose it. No one is threatening opposite sex marriage


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Where does the constitution say that marriage, of any kind, is a right? Where are there laws on the books saying that the federal government has legalized hetero marriage?


There arent any and I think that even you are smart enough to know that. Each state has a law concerning marriage. A few have legislated gay marriage by including it in the law. Some state laws specify that marriage is a man and a woman, but that is not enforceable as long as Obergefell is in effect


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> As to your question about hate crimes, it's a valid concern. If congress codified gay marriage into law, with recent hate crime legislation, someone exercising their religious views could be accused of hate crimes, and sued for them.


Bullshit. You know not what you speak of. Hate crime laws provide enhanced penalties for crimes committed against a minority out of hate. It has nothing to do with excercising re;igious views


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> If you'd read the rest before posting, it would have cleared this up. I don't think religious freedom is discrimination, for reasons I listed below. Organizations of all types have requirements. Churches may not allow gay people to serve in leadership, businesses may have religious convictions about participating in gay events. It doesn't mean they Haye them, they just believe it would violate their own personal beliefs.


That clears up nothing. I explained to you that churches have religious exemptions.Ordinary businesses do not. It does not matter if thediscrimination is otivated by hate, fear, stupidity or anything else. It is still discrimination


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I was giving you and example of what I feel would happen if gay marriage was codified into law. I'm not segue-ing anywhere.


And what you think would happen is idiotic


----------



## bodecea

Seymour Flops said:


> The reason that you don't hear of Muslim businesses refusing serves to gays, is that the gay activists target businesses run by Christians, not businesses run by Muslims.
> 
> How else to make the bizarre claim of being unable to find a gay-friendly bakery?


Where is your evidence of that?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I understand your argument about obergefell, and strictly on the basis of the 14th, I find no fault with it. I just get hesitant when courts make rulings like this, because the left will call it "law", as they did with roe, when it's not actually law, it's just an enforcement of civil rights. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, for some reason, in mind, there is a difference.


We have been all through this How fucking obtuse cabn you be ? It carries the force of law.  It is case law. It is what it is. What would you want to be called? A "suggestion" ? Yes the court can suggest that states let gays marry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> With the animosity the left has with Christians, combined with the constant push from the left that Christians hate gay people, you honestly don't think if gay marriage was law that you wouldn't have angry gay people trying to ruin businesses by dragging them through court? I'm pretty sure this would happen.


Same stupid divisive lies all over again. You just can't seem to learn anything


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No doubt, but religious freedom is protected by the constitution. Again, just because someone denies services to a gay couple because of sincere religious beliefs, then who is in the wrong? The Christians for exercising their beliefs, or the gay people for trying to get that business to violate those beliefs?


DISCRIMINATION IS NOT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Actually, in the case of masterpiece bakery, they were treated the same, right up until the point where they asked the bakery to make a special cake for the wedding. The bakery said they would sell then any of their pre made cakes, but they felt like making a cake especially for the wedding would be akin to them participating, thats where the trouble started.


I don.t buy that crap. Did the Baker think that he would go to hell for baking a cake?


----------



## Seymour Flops

bodecea said:


> Where is your evidence of that?


You may not be aware of this, bodecea.  Muslims throw gays off of buildings, the idea that they will bake cakes for them is patently absurd, but I'd love for you to make that claim.

Gay activists don't go to court to force Muslims to bake cakes for them because  . . . Muslims throw gays off of buildings.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Actually, in the case of masterpiece bakery, they were treated the same, right up until the point where they asked the bakery to make a special cake for the wedding. The bakery said they would sell then any of their pre made cakes, but they felt like making a cake especially for the wedding would be akin to them participating, thats where the trouble started.
> 
> Rather than the gay couple honoring the religious views of the baker, they decided to take them to court, which I believe the bakery won that lawsuit.


How about this: Gay couple walking into a bakery that they chose because of it's reputation for producing fine cakes. They do not know that the owner is a bigot.When it comes up that they are gay, baker refuses service. They are demeaned, humiliated and inconvenced . Damned right they sued


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Actually, in the case of masterpiece bakery, they were treated the same, right up until the point where they asked the bakery to make a special cake for the wedding. The bakery said they would sell then any of their pre made cakes, but they felt like making a cake especially for the wedding would be akin to them participating, thats where the trouble started.
> 
> Rather than the gay couple honoring the religious views of the baker, they decided to take them to court, which I believe the bakery won that lawsuit.
> 
> The gay couple got upset, likely because they have been hearing for years, from leftist media, about how "Christians hate them" , instead of finding a bakery that could accommodate them, they took them to court to punish them for exercising their own rights. Again, who's in the wrong here?  As I stated before, if it were any other business refusing a service that violated their religious beliefs, nobody would bat an eye, and most people would shrug it off and move on, but because this involved gay people, now it's different. Why?  Because it's based on emotion? Just because it's a gay couple?  For me to agree that it was discrimination, you'd have to prove there was hate displayed from the business toward the gay couple. Simply saying "I'm sorry, but serving you in that way would violate my beliefs" doesn't convey hate.
> 
> You would have me to believe that all business would have to serve every customer, without exception, and that they would have to give up their religious rights, or not own a business?


Stop whining!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Seymour Flops said:


> So if I do not normally supply wedding cakes with same-sex figures on the top to anyone, I am not obligated to do so for anyone?
> 
> Awesome!


The issue was the cake. They bake cakes.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It means exactly what you see going on right now. Roe was made into "law", and the left was happy, then that same body took roe away.
> 
> The same can happen with gay marriage.  If the left uses a cotus interpretation to make gay marriage a law, another congress could use a different interpretation to repeal that law.
> 
> At least leaving it in the hands of the 14th Amnd. take it out of the hands of politicians. The 14th is rock solid, can't change it, and that means gay marriage is protected by it.


Are you fucking serious?! YOU who railed against "settled law" dare to insult our intellegince by claiming that Obergefell can't be overturned. Either you are just that stupid or you think that we are. Which would also make you stupid


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You must not listen to progressive radio. I can assure you, that narrative is real, it's spewed on Sirius xm progress for over 6 hours a day from 2 extremely leftist hosts. It's also spoken a lot across these very forums.
> 
> 
> Post in thread 'How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law' How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law
> 
> Post in thread 'How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law' How Religious Freedom Became A Rightwing Assault On The Rule Of Law
> 
> Post in thread 'Florida School Tells "others" to leave' Zone1 - Florida School Tells "others" to leave
> 
> Post in thread 'How should non-Jews fix antisemitism?' Zone1 - How should non-Jews fix antisemitism?
> 
> Post in thread 'I Adore This Meme. That's All.' Zone1 - I Adore This Meme. That's All.
> 
> Thread 'I'm Not Sure If I Asked This Before, but How Can You Claim To Be A Christian and Be A Homophobe At The Same Time?' Zone1 - I'm Not Sure If I Asked This Before, but How Can You Claim To Be A Christian and Be A Homophobe At The Same Time?
> 
> Post in thread 'I Adore This Meme. That's All.' Zone1 - I Adore This Meme. That's All.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not Law.  Please point to where there is law on the books making it legal?
> 
> They wouldn't act any differently, nor should they. I don't think the courts should make laws, and I don't think the federal government should make marriage laws.
> 
> So, if congress codified gay marriage into law, should they then also codify hetero marriage into law?  Where does the constitution say that marriage, of any kind, is a right?  Where are there laws on the books saying that the federal government has legalized hetero marriage?


I see that you worked hard on this. Too bad that you are too stupid to realized that it is all about Christian Conservatives and not about all or most Christians . You are also too stupid to understand that LGBT people are smart enough to know that. I have said before, many LGBT people are Christians and many Christian churches welcome them into their fold. Stop trying to pit gays against Christians. You do the same thing with Muslims and gays, when you are not busy pitting Muslims against Christians . You fucking people just love to sow discord and animosity when the real animosity is mostly  emanating from you .


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> They do not know that the owner is a bigot.



  You consider everyone who holds to any rational standards of decency, morality, or sanity, to be a _“bigot”_.  You lose the argument every time that you say anything based on that premise.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Video puts Muslim bakeries, florists in gay-rights spotlight
> 
> 
> Muslim bakers and florists have flown under the media radar during the recent uproar over Christian-owned businesses and gay rights, but a hidden-camera video may have changed that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m.washingtontimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does happen. The reason its not in the news is probably because you dont have a lot of gay people trying to go into muslim businesses asking them to participate in a gay wedding. But my comment on that was not specifically related to Muslim business, rather about the Lefts willingness to condemn Christianity for taking an anti gay stance, while completely ignoring other religions anti gay stance, as an example of how the left is just waging a war against Christianity.


Another attemp to divide by focusing on some anecdotal evidence and presenting it as reprentative of Muslim -Gay relationships in an attempt to sow discord . That really sucks









						Muslims and Queer Folk: A New Alliance
					






					www.huffpost.com
				












						American Muslims Are Now More Accepting Of Homosexuality Than White Evangelicals
					

Queer and Muslim Americans are both marginalized in America -- making it crucial to form alliances.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## DudleySmith

Just so assorted lurkers and PEanut Gallery onlookers know what 'Progressives' really promote, here is an article from their own media outlet gushing over Harry Hay, the sicko faggot who founded the faggot rights hoax and spent many years defending and promoting NAMBla as well, huge fan of kiddie raping as well as a card carrying commie piece of shit.









						Meet Pioneer of Gay Rights, Harry Hay
					

His should be a household name.




					progressive.org
				




And, like Pee Pee here in this thread, as well as all the other threads where PeePee posts his sophistic drivel defending kiddie groomers and assorted sicko deviants, these 'Progressives' always studiously avoid admitting they support kiddie rapers like NAMBLA but also love promoting sexual mutilations of children, so don't roped into his bullshit attempts at legalisms and inane psychobabble. He is a sicko freak of the worst kind. You can note they never mention his support of NAMBLA, even though it was his favorite issue re 'Pride' parades, including his 'famous' sign " NAMBLA Walks With Me'. 









						Harry Hay: Pride and Pedophillia
					

The Original Sin of the Gay Rights Movement




					antipolitics.substack.com
				








__





						Harry Hay - Founder of the Gay Movement in US & NAMBLA — Steemit
					

Harry Hay was the founder of the Gay movement in America also founded NAMBLA in the 1950's.  The Mattachine… by digitalhound




					steemit.com
				




So don't ever mistake these 'activists' pieces of shit for real humans. with any legitimate points, they're all fake and dishonest.


----------



## Seymour Flops

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How about this: Gay couple walking into a bakery that they chose because of it's reputation for producing fine cakes. They do not know that the owner is a bigot.When it comes up that they are gay, baker refuses service. They are demeaned, humiliated and inconvenced . Damned right they sued


This is the classic Democrat line:  I felt an emotion so you are responsible.


----------



## bodecea

Seymour Flops said:


> So if I do not normally supply wedding cakes with same-sex figures on the top to anyone, I am not obligated to do so for anyone?
> 
> Awesome!


They were not asked to put figures on top....just to bake a nice wedding cake.


----------



## themirrorthief

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


something tells me that no matter what the supreme court decides queers will continue to give each other aids


----------



## bodecea

DudleySmith said:


> Just so assorted lurkers and PEanut Gallery onlookers know what 'Progressives' really promote, here is an article from their own media outlet gushing over Harry Hay, the sicko faggot who founded the faggot rights hoax and spent many years defending and promoting NAMBla as well, huge fan of kiddie raping as well as a card carrying commie piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet Pioneer of Gay Rights, Harry Hay
> 
> 
> His should be a household name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, like Pee Pee here in this thread, as well as all the other threads where PeePee posts his sophistic drivel defending kiddie groomers and assorted sicko deviants, these 'Progressives' always studiously avoid admitting they support kiddie rapers like NAMBLA but also love promoting sexual mutilations of children, so don't roped into his bullshit attempts at legalisms and inane psychobabble. He is a sicko freak of the worst kind. You can note they never mention his support of NAMBLA, even though it was his favorite issue re 'Pride' parades, including his 'famous' sign " NAMBLA Walks With Me'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Hay: Pride and Pedophillia
> 
> 
> The Original Sin of the Gay Rights Movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antipolitics.substack.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Hay - Founder of the Gay Movement in US & NAMBLA — Steemit
> 
> 
> Harry Hay was the founder of the Gay movement in America also founded NAMBLA in the 1950's.  The Mattachine… by digitalhound
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steemit.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So don't ever mistake these 'activists' pieces of shit for real humans. with any legitimate points, they're all fake and dishonest.


And MAGAts voted twice for an avowed sexual assaulter.....and will probably vote for him again if he runs.


----------



## iceberg

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it all these right wingers are constantly thinking about gay sex? It's weird.
> 
> "all men are created equal".... it's right there in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> And they want to ignore such documents because.....


Cause the transgenders won't stop doing drag shows every fucking place we go. 

It's weird.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Obergefell is not a law. It is a ruling. Yes it may be referred to as case law,or constitutional law  but  that is different than lrgislation. You keep insisting that you are ok with the 14th protecting gay marriage but you don't want it to be called law. Too bad. it is what it is


It's a court decision, an accepted practice. The courts ruled that not allowing gay marriage is a violation of 14th ammendment rights, which I am fine with, but it is not law until congress passes it into law. Courts can not create law. The fact that you are here saying it is essentially law, because it's case law, is exactly why I'm opposed to it. We can't have the court making decisions, then people running around saying "it's the law!", or "it's a constitutional right", when neither of those things are true until either congress makes it a law, or the constitution is amended. Until either of those things happen, the situation is just a protection of the constitution.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The reason for codifying same sex marriage is to protect it from those who oppose it. No one is threatening opposite sex marriage


But are they not already protected by the constitution?  The 14th ammendment already says that gay marriage is protected, why do we need a law that says gay marriage is protected?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There arent any and I think that even you are smart enough to know that. Each state has a law concerning marriage. A few have legislated gay marriage by including it in the law. Some state laws specify that marriage is a man and a woman, but that is not enforceable as long as Obergefell is in effect


I am not aware of any state currently that has any bans on gay marriage. Do they exist?  If so, I'm certain the courts will, or already have struck those laws down.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit. You know not what you speak of. Hate crime laws provide enhanced penalties for crimes committed against a minority out of hate. It has nothing to do with excercising re;igious views





> Hate crime laws in the United States are state and federal laws intended to protect against hate crimes. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, *sexual orientation, and/or gender identity*. The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and campus police departments are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics.



It's from wiki, I'm not going to scour the actual hate crime bill.  You know it's there, I know it's there. 

Apparently you are not in tune with the progressive viewpoint, or their hatred of all things Christian and right wing. I listen to these people frequently, and how they talk every day about how all Christians, conservatives, and White people are racist, anti gay, mysoginists, that they are vile, despicable, hate filled people that want to destroy America, and democracy.  This is the message drilled into their listeners heads, for 6 hours a day, every single day. I assure you, if given the chance to attack Christians, they will not hesitate.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> DISCRIMINATION IS NOT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!


RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS NOT DISCRIMINATION!

seriously, you tell me that I haven't learned anything, but apparently you haven't learned anything.  For there to be discrimination, there has to be evidence of hate, or malice toward the person you disagree with. Not every Christian hates gay people, probably most do not. They don't agree with their lifestyle, and that is perfect within their right. Businesses are allowed to set their own guidelines as to how they conduct business. Most businesses have a "right to refuse service.." sign posted somewhere on their property. 

And again, most Christian business are not going to deny service to gay people anyway, unless they are asked to do something that violates their religious beliefs. 

You seem to think that because someone opens a business that they should be forced into participating in the desires of everyone that walks through their door.  That is not the case. The people that own those businesses have rights, just as the customers have the right to not use that business.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I don.t buy that crap. Did the Baker think that he would go to hell for baking a cake?


Only the baker knows. All we know is, he felt that lending his services specifically for a gay wedding would be the same as him being a part of that wedding.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How about this: Gay couple walking into a bakery that they chose because of it's reputation for producing fine cakes. They do not know that the owner is a bigot.When it comes up that they are gay, baker refuses service. They are demeaned, humiliated and inconvenced . Damned right they sued


The owner isn't a bigot. There is no evidence that the owner hates them because they are gay. Also, why would they be demeaned and humiliated?  Did the baker start making fun of them?  If he simply says "I'm sorry, but my religious views prevent me from having that level of involvement in your wedding, but, feel free to browse one of our pre made cakes", I see nothing demeaning about that. At that point, the couple has a choice. They can say "OK, thank you, we will find another bakery" or they can say "we disagree with your religious freedoms and will see you in court!"  

Besides, why would a gay couple even want to have someone who doesn't want to make their cake..make their cake?  What happens if the baker doesn't do such a good job on that particular cake and the cake falls in, or doesnt come out quite right, or something like that?  Now they get sued because the gay couple feels he intentionally did a poor job to intentionally ruin their big day.  What if the baker doesn't normally carry same sex cake toppers and decorations, as was previously mentioned? Does he now have to specially order things like that?

Inconvenience is not a factor as people are inconvenienced all the time for a myriad of reasons.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It's a court decision, an accepted practice. The courts ruled that not allowing gay marriage is a violation of 14th ammendment rights, which I am fine with, but it is not law until congress passes it into law. Courts can not create law. The fact that you are here saying it is essentially law, because it's case law, is exactly why I'm opposed to it. We can't have the court making decisions, then people running around saying "it's the law!", or "it's a constitutional right", when neither of those things are true until either congress makes it a law, or the constitution is amended. Until either of those things happen, the situation is just a protection of the constitution.


Give it a fucking rest, It is law and I explained why. It has the force of law. Therefore it is law. You seem to be struggling to walk a fine line between claiming to believe that the 14th supports the right to same sex marriage while, at the same time, trying to undermine it's ligitimacy and the significance  of Obrgefell. You have to decide what it is that you believe, be honest  and cut the inane bullshit.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Are you fucking serious?! YOU who railed against "settled law" dare to insult our intellegince by claiming that Obergefell can't be overturned. Either you are just that stupid or you think that we are. Which would also make you stupi





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I see that you worked hard on this. Too bad that you are too stupid to realized that it is all about Christian Conservatives and not about all or most Christians . You are also too stupid to understand that LGBT people are smart enough to know that. I have said before, many LGBT people are Christians and many Christian churches welcome them into their fold. Stop trying to pit gays against Christians. You do the same thing with Muslims and gays, when you are not busy pitting Muslims against Christians . You fucking people just love to sow discord and animosity when the real animosity is mostly  emanating from you .


You said that the Lefts claim that Christians hate gays was a myth, that it didn't exist. I just posted to prove that it is Indeed real. Leftys love to promote that Christians hate gays, there are radio programs that spew that line for hours and hours each day, and a plethora of posts here in usmb. 

Yes, any church will welcome gay people into their fold, that should tell people on the left that Christians don't hate gay people, they are welcoming of them, but, there are many churches who will stop short of letting them into leadership positions. 

I'm not pitting anyone against anyone, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in how they only seem to attack Christians for these things, but give others, such as Muslims, a pass.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The owner isn't a bigot. There is no evidence that the owner hates them because they are gay. Also, why would they be demeaned and humiliated? Did the baker start making fun of them? If he simply says "I'm sorry, but my religious views prevent me from having that level of involvement in your wedding, but, feel free to browse one of our pre made cakes", I see nothing demeaning about that. At that point, the couple has a choice. They can say "OK, thank you, we will find another bakery" or they can say "we disagree with your religious freedoms and will see you in court!"


As I have said, it dosent matter if he "hates them" The issue is theeffect of his behavior. And yes iyt was humiliating and demeaning . The fact that you do not see that does not speak well for your level of emotional intelligence or capacity for empathy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You said that the Lefts claim that Christians hate gays was a myth, that it didn't exist. I just posted to prove that it is Indeed real. Leftys love to promote that Christians hate gays, there are radio programs that spew that line for hours and hours each day, and a plethora of posts here in usmb.
> 
> Yes, any church will welcome gay people into their fold, that should tell people on the left that Christians don't hate gay people, they are welcoming of them, but, there are many churches who will stop short of letting them into leadership positions.
> 
> I'm not pitting anyone against anyone, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the left in how they only seem to attack Christians for these things, but give others, such as Muslims, a pass.


Just more bullshit!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You said that the Lefts claim that Christians hate gays was a myth, that it didn't exist.


No jackass I did not sat that . I said that some conservitive Christians reject gays and work to undermine gay rights. Is it possible that you are too dense to see the difference?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Another attemp to divide by focusing on some anecdotal evidence and presenting it as reprentative of Muslim -Gay relationships in an attempt to sow discord . That really sucks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims and Queer Folk: A New Alliance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Muslims Are Now More Accepting Of Homosexuality Than White Evangelicals
> 
> 
> Queer and Muslim Americans are both marginalized in America -- making it crucial to form alliances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


I'm not trying to sow discord lol. You said you were not aware of any Muslim businesses turning away gay people, I showed you a video of it.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give it a fucking rest, It is law and I explained why. It has the force of law. Therefore it is law. You seem to be struggling to walk a fine line between claiming to believe that the 14th supports the right to same sex marriage while, at the same time, trying to undermine it's ligitimacy and the significance  of Obrgefell. You have to decide what it is that you believe, be honest  and cut the inane bullshit.


Ok, the court overturned roe, so that means it is now law that abortion is a states rights issue?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> seriously, you tell me that I haven't learned anything, but apparently you haven't learned anything. For there to be discrimination, there has to be evidence of hate, or malice toward the person you disagree with. Not every Christian hates gay people, probably most do not. They don't agree with their lifestyle, and that is perfect within their right. Businesses are allowed to set their own guidelines as to how they conduct business. Most businesses have a "right to refuse service.." sign posted somewhere on their property.


Bullshit! The only evidence needed, when a law against discrimination is in effect, is that a person was treated differently from others because they are a minority. Stop trying so hard to convince me that you are stupid. I get it.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No jackass I did not sat that . I said that some conservitive Christians reject gays and work to undermine gay rights. Is it possible that you are too dense to see the difference?





> The narative that Christians hate gays-and that gays hate christians is the crap emanating from you people who constantly work to divide people



So, in your own words, the narrative of Christians hating gays is just "crap emanating..."  did I misunderstanding your meaning in that?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> As I have said, it dosent matter if he "hates them" The issue is theeffect of his behavior. And yes iyt was humiliating and demeaning . The fact that you do not see that does not speak well for your level of emotional intelligence or capacity for empathy


I have empathy, but when they decided to take this to court to sue the guy for simply exercising his own civil rights, I tend to not be so empathetic. 

You seem misunderstand me. I am not arguing against gay rights, I'm arguing FOR religious freedom. I'm sorry, I don't see it as discrimination. Unless that baker said something like "I don't serve your kind here, you disgust me and should be ashamed of yourselves", ya know, hate....malice. 

It's kinda like one of the right leaning radio hosts I listen to, has a phrase:  "your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you" - Andrew Wilkow


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, the court overturned roe, so that means it is now law that abortion is a states rights issue?


According to the SCOTUS, yes. So what exactlyu is your point?


ThisIsMe said:


> Only the baker knows. All we know is, he felt that lending his services specifically for a gay wedding would be the same as him being a part of that wedding.


Too fucking bad. Get another job where he does not have to serve the pubic or educate himeself on the real meaning of reigious liberty


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! The only evidence needed, when a law against discrimination is in effect, is that a person was treated differently from others because they are a minority. Stop trying so hard to convince me that you are stupid. I get it.


Ok.......so....if I understand you correctly, you are saying that, if a person is not willing to violate his own moral beliefs...if he is unwilling to provide all people access to his service based on PA laws, regardless of their own beliefs, rules of operation, or any of that, then he should not go into business?  Is that what I'm to understand, because you already kind of said that in another post. I just want to be clear that is your stance.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> According to the SCOTUS, yes. So what exactlyu is your point?
> 
> Too fucking bad. Get another job where he does not have to serve the pubic or educate himeself on the real meaning of reigious liberty





> According to the SCOTUS, yes. So what exactlyu is your point?



Well, at least you're consistent, I'll give you that. However, is disagree, it is NOT law. The whole point of scotus overturning roe was because they felt that the court didn't have the power to make that decision, or to make law, and therefore returned the decision back to the States, where it belongs.


----------



## DudleySmith

bodecea said:


> And MAGAts voted twice for an avowed sexual assaulter.....and will probably vote for him again if he runs.



You're a sicko loon. Now run along and snivel to the FBI, it's time for your daily reports and I'm sure they they can't wait to read your stupid ongoing screeds.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You seem misunderstand me. I am not arguing against gay rights, I'm arguing FOR religious freedom. I'm sorry, I don't see it as discrimination. Unless that baker said something like "I don't serve your kind here, you disgust me and should be ashamed of yourselves", ya know, hate....malice.


You claim to be in favor of gay rights while using a perverted interpretation of relious rights to excuse discrimination. In addition, you claim to believe that gay marriage is constitionally protectd but have a problem with laws that enforce those protections.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DudleySmith said:


> You're a sicko loon. Now run along and snivel to the FBI, it's time for your daily reports and I'm sure they they can't wait to read your stupid ongoing screeds.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You claim to be in favor of gay rights while using a perverted interpretation of relious rights to excuse discrimination. In addition, you claim to believe that gay marriage is constitionally protectd but have a problem with laws that enforce those protections.


Again, I don't think it fits the description of discrimination.  You seem to think that all exclusion, for any reason is discrimination. People are excluded from things all the time for various reasons. We don't start claiming discrimination unless it was for with hate and malice, for the explicit reason of just because they don't like the person, or their attributes.

I say gay marriage is already protected by the 14th A, and that I don't think the courts should be in the business of making laws.

Again, do you think all businesses should have to provide their service to everyone, regardless of their own beliefs and rules, and if they can't do that, then they shouldn't be in business?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Again, I don't think it fits the description of discrimination.  You seem to think that all exclusion, for any reason is discrimination. People are excluded from things all the time for various reasons. We don't start claiming discrimination unless it was for with hate and malice, for the explicit reason of just because they don't like the person, or their attributes.
> 
> I say gay marriage is already protected by the 14th A, and that I don't think the courts should be in the business of making laws.
> 
> Again, do you think all businesses should have to provide their service to everyone, regardless of their own beliefs and rules, and if they can't do that, then they shouldn't be in business?


Again, you are living in an alternative reality where you think that you can just keep making shit up and be believed. It doesn’t matter that you don’t think that it’s discrimination. State laws consider it discrimination when someone is refused service or otherwise excluded from a place of public accommodation based on gender, race, religion, national origin and in some  cases SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

And no, I did not say that being excluded for any reason is discrimination, and yes people are excluded for various reasons all the time . If I don’t hire someone to work on my house for whatever reason, that is not discrimination and if it is someone who is obviously a member of one of the aforementioned groups, they would have to show that it was because of that membership and not because their quote was too high. To compare excluding someone  for personal or business reasons to overtly doing so because of who or what a person is, is just plain stupid....and dishonest.

And your contention that it has to be based on “hate and malice” for it to be discrimination is just more of your made up bullshit. The only thing that matters is the ACT OF DISCRIMINATION and the only motive that must be proven  is that the discrimination took place because that victim is a member of a protected minority.

Now on marriage. You keep saying that gay marriage is protected by the 14th and it is but only because the Obergefell decision carries the FORCE OF LAW  as the result of CASE LAW. Yet you keep blathering about how the courts should not be “making law” while offering no explanation as to how, exactly same sex marriage is protected if the courts cannot “make law” in this manner. And you seem to be totally unable to grasp the difference between a situation where the courts make law by interpreting-or in the case of gay marriage-striking down a law, as opposed to legislation that actually creates a law, the latter of which you also oppose.

Getting back to discrimination you are consistently “all in” on  protected the made up rights of someone who wishes to exclude another because of their minority status, based on a warped and perverted understanding of religious freedom, while brushing off the real and tangible harm being  done to the victim of discrimination. This all adds up to overwhelming evidence that you are totally FULL OF SHIT when you claim to support gay rights and marriage equality. The only thing that I don’t know if your are so stupid that you do not realize how glaringly obvious you bullshit is, or, if you are just playing some sick game here, maybe thinking that those who read your crap are stupid  enough to believe it.

Now a question: Christians have historically used religious beliefs to justify racial segregation and even slavery. Some still hold those views but these days they mostly keep it to themselves, What would you say if a Christian restaurant owner established a separate section for black patrons, or excluded them all together? Would that be justifiable, or would it be illegal discrimination. I can’t wait for your answer.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Again, you are living in an alternative reality where you think that you can just keep making shit up and be believed. It doesn’t matter that you don’t think that it’s discrimination. State laws consider it discrimination when someone is refused service or otherwise excluded from a place of public accommodation based on gender, race, religion, national origin and in some  cases SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
> 
> And no, I did not say that being excluded for any reason is discrimination, and yes people are excluded for various reasons all the time . If I don’t hire someone to work on my house for whatever reason, that is not discrimination and if it is someone who is obviously a member of one of the aforementioned groups, they would have to show that it was because of that membership and not because their quote was too high. To compare excluding someone  for personal or business reasons to overtly doing so because of who or what a person is, is just plain stupid....and dishonest.
> 
> And your contention that it has to be based on “hate and malice” for it to be discrimination is just more of your made up bullshit. The only thing that matters is the ACT OF DISCRIMINATION and the only motive that must be proven  is that the discrimination took place because that victim is a member of a protected minority.
> 
> Now on marriage. You keep saying that gay marriage is protected by the 14th and it is but only because the Obergefell decision carries the FORCE OF LAW  as the result of CASE LAW. Yet you keep blathering about how the courts should not be “making law” while offering no explanation as to how, exactly same sex marriage is protected if the courts cannot “make law” in this manner. And you seem to be totally unable to grasp the difference between a situation where the courts make law by interpreting-or in the case of gay marriage-striking down a law, as opposed to legislation that actually creates a law, the latter of which you also oppose.
> 
> Getting back to discrimination you are consistently “all in” on  protected the made up rights of someone who wishes to exclude another because of their minority status, based on a warped and perverted understanding of religious freedom, while brushing off the real and tangible harm being  done to the victim of discrimination. This all adds up to overwhelming evidence that you are totally FULL OF SHIT when you claim to support gay rights and marriage equality. The only thing that I don’t know if your are so stupid that you do not realize how glaringly obvious you bullshit is, or, if you are just playing some sick game here, maybe thinking that those who read your crap are stupid  enough to believe it.
> 
> Now a question: Christians have historically used religious beliefs to justify racial segregation and even slavery. Some still hold those views but these days they mostly keep it to themselves, What would you say if a Christian restaurant owner established a separate section for black patrons, or excluded them all together? Would that be justifiable, or would it be illegal discrimination. I can’t wait for your answer.





> State laws consider it discrimination when someone is refused service or otherwise excluded from a place of public accommodation based on gender, race, religion, national origin and in some  cases SEXUAL ORIENTATION.



Ok, so you don't believe people have a right to exercise religious freedom in their business practices. Got it. In your opinion, someone can negate your civil rights and force their lifestyle on you.  In the case of the bakery, you feel that if someone asks you to participate in their gay wedding by demanding you bake a cake specifically for that event, you have zero recourse but to comply, compromise your own values in order to accommodate other, and on top of that, if you somehow mess up the cake, they can file a complaint against you because you "purposely made the cake bad because you didn't want to participate in the wedding".  I know you think it wouldn't happen, but make gay marriage law and you'll see the wolves come out for blood.



> If I don’t hire someone to work on my house for whatever reason, that is not discrimination and if it is someone who is obviously a member of one of the aforementioned groups, they would have to show that it was because of that membership and not because their quote was too high.



How convenient. So a business is considered discriminatory for exercising religious beliefs, but you could deny a that same person a contract to work on your house, and somehow, that's just not discrimination!



> while offering no explanation as to how, exactly same sex marriage is protected if the courts cannot “make law” in this manner.



Gay marriage is already protected by the 14th A......

Tell you what...where are the laws that state gun ownership is legal?  I see a lot of laws trying to put restrictions on guns, but I don't see any federal laws on the books that state it is legal to own a gun.  Why not?  Why are there no laws on the books that tell me it's legal for me to own a gun?



> What would you say if a Christian restaurant owner established a separate section for black patrons, or excluded them all together? Would that be justifiable, or would it be illegal discrimination.



So, what tennants of Christian faith state that one cannot be associated with black people, or serve black people?  I'm no Christian historian so I'll take your word for it on the aforementioned justifications. From my knowledge, there are no Christian laws or commandments to disassociate with anyone based on their skin color, race, or sexual orientation. So, if a Christian took any stance like the ones you mentioned and used their religion as a justification for it, then I'd say they are wrong, because Christianity, according to what I know of it, doesn't teach those things.

You're trying to use a non existent hypothetical to put me in a corner, but sorry, there are no Christian laws that state one has to refuse black people. There are biblical writings that do address homosexuality, and even then, it doesn't state that you have to refuse association with them, it just says not to do it. Some Christians believe that lending  their talents to a gay wedding would be akin to then participating and sanctioning the event.

As was the case with masterpiece, they offered to sell them a cake, just not bake one specifically for the wedding. They didn't ridicule them, or anything derogatory toward them.  They just said they couldn't comply because of their views, and again, if I recall correctly, the courts ended up agreeing with then.

Also, you do realize that there are organizations that have limited accessability,, or outright bans on white people, and none of you leftys are making waves about that. Again, it's just the white Christian conservative. That's your target...GET EM! be damned about the other discrimination going on....we just won't look at those....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, what tennants of Christian faith state that one cannot be associated with black people, or serve black people? I'm no Christian historian so I'll take your word for it on the aforementioned justifications. From my knowledge, there are no Christian laws or commandments to disassociate with anyone based on their skin color, race, or sexual orientation. So, if a Christian took any stance like the ones you mentioned and used their religion as a justification for it, then I'd say they are wrong, because Christianity, according to what I know of it, doesn't teach those things.











						Segregation Is Still Alive at These Christian Schools
					

Diversity is sorely lacking at many private Christian schools, some of which were originally founded to keep blacks out.



					www.thedailybeast.com
				




So why are they wrong, when, according to you, those who use Cristianity to justify discrimination against gays are right? You have some deep thinking to do, if you are able


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You're trying to use a non existent hypothetical to put me in a corner, but sorry, there are no Christian laws that state one has to refuse black people. There are biblical writings that do address homosexuality, and even then, it doesn't state that you have to refuse association with them, it just says not to do it. Some Christians believe that lending their talents to a gay wedding would be akin to then participating and sanctioning the event.











						How White Southern Christians Fought to Preserve Segregation
					

J. Russell Hawkins discusses his new book.




					religionandpolitics.org


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> As was the case with masterpiece, they offered to sell them a cake, just not bake one specifically for the wedding. They didn't ridicule them, or anything derogatory toward them. They just said they couldn't comply because of their views, and again, if I recall correctly, the courts ended up agreeing with then.


They discriminated! Get the fuck over it!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Also, you do realize that there are organizations that have limited accessability,, or outright bans on white people, and none of you leftys are making waves about that. Again, it's just the white Christian conservative. That's your target...GET EM! be damned about the other discrimination going on....we just won't look at those....


I have no fucking idea what you are talking about here but if that is the case then the same rules would apply as far as I am concerned. Most would agree


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, so you don't believe people have a right to exercise religious freedom in their business practices. Got it. In your opinion, someone can negate your civil rights and force their lifestyle on you. In the case of the bakery, you feel that if someone asks you to participate in their gay wedding by demanding you bake a cake specifically for that event, you have zero recourse but to comply, compromise your own values in order to accommodate other, and on top of that, if you somehow mess up the cake, they can file a complaint against you because you "purposely made the cake bad because you didn't want to participate in the wedding".


You might have heard that the definition of insanity to to keep doing that same thing over and over again and expecting a different out come. Here you are repeating the same thing over and over again expecting to me to buy into your bullshit after I destroyed you on that point. Your definition of discrimination does not matter. The law is what matters . Your made up, bastardized version of religious freedome crap does not trump the real harm inflicted by discrimination


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> How convenient. So a business is considered discriminatory for exercising religious beliefs, but you could deny a that same person a contract to work on your house, and somehow, that's just not discrimination!


What the fuck is so hard to understand about that? My choice of contractors is not based on that persons membership in a minority group or my religious beliefs. How stupid are you anyway?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Segregation Is Still Alive at These Christian Schools
> 
> 
> Diversity is sorely lacking at many private Christian schools, some of which were originally founded to keep blacks out.
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedailybeast.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why are they wrong, when, according to you, those who use Cristianity to justify discrimination against gays are right? You have some deep thinking to do, if you are able


Ok...daily beast first of all....

Beyond that, show me a school today that has its charter that says blacks cannot attend.  I'm pretty confident there are no schools with such charters. 

Beyond even that, that doesn't, in any way suggest that the Christian faith condones that kind of thought, and furthermore, there was nothing in that article, other than speculation, that stated those schools were segregated because of race, or that they used their faith to justify a segregated school.  

I'm not denying racism exists, I'm saying that the Christian faith, as far as I'm aware, doesn't teach it. Last I recall, the Bible says we are to love everyone, no qualifications in that statement at all.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Gay marriage is already protected by the 14th A......


We have been all through that . More exidence of insanity by repeating the same shit overe and over again. You still have not answered the question: If you do not reccognise the validity of  Law and Case  binding precidence -how the fuck is- in your mind- gay marriage protected?  And I will add that you remain opposed to legislation that would codify same sex marriage despite that fact that Obergefell could be overtutrned /. You are just so full of shit!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Tell you what...where are the laws that state gun ownership is legal? I see a lot of laws trying to put restrictions on guns, but I don't see any federal laws on the books that state it is legal to own a gun. Why not? Why are there no laws on the books that tell me it's legal for me to own a gun?


I am not getting into that shit, You ar tossiing out a red herring because you have lost on the marriage and discrimination agument and now you want to change the subjct


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You might have heard that the definition of insanity to to keep doing that same thing over and over again and expecting a different out come. Here you are repeating the same thing over and over again expecting to me to buy into your bullshit after I destroyed you on that point. Your definition of discrimination does not matter. The law is what matters . Your made up, bastardized version of religious freedome crap does not trump the real harm inflicted by discrimination


Again..we could go round and round about this. I think there is a difference, because of what I have stated.  You disagree, that's fine.  We're not going to get anywhere on this. I'll just leave it at this.  I agree that it's wrong to hate any group because of their attributes, no doubt, but I also believe you can't force anyone to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> For christ fucking sake... no one is violating their civil rights or their religous freedom. If you have a business that is open to the public, everyone who walks through the doors sholuld be treated the same. If you can't do yhat, find another line of work. No one has the right to discrimiante for any reason .Get fucking real!


Everyone has the right to discriminate for any reason.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the fuck is so hard to understand about that? My choice of contractors is not based on that persons membership in a minority group or my religious beliefs. How stupid are you anyway?


You just said that you could refuse to hire someone in the afore mentioned group, and they would have to PROVE is was because of their status. 

I mean, I really don't even understand the point of including that whole paragraph in your reply, except that you intended for it to be a point of contention.  It has almost no relevance to the topic at hand.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok...daily beast first of all....
> 
> Beyond that, show me a school today that has its charter that says blacks cannot attend.  I'm pretty confident there are no schools with such charters.
> 
> Beyond even that, that doesn't, in any way suggest that the Christian faith condones that kind of thought, and furthermore, there was nothing in that article, other than speculation, that stated those schools were segregated because of race, or that they used their faith to justify a segregated school.
> 
> I'm not denying racism exists, I'm saying that the Christian faith, as far as I'm aware, doesn't teach it. Last I recall, the Bible says we are to love everyone, no qualifications in that statement at all.





ThisIsMe said:


> Ok...daily beast first of all....
> 
> Beyond that, show me a school today that has its charter that says blacks cannot attend.  I'm pretty confident there are no schools with such charters.
> 
> Beyond even that, that doesn't, in any way suggest that the Christian faith condones that kind of thought, and furthermore, there was nothing in that article, other than speculation, that stated those schools were segregated because of race, or that they used their faith to justify a segregated school.
> 
> I'm not denying racism exists, I'm saying that the Christian faith, as far as I'm aware, doesn't teach it. Last I recall, the Bible says we are to love everyone, no qualifications in that statement at all.


You have your head way up your ass. As far as I'm aware, you are not aware of very much.  Stop trying to avoid the question. If a christian engaged in racical discrimination based on their Christin faith, would you support it in the same that you support discrimination against gays? Answer the question and stop being a fucking coward.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You just said that you could refuse to hire someone in the afore mentioned group, and they would have to PROVE is was because of their status.
> 
> I mean, I really don't even understand the point of including that whole paragraph in your reply, except that you intended for it to be a point of contention.  It has almost no relevance to the topic at hand.


The fact that you don't understand it is not my problem


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Everyone has the right to discriminate for any reason.


More brain dead bullshit


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> We have been all through that . More exidence of insanity by repeating the same shit overe and over again. You still have not answered the question: If you do not reccognise the validity of  Law and Case  binding precidence -how the fuck is- in your mind- gay marriage protected?  And I will add that you remain opposed to legislation that would codify same sex marriage despite that fact that Obergefell could be overtutrned /. You are just so full of shit!


Ok fine, I guess cotus already says you can't discriminate against gay marriage so we need to make a law that says you can't discriminate against gay marriage. BTW, in the dictionary, under redundant, it says "see reduntant"....


However, since you are so fond of our courts being able to make law, if this conservative scotus ever creates a law banning gay marriage (as those on the left fear they are trying to do), I'll be totally against it, but I expect you better not complain about it, because this is what you want.

Same if the court rules that gun owners should enjoy national reciprocity, and no state can deny someone the right to bear arms, across state lines, then just remember, this is the way you wanted it.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am not getting into that shit, You ar tossiing out a red herring because you have lost on the marriage and discrimination agument and now you want to change the subjct


I'm not changing the subject. I'm pointing out that there are no laws stating that it's legal to own a gun, because the cotus already makes that clear........


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How White Southern Christians Fought to Preserve Segregation
> 
> 
> J. Russell Hawkins discusses his new book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> religionandpolitics.org


This article doesn't prove anything...a guy wrote a book and gives his opinion, he talks about the pushback of crt, then he goes into the history of Methodists and sbc. Again, racism can be found in all kinds of placed, but the Bible does not teach racial segregation. I'm sure you can scour the internet and find all kinds of articles and opinion pieces of people talking about racism in Christian people, but none of them can point to the Bible and show where it teaches that you should treat people differently because of their skin. The Bible I've understood instructs us to love everyone, without qualification.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have no fucking idea what you are talking about here but if that is the case then the same rules would apply as far as I am concerned. Most would agree


Apparently not, because you know, ya don't see liberals talking about it...

Congressional black caucus, Whites need not apply. One white Democrat tried and was rejected, because he is white. And this is in our very congress. But it's OK, because ya know, let's not talk about it.

Naacp, which does, on occasion, represent white people, but it's a very slim chance, because most of their cases exclusively deal with racial discrimination,  and guess what, according to the left, white people can't be discriminated against....limited access.

Hbcu's. Again, while you can get in if you are white, it is a rarity, and in some cases, you are looked down on if you are white attending an hbcu. 









						Off-campus UC Berkeley student housing bans white people from common areas
					

“Many POC moved here to be able to avoid white violence and presence, so respect their decision of avoidance if you bring white guests,” the rules declare. “White guests are not allowed in common s…




					nypost.com
				




Off campus UC Berkeley bans white people from commo areas. .


Now, these are not businesses, I know, but it's an example of how there can be organizations that are either anti white, or place favor on other groups, and nobody on the left ever talks about it, but they most certainly make a huge deal out of it if a baker doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding.  

Also, if you replaced ANY of the above organizations with one's that were white only, there would be chaos rampant.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have your head way up your ass. As far as I'm aware, you are not aware of very much.  Stop trying to avoid the question. If a christian engaged in racical discrimination based on their Christin faith, would you support it in the same that you support discrimination against gays? Answer the question and stop being a fucking coward.


You are doing these what if questions,  and going into these hypothetical scenarios that don't exist, have no biblical basis, or any context as to what the Bible would say, or any reference as to why the bible would require seperation from black people, in an attempt to try to paint me as a racist.   Youre pulling the "no win" scenario, I see your game. 

The Bible does not teach you to hate gay people, or refrain from associating with them, it just says not to participate in homosexual activities, therefore it would stand to reason that the bible would never require you to disassociate yourself from a person because they were black. Now, if the person was black and were engaged in something the Bible considers to be a sin, then yes, you would not participate in that function, but not because they were black, but because they were engaged in a sin.

I'll tell you like this, I am against discrimination, completely, but I also support religious freedom completely.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More brain dead bullshit


No, just respect for property rights and disrespect for bullshit authoritarian laws that violate them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You just said that you could refuse to hire someone in the afore mentioned group, and they would have to PROVE is was because of their status.
> 
> I mean, I really don't even understand the point of including that whole paragraph in your reply, except that you intended for it to be a point of contention.  It has almost no relevance to the topic at hand.


Are you playing stupid?? You're saying that you are unable to differentiate between discrimination and legitimate choices as to who you do business with? Seriously


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok fine, I guess cotus already says you can't discriminate against gay marriage so we need to make a law that says you can't discriminate against gay marriage. BTW, in the dictionary, under redundant, it says "see reduntant"....


I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are still playing stupid.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> However, since you are so fond of our courts being able to make law, if this conservative scotus ever creates a law banning gay marriage (as those on the left fear they are trying to do), I'll be totally against it, but I expect you better not complain about it, because this is what you want.


STILL playing stupid! You really do not seem to understnd how things work. SCOTUS will not create a law to ban gay marriage. They will just step asside and allow the states to do the dirty work. I don't believe that I really had to explain that to you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> This article doesn't prove anything...a guy wrote a book and gives his opinion, he talks about the pushback of crt, then he goes into the history of Methodists and sbc. Again, racism can be found in all kinds of placed, but the Bible does not teach racial segregation. I'm sure you can scour the internet and find all kinds of articles and opinion pieces of people talking about racism in Christian people, but none of them can point to the Bible and show where it teaches that you should treat people differently because of their skin. The Bible I've understood instructs us to love everyone, without qualification.


WAIT! WHAT???? I do not know or care wht the bible teaches. I do know that historically, there have been those who justified their racism on Christian teachings, and that continues to the present day:









						What is the Christian Identity Movement? | GotQuestions.org
					

What is the Christian Identity Movement? Has the white race replaced ethnic Israel as the chosen people of God?



					www.gotquestions.org
				






> The Christian Identity Movement is a name that applies to a variety of different religious cults all identified by* racist, anti-Semitic principles.* These cults are typically found among radically anti-government, extremist, right-wing groups and “survival groups.” Christian Identity cults are connected by various unbiblical theological similarities, mostly centered on a* white supremacist mindset *that seeks to replace national Israel with British or American whites as the chosen people of God. This *racist theology *is followed by over 50,000 people in the United States. The largest Christian Identity Movement group is the infamous *Ku Klux Klan.*


So I will ask you again. I someone wishes to exclude black people from his bisiness because of religious bliefs , just like they have done to gays, should they be allowed to do so? Yes or no?  Don't be such a coward


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You are doing these what if questions, and going into these hypothetical scenarios that don't exist, have no biblical basis, or any context as to what the Bible would say, or any reference as to why the bible would require seperation from black people, in an attempt to try to paint me as a racist. Youre pulling the "no win" scenario, I see your game.


Not trying to paint you as a racist. I just want to see how hypocritical you actually are . Again, it matters little what your bible actually says. The fact is that people read into it what they want it to say to justify bigotry. They do it to gays and they do it to blacks


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Are you playing stupid?? You're saying that you are unable to differentiate between discrimination and legitimate choices as to who you do business with? Seriously


I am, apparently you are not


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are still playing stupid.


Is this not what you are asking for?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The Bible does not teach you to hate gay people, or refrain from associating with them, it just says not to participate in homosexual activities, therefore it would stand to reason that the bible would never require you to disassociate yourself from a person because they were black. Now, if the person was black and were engaged in something the Bible considers to be a sin, then yes, you would not participate in that function, but not because they were black, but because they were engaged in a sin.


Just as I suspected, you are a   hypocrite. You gleen what suits you from the bible. You can't easily get away with racism anymore but gays are still fair game so, according to you and others the bible requires you to discriminate against gays but not blacks! Fucking rediculous!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> STILL playing stupid! You really do not seem to understnd how things work. SCOTUS will not create a law to ban gay marriage. They will just step asside and allow the states to do the dirty work. I don't believe that I really had to explain that to you.


I know they won't, but that doesn't stop some of these progressive talk shows from spinning that lie. Even still, if the reverse obergefell and turn the decision to states rights, that will be "law" according to you, correct?  You will accept this?  You will accept that that is now the law?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Is this not what you are asking for?


Your are making a mockery of the need for legislation by saying that it's redundant while ignoring the political reality to makes Obergefee vulnerable


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> WAIT! WHAT???? I do not know or care wht the bible teaches. I do know that historically, there have been those who justified their racism on Christian teachings, and that continues to the present day:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the Christian Identity Movement? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What is the Christian Identity Movement? Has the white race replaced ethnic Israel as the chosen people of God?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will ask you again. I someone wishes to exclude black people from his bisiness because of religious bliefs , just like they have done to gays, should they be allowed to do so? Yes or no?  Don't be such a coward


Show me IN THE BIBLE where it advocates discrimination. I don't care what some people claim religion justifies them to do, they are wrong if they are advocating for discrimination because the Bible told them so. It doesn't teach that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I know they won't, but that doesn't stop some of these progressive talk shows from spinning that lie.


I have not heard anyone make that claim. Must be the voices in your head


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Show me IN THE BIBLE where it advocates discrimination. I don't care what some people claim religion justifies them to do, they are wrong if they are advocating for discrimination because the Bible told them so. It doesn't teach that.


I do not read the bible. I just know -and have documented-what some people believe it says.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Even still, if the reverse obergefell and turn the decision to states rights, that will be "law" according to you, correct? You will accept this? You will accept that that is now the law?


No I will not accept it and it will not be law. It will be SCOTUS abdication their responsabilty by reversing  case law (Obergefell) and allowing the states to again discriminate


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Not trying to paint you as a racist. I just want to see how hypocritical you actually are . Again, it matters little what your bible actually says. The fact is that people read into it what they want it to say to justify bigotry. They do it to gays and they do it to blacks


I don't care what your opinion of me is, there is nothing hypocritical about my statement. I've said before, people will say all kinds of things to justify their actions, when it comes to religion, what matters is what they religion actually teaches. 

Christianity does not teach hatred of anyone, but does teach not to partake in certain actions. 

It's the same concept of if someone is an alcoholic. You can dislike the fact that they drink too much without hating the person themselves. The only reason it's different in your head is because:

1) there are feelings involved. Emotions

2) it's a club in which you can beat your opponents over the head with. 

It's possible to dislike traits of a person or things they do, without hating the person themselves.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Just as I suspected, you are a   hypocrite. You gleen what suits you from the bible. You can't easily get away with racism anymore but gays are still fair game so, according to you and others the bible requires you to discriminate against gays but not blacks! Fucking rediculous!


I think you are just reading what you want into my posts. 

Im sorry you didnt get the "gotcha" answer you were looking for, but it was a bullshit question. I didn't glean what suits me from the bible, I merely stated what the bible actually says. You're asking a question based on something that isn't taught in the Bible. 

You seem not to be able to separate that the Bible simply doesn't want you to partake in certain things, but that in no way imparts hate. In your version of this, there is no room for error, that every interaction between a one group to another could be viewed as discrimination.  

In your version, every negative interaction between a black person and a white person could be viewed as discrimination. 

Prostitution is legal in Nevada, so, if a gay woman goes up to a straight woman for solicitation, and then straight woman says "no, sorry, I'm not gay, I only have sex with men", is she now discriminating?  Will be be sued in court because she didn't have gay sex?

Tell you what, since you like to ask these no win questions, I have one of my own:

If blacks discriminating against Whites was the only way to achieve racial equity, would you support it?

Don't be a coward!  Answer the question!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I do not read the bible. I just know -and have documented-what some people believe it says.


Ok, show me then what they claim the bible says about discrimination. Perhaps they have references to passages they believe covers the subject. I'd be interested in seeing where they are getting that,.incorrect, belief from.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No I will not accept it and it will not be law. It will be SCOTUS abdication their responsabilty by reversing  case law (Obergefell) and allowing the states to again discriminate


!!!! We just spent...3 days..and how many pages of you telling me that if the courts make a decision, that ITS LAW, or case law, or whatever, you said "it has the force of law, and therefore is law", I even recall you saying in one post something to thr effect if "its law, fucking get over it!", now it's "abdication"?  

You said if the courts say it, it's law, those are YOUR WORDS, don't back out on me now.


----------



## beautress

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


You think that's bad? The Bible says to stone men who lay with men to death. I didn't make the rules, madam, but I know what they are.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> !!!! We just spent...3 days..and how many pages of you telling me that if the courts make a decision, that ITS LAW, or case law, or whatever, you said "it has the force of law, and therefore is law", I even recall you saying in one post something to thr effect if "its law, fucking get over it!", now it's "abdication"?
> 
> You said if the courts say it, it's law, those are YOUR WORDS, don't back out on me now.


Kid, you really need to try to understand things better. The Obergefell decision  established a case law precident that carries the force of law. To overturn it would be the equivalent of  of repealing a law. You are either really dense or you're just playing a sick game where you think you can get over with word games


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, show me then what they claim the bible says about discrimination. Perhaps they have references to passages they believe covers the subject. I'd be interested in seeing where they are getting that,.incorrect, belief from.


Holy fucking shit! Now I don't think that you're playing stupid any more. I told you that I do not read the bible, I do not own a bible, I have no interest in discussing the bible. The point that I made, and documented was that there are peope who believe that the bible condones discrimination.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I think you are just reading what you want into my posts.
> 
> Im sorry you didnt get the "gotcha" answer you were looking for, but it was a bullshit question. I didn't glean what suits me from the bible, I merely stated what the bible actually says. You're asking a question based on something that isn't taught in the Bible.
> 
> You seem not to be able to separate that the Bible simply doesn't want you to partake in certain things, but that in no way imparts hate. In your version of this, there is no room for error, that every interaction between a one group to another could be viewed as discrimination.
> 
> In your version, every negative interaction between a black person and a white person could be viewed as discrimination.
> 
> Prostitution is legal in Nevada, so, if a gay woman goes up to a straight woman for solicitation, and then straight woman says "no, sorry, I'm not gay, I only have sex with men", is she now discriminating?  Will be be sued in court because she didn't have gay sex?
> 
> Tell you what, since you like to ask these no win questions, I have one of my own:
> 
> If blacks discriminating against Whites was the only way to achieve racial equity, would you support it?
> 
> Don't be a coward!  Answer the question!


Just more of your idiotic bullshit ending with a stupid question. How the fuck is any form of discrimination going to achieve equality?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Prostitution is legal in Nevada, so, if a gay woman goes up to a straight woman for solicitation, and then straight woman says "no, sorry, I'm not gay, I only have sex with men", is she now discriminating? Will be be sued in court because she didn't have gay sex?


Just more stupidity. No it is not discrimination. The straight woman is not rejecting the gay woman because she is gay. She is rejected the gay woman because she does not have sex with women. Plus a street corner is not a place of business that is expected to serve everyone. Personal choice. Cut the crap already


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There is no misunderstanding on our part." All that he said...." It is bullshit and hateful. Decided by voters? More bullshit! Voters do not get to decide a question of the rights of others. Read Anthony Kennedy's words
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 124 Words From Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion On Marriage To Remember Forever
> 
> 
> Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage case is excellent. The last paragraph is exquisite. Take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com


abortion and same sex marriage are NOT constitutionally protected rights, that is what you libs always miss.   If you think they are, then post the language from the constitution listing them as rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> abortion and same sex marriage are NOT constitutionally protected rights, that is what you libs always miss.   If you think they are, then post the language from the constitution listing them as rights.


The fact that they are not enumerated rights does not mean that they are not rights. Constitutional law has long recognised unenmerated rights that flow from the explicit rights

The bans on abortion were found to be inviolation the right to privacy which is implicit in liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the 14th amendment

Marriage equality is also derived from the due process claue as well as the requirement of equal protection under the law


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The fact that they are not enumerated rights does not mean that they are not rights. Constitutional law has long recognised unenmerated rights that flow from the explicit rights
> 
> The bans on abortion were found to be inviolation the right to privacy which is implicit in liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the 14th amendment
> 
> Marriage equality is also derived from the due process claue as well as the requirement of equal protection under the law


There is no “right to privacy.”  Lunacy.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Kid, you really need to try to understand things better. The Obergefell decision  established a case law precident that carries the force of law. To overturn it would be the equivalent of  of repealing a law. You are either really dense or you're just playing a sick game where you think you can get over with word games


No...you say when the scotus ruled on obergefell, that it was law, so if scotus overturns it, then, yes, it is a repeal, or possibly a replacement for the previous ruling, which would mean it's now the new law.

Either way, your words are that when the scotus makes a ruling, it has the force of law, and we need to just "get over it", but here you are, now, saying, that you wouldn't respect or acknowledge that their ruling would be law. So, whether scotus makes a rule or overturns a rule, it  has the same force of law.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! Now I don't think that you're playing stupid any more. I told you that I do not read the bible, I do not own a bible, I have no interest in discussing the bible. The point that I made, and documented was that there are peope who believe that the bible condones discrimination.


Ok, since you have documented it, please post those peoples quotes, I want to see what THEY say as their reasoning for discrimination is. I want to see where they use their religion as a way to discriminate against black people.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Just more of your idiotic bullshit ending with a stupid question. How the fuck is any form of discrimination going to achieve equality?


"OOOOOHHH...just as i thought...you're a hypocrite and don't want to answer the question!!"

The subject wasn't the issue, the fact that it's unanswerable is, which is the game you tried to play with me.

Tell you what, I'll give you a more concise answer to your question. The answer is, no, I wouldn't support them the same, because if someone tried to use religion to justify racial discrimination, when the bible doesn't teach that, then they would be wrong, just the same as the bible doesn't teach discrimination against gay people, it just says not to participate in their activities.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Just more stupidity. No it is not discrimination. The straight woman is not rejecting the gay woman because she is gay. She is rejected the gay woman because she does not have sex with women. Plus a street corner is not a place of business that is expected to serve everyone. Personal choice. Cut the crap already


So what you're saying is, the prostitute can choose not to participate in an activity with a gay person, and that's OK, but if a baker doesn't want to participate in an activity with a gay person, then that's a crime?

It doesn't matter if a street corner isnt "a place of business", the fact is, prostitution is legal in Nevada as a way to make money, i.e. commerce, and you're saying that the woman can have sex with anyone, but say no when it comes to gay people, and that is ok?  What would be the justification they would use for refusing sex with gay people?

Are you saying if it's not a place of business, then it's OK to refuse gay people?  So, what you're saying is, if I put up a folding table on a street corner to sell some used stuff out of my garage, and I denied every gay person that came along from purchasing my wares, then you would be OK with that?  That would be "personal choice", correct.



> The straight woman is not rejecting the gay woman because she is gay



The baker didn't "reject" the person because they were gay, in fact, they would do business with them by selling them any of the pre made cakes they wanted. They just said they wouldn't participate in the wedding by making a cake specifically for the wedding.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> There is no “right to privacy.”  Lunacy.


Really? None at all? Because you say so. 2 logical falacies in 6 words. 1. Appeal to ignorance 2. Appeal to authority


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No...you say when the scotus ruled on obergefell, that it was law, so if scotus overturns it, then, yes, it is a repeal, or possibly a replacement for the previous ruling, which would mean it's now the new law.
> 
> Either way, your words are that when the scotus makes a ruling, it has the force of law, and we need to just "get over it", but here you are, now, saying, that you wouldn't respect or acknowledge that their ruling would be law. So, whether scotus makes a rule or overturns a rule, it  has the same force of law.


Good fucking grief! Don't you ever get tire of blathering? It is all just words. It is what it is. I would  acknowledge that they REPEALED CASE LAW that was considered settle law. I would not RESPECT it or ACCEPT IT because they would have overturned a decision that was based on sound constitutional grounds and which will upend coutless lives just to satisfy their idological blood lust.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, since you have documented it, please post those peoples quotes, I want to see what THEY say as their reasoning for discrimination is. I want to see where they use their religion as a way to discriminate against black people.


Do you own damned homework! I did enough to make my case


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? None at all? Because you say so. 2 logical falacies in 6 words. 1. Appeal to ignorance 2. Appeal to authority


Because the United States Constitution contains no such text, and the 10th Amendment dictates what happens when the Constitution is silent on a topic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> Because the United States Constitution contains no such text, and the 10th Amendment dictates what happens when the Constitution is silent on a topic.


So you are a textualist. and in a in a small minority of constitutional wonks . The Tenth Amendment  amendment that reserves to the states is not absolute and does not allow for states to flaut either inumerated or implied rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So what you're saying is, the prostitute can choose not to participate in an activity with a gay person, and that's OK, but if a baker doesn't want to participate in an activity with a gay person, then that's a crime?


That is exactly what I am saying. I can't help it if your too stupid to understand the difference. The prostitute does not iengage in same sex relationships and that is her right, It is her body. The baker is not being asked to do any such thing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It doesn't matter if a street corner isnt "a place of business", the fact is, prostitution is legal in Nevada as a way to make money, i.e. commerce, and you're saying that the woman can have sex with anyone, but say no when it comes to gay people, and that is ok? What would be the justification they would use for refusing sex with gay people?


Idiot! She does not do gay sex! it is about her sexual orientation. She is not refusing the lesbian out of an imosity or dislike of here as a person. I still don't know if you are really that stupid , or just playing a sick game here .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The baker didn't "reject" the person because they were gay, in fact, they would do business with them by selling them any of the pre made cakes they wanted. They just said they wouldn't participate in the wedding by making a cake specifically for the wedding.


Baking a fucking cake is not participating in the wedding and he did infact reject them because they are gay


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> "OOOOOHHH...just as i thought...you're a hypocrite and don't want to answer the question!!"
> 
> The subject wasn't the issue, the fact that it's unanswerable is, which is the game you tried to play with me.
> 
> Tell you what, I'll give you a more concise answer to your question. The answer is, no, I wouldn't support them the same, because if someone tried to use religion to justify racial discrimination, when the bible doesn't teach that, then they would be wrong, just the same as the bible doesn't teach discrimination against gay people, it just says not to participate in their activities.


That "participation" vs discrimination is just pure an d utter bullshit. The baker engaged in discrimination. Period. YOU are the hypocrit and using word games to justify it. And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That "participation" vs discrimination is just pure an d utter bullshit. The baker engaged in discrimination. Period. YOU are the hypocrit and using word games to justify it. And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree.


Discrimination requires no justification.

You have no right to make someone make you a cake.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Good fucking grief! Don't you ever get tire of blathering? It is all just words. It is what it is. I would  acknowledge that they REPEALED CASE LAW that was considered settle law. I would not RESPECT it or ACCEPT IT because they would have overturned a decision that was based on sound constitutional grounds and which will upend coutless lives just to satisfy their idological blood lust.


What blood lust...geez, the courts are not supposed to make law.  However, because we could go around and round about this forever and never get anywhere, I just hope that repubs win congress and the presidency , and I hope the supreme court has the guts to make all kinds of "laws" that you are sure to love. Then I'll come back here and read you talk about how they were wrong to do it.....


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you own damned homework! I did enough to make my case


You do the homework lol. You're the one who says it's documented that they said these things. I'm not going to spend my time trying to verify an allegation you made. You post the proof....


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So you are a textualist. and in a in a small minority of constitutional wonks . The Tenth Amendment  amendment that reserves to the states is not absolute and does not allow for states to flaut either inumerated or implied rights.


It is absolute, if it weren't, then why would the Framers bothered to explain the enumerated powers, and state that everything beyond that is reserved to the states and the people?

"Implied rights"....ahh there it is, the small two word phrase that can used to make the constitution mean...whatever they want. For a group that is so against authoritarian rule and dictatorships, you sure work very hard to let government fill that role...


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is exactly what I am saying. I can't help it if your too stupid to understand the difference. The prostitute does not iengage in same sex relationships and that is her right, It is her body. The baker is not being asked to do any such thing.


The prostitute is refusing to join gay activities, the baker is also refusing to participate in a gay ceremony.  You'll excuse one but not the other. You're right, I don't understand, because that would be a double standard...


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Baking a fucking cake is not participating in the wedding and he did infact reject them because they are gay


No, he didn't. He said he would sell an already baked cake = he did not reject  them. He told them he could not use his labor and skillset to make a cake specifically for a gay wedding = exercising his religious right.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Baking a fucking cake is not participating in the wedding and he did infact reject them because they are gay


Also, if you have a skill set and you use that skill set in service to an event, then it would be considered as participation, or, if you will, using your talents to help someone do something that your religion considers to be a sin.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Idiot! She does not do gay sex! it is about her sexual orientation. She is not refusing the lesbian out of an imosity or dislike of here as a person. I still don't know if you are really that stupid , or just playing a sick game here .





> She is not refusing the lesbian out of an imosity or dislike of here as a person.



FINALLY...we are getting somewhere!!!!  I'm so glad you said that, because it is what I have been saying ALL ALONG!!  The baker didn't refuse the gay couple out of hate or animosity, or dislike of them as people, he just couldn't help them advance their wedding ceremony due to religious conflicts. 

I think you are stuck on the idea that anything done that is anti gay has some sort of hate attached to it, and therefore is discriminatory. That's not the case in a lot of the cases. 



> She does not do gay sex! it is about her sexual orientation



He does not do gay weddings, it is about his religion.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That "participation" vs discrimination is just pure an d utter bullshit. The baker engaged in discrimination. Period. YOU are the hypocrit and using word games to justify it. And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree.





> The baker engaged in discrimination. Period



No, he didn't, because, as you said about the lesbian sex worker, there was no hate or animosity. He didn't refuse to sell them a cake, he just refused to make them a specialty cake. 



> And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree.



Oh my gosh....once again, please post these peoples comments or links to thenm so I can see where they are getting their justification, it doesn't come from the bible, or it's teachings..


----------



## AsherN

ThisIsMe said:


> No, he didn't. He said he would sell an already baked cake = he did not reject  them. He told them he could not use his labor and skillset to make a cake specifically for a gay wedding = exercising his religious right.


They take orders to bake special cakes. The couple picked something right of of their catalog. NOBODY comes in to a bakery the day of their wedding to buy a cake.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The fact that they are not enumerated rights does not mean that they are not rights. Constitutional law has long recognised unenmerated rights that flow from the explicit rights
> 
> The bans on abortion were found to be inviolation the right to privacy which is implicit in liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the 14th amendment
> 
> Marriage equality is also derived from the due process claue as well as the requirement of equal protection under the law


that is the lib mantra on it.   but if you are so sure of yourself, why not put it to a vote of the citizens and let the majority view prevail?   I think its called democracy.


----------



## Redfish

ThisIsMe said:


> What blood lust...geez, the courts are not supposed to make law.  However, because we could go around and round about this forever and never get anywhere, I just hope that repubs win congress and the presidency , and I hope the supreme court has the guts to make all kinds of "laws" that you are sure to love. Then I'll come back here and read you talk about how they were wrong to do it.....


The SC ruling did not repeal anything.  all it said is the abortion is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be settled by the individual states by vote of their citizens or legislatures.


----------



## ThisIsMe

AsherN said:


> They take orders to bake special cakes. The couple picked something right of of their catalog. NOBODY comes in to a bakery the day of their wedding to buy a cake.


Didn't say anyone would.  They didn't refuses to sell them a cake, they just refused to bake one specifically for a gay wedding.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Redfish said:


> The SC ruling did not repeal anything.  all it said is the abortion is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be settled by the individual states by vote of their citizens or legislatures.


Correct.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Ok, let's go at it like this. Let's say it wasn't a gay couple. Let's say someone walks into the bakery and says they need them to make a cake for an event honoring Satan. They want satanic symbols and stuff on the cake. Do you think the baker is obligated to make that cake?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The prostitute is refusing to join gay activities, the baker is also refusing to participate in a gay ceremony.  You'll excuse one but not the other. You're right, I don't understand, because that would be a double standard...


Another false equivalency  logical fallacy as well as a non sequitur fallacy. You know, I sort of enjoy fucking with your head as I watch with glee as your posts become more and more absurd. 
On the other hand is I beginning to tire of your stupidity and nonsensical responses. This case where you try to compare the lesbian sex worker who you in vented to the  baker is a good example 

Refusing sex- the most intimate and personal act that a person can engage in- because you just don’t do the kind of sex that they want is a reasonable decision 

Refusing a service to someone –a service that off to others without question-because you disapprove of what they do sexually with others, is not reasonable at all


----------



## Blues Man

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, let's go at it like this. Let's say it wasn't a gay couple. Let's say someone walks into the bakery and says they need them to make a cake for an event honoring Satan. They want satanic symbols and stuff on the cake. Do you think the baker is obligated to make that cake?


Why not?

Public accommodation laws clearly state that there shall be no discrimination in admission or treatment of anyone based on race, sex, sexual orientation etc


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, let's go at it like this. Let's say it wasn't a gay couple. Let's say someone walks into the bakery and says they need them to make a cake for an event honoring Satan. They want satanic symbols and stuff on the cake. Do you think the baker is obligated to make that cake


Well most if not all states have laws against discrimination and all of those laws include a ban on discrimination based on religion. Satan worship is arguably a religion. So there is your answer. Next stupid question . I amd loving this! You are not nearly as smart as you  think that you are. This underscores your pathetic inability to think critically. You expected a gut-knee jerk answere of "oh no-not Satan" because YOU DON'T THINK WELL


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> that is the lib mantra on it.   but if you are so sure of yourself, why not put it to a vote of the citizens and let the majority view prevail?   I think its called democracy.


No it is not democractic. It would be the tyranny  or a majority. You do not get to vote on the rights of others.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, he didn't, because, as you said about the lesbian sex worker, there was no hate or animosity. He didn't refuse to sell them a cake, he just refused to make them a specialty cake.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my gosh....once again, please post these peoples comments or links to thenm so I can see where they are getting their justification, it doesn't come from the bible, or it's teachings..


Look kid. Not happening. What these people believe and stand for has been well documented. Deal with it!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> FINALLY...we are getting somewhere!!!!  I'm so glad you said that, because it is what I have been saying ALL ALONG!!  The baker didn't refuse the gay couple out of hate or animosity, or dislike of them as people, he just couldn't help them advance their wedding ceremony due to religious conflicts.
> 
> I think you are stuck on the idea that anything done that is anti gay has some sort of hate attached to it, and therefore is discriminatory. That's not the case in a lot of the cases.
> 
> 
> 
> He does not do gay weddings, it is about his religion.


Its about his bastardized and perverted interpretation of religious freedom. It is about Weaponized religion


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Also, if you have a skill set and you use that skill set in service to an event, then it would be considered as participation, or, if you will, using your talents to help someone do something that your religion considers to be a sin.


Still stuggling with this I see. The baker was just being asked to do his fucking job!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, he didn't. He said he would sell an already baked cake = he did not reject  them. He told them he could not use his labor and skillset to make a cake specifically for a gay wedding = exercising his religious right.


Same bullshit different post


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It is absolute, if it weren't, then why would the Framers bothered to explain the enumerated powers, and state that everything beyond that is reserved to the states and the people?
> 
> "Implied rights"....ahh there it is, the small two word phrase that can used to make the constitution mean...whatever they want. For a group that is so against authoritarian rule and dictatorships, you sure work very hard to let government fill that role...


Constitutional law has evlolved over time. While the language of the original articles can be both ridgid and, coversly vague, the framers were wise enough to know that for the Constituion to endure, it would have to evolve. They know that times would change and that issues would arise that they could not possibly dream of. That is why they provided for amendments, and for a judiciary that would interpret the constitution in relation to new laws and new societal developments.  There is nothing authoritarian about that, unless you wind up with a court that is made up of theocrats and idiologues who are willing to advance an adgenda that flys in the face of freedom and become the moral police.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> What blood lust...geez, the courts are not supposed to make law.  However, because we could go around and round about this forever and never get anywhere, I just hope that repubs win congress and the presidency , and I hope the supreme court has the guts to make all kinds of "laws" that you are sure to love. Then I'll come back here and read you talk about how they were wrong to do it.....


Blather on kid. Sound like your circling the drain. Get a grip!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> "Implied rights"....ahh there it is, the small two word phrase that can used to make the constitution mean...whatever they want. For a group that is so against authoritarian rule and dictatorships, you sure work very hard to let government fill that role...


You riddiclue implied rights but here are a couple of  implied rights that I don't think that you would want to give up. You have the righy to live anywhere, and to tavel anywhere that you wish. I have the right to work anywhere that you can get hird, or to form your own business. Where does it say that in the constitution. ? It does not! "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Maybe maybe not. that But is the same basis for the implied right to privacy. Think about that. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## beautress

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Ted Cruz was right.
Edit: but nobody stopped the omerta creeps who gave their addresses out so evil people could threaten to harm their families if they didn't obey the Feminazis.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Another false equivalency  logical fallacy as well as a non sequitur fallacy. You know, I sort of enjoy fucking with your head as I watch with glee as your posts become more and more absurd.
> On the other hand is I beginning to tire of your stupidity and nonsensical responses. This case where you try to compare the lesbian sex worker who you in vented to the  baker is a good example
> 
> Refusing sex- the most intimate and personal act that a person can engage in- because you just don’t do the kind of sex that they want is a reasonable decision
> 
> Refusing a service to someone –a service that off to others without question-because you disapprove of what they do sexually with others, is not reasonable at all





> the most intimate and personal act that a person can engage in- because you just don’t do the kind of sex that they want is a reasonable decision



They're prostitutes...there's nothing intimate about it. They sell sex for money.  Its their business. But it's OK for them to refuse sex with a gay customer, because "they don't do that kind of sex", but any other business has to be forced into helping with a gay wedding or event, because.....I don't know.   If not about gay sex, it's about three double standard. No, I don't expect the sex worker to have sex with someone else gay, just as I don't expect a baker to participate in an event that goes against his personal religious beliefs. 



> You know, I sort of enjoy fucking with your head as I watch with glee as your posts become more and more absurd.



Lol, you're entitled to your own opinion. I'm just bringing up scenarios that show how you are opposed to religious freedom and allow people to force their lifestyle onto them. 

Believe what you wish.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Blues Man said:


> Why not?
> 
> Public accommodation laws clearly state that there shall be no discrimination in admission or treatment of anyone based on race, sex, sexual orientation etc


Ok, so they didn't refuse service, they said they would sell them anything already made, they refused their labor to specifically make a product.  You are not entitled to violate someone's constitutionally protected freedom of religion. 

From Colorado PA laws, it goes into a whole list of things that are considered discriminatory, and yes, sexual orientation is one of them, but, at the bottom, it says this:



> Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if *such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.[_b]*


*

That, to me, sounds like if the request violates the privileges of the business (constitutionally protected rights), then it gives them an exemption.









						2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places 
					






					law.justia.com
				



*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> From Colorado PA laws, it goes into a whole list of things that are considered discriminatory, and yes, sexual orientation is one of them, but, at the bottom, it says this:


Hurp-Derp !  It says people one one *sex, as in gender. *A buisness may, for instance restrict a gym class to women only . It says notiong about discriminating on the basis of saxual orientation. Get real


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well most if not all states have laws against discrimination and all of those laws include a ban on discrimination based on religion. Satan worship is arguably a religion. So there is your answer. Next stupid question . I amd loving this! You are not nearly as smart as you  think that you are. This underscores your pathetic inability to think critically. You expected a gut-knee jerk answere of "oh no-not Satan" because YOU DON'T THINK WELL


And you'd be wrong. Because you can't ask someone to do something that violates their own constitutionally protected rights.   PA laws don't overrule constitutional protections.  

It is clear, however, your position.  You have admitted you don't believe in God, you don't own, nor read the Bible, so, in your view, they shouldn't be afforded their rights, or their own due process. You believe that anyone with a religious beliefs should be made to compromise their values, because you simply don't believe in that stuff.

Am I close on that?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Look kid. Not happening. What these people believe and stand for has been well documented. Deal with it!


But you can't cite their quotes.  I'm not disagreeing that there are people out there that use religion to justify all sorts of things, what I'm saying is that their views are not based in Biblical teachings, which is why I want you to post this documented evidence so I can see if they actually cite the Bible, or where they come up with these ideas.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They're prostitutes...there's nothing intimate about it. They sell sex for money. Its their business. But it's OK for them to refuse sex with a gay customer, because "they don't do that kind of sex", but any other business has to be forced into helping with a gay wedding or event, because.....I don't know. If not about gay sex, it's about three double standard. No, I don't expect the sex worker to have sex with someone else gay, just as I don't expect a baker to participate in an event that goes against his personal religious beliefs.


Holy shit! You're like a wack -a-mole. You keep popping up only to get smacked down. You must like it. The difference is that your prostitute  is being asked to use her own body in a way that she may find revolting and may not even be able to do it. That does not compare to asking someone to bake a cake. You should quit while your behind


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Its about his bastardized and perverted interpretation of religious freedom. It is about Weaponized religion


No its not. Lol. You just said the important part, that I think you are hung up on. It's not about hate or animosity, it's about providing a service that conflicts with his own rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> And you'd be wrong. Because you can't ask someone to do something that violates their own constitutionally protected rights. PA laws don't overrule constitutional protections.


At least you're consistent in your twisted ideas of what is constitutionally protected


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You riddiclue implied rights but here are a couple of  implied rights that I don't think that you would want to give up. You have the righy to live anywhere, and to tavel anywhere that you wish. I have the right to work anywhere that you can get hird, or to form your own business. Where does it say that in the constitution. ? It does not! "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Maybe maybe not. that But is the same basis for the implied right to privacy. Think about that. You can't have it both ways.


You're right, it doesn't say that in the Constitution, because getting a job, or traveling is not a constitutionally protected right. Actually, I think the right to travel is on the cotus, I'm not sure. 

Anyway, this thing about, if it's not in the cotus, then it goes to the states and then to the people. 

You can't have implied rights in the cotus because people will say it means all sorts of things. You forget, the cotus was designed to only regulate certain things, most it is a protection of the people by placing limits on government.

The cotus gives us certain rights, limits the government, and gives everything else to the states and the people.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It is clear, however, your position. You have admitted you don't believe in God, you don't own, nor read the Bible, so, in your view, they shouldn't be afforded their rights, or their own due process. You believe that anyone with a religious beliefs should be made to compromise their values, because you simply don't believe in that stuff.


It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack of same. It has to do with our divergent beliefs about what religious freedom is and is not,, and its apparent that that will never be resolved


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hurp-Derp !  It says people one one *sex, as in gender. *A buisness may, for instance restrict a gym class to women only . It says notiong about discriminating on the basis of saxual orientation. Get real


True, but then now that doesn't even apply, because you can identify as whatever gender you want.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hurp-Derp !  It says people one one *sex, as in gender. *A buisness may, for instance restrict a gym class to women only . It says notiong about discriminating on the basis of saxual orientation. Get real


Also, why would they be allowed to restrict a gym class to women only?  As long as they have separate locker room, shouldn't men be able to participate in the same activities?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! You're like a wack -a-mole. You keep popping up only to get smacked down. You must like it. The difference is that your prostitute  is being asked to use her own body in a way that she may find revolting and may not even be able to do it. That does not compare to asking someone to bake a cake. You should quit while your behind


I'm not getting smacked down in anything. We just have a disagreement on things.  You are showing a double standard here. If she advertised sex for sale, but says no to gay people, because she may find it revolting, but a baker has no right to simply exercise his rights. You would say she is not discriminating because she doesn't have to use her "skills" if she finds gay sex to be revolting, but the baker IS discriminating if he refuses to use HIS skills to do what he feels is participating in a gay ceremony. 

By the way, I marvel at your choice of words there.  If she finds it "revolting", and you use that in describing rejection of a gay person as if that's somehow ok.  Perhaps if she can't accommodate everyone equally, she should find another line of work?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> At least you're consistent in your twisted ideas of what is constitutionally protected


Not twisted. I mean, if we were to go with your version of this, we might as well just do away with the freedom to exercise ones religion to a business owner, because anyone could come in and demand they compromise their values, because, you would say a states PA laws could overrule the constitution. 

Again, cotus says you have the right to free exercise of religion, everything else goes to the states and the people. That does not mean a state can come along and make a law forcing someone to violate their constitutionally protected rights. I mean, isn't that why scotus overturned the commissions decision of masterpiece bakery?  Because their decision showed hostility toward the owners religious rights?  Something like that?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack of same. It has to do with our divergent beliefs about what religious freedom is and is not,, and its apparent that that will never be resolved


I agree. We are free to practice our religion according to cotus. Practice meaning our observations and adherence to beliefs, in this case, the belief that if one uses their talents in the service, specifically, of a gay wedding, that would be a conflict of their adherence to their beliefs. 

Had they said "sorry, we refuse to do business with gay people, period", then I'd agree with you, they would have violates PA laws, because, because, that would be discrimination.  Kind of like if a wedding planner were asked to work for the preparation of a gay wedding, and they conflicted with their religious beliefs, I don't think they should be required to perform that service because it conflicts with their beliefs.  To me, it's not about hate, it's about being forced into something that conflicts with their own religious beliefs.

But, maybe you're right about one thing, maybe you shouldn't go into business of you are a Christian and said business could conflict with your values, because one day, someone may come along and force you to compromise those values. Maybe that is the answer to all of this.  If you have religious convictions, just don't open a business, because your own rights are subject to the desires of everyone else.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Constitutional law has evlolved over time. While the language of the original articles can be both ridgid and, coversly vague, the framers were wise enough to know that for the Constituion to endure, it would have to evolve. They know that times would change and that issues would arise that they could not possibly dream of. That is why they provided for amendments, and for a judiciary that would interpret the constitution in relation to new laws and new societal developments.  There is nothing authoritarian about that, unless you wind up with a court that is made up of theocrats and idiologues who are willing to advance an adgenda that flys in the face of freedom and become the moral police.


I don't believe the cotus is fluid like you do. Having that be the case means it really has no force because the meanings could change depending on the political leanings of the people in power. It's one of the reasons we are having this discussion, even now, and why I think the whole scotus is bullshit. We fight over positions on scotus because we want people of our own ideology to interpret the constitution to mean what our party wants, when they should be sticking strictly to the words, and the founders intent, and leave everything else to the states. It's simpler that way. Go with the original meaning, that way there is no argument, no ambiguity.  If we want to change it, then we have a convention of states called to make amendments. Allowing it to be fluid takes us further and further away from the original idea of the document, and limited government, and actually takes power away from the people, and puts it in the hands of centralized government, which has no possible way to do things that will be in the benefit of everyone. This is why states rights are so important. Local government is where the real power should be, not with a federal gov.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No it is not democractic. It would be the tyranny  or a majority. You do not get to vote on the rights of others.


but you think that you do,  hypocrisy is your middle name.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You're right, it doesn't say that in the Constitution, because getting a job, or traveling is not a constitutionally protected right. Actually, I think the right to travel is on the cotus, I'm not sure.


Really? Not constitutionally protected? What do you think would happen if a state or local government tried to restrict a persons movements without a good reason such as their having been convicted of a crime, and the case went to SCOTUS>??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You can't have implied rights in the cotus because people will say it means all sorts of things. You forget, the cotus was designed to only regulate certain things, most it is a protection of the people by placing limits on government.


And not allowing government to restrict your movements or activities without a good reason protects the people just as you say. You are really struggling to prove that there is not such thing as implied rights


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> But you can't cite their quotes.  I'm not disagreeing that there are people out there that use religion to justify all sorts of things, what I'm saying is that their views are not based in Biblical teachings, which is why I want you to post this documented evidence so I can see if they actually cite the Bible, or where they come up with these ideas.


You're the bible thumper You look it up. I do not care about where exactly they get it from, the fact is that they put that shit out there

 But thanks for admitting that this sort of thing actually exists.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I agree. We are free to practice our religion according to cotus. Practice meaning our observations and adherence to beliefs, in this case, the belief that if one uses their talents in the service, specifically, of a gay wedding, that would be a conflict of their adherence to their beliefs.


A made up belief to justify discrimination. You can't have everyone just decided what religious freedome is, There has to be consensus  Why should the rights of the religious cake baker trump the rights of another to be free of discrimination. And how about those Devil worshipers? What about their religious rights


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Had they said "sorry, we refuse to do business with gay people, period", then I'd agree with you, they would have violates PA laws, because, because, that would be discrimination. Kind of like if a wedding planner were asked to work for the preparation of a gay wedding, and they conflicted with their religious beliefs, I don't think they should be required to perform that service because it conflicts with their beliefs. To me, it's not about hate, it's about being forced into something that conflicts with their own religious beliefs.


Wedding planners and photographers may be a different matter because there is much more involvement in theactual wedding. I might cut then some slack


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Not constitutionally protected? What do you think would happen if a state or local government tried to restrict a persons movements without a good reason such as their having been convicted of a crime, and the case went to SCOTUS>??


Youre right, i mispoke. Its not an implied right, likely they would use a clause in the current text of cotus, to fight it.

When I say you can't have implied rights, I mean, yeah, there are things, like general freedoms, that people just understand as being common sense, but you can't take that to mean whatever you want it to mean. When you come into a conflict of a states PA laws vs someone's constitutional protected rights, the cotus spells out the absolute rights of the people, and the limitations on the federal government. 

The tenth ammendment was placed there because they knew that the federal government was to be constrained by the cotus, and they wanted to make sure that the federal gov had limited power and that the states and the people were where the power was supposed to be.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A made up belief to justify discrimination. You can't have everyone just decided what religious freedome is, There has to be consensus  Why should the rights of the religious cake baker trump the rights of another to be free of discrimination. And how about those Devil worshipers? What about their religious rights


It's not a made up belief.  if it's in the bible, then it's part of the religion. From my reading the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and therefore, Christians are to have no part of it. That does not mean that Christians should treat then poorly because of their sin, but that they should not partake in, or help another person commit the sin.

They believe that if they bake a cake specifically for the wedding, then that us then helping another person commit the sin.

I don't know anything about devil worshipers. I would assume that they are allowed the same protections as everyone else. As the cotus states that people are free to practice whatever religion they see fit.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wedding planners and photographers may be a different matter because there is much more involvement in theactual wedding. I might cut then some slack


I see them as the same because of the involvement of themselves and their skills specificall toward the wedding.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You're the bible thumper You look it up. I do not care about where exactly they get it from, the fact is that they put that shit out there
> 
> But thanks for admitting that this sort of thing actually exists.


I'm actually not a Bible thumper, I've read some of the Bible, but I'm in no way a thumper. I just believe the freedom to exercise one's religion is a cotus protected right, that you can't just take away because you feel your personal rights trump someone else's.


The fact that some may try to justify their actions based on their religion doesn't mean it's actually part of the religion. 

I've never denied that it exists. In fact, I've stated that people will use religion to justify all sort of things, but that doesn't mean that that is what the religion teaches, it just means they are wrong.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> but you think that you do,  hypocrisy is your middle name.


I think that I do what?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> 'm actually not a Bible thumper, I've read some of the Bible, but I'm in no way a thumper. I just believe the freedom to exercise one's religion is a cotus protected right, that you can't just take away because you feel your personal rights trump someone else's.


So you are saying that religious rights have supremacy over other rights? Not buying into that at all.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The fact that some may try to justify their actions based on their religion doesn't mean it's actually part of the religion.


I am not passing judgement of the validity of their claims that religion justifies their bigotry. My only point is that they make that claim whether or not they believe it. I am not blaming religion. I am blaming the bigots who weaponize religion.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I don't believe the cotus is fluid like you do. Having that be the case means it really has no force because the meanings could change depending on the political leanings of the people in power. It's one of the reasons we are having this discussion, even now, and why I think the whole scotus is bullshit. We fight over positions on scotus because we want people of our own ideology to interpret the constitution to mean what our party wants, when they should be sticking strictly to the words, and the founders intent, and leave everything else to the states. It's simpler that way. Go with the original meaning, that way there is no argument, no ambiguity.  If we want to change it, then we have a convention of states called to make amendments. Allowing it to be fluid takes us further and further away from the original idea of the document, and limited government, and actually takes power away from the people, and puts it in the hands of centralized government, which has no possible way to do things that will be in the benefit of everyone. This is why states rights are so important. Local government is where the real power should be, not with a federal gov.


That is actually a well written and cogent explanation of what you believe and why. I agree, that while the courts are supposed to be a political and objective, that is far from the reality. Individual Judges and Justices take up extreme positions and when it becomes unbalanced in terms of the number of liberal vs. conservatives on the bench, it sets the stage for one side or the other imposing their views on the whole nation, and in some cases contrary to public opinion. Part of the answer would be to reform the court with measures such as term limits and a less partisan selection and confirmation process to ensure a better balance. I don't think that SCOTUS is bullshit, but it is fast becoming a court that is squandering their legitimacy. 


I would also support a constitutional convention, but in less partisan time, to clarify the role of the federal courts,  update the language and clean up some of the vague passages such as the 2nd Amendment. Maybe even the 1st Amendment.  

Having said that, I will add that I vehemently disagree with your textualist/originalist preference. If we strictly adhered to that view, there would be no room for growth or evolution in keeping with changing times and values. There would be stagnation and stagnation is quicky followed by death and extinction.  And strictly adhering the words of the founders would not avoid conflict since there is plenty of room for interpretation as to when some of it actually means. 

I am also not a big fan of limited federal government and leaving it all to the states. The shit hole red states fuck it all up and trample on individual rights in many areas like voting rights, abortion, same sex marriage and much more. This is a constitutional Republic and a strong central government and enforcement of the Constitution is critical. Otherwise, we would Balkanized and making it hard to recognize individual states as being part of the same country.   

Lastly, while you see a strong central government as taking power away from people, I see it as empowering people, especially oppressed minorities such as LGBT people and racial/religious minorities. A weak central government powers thos who are in power locally. It sets up a survival of the fittest. A culture of Social Darwinism or Libertarian values which are closely aligned with conservative Republicans 

Anyway, it appears that we understand each other- to a point although to be sure we will never agree on certain things. So be it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I see them as the same because of the involvement of themselves and their skills specificall toward the wedding.


Planners and photographers have to be at the wedding. The cake baker just has to bake the fucking cake


----------



## Blues Man

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, so they didn't refuse service, they said they would sell them anything already made, they refused their labor to specifically make a product.  You are not entitled to violate someone's constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
> 
> From Colorado PA laws, it goes into a whole list of things that are considered discriminatory, and yes, sexual orientation is one of them, but, at the bottom, it says this:
> 
> 
> 
> *That, to me, sounds like if the request violates the privileges of the business (constitutionally protected rights), then it gives them an exemption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


If they make custom cakes for any segment of the public they cannot legally refuse to make a custom cake for a homosexual.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So you are saying that religious rights have supremacy over other rights? Not buying into that at all.


I'm saying that constitutionally protected rights probably would have Supremacy over state laws, yes. Where there is a conflict like this, how do you resolve one person's rights over anothers?  If you say the baker must be forced into violating his cotus rights, or if the gay couple have the right to enjoy the PA laws...I mean, yeah, I'd say cotus first, then everything else is left to the states. 

So, in this case, freedom to exercise religion is cotus protected, so that would trump state law.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Sure, and I agree, but that should not be an attack on the religion itself if it does  teach those things. And you can't say that they are being justified by the religion, because it's not there.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is actually a well written and cogent explanation of what you believe and why. I agree, that while the courts are supposed to be a political and objective, that is far from the reality. Individual Judges and Justices take up extreme positions and when it becomes unbalanced in terms of the number of liberal vs. conservatives on the bench, it sets the stage for one side or the other imposing their views on the whole nation, and in some cases contrary to public opinion. Part of the answer would be to reform the court with measures such as term limits and a less partisan selection and confirmation process to ensure a better balance. I don't think that SCOTUS is bullshit, but it is fast becoming a court that is squandering their legitimacy.
> 
> 
> I would also support a constitutional convention, but in less partisan time, to clarify the role of the federal courts,  update the language and clean up some of the vague passages such as the 2nd Amendment. Maybe even the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Having said that, I will add that I vehemently disagree with your textualist/originalist preference. If we strictly adhered to that view, there would be no room for growth or evolution in keeping with changing times and values. There would be stagnation and stagnation is quicky followed by death and extinction.  And strictly adhering the words of the founders would not avoid conflict since there is plenty of room for interpretation as to when some of it actually means.
> 
> I am also not a big fan of limited federal government and leaving it all to the states. The shit hole red states fuck it all up and trample on individual rights in many areas like voting rights, abortion, same sex marriage and much more. This is a constitutional Republic and a strong central government and enforcement of the Constitution is critical. Otherwise, we would Balkanized and making it hard to recognize individual states as being part of the same country.
> 
> Lastly, while you see a strong central government as taking power away from people, I see it as empowering people, especially oppressed minorities such as LGBT people and racial/religious minorities. A weak central government powers thos who are in power locally. It sets up a survival of the fittest. A culture of Social Darwinism or Libertarian values which are closely aligned with conservative Republicans
> 
> Anyway, it appears that we understand each other- to a point although to be sure we will never agree on certain things. So be it.


Ah man, can't we go back to arguing like we were, this agreeing is weird...


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Planners and photographers have to be at the wedding. The cake baker just has to bake the fucking cake


Whew!  Thank goodness!..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm saying that constitutionally protected rights probably would have Supremacy over state laws, yes. Where there is a conflict like this, how do you resolve one person's rights over anothers?  If you say the baker must be forced into violating his cotus rights, or if the gay couple have the right to enjoy the PA laws...I mean, yeah, I'd say cotus first, then everything else is left to the states.
> 
> So, in this case, freedom to exercise religion is cotus protected, so that would trump state law.


Ah, I see that you really do miss arguing. You're on. As I have said numerous times, we have differing understandings of religious rights/ freedom. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says that someone can discriminate against another based on religious beliefs. 

And I am not finished. Not withstanding your denial of the existence of implied rights, it is arguable that the right to be free of discrimination flows from the enumerated right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. So in that respect, teh rights of the gay guys are also constitutionally protected.

In any case, it it worthy of naote that no state law against discrimination-including those that include LGBT people has ever been sucessfully challanged on constitutional grounds (or any other grounds)

And I saved the best for last. You have been blathering and bloviating all along about states rights, yet now, you want the Federal government to subjugate the states ability to determine who is protected from discrimination, and how they do that. To use your own playbook it can be seen as a 10th Amendment issue in that the power to regulate buisnesses and protect it's citizenry are both powers reserved for the states, but you are willing  to usurp that power when necessary to defend your ideology. 

So I have to conclude that your argument for why the bakers ( made up ) right takes primacy over the rights of the gay guys is a monumental failure.

Have a good day


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ah, I see that you really do miss arguing. You're on. As I have said numerous times, we have differing understandings of religious rights/ freedom. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says that someone can discriminate against another based on religious beliefs.
> 
> And I am not finished. Not withstanding your denial of the existence of implied rights, it is arguable that the right to be free of discrimination flows from the enumerated right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. So in that respect, teh rights of the gay guys are also constitutionally protected.
> 
> In any case, it it worthy of naote that no state law against discrimination-including those that include LGBT people has ever been sucessfully challanged on constitutional grounds (or any other grounds)
> 
> And I saved the best for last. You have been blathering and bloviating all along about states rights, yet now, you want the Federal government to subjugate the states ability to determine who is protected from discrimination, and how they do that. To use your own playbook it can be seen as a 10th Amendment issue in that the power to regulate buisnesses and protect it's citizenry are both powers reserved for the states, but you are willing  to usurp that power when necessary to defend your ideology.
> 
> So I have to conclude that your argument for why the bakers ( made up ) right takes primacy over the rights of the gay guys is a monumental failure.
> 
> Have a good day


I am for states rights, but the whole system of government was set up that cotus have the government certain things it could do, and certain protections in the bill of rights.

So, the federal government has its place for those things only. Everything else is a states rights issue.

So, cotus says you have the right to free exercise and practice of your religion, state PA laws state businesses have to serve everyone equally. Who's rights do we honor?  How do we honor ones rights without violating the others. Are you saying the state laws trump cotus?  Are you saying one person has the right to make someone else do something against their wishes? 

If you say it's discrimination for the baker to refuse, is it not also discrimination for the gay couple to impose themselves on the baker?

Also, religious rights are not  "made up".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I am for states rights, but the whole system of government was set up that cotus have the government certain things it could do, and certain protections in the bill of rights.
> 
> So, the federal government has its place for those things only. Everything else is a states rights issue.
> 
> So, cotus says you have the right to free exercise and practice of your religion, state PA laws state businesses have to serve everyone equally. Who's rights do we honor?  How do we honor ones rights without violating the others. Are you saying the state laws trump cotus?  Are you saying one person has the right to make someone else do something against their wishes?
> 
> If you say it's discrimination for the baker to refuse, is it not also discrimination for the gay couple to impose themselves on the baker?
> 
> Also, religious rights are not  "made up".


Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share. It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said. Rather, you just keep bleating your odd, entrenched  views , albeit using a different sequence of words each time. 

Now, for the 50th time,  your claim  that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy. And, saying that the gay guys were  seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit. They walked through the door of a business that was open to the public and expected the same service that anyone else would get. If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone  could do it to anyone  else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.  



> Note: The SCOTUS reversed the findings of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and  ruled in favor of the baker, but only some very specific issues with this case and by no means justified the action of the baker in and of itself and cannot be applied to other such instances   Justice Kennedy’s 'Masterpiece' Ruling


As far as tenth amendment issue goes, I have explained ad nauseum that it is not always a neat and clear division between the powers of the federal government in relation to the states. However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and  simplistic view of that. 

 Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution. At the same  time, for the Feds to encroach on matters reserved to the states, they must show a compelling interest in doing so. Such was the case with marriage and I don’t mean just gay marriage. There were some 14 other cases that went to SCOTUS ruled on matters of marriage where states tried to place undue restrictions on who can marry. Two such cases that come to mind. One involved a state that tried to ban men who owed child support from marrying anyone other than the mother of the child. The other involved barring the incarcerated from getting married. Each time, SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and the states were  overstepping their bounds despite the fact the marriage is primarily a state issue. 

Lastly, there is no conflict between the state law against discrimination and the first amendment for the reasons that I have stated. If a state law were to be in conflict with that constitution, then the federal courts would, or at least should prevail . That is not the case here so your point is moot  

Have a nice day . Try not to offend anyone. Read you bible and stay out of trouble


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share. It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said. Rather, you just keep bleating your odd, entrenched  views , albeit using a different sequence of words each time.
> 
> Now, for the 50th time,  your claim  that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy. And, saying that the gay guys were  seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit. They walked through the door of a business that was open to the public and expected the same service that anyone else would get. If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone  could do it to anyone  else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.
> 
> 
> As far as tenth amendment issue goes, I have explained ad nauseum that it is not always a neat and clear division between the powers of the federal government in relation to the states. However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and  simplistic view of that.
> 
> Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution. At the same  time, for the Feds to encroach on matters reserved to the states, they must show a compelling interest in doing so. Such was the case with marriage and I don’t mean just gay marriage. There were some 14 other cases that went to SCOTUS ruled on matters of marriage where states tried to place undue restrictions on who can marry. Two such cases that come to mind. One involved a state that tried to ban men who owed child support from marrying anyone other than the mother of the child. The other involved barring the incarcerated from getting married. Each time, SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and the states were  overstepping their bounds despite the fact the marriage is primarily a state issue.
> 
> Lastly, there is no conflict between the state law against discrimination and the first amendment for the reasons that I have stated. If a state law were to be in conflict with that constitution, then the federal courts would, or at least should prevail . That is not the case here so your point is moot
> 
> Have a nice day . Try not to offend anyone. Read you bible and stay out of trouble





> Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share



I'd say most Christians probably agree with those views, so I'd say its not "few people".



> It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said.



I we've been at this for....a week now?  I've refuted everything you've said, you just agree with the answers. 

However, what things do you feel.i have not addressed?



> your claim  that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy.



I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate, I just don't believe that thus case is discrimination. Also, you're the only one who is advocating someone being able to impose their beliefs in someone.  The baker is lnt trying to force Christianity on the gay couple, but the gay couple IS trying to force their lifestyle on the bakery. 



> And, saying that the gay guys were  seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit.



That's exactly what they did. Rather than respect the rights of the owner, and choose another bakery, they decided to take them to court. 



> If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone  could do it to anyone  else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.



No, they couldn't. They'd have to have a valid biblical reason for refusing someone. 



> However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and  simplistic view of that.



Yes, because the alternative is your version of a "fluid" cotus. That's just not good.  Yes, I believe those words should be the law because if we start interpreting it for our own agend,, soon, someone is going to interpret in a way you don't like....overturning roe is a good example. 



> Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution



Only if the states are violating someone's cotus rights. Remember, the cotus is supposed to be a limiting document, on the federal government. Apparently you believe that the federal government is this authoritarian entity that is to rule over our lives, and they also grant a little power to the states for certain things. 

It the exact opposite of that. When this country was founded, they wanted the people to have maximum freedom.  They also saw a need for a federal government to handle certain things, like military, roads, postal service, border defense.  They put all that in the enumerated power, then they said everything beyond those things were supposed to be decided by the states and the people. 

All laws the federal government makes are supposed to be constrained to things in the enumerated powers, at least that's my understanding. The federal government was never supposed to get this big, and make laws governing our lives.  How could one federal gov do that since a "one size fits all" approach would never work, because people don't agree on things they want. You can see this playing out because of the place we are at in the country. We are all at each other's throats nowadays.....because of politics. Because we want the Federal government to do things OUR way, and the other side fights against that. 

If we had just stuck to the original idea, where power for governing people was at the state level, you'd have more control, and we wouldn't have this massive anger and animosity that we currently have. 


As to the cases you cite, I have no knowledge of them, so, I'd have to known the constitutional reason they  used for making their decisions, because ALL scotus decisions should be based on cotus principles. If they ruled against the states, they would have had to have shown a where their decision violated cotus. The cotus protects our civil rights, so in those cases, I'd agree that it would have been within their jurisdiction to make those rulings. 

What we have in this case is about the rights of a baker to exercise religion vs a gay couple trying to enforce PA laws. 

Nobody is trying to deny their right to be gay.


----------



## Blaster




----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share. It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said. Rather, you just keep bleating your odd, entrenched  views , albeit using a different sequence of words each time.
> 
> Now, for the 50th time,  your claim  that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy. And, saying that the gay guys were  seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit. They walked through the door of a business that was open to the public and expected the same service that anyone else would get. If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone  could do it to anyone  else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.
> 
> 
> As far as tenth amendment issue goes, I have explained ad nauseum that it is not always a neat and clear division between the powers of the federal government in relation to the states. However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and  simplistic view of that.
> 
> Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution. At the same  time, for the Feds to encroach on matters reserved to the states, they must show a compelling interest in doing so. Such was the case with marriage and I don’t mean just gay marriage. There were some 14 other cases that went to SCOTUS ruled on matters of marriage where states tried to place undue restrictions on who can marry. Two such cases that come to mind. One involved a state that tried to ban men who owed child support from marrying anyone other than the mother of the child. The other involved barring the incarcerated from getting married. Each time, SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and the states were  overstepping their bounds despite the fact the marriage is primarily a state issue.
> 
> Lastly, there is no conflict between the state law against discrimination and the first amendment for the reasons that I have stated. If a state law were to be in conflict with that constitution, then the federal courts would, or at least should prevail . That is not the case here so your point is moot
> 
> Have a nice day . Try not to offend anyone. Read you bible and stay out of trouble


Also, if discrimination was present in the court case between the couple, and the bakery, then why did scotus overturn the commissions ruling, citing the commission showed hostility toward the bakers religious freedom. 

This was a 7-2 decision, at a time when then court was 5-4, as far as i recall, which means 2 of the liberal justices had to come into agreement with the bakery.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Blaster said:


>


They look happy and content


----------



## ThisIsMe

Blaster said:


>


Also, why is there a pool table in their office. That room looks way to small to be able to actually play a game of pool in....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Also, if discrimination was present in the court case between the couple, and the bakery, then why did scotus overturn the commissions ruling, citing the commission showed hostility toward the bakers religious freedom.
> 
> This was a 7-2 decision, at a time when then court was 5-4, as far as i recall, which means 2 of the liberal justices had to come into agreement with the bakery.


If you bothered to follow the link that I posted you would know why









						Justice Kennedy’s 'Masterpiece' Ruling
					

The Supreme Court found in favor of a baker who refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple, but used a rationale that sheds little light on the case’s larger civil-rights implications.




					www.theatlantic.com
				






> On Monday, a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy listed the reasons why this case turned out to be a lemon. First, is what the couple asked for—a cake for a private celebration—really “speech” or “free exercise of religion” at all? Second, the record was unclear whether Phillips refused only to bake a cake with a “wedding” message or refused to provide any cake at all for Craig and Mullins’s celebration. *Third, the events occurred before the Court’s decision, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that same-sex couples have a right to marry. Thus, Phillips in part based his denial on the fact that, at the time, Colorado did not permit same-sex marriage—that “the potential customers ‘were doing something illegal.’”* *Fourth, as Justice Kennedy pointed out at oral argument, the record was muddled by anti-religious statements made by state officials who considered the case below.*





> And finally, though the Court did not discuss this aspect, Phillips’s attorneys (from the religious-right legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom) and the Trump administration made extravagant claims. They suggested that the Court skip the religious-freedom issue altogether and decide the case on pure free-speech grounds.* Had it done so, a decision for Phillips would have given constitutional protection to an unknown number of discriminations against LGBT people and couples, and indeed—by the government’s own concession—called into question laws protecting women and racial minorities.*





> Instead, the* Court decided the case, but on the narrowest grounds imaginable—that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during its consideration of the case had shown anti-religious bias. The result was a decision that provides almost no guidance for lower courts facing similar cases. “*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'd say most Christians probably agree with those views, so I'd say its not "few people".


OK More than a few. Religious psychosis is a growing problem


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I we've been at this for....a week now? I've refuted everything you've said, you just agree with the answers.


Bullshit! I states that the first Amendment does not include the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Where /when did you refute that?
I stated that in people are allowed tio discriminate on the basis of religion, that would open the door for anyone to discriminate against anybody who they disapproved of by invoking religious rights. Where/when did you refute that?

I stated the separtion of powers as per the tenth amendment is complicated and not clear cut. You just keep repeating your simplistic mantra that is clear and refuse to reccognise the responsibilities of the state to comply with the rest of the constitution in excercising those powers. That is not refuting anything.

I could go on but I have better things to do,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate, I just don't believe that thus case is discrimination. Also, you're the only one who is advocating someone being able to impose their beliefs in someone. The baker is lnt trying to force Christianity on the gay couple, but the gay couple IS trying to force their lifestyle on the bakery.


Complete and utter horseshit! They are forcing their gay lifestyle on the baker.? When and how  did they try to make Phillips gay

You said "I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate," and that this is not discrimination. More bullshit. State law says that it is discrimination.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> If you bothered to follow the link that I posted you would know why
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Kennedy’s 'Masterpiece' Ruling
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court found in favor of a baker who refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple, but used a rationale that sheds little light on the case’s larger civil-rights implications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com


Ahh ok, so, the scotus never really got to the issue of free exercise of religion, or discrimination, they basically threw the case based on the fact that the Colorado commission screwed up the case by showing hostility to religion.


That's unfortunate. I'd have liked to see this case decided on freedom of religion vs civil rights.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK More than a few. Religious psychosis is a growing problem


And that's why we argue. You don't view people's religion as worthy of rights and thus are adverse to it being protected. You're view of it being a "psycosis" shows that you put zero value in the religious views if others. It's that exact reason why scotus overruled the Colorado commission.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ahh ok, so, the scotus never really got to the issue of free exercise of religion, or discrimination, they basically threw the case based on the fact that the Colorado commission screwed up the case by showing hostility to religion.
> 
> 
> That's unfortunate. I'd have liked to see this case decided on freedom of religion vs civil rights.


Bottom line. They did not rule that there was no discrimination. Another such case is likely to have a different outcome at SCOTUS


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> And that's why we argue. You don't view people's religion as worthy of rights and thus are adverse to it being protected. You're view of it being a "psycosis" shows that you put zero value in the religious views if others. It's that exact reason why scotus overruled the Colorado commission.


Not true. I value religious rights, I just have a different understanding of what that means. That is why we will never agree and why this whole thing is an excercise in futility. My reference to religous psychosis is about extreme religosity whhich you seem to represent


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! I states that the first Amendment does not include the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Where /when did you refute that?
> I stated that in people are allowed tio discriminate on the basis of religion, that would open the door for anyone to discriminate against anybody who they disapproved of by invoking religious rights. Where/when did you refute that?
> 
> I stated the separtion of powers as per the tenth amendment is complicated and not clear cut. You just keep repeating your simplistic mantra that is clear and refuse to reccognise the responsibilities of the state to comply with the rest of the constitution in excercising those powers. That is not refuting anything.
> 
> I could go on but I have better things to do,





> Bullshit! I states that the first Amendment does not include the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Where /when did you refute that?



I've stated several times that I don't view it as discrimination because there's no evidence of animosity. I've also said that cotus protects free exercise of religion. Those are how I've refuted your arguments. 

You never answered my question of how we are to settle the cotus right of free exercise vs state PA laws.   Is it your position that anyone who is Christian should not go into business because some day, someone may come into your shop and ask you to do something that violates your religious convictions and cotus rights?



> I stated that in people are allowed tio discriminate on the basis of religion, that would open the door for anyone to discriminate against anybody who they disapproved of by invoking religious rights. Where/when did you refute that?



And I stated that, first, I don't view it as discrimination because there is not evidence of animosity, and second,  Your claim that it would open the door, I've refuted by stating that any claim would have to be grounded in biblical teachings, not just because they just didn't want to perform the service. 

I view discrimination as an act of hate, an act where there has to be hate, animosity, or malice must be present. If those things are not there, then it's not discrimination. If he said 'I won't bake you a cake because I don't like gay people", then I'd agree, it's discrimination. If he says "my Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and therefore using my labor in service to that sin is against my religious beliefs".  It's no different than if someone walked in and ask him to bake a cake for a swingers convention. They'd use the same religious philosophy for that. "Sorry, but committing adultery is a sin, so therfore I can't use my labor in service of a sin".



> I stated the separtion of powers as per the tenth amendment is complicated and not clear cut. You just keep repeating your simplistic mantra that is clear and refuse to reccognise the responsibilities of the state to comply with the rest of the constitution in excercising those powers. That is not refuting anything.



Again, I have refuted this.  I wrote a couple paragraphs on this one. I said that the 10th is absolute. The federal government is not this authoritarian entity that was set up to rule our lives, and they allow the states to have a little power, its the opposites. The cotus was set up to designate certain powers to the government, things that it could do, and everything else is a states rights issue. 

Yes, we have certain protections in the cotus, and in those things, the cotus trumps all else, but, everything else is designed to be a states rights issue. 

I wrote quite a bit on this. Perhaps you should revisit that post.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ThisIsMe said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK More than a few. Religious psychosis is a growing problem
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why we argue. You don't view people's religion as worthy of rights and thus are adverse to it being protected. You're view of it being a "psycosis" [sic] shows that you put zero value in the religious views if [sic] others. It's that exact reason why scotus overruled the Colorado commission.
Click to expand...


  Have you seen his essay, expressing a fantasy about space aliens offering to impose their rule over Earth?

  The first condition he envisions them imposing, in order to create his idea of a utopian world, is…



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 1.All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.​


​
  First step toward TheOppressiveFaggot's ideal world is drug-based brainwashing to _“cleanse the mind”_ of religious beliefs.

  This, in and of itself, tells us just about all we need to know of the mental and moral character of one who would conceive such a fantasy, and try to depict it in a positive way.

  The rest of his essay doesn't get any better.​


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I've stated several times that I don't view it as discrimination because there's no evidence of animosity. I've also said that cotus protects free exercise of religion. Those are how I've refuted your arguments.


Animosity is not  a requirement to prove discrimination. It is all about the behavior towards others-not motive. Your claim that the free excercise of reoigion isprotected- which I  agree with- DOES NOT refute my position that discrimination is NOT protected


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Complete and utter horseshit! They are forcing their gay lifestyle on the baker.? When and how  did they try to make Phillips gay
> 
> You said "I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate," and that this is not discrimination. More bullshit. State law says that it is discrimination.



I didn't say they are trying to make him gay.  Forcing oneself onto another doesn't mean you're trying to convert then to something. 

'I feel slighted because you refused service to make a cake for my gay wedding so I'm going to disregard your cotus religious rights and take you to court and get the state to force you to make my gay wedding cake, or your going to pay me money' is also a way of forcing their lifestyle on someone.



> State law says that it is discrimination.



Sure, it does say that, but, as I said before, freedom to exercise and practice ones religion is one of those cotus rights, the right to the free exercise of one's religion. If one's religion says that homosexuality is a sin, and therfore by you using your labor in service to that sin, it is a violation of biblical teachings, then one cannot be forced to do that because of couts protections.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bottom line. They did not rule that there was no discrimination. Another such case is likely to have a different outcome at SCOTUS


But they didn't rule that there was discrimination either. They never got to that. 

We won't know the outcome until we have a case decided based on freedom of religion vs gay rights.


----------



## Natural Citizen

I'm not reading through this while thread, especially at well over a thousand postings.

But I'm curious as to how precisely the Supreme Court legalized anything.

Since when does the Supreme Court make Law? And by what authority?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> view discrimination as an act of hate, an act where there has to be hate, animosity, or malice must be present. If those things are not there, then it's not discrimination.


Tht is IDIOTIC! Look, I am out of here for a few days .Eye surgury in the morning.  I don;t suppose that you will have learned anything by the time I get back


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Natural Citizen said:


> I'm not reading through this while thread, especially at well over a thousand postings.
> 
> But I'm curious as to how precisely the Supreme Court legalized anything.
> 
> Since when does the Supreme Court make Law? And by what authority?


They invalidated unconstitutional states laws. Not the same thing


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Not true. I value religious rights, I just have a different understanding of what that means. That is why we will never agree and why this whole thing is an excercise in futility. My reference to religous psychosis is about extreme religosity whhich you seem to represent


The reason why you feel its extreme is because this whole argument from you comes from a position of emotion. In your mind, if someone refuses service to a gay couple, it's because of hate. I simply take emotion out of it and look at it as the baker refusing service to a gay couple for the same reason he would refuse service to any other person who came in and asked him to use his labor in service to any other sin. It doesn't mean he hates the person, or has anything against then personally, just they can't use their labor in service to something that goes against his religious beliefs.


I understand you view them differently. It's apparent you view them as being below civil rights and state PA laws, but freedom to exercise religion is also a civil right.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Bob Blaylock said:


> Have you seen his essay, expressing a fantasy about space aliens offering to impose their rule over Earth?
> 
> The first condition he envisions them imposing, in order to create his idea of a utopian world, is…
> 
> ​​
> ​First step toward TheOppressiveFaggot's ideal world is drug-based brainwashing to _“cleanse the mind”_ of religious beliefs.​​This, in and of itself, tells us just about all we need to know of the mental and moral character of one who would conceive such a fantasy, and try to depict it in a positive way.​​The rest of his essay doesn't get any better.​


Huh. Well, that certainly explains his adverseness to religious freedom.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Tht is IDIOTIC! Look, I am out of here for a few days .Eye surgury in the morning.  I don;t suppose that you will have learned anything by the time I get back


Well, ask yourself why we have discrimination laws.  Because at some point, people were excluding people because of their dislike of those people, on a personal level, because some people felt others were inferior on some level. The point is, discrimination laws were made due to personal animosity between people.

That's one reason why I say that for discrimination to exist, that hate and animosity has to be there. 

Good luck on your surgery, hope it all comes out OK. I too will be in surgery in the next few weeks.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Animosity is not  a requirement to prove discrimination. It is all about the behavior towards others-not motive. Your claim that the free excercise of reoigion isprotected- which I  agree with- DOES NOT refute my position that discrimination is NOT protected


I simply refuted that it was discrimination based on the lack of animosity. The same as if a baker refused anyone else based on them asking them to help them commit a sin.  He would (or should) refuse that as well.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I simply refuted that it was discrimination based on the lack of animosity. The same as if a baker refused anyone else based on them asking them to help them commit a sin.  He would (or should) refuse that as well.


Of course! This is what you do all the time. I make a point. Then you stomp your feet and insist that I am wrong and claim that you  refuted what I said without any evidence to support your claim.

There is NOTHING about animosity in the definition of discrimination:

dis·crim·i·na·tion
[dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n]

NOUN

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability:
"victims of racial discrimination"
If your baker simply acted out of a sense of misguided religious obligation -It is still   DISCRIMINATION. You have refuted nothing


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Well, ask yourself why we have discrimination laws.  Because at some point, people were excluding people because of their dislike of those people, on a personal level, because some people felt others were inferior on some level. The point is, discrimination laws were made due to personal animosity between people.
> 
> That's one reason why I say that for discrimination to exist, that hate and animosity has to be there.
> 
> Good luck on your surgery, hope it all comes out OK. I too will be in surgery in the next few weeks.


Discrimination laws are to combat discrimination, FOR ANY REASON. You just invent shit and present it as fack, and then bleat about how it makes you right.If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly  it is discrimination. Don't believe me? Do you offer a service or a product to the public? Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't. Let us know how that works out as a defense when you are sued or charged under the law


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Huh. Well, that certainly explains his adverseness to religious freedom.


Only to your version of religious freedom


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The reason why you feel its extreme is because this whole argument from you comes from a position of emotion. In your mind, if someone refuses service to a gay couple, it's because of hate. I simply take emotion out of it and look at it as the baker refusing service to a gay couple for the same reason he would refuse service to any other person who came in and asked him to use his labor in service to any other sin. It doesn't mean he hates the person, or has anything against then personally, just they can't use their labor in service to something that goes against his religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> I understand you view them differently. It's apparent you view them as being below civil rights and state PA laws, but freedom to exercise religion is also a civil right.


Good fucking grief! The predictable fall back position when all else fails. Accusing you adversary of being emotional. The fact is that I have been consistently rational and objective. You on the other hand continually whine and bleat about hate and animosity and that  discrimination  absent those factors is not discrimination. At the same time, you have been struggling to convince me that your assertions are fact based and anything more than YOUR emotions taking over. Lastly for now, there is no conflict between state laws against discrimination and religious liberty when one subscribes to a rational and UNEMOTIONAL view of religious liberty '

PS Unfortuatly for you, having had the surgery, there is not much more that I can do for a while  besides read and write .Watch out


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Of course! This is what you do all the time. I make a point. Then you stomp your feet and insist that I am wrong and claim that you  refuted what I said without any evidence to support your claim.
> 
> There is NOTHING about animosity in the definition of discrimination:
> 
> dis·crim·i·na·tion
> [dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n]
> 
> NOUN
> 
> the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability:
> "victims of racial discrimination"
> If your baker simply acted out of a sense of misguided religious obligation -It is still   DISCRIMINATION. You have refuted nothing


What is discrimination?  Why do we have discrimination laws.  Why do people discriminate? I asked you this before. All of this was done because of unfair and prejudicial treatment of other people. Those laws were passed because of hate, not just because a difference of opinion. 

Your version of it would mean that people would never be able to refuse service to anyone, because it would be discrimination.  

Question.....do discrimination laws protect white people, and straight people?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Discrimination laws are to combat discrimination, FOR ANY REASON. You just invent shit and present it as fack, and then bleat about how it makes you right.If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly  it is discrimination. Don't believe me? Do you offer a service or a product to the public? Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't. Let us know how that works out as a defense when you are sued or charged under the law





> If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly  it is discrimination.



Agreed, but did the baker treat them badly? Or unfairly?  Likely he would refuse anyone who asked them to help them commit a sin.  Like I mentioned earlier, if someone asked him to bake a cake for a swingers convention, he would refuse. Now, would you call that discrimination?  I mean, you have the freedom and right to swing if you so choose. I wouldn't see anyone making a fuss over that.  

I know I know...your next statement is  "but that has nothing to do with being gay", well, being gay, and swinging with your buddies wife are both your rights, are they not?  Yet, you would only accuse the baker of discrimination because of the gay couple.  Why?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Discrimination laws are to combat discrimination, FOR ANY REASON. You just invent shit and present it as fack, and then bleat about how it makes you right.If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly  it is discrimination. Don't believe me? Do you offer a service or a product to the public? Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't. Let us know how that works out as a defense when you are sued or charged under the law





> Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't.



We've been through this, Christianity doesn't say being a minority is a sin, so this scenario would never happen.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Only to your version of religious freedom


Apparently to all religion, judging by that post you made. You want the aliens to suck all that religious stuff out of peoples heads. It's pretty clear your stance on religion.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Good fucking grief! The predictable fall back position when all else fails. Accusing you adversary of being emotional. The fact is that I have been consistently rational and objective. You on the other hand continually whine and bleat about hate and animosity and that  discrimination  absent those factors is not discrimination. At the same time, you have been struggling to convince me that your assertions are fact based and anything more than YOUR emotions taking over. Lastly for now, there is no conflict between state laws against discrimination and religious liberty when one subscribes to a rational and UNEMOTIONAL view of religious liberty '
> 
> PS Unfortuatly for you, having had the surgery, there is not much more that I can do for a while  besides read and write .Watch out





> Accusing you adversary of being emotiona


  I'm not accusing you of being emotional, per se, I'm just saying the whole argument you are making is because the whole topic of the baker refusing the gay couple is based on an emotional response. The gay couple felt slighted because of perceived hate toward them. The whole idea if discrimination is emotion based.  People get upset because they get hurt feelings because someone denied them something, again, because they feel some form of animosity or hate was committed against  them. 



> You on the other hand continually whine and bleat about hate and animosity and that  discrimination  absent those factors is not discrimination.



Let's be clear, between the two of us, it's not me doing the whining. You have been thr one, over the past, over a week now, who has been getting emotional, lashing out, dropping the F bomb here and there and accusing me of being stupid. I have treated you calmly and with respect. You disagree with me, and that is your right, I respect that. 



> At the same time, you have been struggling to convince me that your assertions are fact



Trying to convince you of anything would be futile, I realize that now. At this point, all I can do is assert my point of view.



> YOUR emotions taking over.



No emotion here, as I said before, I just take the emotion out of it and see it for what it is.



> Lastly for now, there is no conflict between state laws against discrimination and religious liberty when one subscribes to a rational and UNEMOTIONAL view of religious liberty '



Bible says not to be a part of helping someone else in the commission of a sin, so, how do you reconcile that against state laws?  Do we simply say that we need to ignore the Bible and the bakers religious rights in favor of the gay couples rights?




> PS Unfortuatly for you, having had the surgery, there is not much more that I can do for a while  besides read and write .Watch out



Good deal.



> Watch out



YES SIR!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Question.....do discrimination laws protect white people, and straight people?


Yes they do. Have you actually read the laws. They do not specifically prohibit discrimination against gays or blacks or whatever. They prohibit discrimination against ANYONE on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc. So a black person who discriminates against a white person is also subjected to the law Did you really not know that ? Seriously?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> What is discrimination? Why do we have discrimination laws. Why do people discriminate? I asked you this before. All of this was done because of unfair and prejudicial treatment of other people. Those laws were passed because of hate, not just because a difference of opinion.


You're still doing the same damned thing that I keep calling you out on! I have already addressed  this numerous times but you either hve a real bad memory or just can't learn


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Agreed, but did the baker treat them badly? Or unfairly?  Likely he would refuse anyone who asked them to help them commit a sin.  Like I mentioned earlier, if someone asked him to bake a cake for a swingers convention, he would refuse. Now, would you call that discrimination?  I mean, you have the freedom and right to swing if you so choose. I wouldn't see anyone making a fuss over that.
> 
> I know I know...your next statement is  "but that has nothing to do with being gay", well, being gay, and swinging with your buddies wife are both your rights, are they not?  Yet, you would only accuse the baker of discrimination because of the gay couple.  Why?


1 He did treat them badly! He inconvenienced them and humiliated them.

2 I do not relate tio the concept of sin.

3. Swinger are not protected under PA laws Whil3 it may not be legally dicrimination, it is still discrimination
'


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No emotion here, as I said before, I just take the emotion out of it and see it for what it is.


Bullshit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> We've been through this, Christianity doesn't say being a minority is a sin, so this scenario would never happen.


 Again your memory fails you.I showed you that people have used Christianity to justify racial discrimination. It does not matter what your bible actually says.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Bible says not to be a part of helping someone else in the commission of a sin, so, how do you reconcile that against state laws? Do we simply say that we need to ignore the Bible and the bakers religious rights in favor of the gay couples rights?


Secular law does not care about the bible. If Phillips wanted to hide behind the bible he should havestated a church and held a bake sale


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes they do. Have you actually read the laws. They do not specifically prohibit discrimination against gays or blacks or whatever. They prohibit discrimination against ANYONE on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc. So a black person who discriminates against a white person is also subjected to the law Did you really not know that ? Seriously?


No. I knew that, I was just curious if you believed it. There are those on these forums that would have you believe that blacks can't be racist and one would also assume that means they can't discriminate.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Again your memory fails you.I showed you that people have used Christianity to justify racial discrimination. It does not matter what your bible actually says.


Yes, it does lol. I don't care what people use for justification. They are not acting in concordance with biblical teachings. Those people who use religion to justify any kind of discrimination are wrong. I've said this many times now.

Like I said, the bible spells out things that a Christian shouldn't do, or have any part in. It says they are supposed to abstain from sin.  Helping someone commit a sin would be wrong. It's not about emotion, hate, anger, fear, animosity, it's just about trying to obey biblical teachings.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Secular law does not care about the bible. If Phillips wanted to hide behind the bible he should havestated a church and held a bake sale


No, secular law doesn't care about the Bible, but cotus rights say you can freely practice your religion. Again, you demonstrate that you believe state laws and the rights of one person should be allowed to supercede the cotus rights of another's freedom of religion.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Secular law does not care about the bible. If Phillips wanted to hide behind the bible he should havestated a church and held a bake sale





> Phillips wanted to hide behind the bible he should havestated a church and held a bake sale



Again, you are suggesting that religious people shouldn't start businesses because they may be forced to do something that violates their religious teachings and their cotus rights?  That's kinda what I'm seeing here.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You're still doing the same damned thing that I keep calling you out on! I have already addressed  this numerous times but you either hve a real bad memory or just can't learn


I know what you are doing, you are stating that discrimination law, specifically at the text level, says that you can't refuse business to any of these protected groups. I'm just trying to demonstrate what discrimination REALLY is, down at the root level.  It's not just about refusing service to someone, otherwise if you refused service to anyone for any reason you could claim discrimination.  

I'm asking you to understand why they made those laws.

Discrimination laws were put in place because of people's hate and animosity toward others. 

You're being a textualist, like I am. So, if we are going that route, if we are just going to look at the words only and not understand what is really going on, then we need to look at the cotus words, literally, and take all ambiguity out of it.  So, religious freedom is enshrined in the cotus, so NO state law, of any kind can supercede it.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> 1 He did treat them badly! He inconvenienced them and humiliated them.
> 
> 2 I do not relate tio the concept of sin.
> 
> 3. Swinger are not protected under PA laws Whil3 it may not be legally dicrimination, it is still discrimination
> '





> He inconvenienced them and humiliated them.



How did he humiliate them? Inconvenienced isn't an issue, there are no laws regulating convenience. (That I'm aware of)



> I do not relate tio the concept of sin



I understand, but others do.



> Swinger are not protected under PA laws Whil3 it may not be legally dicrimination, it is still discrimination



?? PA laws cover everyone. Its not discrimination because they would be asked to use their labor to help someone commit a sin. 

Also, you say that swingers are not protected by PA laws, but then say that its still discrimination. What would be the reason it would be considered discrimination?  Again, this line of thinking means that a business would never be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason,   but they do, for various reasons. Again, many businesses have signs that state "we.reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..."I forget the whole saying,  but you get the point.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit


Nope, no bovine fecal excrement here.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Yes, it does lol. I don't care what people use for justification. They are not acting in concordance with biblical teachings.* Those people who use religion to justify any kind of discrimination are wrong. I've said this many times now.*


Unless of course it's a baker discriminationg against gays LOL


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Like I said, the bible spells out things that a Christian shouldn't do, or have any part in. It says they are supposed to abstain from sin. Helping someone commit a sin would be wrong. It's not about emotion, hate, anger, fear, animosity, it's just about trying to obey biblical teachings.


So the bible actually  says that you can't bake  a cake for a gay wedding because it is participating in a sin ? You know, while I admitedly know little about the bible, what I have heard is the homosexuality is a sin. I have not heard anything about participating in a wedding being a sin, even if it is a "homosexual" wedding.

The fact is that people are going to participate in homosexuality whether or not they are able to marry. It is two separate things. More proof that the religious freedom excuse for discrimination is bullshit. Unless they are somehow forced to participate in the actual act  of homosexuality, they are just making that sin shit up.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Unless of course it's a baker discriminationg [sic] against gays LOL



  If a group like the Westboro Baptist Church was going to hold an event, and they went to a faggot-owned bakery asking to have that bakery produce a cake for this event, with the slogan _“God Hates fags!”_ on it, surrounded by images of faggots being killed in various ways, should the bakery be allowed to refuse to produce that cake?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Unless of course it's a baker discriminationg against gays LOL


Been over that. I think discrimination requires more than simply refusing someone.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So the bible says that you can't bake  a cake for a gay wedding?


Bible says you shouldn't commit sins, and using your labor to help someone commit a sin would be wrong also. Just like baking a cake for a swingers convention would be helping someone commit a sin, ot baking a cake for porn convention, or using your labor to help any other person to do something that would be considered a sin. 

I'm not ruling anyone out, I'm applying this standard across the board. If it's a sin, the bible says you should not be a part of it.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Bob Blaylock said:


> If a group like the Westboro Baptist Church was going to hold an event, and they went to a faggot-owned bakery asking to have that bakery produce a cake for this event, with the slogan _“God Hates fags!”_ on it, surrounded by images of faggots being killed in various ways, should the bakery be allowed to refuse to produce that cake?


I'll answer this. Yes, the bakery should be able to refuse to bake that cake, because THAT would be an example of discrimination.  It would be rooted in hate, and not biblical principles and teachings.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> How did he humiliate them? Inconvenienced isn't an issue, there are no laws regulating convenience. (That I'm aware of)
> 
> 
> 
> I understand, but others do.
> 
> 
> 
> ?? PA laws cover everyone. Its not discrimination because they would be asked to use their labor to help someone commit a sin.
> 
> Also, you say that swingers are not protected by PA laws, but then say that its still discrimination. What would be the reason it would be considered discrimination?  Again, this line of thinking means that a business would never be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason,   but they do, for various reasons. Again, many businesses have signs that state "we.reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..."I forget the whole saying,  but you get the point.


I provided you with the definition of discrimination. It does not say that it has to be illegal. In many cases they can refuse services with impunity, except perhaps suffering the lose of their buisness


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Bible says you shouldn't commit sins, and using your labor to help someone commit a sin would be wrong also. Just like baking a cake for a swingers convention would be helping someone commit a sin, ot baking a cake for porn convention, or using your labor to help any other person to do something that would be considered a sin.
> 
> I'm not ruling anyone out, I'm applying this standard across the board. If it's a sin, the bible says you should not be a part of it.


Same horseshit different post. Gays will get married and swingers will have conventions with or without tye damned cake. A of them will have their preferred type of sex with or without the cake. Wghoever providesa cake is not participating in or facilitating the sex act. I am really getting tired of this game


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Been over that. I think discrimination requires more than simply refusing someone.


Another one of you numerous appeal to authority logical fallacies. " I said it so it's true" end of story


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Bible says you shouldn't commit sins, and using your labor to help someone commit a sin would be wrong also. Just like baking a cake for a swingers convention would be helping someone commit a sin, ot baking a cake for porn convention, or using your labor to help any other person to do something that would be considered a sin.
> 
> I'm not ruling anyone out, I'm applying this standard across the board. If it's a sin, the bible says you should not be a part of it.


Marriage and attending conventions are not sins. They are entittlesd to believe that sex outside of marriage to one person of the opposit sex is a sin. However, you are not entittled to decide for others what is acceptable behavior, and you are not being forced to participate unless they rip off your clothes and jump your bones.  Sin is a primitive concept born of fear and superstition intended by those in power to control others, particularly women.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Same horseshit different post. Gays will get married and swingers will have conventions with or without tye damned cake. A of them will have their preferred type of sex with or without the cake. Wghoever providesa cake is not participating in or facilitating the sex act. I am really getting tired of this game


I too am tired of it, because I can only think of so many ways to say the same things, it's getting repetitive.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Another one of you numerous appeal to authority logical fallacies. " I said it so it's true" end of story


Ok, so discrimination is refusing anyone any service for any reason?  Correct?  Nobody can refuse service to anyone?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Marriage and attending conventions are not sins. They are entittlesd to believe that sex outside of marriage to one person of the opposit sex is a sin. However, you are not entittled to decide for others what is acceptable behavior, and you are not being forced to participate unless they rip off your clothes and jump your bones.  Sin is a primitive concept born of fear and superstition intended by those in power to control others, particularly women.





> Marriage and attending conventions are not sins.



Gay marriage and a swingers convention would be sins, according to the Bible.



> However, you are not entittled to decide for others what is acceptable behavior,



They are not deciding what is acceptable for anyone, they are deciding what us acceptable for themselves, and that us refusing to help someone else commit a sin.



> Sin is a primitive concept born of fear and superstition intended by those in power to control others, particularly women.



There is more evidence of your anti religion stance.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Gay marriage and a swingers convention would be sins, according to the Bible.


  I doubt that your bible says anything about "gay marriage, " and I'm pretty damned sure that it does not say anything about "swingers conventions". That is somewhere between stupid and hilarious!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They are not deciding what is acceptable for anyone, they are deciding what us acceptable for themselves, and that us refusing to help someone else commit a sin.


Sin is an excuse for trying to control and marginalize others. But hey! It's used against your own kind as well and even works better when you do!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> There is more evidence of your anti religion stance.


Sin is a clever invention by men inorder to control women, children and others with guilt and fear of the unknown.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I doubt that your bible says anything about "gay marriage, " and I'm pretty damned sure that it does not say anything about "swingers conventions". That is somewhere between stupid and hilarious!


Don't be disingenuous. The bible speaks against homosexuality, and it also speaks of having sex outside of marriage, adultery, fornication.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sin is a clever invention by men inorder to control women, children and others with guilt and fear of the unknown.


Ok, you believe that, but you do realize that hundreds of millions of people across the world believe in a God,.or a religion of some sort. Everyone has their own concept of sin. It's apparent others do not believe it's man made.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sin is a clever invention by men inorder to control women, children and others with guilt and fear of the unknown.


Also, how did this become about controlling women lol. Applies to everyone.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ThisIsMe said:


> Don't be disingenuous.



  You might as well ask a fly not to eat shit as ask TheOpressiveFaggot not to be disingenuous.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Don't be disingenuous. The bible speaks against homosexuality, and it also speaks of having sex outside of marriage, adultery, fornication.


You should know by now how much I don't give a shit. But the fact remains that marriage and sex are two different things. So the bakers hissy fit about participating in a sin does not hold water.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Also, how did this become about controlling women lol. Applies to everyone.


Thank you for admitting that sin is used to control people


----------



## martybegan

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You should know by now how much I don't give a shit. But the fact remains that marriage and sex are two different things. So the bakers hissy fit about participating in a sin does not hold water.



In your addled anti-religious bigot mind maybe.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, you believe that, but you do realize that hundreds of millions of people across the world believe in a God,.or a religion of some sort. Everyone has their own concept of sin. It's apparent others do not believe it's man made.


So what?. That negations nothing that I have said


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You should know by now how much I don't give a shit. But the fact remains that marriage and sex are two different things. So the bakers hissy fit about participating in a sin does not hold water.





> You should know by now how much I don't give a shit





> So the bakers hissy fit about participating in a sin does not hold water.



The first quote is the reason why you made the second quote. To you it doesn't matter because you don't care about anyone else's rights and freedoms, only your own. Those pesky religious freedoms are just stupid stuff coming from people who believe in some fairy tale. Do I have that about right?  I'm pretty sure I do.

Thankfully, the founders, many of whom were Christians themselves, decided that people had a right to practice the religion of their choice.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for admitting that sin is used to control people


I didn't admit anything. I merely asked why you went to "it's about controlling women", when the rules of sin apply to everyone.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So what?. That negations nothing that I have said


Of course not. There's no convincing you. You've already made it clear, more than once, that religious freedoms are irrelevant to you, you don't even consider them. There is nothing anyone could ever say that would make you change your mind. I realize that, which makes this entire conversation pointless, really.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Of course not. There's no convincing you. You've already made it clear, more than once, that religious freedoms are irrelevant to you, you don't even consider them. There is nothing anyone could ever say that would make you change your mind. I realize that, which makes this entire conversation pointless, really.


The same is true of you. I agree. There is no point. But for the record, you are grossly misrepresenting me when you say that religious freedoms are irrelevant to me. As much as I think that religion does more harm than good, I support the right of everyone to practice their religion free of fear for doing so BUT-and the big BUT that you don't get is that they must excercise that freedom without encroaching on the freedome of others-including the freedom to be free FROM religion and to not have religion weilded at them as a weapon or as an excuse to discriminate


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I didn't admit anything. I merely asked why you went to "it's about controlling women", when the rules of sin apply to everyone.


Women have historically been oppressed by Christianity, as well as other religions- to an even greater extent. But the issue is "sin" so thank you for admitting that the concept of sin is, in fact uesed to controll people-all people who fall for it- with guilt and fear.

I was consumed by fear,  anxiety and self loathing because I was not-could not be -the person that I was told that I should and must be by the Catholic Cult. It was tantimount to emotional abuse and I bought into it despit that fact that the adults around me were far from perfect. 

Then I realised that the bullsht tyat I was being fed - what I was being told that a "good person" should be had little or nothing to do with what I was being told that I should be. They preach all of this shit about sex and marriage while eschewing the  the core principles of the thechings of christ such as love they neighbor, feed the hungry, and  heal the sick. 

The fact is that I consider myself to be a philosophical Christian and believe in the actua wrds of Christ as a benevolent  wiseman, but not God. Conservative's interpretation of Christianity has become a sick joke and I reject it. Nothing is more demonstrative of the way that Christianity has been coopted and perverted by consrvatives is the extent to which that have embraced and enabled Trump


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The same is true of you. I agree. There is no point. But for the record, you are grossly misrepresenting me when you say that religious freedoms are irrelevant to me. As much as I think that religion does more harm than good, I support the right of everyone to practice their religion free of fear for doing so BUT-and the big BUT that you don't get is that they must excercise that freedom without encroaching on the freedome of others-including the freedom to be free FROM religion and to not have religion weilded at them as a weapon or as an excuse to discriminate


Nobody is using religion as a weapon.  And you're right, you have the freedom to be free from religion, but the baker also has the right to be free from having to do something that goes against his biblical teachings. 

"Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you" - Andrew Wilkow


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Women have historically been oppressed by Christianity, as well as other religions- to an even greater extent. But the issue is "sin" so thank you for admitting that the concept of sin is, in fact uesed to controll people-all people who fall for it- with guilt and fear.
> 
> I was consumed by fear,  anxiety and self loathing because I was not-could not be -the person that I was told that I should and must be by the Catholic Cult. It was tantimount to emotional abuse and I bought into it despit that fact that the adults around me were far from perfect.
> 
> Then I realised that the bullsht tyat I was being fed - what I was being told that a "good person" should be had little or nothing to do with what I was being told that I should be. They preach all of this shit about sex and marriage while eschewing the  the core principles of the thechings of christ such as love they neighbor, feed the hungry, and  heal the sick.
> 
> The fact is that I consider myself to be a philosophical Christian and believe in the actua wrds of Christ as a benevolent  wiseman, but not God. Conservative's interpretation of Christianity has become a sick joke and I reject it. Nothing is more demonstrative of the way that Christianity has been coopted and perverted by consrvatives is the extent to which that have embraced and enabled Trump


I don't understand how Christianity has anything to do with Trump, other than a lot of Christians support him?


----------



## San Souci

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Good. We should bring the Vice Laws of the 1950's when these unpersons were arrested for faggin' off in public.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Good. We should bring the Vice Laws of the 1950's when these unpersons were arrested for faggin' off in public.


What is "fagging off" ?


----------



## Delldude

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.





> _In his 2015 dissent, Chief Justice Roberts echoed President Obama’s 2012 interview: “The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not.”_


Just like abortion was intended to be.


Scalia made comments on the CRA being unconstitutional also. Stay tuned.


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What is "fagging off" ?


They have a festival in San Franciso, go there, you'll find out.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Good. We should bring the Vice Laws of the 1950's when these unpersons were arrested for faggin' off in public.


Why are you so threatened by people who are different than you? What has been done to  you to makes you so hostile to others who just want to live and love in peace? How has homosexuality and gay marriage affected you personally? You can tell us. We will help you to get well..


----------



## g5000

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


Sexually immoral?  Adulterers?

You just defined Trump to a T!


----------



## g5000

Redfish said:


> the quoran is even more specific on this, so is the torah.   Jews, Christians, and muslims, and most pagans,  all agree that homosexuality is a perversion.  you, as usual, are confusing issues here.  secular means NO religion of any stripe.  its not secular or Christian,  its secular or a religion chosen by the citizens (or mandated on them).


If our government followed the Bible, Donald Trump would not have been allowed to marry a second time, much less a third.

Put that in your hypocritical pipe and smoke it.


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Why are you so threatened by people who are different than you? What has been done to  you to makes you so hostile to others who just want to live and love in peace? How has homosexuality and gay marriage affected you personally? You can tell us. We will help you to get well..


Tell ya, pushing that on kindergarten children is off the reservation.
You want to engage in sexual proclivites....have at it......after you've reached puberty.


----------



## ThisIsMe

g5000 said:


> Sexually immoral?  Adulterers?
> 
> You just defined Trump to a T!


This thread has nothing to do with trump......and yes, he's certainly flawed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Delldude said:


> Tell ya, pushing that on kindergarten children is off the reservation.
> You want to engage in sexual proclivites....have at it......after you've reached puberty.


Pushing what on kids? What the fuck are ypu blathering about? Try answering my question if you are not to much of a coward


----------



## Redfish

g5000 said:


> If our government followed the Bible, Donald Trump would not have been allowed to marry a second time, much less a third.
> 
> Put that in your hypocritical pipe and smoke it.


yep, and joe biden would have been hung for showering with his teen age daughter


----------



## g5000

ThisIsMe said:


> This thread has nothing to do with trump......and yes, he's certainly flawed.


You would like us not to talk about Trump's non-compliance with the Bible, wouldn't you, hypocrite.


----------



## g5000

The only reason gay marriage has become a POLITICAL issue is because we have demanded the government get all up in our marriages by doling out cash and prizes to married people.

Certain bigoted heteros are now all upset that homos are getting the same cash and prizes they are.

Hypocrites.

And just like the racists of the past, the modern day bigots are wielding the Bible to justify their hatred, and using identical arguments.

They sicken me.


----------



## Delldude

ThisIsMe said:


> This thread has nothing to do with trump......and yes, he's certainly flawed.


TDS has burned it's way into their little heads, permanently.


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pushing what on kids? What the fuck are ypu blathering about? Try answering my question if you are not to much of a coward


Trigger much?
Sexual exploitation of children is wrong. 
Forcing gender identity on children is wrong. 
Administering puberty blockers on children is wrong. 
Sex change surgery on children is wrong.

How's that for a start?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> yep, and joe biden would have been hung for showering with his teen age daughter


You stupid shits will believe anything. And if you don't believe it, you will shamelessly it anyway






						الصفحة الرئيسية | مسبار
					






					misbar.com
				




Emerging story​


> National File, a right-wing website, released an *alleged copy *of Ashley Biden’s diary. It alleges that Biden took showers with her, molested her, and other highly inappropriate acts. The National File claims to have received it from an “anonymous whistleblower.”
> 
> Misbar’s Analysis​Misbar’s investigation found tha*t this source is highly questionable.* For an anonymous whistleblower to be credible, the publication must also be credible. In this regard, the National File fails. MediaBias lists it under conspiracy pseudoscience, referring to the website as “InfoWars-light.”
> 
> The National File often post articles asserting that 9/11 was an “inside job” and Hillary Clinton is involved in sex trafficking. They also post antivaxxer articles, such as “Parents Take To The Streets To Save Vaccine Exemptions From Political Elites."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Delldude said:


> Trigger much?
> Sexual exploitation of children is wrong.
> Forcing gender identity on children is wrong.
> Administering puberty blockers on children is wrong.
> Sex change surgery on children is wrong.
> 
> How's that for a start?


Actually I agree with 3 out of four of those points, But no one is
sexually exploitating  children, No one is forcing gender identity on childrenn. And no one is performing sex change surgery on children. How stupid are you?. Stop listening to that shit that you are being fed and try THINKING.!

As far as puberty blockers are concerned, you need to educate yourself about what that really is,and why it is done. But you won't because you would rather wallow in ignorance and insulate yourslf from any information that challenges you preconceived ideas about gender dysphoria


----------



## ThisIsMe

g5000 said:


> You would like us not to talk about Trump's non-compliance with the Bible, wouldn't you, hypocrite.


I don't care what you say about Trump, I was merely pointing out that this thread and the post you replied to had nothing to do with Trump.  You decided to interject that into a conversation where it wasn't even relevant. 

If you want to talk about Trump and his faults have at it, really, it doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Actually I agree with 3 out ng itof four of those points, But no one is
> sexually exploitating  children, No one is forcing gender identity on childrenn. And no one is performing sex change surgery on children. How stupid are you?. Stop listening to that shit that you are being fed and try THINKING.!
> 
> As far as puberty blockers are concerned, you need to educate yourself about what that really is,and why it is done. But you won't because you would rather wallow in ignorance and insulate yourslf from any information that challenges you preconceived ideas about gender dysphoria


PS To clarify: Children are sexually exploited but not by those whio you imply are doing it. It is not Democrats, educators or librarians,. It is the likes of The Matt Gaetz Investigation: What We Know (Published 2021).

CC: Delldude


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Actually I agree with 3 out of four of those points, But no one is
> sexually exploitating  children, No one is forcing gender identity on childrenn. And no one is performing sex change surgery on children. How stupid are you?. Stop listening to that shit that you are being fed and try THINKING.!
> 
> As far as puberty blockers are concerned, you need to educate yourself about what that really is,and why it is done. But you won't because you would rather wallow in ignorance and insulate yourslf from any information that challenges you preconceived ideas about gender dysphoria


 Children are given a certain legal status for a reason.......when children mature through puberty, they become adults.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Why are you so threatened by people who are different than you? What has been done to  you to makes you so hostile to others who just want to live and love in peace? How has homosexuality and gay marriage affected you personally? You can tell us. We will help you to get well..


Turning the USA into a bunch of sissy marys is not an answer.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What is "fagging off" ?


Just what it sounds like.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Delldude said:


> Children are given a certain legal status for a reason.......when children mature through puberty, they become adults.


Yes ok, but how is that a response to anyting that I have said?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Turning the USA into a bunch of sissy marys is not an answer.


As I thought. You have issues


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You stupid shits will believe anything. And if you don't believe it, you will shamelessly it anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> الصفحة الرئيسية | مسبار
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> misbar.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emerging story​


the daughter has said it publicly, its more than just that story.  Biden has been a joke in congress for over 50 years,  the others ignored and laughed at him, he was known as an idiot by his peers in congress.   No one respected him, even obozo who said "never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up".   Do all of the clips of him sniffing and rubbing little girls not upset you at all?   The guy is senile and a pervert.   face reality for once.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> the daughter has said it publicly, its more than just that story.  Biden has been a joke in congress for over 50 years,  the others ignored and laughed at him, he was known as an idiot by his peers in congress.   No one respected him, even obozo who said "never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up".   Do all of the clips of him sniffing and rubbing little girls not upset you at all?   The guy is senile and a pervert.   face reality for once.


You read in some right wing rag that has poisoned your atrophied brain that she said it publicly. I 'll tell you what upsets me. The fact that you people cannot engage in political discourse without making shit up in an attempt to smear those who you have differences with. But it's not urprising since you have nothing of  substance to offer


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No one is forcing gender identity on childrenn. And no one is performing sex change surgery on children.











						Vanderbilt University temporarily pauses gender change operation for minors
					

Vanderbilt University Medical Center will discontinue all permanent 'gender affirmation surgery' for minors until further notice after intense scrutiny from Tennessee lawmakers.




					www.foxnews.com
				






TheProgressivePatriot said:


> As far as puberty blockers are concerned, you need to educate yourself about what that really is,and why it is done.











						Georgetown University's med school promotes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones for minors: report
					

A lecture for first-year medical students at Georgetown University presented puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgery as treatments for gender dysphoria.




					www.foxnews.com
				




Boston Children’s Hospital doc says gender confusion has ‘skyrocketed,’ puberty blockers given ‘like candy’​
Boston Children’s Hospital doc says gender confusion has ‘skyrocketed,’ puberty blockers given ‘like candy’ - LifeSite


----------



## beautress

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Trump does not own the court. He respects their right to rule as they see fit, and I never heard that he at any time broached the separation of powers clause in the Constitution.


----------



## rightwinger

beautress said:


> Trump does not own the court. He respects their right to rule as they see fit, and I never heard that he at any time broached the separation of powers clause in the Constitution.



It is not a real Supreme Court

It is a TRUMPCourt


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Delldude said:


> Vanderbilt University temporarily pauses gender change operation for minors
> 
> 
> Vanderbilt University Medical Center will discontinue all permanent 'gender affirmation surgery' for minors until further notice after intense scrutiny from Tennessee lawmakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgetown University's med school promotes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones for minors: report
> 
> 
> A lecture for first-year medical students at Georgetown University presented puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgery as treatments for gender dysphoria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boston Children’s Hospital doc says gender confusion has ‘skyrocketed,’ puberty blockers given ‘like candy’​
> Boston Children’s Hospital doc says gender confusion has ‘skyrocketed,’ puberty blockers given ‘like candy’ - LifeSite


The Vanderbilt policy is in keeping with the best practices guidlines for gender reassignmnent which is rarely, if ever done with minors and certainly not with small children. In all cases, irreversable proceedures are only performed after extensive psychological evaluation and an extended period of time living as the gender to which one aspires to 
'
Puberty blockers are part of gender affirming care for young people who are experiencing gender dysphoria but who need time to figure out who they really are. While controversail, it is not irreversable and and to bedenied this care is cruel and can result in self severe emotional turmoil, and even  suicide









						Your Guide to Gender Affirming Care
					

The world of gender affirming care (GAC), both mental and physical, can be difficult to navigate — but it doesn't have to be. Let's discuss some of the most common forms.




					www.healthline.com
				




And none of this is "pushing it on kids" These are kids who are crying out for help. They are not being told that they are trans. No one is suggesting to them that they are trans. They just are an they need responsable adults who will help them. They do not need your ignoant hysteria.

Lastly, this thread is about marriage equality. Get back on topic


----------



## beautress

rightwinger said:


> It is not a real Supreme Court
> 
> It is a TRUMPCourt


You are gravely mistaken. I heard a creepsister saying today on the tube that the Supreme Court abolished abortions. That's too crazy to discuss except to say that was wrong.
With re to abortions, the Supreme Court ruled on one thing only--because the original Roe V. Wade took away a State's right according to the very Constitution they were supposed to have followed. they didn't. The only thing the Courts did was to fix the wrong of taking away state's rights. They gave back the right of the state to rule on domestic issues as the earlier court took away legislation in order to make it a federal issue.

Not only is the Supreme Court real, it did NOT outlaw or abolish abortions. It merely gave each state the right to rule its own people by deciding their own version of whether abortion would rule in their state. The Democrats want more. they want to destroy state's rights, and they are pissed off that the Supreme Court gave states rights back to the states rights were stolen from.

What do you care? You claim the Democrats are paying you to post.


----------



## rightwinger

beautress said:


> You are gravely mistaken. I heard a creepsister saying today on the tube that the Supreme Court abolished abortions. That's too crazy to discuss except to say that was wrong.
> With re to abortions, the Supreme Court ruled on one thing only--because the original Roe V. Wade took away a State's right according to the very Constitution they were supposed to have followed. they didn't. The only thing the Courts did was to fix the wrong of taking away state's rights. They gave back the right of the state to rule on domestic issues as the earlier court took away legislation in order to make it a federal issue.
> 
> Not only is the Supreme Court real, it did NOT outlaw or abolish abortions. It merely gave each state the right to rule its own people by deciding their own version of whether abortion would rule in their state. The Democrats want more. they want to destroy state's rights, and they are pissed off that the Supreme Court gave states rights back to the states rights were stolen from.
> 
> What do you care? You claim the Democrats are paying you to post.



The TRUMPCourt lied about honoring the settled law of Roe v Wade
They made a decision that wasn’t even being asked for

They surrendered being a legitimate legal body to engage in partisan politics


----------



## beautress

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> PS To clarify: Children are sexually exploited but not by those whio you imply are doing it. It is not Democrats, educators or librarians,. It is the likes of The Matt Gaetz Investigation: What We Know (Published 2021).
> 
> CC: Delldude


your link is to a payment for services to the NYTimes. They aren't willing to mention what they published in 2021 until after you pay them whatever they want you to pay. Do you have a link that is not an advertisement about the Matt Gaetz Investigation?


----------



## beautress

rightwinger said:


> The TRUMPCourt lied about honoring the settled law of Roe v Wade
> They made a decision that wasn’t even being asked for
> 
> They surrendered being a legitimate legal body to engage in partisan politics


Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the first person to tell America that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional shortly before she passed, Mr. RW. The court merely affirmed her opinion, and they did the right thing. Again, this is not about abolishing abortion, it's about routing the issue to the states whether or not they want abortion in their states or not. A strongly Roman Catholic State membership might abolish abortion, or not, depending on what the majority of the people in any given state can ok or dismiss practicing abortion that yanks life away from human beings too small to take up for themselves. It's a 100% short and simple issue.


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Vanderbilt policy is in keeping with the best practices guidlines for gender reassignmnent which is rarely, if ever done with minors and certainly not with small children. In all cases, irreversable proceedures are only performed after extensive psychological evaluation and an extended period of time living as the gender to which one aspires to
> '
> Puberty blockers are part of gender affirming care for young people who are experiencing gender dysphoria but who need time to figure out who they really are. While controversail, it is not irreversable and and to bedenied this care is cruel and can result in self severe emotional turmoil, and even  suicide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guide to Gender Affirming Care
> 
> 
> The world of gender affirming care (GAC), both mental and physical, can be difficult to navigate — but it doesn't have to be. Let's discuss some of the most common forms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.healthline.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And none of this is "pushing it on kids" These are kids who are crying out for help. They are not being told that they are trans. No one is suggesting to them that they are trans. They just are an they need responsable adults who will help them. They do not need your ignoant hysteria.
> 
> Lastly, this thread is about marriage equality. Get back on topic



Vanderbilt stopped doing their work after exposed on TV by RW reporting, and I might add, no coverage by LW media.



			FDA issues warning on puberty blockers; some Ala. lawmakers support findings
		




			FDA Quietly Adds Warning Of Serious Side Effects To Puberty Blockers


----------



## Leviticus

They won't go after interracial marriage since it actually effects off of the gop justices, even though most on the right would support banning it.


----------



## Delldude

Leviticus said:


> They won't go after interracial marriage since it actually effects off of the gop justices, even though most on the right would support banning it.


Goes back to a states rights issue, just like abortion.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Leviticus said:


> They won't go after interracial marriage since it actually effects off of the gop justices, even though most on the right would support banning it.



  Nobody on the right opposes interracial marriage, outside of a few fringe kooks.

  You're lying when you attribute this position to _“most on the right”_.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Leviticus said:


> They won't go after interracial marriage since it actually effects off of the gop justices, even though most on the right would support banning it.


That's simply not true and you have no evidence that the right would support that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Leviticus said:


> They won't go after interracial marriage since it actually effects off of the gop justices, even though most on the right would support banning it.


They wont go after interracial marriage because they are cowards. Gays have become a much more acceptable target that racial minorities so thay don't want to touch it-for noe.  They will ignore the fact that Loving was decided on the same constitutional grounds as Obergefell- equal protection under that law and due proces under the 14th amendment.

However, once they are finished pushing gay rights back to the 1950's, they wil turn to interracial mariage, and will in fact look for ways to forstall the trend of the impending white minority-the great replacement theory- and invoke interracial marriage as part of that "problem"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Delldude said:


> Goes back to a states rights issue, just like abortion.


Those who lament the demise of states rights should blame the trators who started the civil war and the resultin reconstruction amendments including the 14th  which rendered the bill of rights binding on the states. States rights are not absolute


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> They wont go after interracial marriage because they are cowards. Gays have become a much more acceptable target that racial minorities so thay don't want to touch it-for noe.  They will ignore the fact that Loving was decided on the same constitutional grounds as Obergefell- equal protection under that law and due proces under the 14th amendment.
> 
> However, once they are finished pushing gay rights back to the 1950's, they wil turn to interracial mariage, they wil in fact look for ways to forstall the trend of the impending white minority-the great replacement theory- and invoke interracial marriage as part of that "problem"


No they won't lol. Nobody has any interest in banning interracial marriage (ok, maybe a few extreme kooks, but not anyone in the mainstream), besides, there's no reason to, just like there's no reason to ban gay marriage, and if people follow the cotus, they won't (or shouldnt) try. Yeah, yeah, you'll have some people will claim religion to ban same sex marriage, but, they have no standing. 

As I've said before, the federal government doesn't have the authority to ban same sex marriage, just like it doesn't have the authority to ban interracial marriage, or abortions.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Those who lament the demise of states rights should blame the trators who started the civil war and the resultin reconstruction amendments including the 14th  which rendered the bill of rights binding on the states. States rights are not absolute


Do you believe the federal government should be able to make any law it wants? 

 What does states rights mean to you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Delldude said:


> Vanderbilt stopped doing their work after exposed on TV by RW reporting, and I might add, no coverage by LW media.
> 
> 
> 
> FDA issues warning on puberty blockers; some Ala. lawmakers support findings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDA Quietly Adds Warning Of Serious Side Effects To Puberty Blockers


More biased bullshit fro the daily caller. There is much to be said about the value of these drugs, but once again, this thread is about marriage. GET ON TOPIC


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No they won't lol. Nobody has any interest in banning interracial marriage (ok, maybe a few extreme kooks, but not anyone in the mainstream), besides, there's no reason to, just like there's no reason to ban gay marriage, and if people follow the cotus, they won't (or shouldnt) try. Yeah, yeah, you'll have some people will claim religion to ban same sex marriage, but, they have no standing.
> 
> As I've said before, the federal government doesn't have the authority to ban same sex marriage, just like it doesn't have the authority to ban interracial marriage, or abortions.


Holy shit! Here you are again with more of your duplicitous bullshit . The federal gaovernmwnt, via congrress can indeed ban interracial, and same sex marriage, as well as banning abortion as they are now trying to to. And while the SCOTUS will not make such a ruling, they can step aside and allow they states to do so as they already have with abortion. And while you claim to believe that  the constitution protects those rights, you do not think that the courts can enforce it because that is "making law" You do not give a fuck about those rights  You fool no one


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Do you believe the federal government should be able to make any law it wants?
> 
> What does states rights mean to you?


Jesus fucking christ! more games. No the federal goverment must make laws that conform to the constitituion and the state staes, while having rights, must do the same. There! So simple that a MAGA moron can understand it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Delldude said:


> Goes back to a states rights issue, just like abortion.


So do you think that if a state wants to limit marriage to two people of the same race, they can? Think about how that would work out since  many people are mixed race of varying degrees . Forinstance, if one party was 25% black and the other  75% black, could they marry. The whole idea is justst as stupid as gender being a factor since many people are not clearly male or female. We, as a society just need to get the fuck over it andstop trying to control other peoples lives.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! Here you are again with more of your duplicitous bullshit . The federal gaovernmwnt, via congrress can indeed ban interracial, and same sex marriage, as well as banning abortion as they are now trying to to. And while the SCOTUS will not make such a ruling, they can step aside and allow they states to do so as they already have with abortion. And while you claim to believe that  the constitution protects those rights, you do not think that the courts can enforce it because that is "making law" You do not give a fuck about those rights  You fool no one





> Holy shit! Here you are again with more of your duplicitous bullshit



Haaaai!  




> The federal gaovernmwnt, via congrress can indeed ban interracial, and same sex marriage, as well as banning abortion as they are now trying to to



I don't think they can, because of the 14th ammendment, there would be too many lawsuits. Even still, if they tried, they'd never have the votes to do it, it would be political suicide. I don't think that many people really want to ban those things, not as much as you think they do, well, maybe abortion, but, again, I don't know if there is enough support, even in the republican party, for a nationwide ban. 




> And while the SCOTUS will not make such a ruling, they can step aside and allow they states to do so as they already have with abortion



I don't think even the states will make bans on gay marriage, or interracial marriage, there will be those that have, or, will, make abortion bans though, that's for the those states to decide though. 



> And while you claim to believe that  the constitution protects those rights, you do not think that the courts can enforce it because that is "making law



The cotus does protect those rights, and yes, I don't believe the courts should make law. I believe the courts can protect people by making states abode by the 14th ammendment, but courts cannot make law. 



> You do not give a fuck about those rights  You fool no one



Rethink that, I think this country affords you the opportunity to love, and marry anyone you want. At no point have you heard me state they should ban gay marriage, nor should they ban interracial marriage.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jesus fucking christ! more games. No the federal goverment must make laws that conform to the constitituion and the state staes, while having rights, must do the same. There! So simple that a MAGA moron can understand it.





> No the federal goverment must make laws that conform to the constitituion



Great, what does the cotus say about the powers of the federal government, and the powers of the state?



> while having rights



Thats what I'm asking, what are the states rights in relation to the federal government. 


Also, calm down, were just talking....



> So simple that a MAGA moron can understand



When I see a maga person, I'll let you know.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I don't think they can, because of the 14th ammendment, there would be too many lawsuits. Even still, if they tried, they'd never have the votes to do it, it would be political suicide. I don't think that many people really want to ban those things, not as much as you think they do, well, maybe abortion, but, again, I don't know if there is enough support, even in the republican party, for a nationwide ban.


Really? They would not do it because of the threat of lawsuits? Are you fucking serious.? They are not worried about law suits. With Trumps SCOTUS they would ultimatly prevail Likewise they are not concerned about the will of the people. They are concerned about appeasing the moronic minions that make up the MAGA base. It they take congress in Nov. there is a good chance that they will do it.  Get real. It continues to be apparent that you are pretending to support those rights, while claiming that they are not in danger and really not giving a shit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I don't think even the states will make bans on gay marriage, or interracial marriage, there will be those that have, or, will, make abortion bans though, that's for the those states to decide though.


How stupid are you.? Regading marriage, they did it before and little has changed since then. Abortion? Allowing states to decide is ok ? You are a fucking idiot!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The cotus does protect those rights, and yes, I don't believe the courts should make law. I believe the courts can protect people by making states abode by the 14th ammendment, but courts cannot make law.


You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Rights are protected....but, but, but     Herp Derp/ You are so full of shit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Rethink that, I think this country affords you the opportunity to love, and marry anyone you want. At no point have you heard me state they should ban gay marriage, nor should they ban interracial marriage.


At no point have I heard you say that the courts should enforce those rights when congress or the staes will not. You are so full of shit!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? They would not do it because of the threat of lawsuits? Are you fucking serious.? They are not worried about law suits. With Trumps SCOTUS they would ultimatly prevail Likewise they are not concerned about the will of the people. They are concerned about appeasing the moronic minions that make up thye MAGA base. It they take congress in Nov. there is a good chance that they will do it.  Get real. It continues to be apparent that you are pretending to support those rights, while claiming that they are not in danger and really not giving a shit.





> Really? They would not do it because of the threat of lawsuits? Are you fucking serious.



Absolutely. Every politician knows the courts would reject that on 14th ammendment basis, and even if a court did, there would  be another court to challenge it or appeal it. 



> With Trumps SCOTUS they would ultimatly prevail Likewise they are not concerned about the will of the people.



"Trumps" scotus hasn't been so Trumpy as of late. I'm sure you have noticed. 



> It they take congress in Nov. there is a good chance that they will do it.



No they won't. Has any republican congressman really seriously talked about it?  Even if they did, it's just political fluff, kinda like how dems have talked for years about gun bans, but when they had the chance during obama, they balked. 



> It continues to be apparent that you are pretending to support those rights, while claiming that they are not in danger and really not giving a shit.



No, I support the cotus, and 14A says yiu have the right to do what you want.  I'd oppose congress making any law banning gay marriage or interracial marriage. It's not their place.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, I support the cotus, and 14A says yiu have the right to do what you want. I'd oppose congress making any law banning gay marriage or interracial marriage. It's not their place.


But you think that the court should allow states to to ban gay or interracial marriage rather than "make laws " saying that those bans by the states are unconstitutional, don't you? And I suspect that if congress were to do so you would take the same poosition Yes or no? Enough with the stupid games! You are so full of shit I can smell it from here .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Absolutely. Every politician knows the courts would reject that on 14th ammendment basis, and even if a court did, there would be another court to challenge it or appeal it.


They DO NOT CARE!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How stupid are you.? Regading marriage, they did it before and little has changed since then. Abortion? Allowing states to decide is ok ? You are a fucking idiot!





> Regading marriage, they did it before and little has changed since then.



Are there any states that ban same sex marriages, currently?  I don't believe there are. There is little chance they would ever go back to it, the political landscape has evolved since those bans were in place. 



> Abortion? Allowing states to decide is ok ? You are a fucking idiot!





Over the federal government?  Absolutely. Do you believe the federal courts should decide on abortion?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No they won't. Has any republican congressman really seriously talked about it? Even if they did, it's just political fluff, kinda like how dems have talked for years about gun bans, but when they had the chance during obama, they balked.


Yes actually some have? Gay marriage anyway. They are too chicken to go after interracial marriage, so far anyway


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Are there any states that ban same sex marriages, currently? I don't believe there are. There is little chance they would ever go back to it, the political landscape has evolved since those bans were in place.


A  stupid question and and a stupid prediction!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Rights are protected....but, but, but     Herp Derp/ You are so full of shit


Ok, I kinda chuckled a little at this, because it's funny, right?  Its funny. 

Rights are protected btw.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> At no point have I heard you say that the courts should enforce those rights when congress or the staes will not. You are so full of shit!


I've stated, repeatedly, that the courts should defend 14A rights. I've stated, repeatedly, that states rights are absolute, unless the state is infringing on a person's cotus rights, then the courts step in and correct the state.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But you think that the court should allow states to to ban gay or interracial marriage rather than "make laws " saying that those bans by the states are unconstitutional, don't you? And I suspect that if congress were to do so you would take the same poosition Yes or no? Enough with the stupid games! You are so full of shit I can smell it from here .


Nope, I think the courts can't make a law, period. If a state bans gay or interracial marriage, then that crosses the 14A, then the court steps in and defends those people. 

If a court states a gay or inter marriage ban is unconstitutional, I support that. What I don't support is the courts creating laws. The courts can defend rights but they can't make law. 

I don't understand why that's so hard to understand. Why are you so adamant that courts be able to make laws?  Do you not understand that that is not the courts job, and, eventually, that will come back to bite you at some point?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes actually some have? Gay marriage anyway. They are too chicken to go after interracial marriage, so far anyway


They have?  Like seriously?  I've tried to search for "congress wants to ban gay marriage" and "republican ban on gay marriage" and I didn't  come up with any articles that fit those criteria. 

I just really don't think it will ever happen. You need to stop listening to those fear mongering progressive talk shows.  In this day and age, nobody is going to ban gay or interracial marriage.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A  stupid question and and a stupid prediction!


Why is it a stupid question?  I really don't know. I looked, and what I found that all states have repealed gay marriage bans. I seriously don't believe ANY would ever go back to them .


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Those who lament the demise of states rights should blame the trators who started the civil war and the resultin reconstruction amendments including the 14th  which rendered the bill of rights binding on the states. States rights are not absolute


Only ones who have been doing an end around on the 10th amendment are the COTUS loving progressives.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So do you think that if a state wants to limit marriage to two people of the same race, they can? Think about how that would work out since  many people are mixed race of varying degrees . Forinstance, if one party was 25% black and the other  75% black, could they marry. The whole idea is justst as stupid as gender being a factor since many people are not clearly male or female. We, as a society just need to get the fuck over it andstop trying to control other peoples lives.


This thread isn't about mixed race, it's states rights to limit or refuse acknowledging same sex marriage.

Please try to stay on topic.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes actually some have? Gay marriage anyway. They are too chicken to go after interracial marriage, so far anyway



  You have no clue how deeply and hatefully racist you are being, by suggesting that being the _“wrong race”_ is comparable to being disgusting, depraved sexual pervert.


----------



## Ivan88

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------


Right winger said, "Another example of why secular law is more just than Biblical law."

The Homosexual oriented want a new Sodom  & Gomorra where no one can refuse the homosexuals. Getting rid of them removes Curses on the Nation.
And you cannot vote your way out of the Curses. Voting brings curses.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> As I thought. You have issues


Sure do. Mem are Men. Women are Women. Anything else is a sick deviant.


----------



## Friends2

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...


I am fortunate because I never attended a school in my life where there were more than a few Negroes in the student body. Black majority public schools are dangerous for the whites and Orientals who attend. By encouraging the civil rights movement the Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court Decision of 1954 harmed the United States. Integration only works when the black population is low.


----------



## Friends2

Social issues like gay marriage should be decided by he voters. The Supreme Court should stay out of them.


----------



## Friends2




----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ivan88 said:


> Right winger said, "Another example of why secular law is more just than Biblical law."
> 
> The Homosexual oriented want a new Sodom  & Gomorra where no one can refuse the homosexuals. Getting rid of them removes Curses on the Nation.
> And you cannot vote your way out of the Curses. Voting brings curses.


Holy fucking shit on a shingle ! Thant's all I have to say


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Friends2 said:


> Social issues like gay marriage should be decided by he voters. The Supreme Court should stay out of them.


Civil rights are not for voters to decide


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Why is it a stupid question?  I really don't know. I looked, and what I found that all states have repealed gay marriage bans. I seriously don't believe ANY would ever go back to them .


Most states that had bans on gay marrige on the books have not repealed anything . However they are unenforceable because of Obergefell. If Obergefell were to be overturned, they would go back into effect. Anyone who does not know that is indeed stupid!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Why is it a stupid question?  I really don't know. I looked, and what I found that all states have repealed gay marriage bans. I seriously don't believe ANY would ever go back to them .


You are in serious need of an education








						States across U.S. still cling to outdated gay marriage bans
					

Same-sex marriage became the law of the land in 2015, but you wouldn’t know that looking at the constitutions and statutes of dozens of U.S. states.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They have?  Like seriously?  I've tried to search for "congress wants to ban gay marriage" and "republican ban on gay marriage" and I didn't  come up with any articles that fit those criteria.
> 
> I just really don't think it will ever happen. You need to stop listening to those fear mongering progressive talk shows.  In this day and age, nobody is going to ban gay or interracial marriage.


See post 1398


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 1398



  See post 125.


----------



## Friends2

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Civil rights are not for voters to decide


The minorities I like do not need to be protected by the Supreme Court. They behave and perform well.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Nope, I think the courts can't make a law, period. If a state bans gay or interracial marriage, then that crosses the 14A, then the court steps in and defends those people.
> 
> If a court states a gay or inter marriage ban is unconstitutional, I support that. What I don't support is the courts creating laws. The courts can defend rights but they can't make law.
> 
> I don't understand why that's so hard to understand. Why are you so adamant that courts be able to make laws?  Do you not understand that that is not the courts job, and, eventually, that will come back to bite you at some point?


Good fucking grief! Do you ever stop! We seem to actually agree on what the power of the court is. You just don't want to call ir CASE  LAW  That is the only thing that I'm having trouble understanding. So tell me kid, what do you want to call it.? What words are acceptable to you ?

Court rulings are  universally referred to by people of all political views as case law. It it is a federal court ruling on a constitutional issue it becomes CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Friends2 said:


> I am fortunate because I never attended a school in my life where there were more than a few Negroes in the student body. Black majority public schools are dangerous for the whites and Orientals who attend. By encouraging the civil rights movement the Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court Decision of 1954 harmed the United States. Integration only works when the black population is low.


I am fortunate because I never attended a school or had to be any place else that was infected by shameless bigots. I might have to walk the same earth, and breath the same air as the likes of you, but I will be forever grateful that I never had to associate with your kind, and most of all, grateful that I am not your kind

What are you even doing here? Wouldn't you be more at home on Stormfront ? This board is dominated by conservatives but you go way beyong where they are at.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Friends2 said:


> The minorities I like do not need to be protected by the Supreme Court. They behave and perform well.


What minorities are those? Does their "good behavior" protect them from bigots?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They have?  Like seriously?  I've tried to search for "congress wants to ban gay marriage" and "republican ban on gay marriage" and I didn't  come up with any articles that fit those criteria.
> 
> I just really don't think it will ever happen. You need to stop listening to those fear mongering progressive talk shows.  In this day and age, nobody is going to ban gay or interracial marriage.


Here is more for you to chew on kid. If you actually did any research, you're clearly not very good at it. You are finished here you are beyong redemption.









						Republicans are coming after same-sex marriage – and won’t stop there | Arwa Mahdawi
					

I got gay-married last year and naively thought I wouldn’t have to worry about the government nullifying my nuptials




					www.theguardian.com
				






> And while Republicans used to be relatively quiet about same-sex marriage, they’re now increasingly making noise about it. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, for example, used the supreme court confirmation process of now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to repeatedly opine that the high court wrongfully invented the right to same-sex marriage.





> The moral of this story? All of our rights are inextricably connected. Conservatives are not going to focus only on trans people and leave cis gay people alone. They’re not going to focus their energies on undermining reproductive rights and ignore LGBT people. They’re coming for everyone who doesn’t look and think like them. We cannot draw lines between the struggle for trans rights or gay rights or women’s rights: we are all in it together. The Republicans have made it very clear that if they haven’t come for your civil rights yet they will do so very soon.


----------



## Blaster

ThisIsMe said:


> In this day and age, nobody is going to ban gay or interracial marriage.


They'll just cancel anyone that is opposed to gay marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Blaster said:


> They'll just cancel anyone that is opposed to gay marriage.


Not true. We don't want to cancel anyone. Quite the contrary. Let the opposition have their platform  for the world to see their  stupidity and bigotry. Hate thrives when it's  driven underground to fester and grow like cancer. On the onther hand demons wither and die in the light of day.

The more that people try to justify and defend banning marriage equality, the more they fall flat on their faces and look stupid.


----------



## initforme

Get rid of marriage altogether.


----------



## Friends2

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am fortunate because I never attended a school or had to be any place else that was infected by shameless bigots. I might have to walk the same earth, and breath the same air as the likes of you, but I will be forever grateful that I never had to associate with your kind, and most of all, grateful that I am not your kind
> 
> What are you even doing here? Wouldn't you be more at home on Stormfront ? This board is dominated by conservatives but you go way beyong where they are at.


StormFront banned me when I pointed out that one of Adolf Hitler's accusations against German Jews was factually incorrect. 

If you think black majority public high schools are safe places of learning, I suggest you spend several semesters as a substitute teacher in several of them. Liberal parents go to considerable lengths to avoid sending their children to public schools with lots of blacks in them. 

I am liberal on economic and environmental issues. I used to support the civil rights movement. Unlike other liberals I woke up from Martin Luther Kings Dream to smell the smoke from the most recent black ghetto riot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> Get rid of marriage altogether.


Brilliant! Throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us know what that would look like in the real world, and what sort of political support there would be for it.


----------



## Friends2

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What minorities are those? Does their "good behavior" protect them from bigots?


They are Jews and Orientals. They succeed and prosper despite the hostility of those who resent them because of their superior average intelligence.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Friends2 said:


> StormFront banned me when I pointed out that one of Adolf Hitler's accusations against German Jews was factually incorrect.
> 
> If you think black majority public high schools are safe places of learning, I suggest you spend several semesters as a substitute teacher in several of them. Liberal parents go to considerable lengths to avoid sending their children to public schools with lots of blacks in them.
> 
> I am liberal on economic and environmental issues. I used to support the civil rights movement. Unlike other liberals I woke up from Martin Luther Kings Dream to smell the smoke from the most recent black ghetto riot.


Hey look. This thread is about gay marriage. I will not suborn your attemps to troll it into the gutter on racial issues. Take your racist crap somewhere else.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Friends2 said:


> They are Jews and Orientals. They succeed and prosper despite the hostility of those who resent them because of their superior average intelligence.


Jews and Orientals are frequent target of discrimination and violence, fool.


----------



## Friends2

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jews and Orientals are frequent target of discrimination and violence, fool.


Nevertheless, they tend to earn more money than white Gentiles. That is the difference IQ makes.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Most states that had bans on gay marrige on the books have not repealed anything . However they are unenforceable because of Obergefell. If Obergefell were to be overturned, they would go back into effect. Anyone who does not know that is indeed stupid!


I was reading wiki and for every state, it says all their bans were declared unconstitutional. 

I can't seem to find a list of states that still have bans.  Regardless, I think you are worried about nothing. Gay marriage is safe in every state. Even if obergefell is overturned, you'd see states repealing bans or legalizing gay marriage. 

Again, more than anything, politicians care about votes.  Banning same sex marriage would be bad for their approval ratings.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are in serious need of an education
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States across U.S. still cling to outdated gay marriage bans
> 
> 
> Same-sex marriage became the law of the land in 2015, but you wouldn’t know that looking at the constitutions and statutes of dozens of U.S. states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com


There may be a few states that have old laws on the books. My point is, they are not going to enforce them.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Good fucking grief! Do you ever stop! We seem to actually agree on what the power of the court is. You just don't want to call ir CASE  LAW  That is the only thing that I'm having trouble understanding. So tell me kid, what do you want to call it.? What words are acceptable to you ?
> 
> Court rulings are  universally referred to by people of all political views as case law. It it is a federal court ruling on a constitutional issue it becomes CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.


What I want to avoid is a situation like roe, where the courts ruled on a right to privacy, and the leftist activists said "it's law!  Abortion is settled law!".

I'm not advocating against gay marriage, I'm just trying to be crystal clear on the role of the court, and careful about what they say,  because for 3 decades, we were recognizing a "law" created by scotus, which was really just the left creating that narrative, which scotus doesn't have the power to do.  So, yes, maybe I am harping about the language, but it's that language that gave us 30 years of "law" that should have never been.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Here is more for you to chew on kid. If you actually did any research, you're clearly not very good at it. You are finished here you are beyong redemption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are coming after same-sex marriage – and won’t stop there | Arwa Mahdawi
> 
> 
> I got gay-married last year and naively thought I wouldn’t have to worry about the government nullifying my nuptials
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com


Oh my, you need to stop reading these fear mongering articles. By chance, do you happen to listen to Michaelangelo signoriole or dean obiedallah on Sirius xm?

Anyway, these articles have a knack of taking things out of context. For example, the claim that they have introduced...168? bills targeting transgenderism, when in fact, they are most likely bills trying to prevent teaching topics of sexuality and sexually explicit topics to kids under 10.


Sure, there are probably a few people who will try to push an anti gay bill, but they won't go anywhere.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am fortunate because I never attended a school or had to be any place else that was infected by shameless bigots. I might have to walk the same earth, and breath the same air as the likes of you, but I will be forever grateful that I never had to associate with your kind, and most of all, grateful that I am not your kind
> 
> What are you even doing here? Wouldn't you be more at home on Stormfront ? This board is dominated by conservatives but you go way beyong where they are at.


Wow!  I hope your little seizure there didn't hurt.

17 days.

It's going to be fun!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I was reading wiki and for every state, it says all their bans were declared unconstitutional.


Yes, brcause of Obergefell !!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I can't seem to find a list of states that still have bans. Regardless, I think you are worried about nothing. Gay marriage is safe in every state. Even if obergefell is overturned, you'd see states repealing bans or legalizing gay marriage.


You are such  a stubborn fool. But you don't fool me . I know what your doing. You're trying to come off  as wanting to protect marriage equality, but would really like those who want to protect it to relax and not pay attention to the danger.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Again, more than anything, politicians care about votes. Banning same sex marriage would be bad for their approval ratings.


Some are driven by idiological purity and don't give a shit about approval


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> There may be a few states that have old laws on the books. My point is, they are not going to enforce them.


You are a fool or a liar. Not sure which but I think that I know


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> What I want to avoid is a situation like roe, where the courts ruled on a right to privacy, and the leftist activists said "it's law!  Abortion is settled law!".
> 
> I'm not advocating against gay marriage, I'm just trying to be crystal clear on the role of the court, and careful about what they say,  because for 3 decades, we were recognizing a "law" created by scotus, which was really just the left creating that narrative, which scotus doesn't have the power to do.  So, yes, maybe I am harping about the language, but it's that language that gave us 30 years of "law" that should have never been.


I am not even dealing with this shit about law with you anymore. We have been all through it too many times. You are a broken record .and your claim that you are not opposed to same sex marriage is questionable at best. It is a game that you play and I am  on to you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Oh my, you need to stop reading these fear mongering articles. By chance, do you happen to listen to Michaelangelo signoriole or dean obiedallah on Sirius xm?
> 
> Anyway, these articles have a knack of taking things out of context. For example, the claim that they have introduced...168? bills targeting transgenderism, when in fact, they are most likely bills trying to prevent teaching topics of sexuality and sexually explicit topics to kids under 10.
> 
> 
> Sure, there are probably a few people who will try to push an anti gay bill, but they won't go anywhere.


Says the one who claims to have done research and  determined that no states still have bans on  same sex marriage on the books.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Wow!  I hope your little seizure there didn't hurt.
> 
> 17 days.
> 
> It's going to be fun!


Thank you for admitting that you are rooting for the racists


----------



## initforme

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Brilliant! Throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us know what that would look like in the real world, and what sort of political support there would be for it.


I support getting rid of marriage.   Let people cohabitate.  Good enough.  Would have no effect on the nation.  None.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for admitting that you are rooting for the racists


No, I'm not rooting for you.

But it's not surprising that you can't figure that out.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> I support getting rid of marriage.   Let people cohabitate.  Good enough.  Would have no effect on the nation.  None.


yadayada yada


----------



## initforme

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> yadayada yada


There'd be zero net effect.  Problem solved.  Fact.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> There'd be zero net effect.  Problem solved.  Fact.


Watts da matta kid? No body wants to marry you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> There'd be zero net effect.  Problem solved.  Fact.


Tell that to all of the people who like being married and enjoy the benefits.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are such  a stubborn fool. But you don't fool me . I know what your doing. You're trying to come off  as wanting to protect marriage equality, but would really like those who want to protect it to relax and not pay attention to the danger.


You're wrong, I don't care who you marry, who you love, I just think we are at a time when gay marriage is commonplace and you are not going to see states forbid it.  It's not going to happen.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Some are driven by idiological purity and don't give a shit about approval


I'm telling ya, a politician care about being re elected first and foremost. Going against gay marriage is a losing position. Gay marriage is safe. This is 2022, not 1972.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am not even dealing with this shit about law with you anymore. We have been all through it too many times. You are a broken record .and your claim that you are not opposed to same sex marriage is questionable at best. It is a game that you play and I am  on to you.


I'm playing no games. I just think you are listening to some fear mongering talking heads that have got you believing that states are going to dissolve gay marriages. It's not going to happen.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Says the one who claims to have done research and  determined that no states still have bans on  same sex marriage on the books.


I've never claimed I've done research. I've said I've looked online and couldn't find a list if states that had gay marriage bans on the books. You provided a link, great.  Still, my point remains, those are old laws that nobody is going to enforce.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You're wrong, I don't care who you marry, who you love, I just think we are at a time when gay marriage is commonplace and you are not going to see states forbid it.  It's not going to happen.


Blather on. I am on to your game. You want LBGT  people to be complacent and look the other way. Not happening.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm telling ya, a politician care about being re elected first and foremost. Going against gay marriage is a losing position. Gay marriage is safe. This is 2022, not 1972.


I tried to help you to understand what's going on but I am not certified in special ed. Get an adult to help you with your reading and comprehension skills


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Blather on. I am on to your game. You want LBGT  people to be complacent and look the other way. Not happening.


Lol, I think you WANT to believe this. You just can't fathom that someone would support states rights AND still want people to have the freedom to be with whomever they choose.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I tried to help you to understand what's going on but I am not certified in special ed. Get an adult to help you with your reading and comprehension skills


I don't need any help with either of those. I can't help it if you don't realize that states are not going back to gay marriage bans, and even if they tried, the lawsuits would be upheld by scotus using th 14A as reasoning.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> *I've never claimed I've done research. I've said I've looked online and couldn't find a list if states that had gay marriage bans on the books.* You provided a link, great.  Still, my point remains, those are old laws that nobody is going to enforce.


Now we are mincing words.

They are old laws and you have people in shit hole states who are chomping at the bit to reinstate then if SCOTUS allows it, just like what happenedwith abortion. You are either living in an alt-rality or just a major bullshiter. Or maybethere is some part of your brain that is missing


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I don't need any help with either of those. I can't help it if you don't realize that states are not going back to gay marriage bans, and even if they tried, the lawsuits would be upheld by scotus using th 14A as reasoning.


If you actually believe that you have to be really, really stupid! Is is possable that you do not understand that if Obergefell is reversed, with it goes those 14th Amendment ptotections! What the FUCK is wrong with you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Lol, I think you WANT to believe this. You just can't fathom that someone would support states rights AND still want people to have the freedom to be with whomever they choose.


Sure I do but it's a matter of the limits of states rights. And there are limits. You're still bullshiting around with this crap about how gay marriage is protected by the 14th, but bitch about the courts making laws and can't explain how those protections would play out except via case law. All the while ignorantly denying that states, in the name of states rights have a long history of trampleing on individual rights if allowed to do so


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm telling ya, a politician care about being re elected first and foremost. Going against gay marriage is a losing position. Gay marriage is safe. This is 2022, not 1972.


The theocrats in congress think tht it's 1522 fool


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> There'd be zero net effect.  Problem solved.  Fact.


There is no problem that needs to be solved. The problems are all yours


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

initforme said:


> I support getting rid of marriage. Let people cohabitate. Good enough. Would have no effect on the nation. None.


So let me see if I got this right. While  it is widely recognized that families are the core element, the foundation of society and that marriage provides a framework that binds those families with the legal protections and obligation's of being part of a family including the care of children, YOU think that there would be no effect on society? You will have to explain that shit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Oh my, you need to stop reading these fear mongering articles. By chance, do you happen to listen to Michaelangelo signoriole or dean obiedallah on Sirius xm?
> 
> Anyway, these articles have a knack of taking things out of context. For example, the claim that they have introduced...168? bills targeting transgenderism, when in fact, they are most likely bills trying to prevent teaching topics of sexuality and sexually explicit topics to kids under 10.
> 
> 
> Sure, there are probably a few people who will try to push an anti gay bill, but they won't go anywhere.


Hey fool, let me tell you something. There was an attempt to overturn Obergfelle as recently as 2020 on religious freedom grounds.









						Supreme Court Smacks Down Appeal By Official Who Refused Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
					

Kim Davis, a former county clerk briefly jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, can be sued by the couples, the U.S. Supreme Court found.




					www.huffpost.com
				




They did not take the case, but only for technical reasons ( standing) but Thomas and Scalia had a hissy fit



> Thomas said the Obergefell decision has left “those with religious objections in the lurch” and made it easier to label them as bigots “merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy.”





> The stance taken by Thomas and Alito, two of the court’s most conservative justices, comes as the Senate is moving forward quickly with the confirmation process for PresidentDonald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a favorite of Christian conservatives. With the death of JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg and the retirement of Justice AnthonyKennedy, only three of the justices who made up the court’s 5-4majority in the Obergefell ruling still serve on the bench.



Next  time the outcome can well be different so cut the crap about how it can't happen









						Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
					

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.




					www.foxnews.com
				




It is likely that next time they can get Trumps three conservatives to go along with them


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now we are mincing words.
> 
> They are old laws and you have people in shit hole states who are chomping at the bit to reinstate then if SCOTUS allows it, just like what happenedwith abortion. You are either living in an alt-rality or just a major bullshiter. Or maybethere is some part of your brain that is missing


Don't know what else to tell ya. Feel free to live in this "sky is falling" fear.  I wish I could calm your fears, but progressive media has its grip on you.

I wish you'd realize we are in a day and age where anti gay state laws are outdated, unfashionable, and political suicide, and the world has evolved since those laws were made.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> If you actually believe that you have to be really, really stupid! Is is possable that you do not understand that if Obergefell is reversed, with it goes those 14th Amendment ptotections! What the FUCK is wrong with you?


Is it possible you don't realize that NOBODY is going to enforce those laws, and theyll probably be taken off the books.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey fool, let me tell you something. There was an attempt to overturn Obergfelle as recently as 2020 on religious freedom grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Smacks Down Appeal By Official Who Refused Same-Sex Marriage Licenses
> 
> 
> Kim Davis, a former county clerk briefly jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, can be sued by the couples, the U.S. Supreme Court found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not take the case, but only for technical reasons ( standing) but Thomas and Scalia had a hissy fit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next  time the outcome can well be different so cut the crap about how it can't happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is likely that next time they can get Trumps three conservatives to go along with them


Nah, the system worked, the decision was shot down, only 2 of the Republican justices had anything against it, but sided with the rest if the court for "technical" reasons...whatever those were..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Nah, the system worked, the decision was shot down, only 2 of the Republican justices had anything against it, but sided with the rest if the court for "technical" reasons...whatever those were..


I just don't know whether you know how full of shit you are or if you are just that stupid. My guess is that you know and are playing a sick game here


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Don't know what else to tell ya. Feel free to live in this "sky is falling" fear.  I wish I could calm your fears, but progressive media has its grip on you.
> 
> I wish you'd realize we are in a day and age where anti gay state laws are outdated, unfashionable, and political suicide, and the world has evolved since those laws were made.


I wish that you would realize that you're living in La La Land


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I just don't know whether you know how full of shit you are or if you are just that stupid. My guess is that you know and are playing a sick game here


Don't know what to tell ya. It was rejected, the system worked.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I wish that you would realize that you're living in La La Land


Lol, I guess we'll have to just wait and see. I'm pretty sure you're safe


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Don't know what to tell ya. It was rejected, the system worked.


This time. Kim Davis did not have standing. Next time it may well be different. What the fuck is wrong with you??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Lol, I guess we'll have to just wait and see. I'm pretty sure you're safe


I'm safe? What the fuck are you talking about? What is it that you think that you know about me?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Lol, I guess we'll have to just wait and see. I'm pretty sure you're safe


Well , well,  24 hours and no response. Good! You are finished here .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Lol, I guess we'll have to just wait and see. I'm pretty sure you're safe


IN the news today:









						GOP governor suggests it’s ‘common sense’ to ban same-sex marriage because it ‘ought to be reserved’ for a man and woman
					

South Carolina Republican Governor Henry McMaster, seeking re-election to a second full term, denigrated the marriages of same-sex couples in a debate Wednesday and said if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn its 2015 ruling that found a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, he...




					www.rawstory.com
				






> "Well, gay marriage is, is, it is in our Constitution, it is not allowed under state law," McMaster told the debate moderator. "It is not allowed. I would follow state law whatever the state law is, but I'm, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think in marriage ought to be between a man and a woman."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Lol, I guess we'll have to just wait and see. I'm pretty sure you're safe











						These 157 House Republicans Voted Against Protections For Same-Sex Marriage
					

House legislation codifying protections for gay marriage passed despite the fact that a big majority of the House Republican caucus opposed it.




					www.huffpost.com
				




Here are the names of every Republican representative who opposed federal protections for gay marriage:


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Lol, I guess we'll have to just wait and see. I'm pretty sure you're safe











						The Most Anti-Gay US Politicians
					

Who are the most anti-gay US politicians? The list is a long one, including politicians from both parties (though a majority are Republican). The politicians listed here have spoken out vocally against gay rights, most notably gay marriage.  Anti-gay politicians are the elected leaders whose...




					www.ranker.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Lol, I guess we'll have to just wait and see. I'm pretty sure you're safe











						Over 80 religious, conservative groups urge Senate to oppose gay marriage bill
					

Leaders representing more than 80 religious and conservative groups have sent a letter to U S Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in an attempt to convince Republicans to vote against the Respect ...




					www.christianpost.com


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> PS To clarify: Children are sexually exploited but not by those whio you imply are doing it. It is not Democrats, educators or librarians,. It is the likes of The Matt Gaetz Investigation: What We Know (Published 2021).
> 
> CC: Delldude


Imagine parroting debunked defamatory claims like this one.

For shame.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> These 157 House Republicans Voted Against Protections For Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> 
> House legislation codifying protections for gay marriage passed despite the fact that a big majority of the House Republican caucus opposed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the names of every Republican representative who opposed federal protections for gay marriage:





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Most Anti-Gay US Politicians
> 
> 
> Who are the most anti-gay US politicians? The list is a long one, including politicians from both parties (though a majority are Republican). The politicians listed here have spoken out vocally against gay rights, most notably gay marriage.  Anti-gay politicians are the elected leaders whose...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ranker.com



  Good for them.  And shame on the pervert-loving filth who have supported this disgusting mockery of marriage.


----------



## ThisIsMe

No


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Well , well,  24 hours and no response. Good! You are finished here .


No, I just had other things to do.  

But, at the expense of just rehashing all this over and over, what's the point?  I simply disagree with you, I don't believe states will return to banning gay marriage, you do.  So....where would you like to go?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This time. Kim Davis did not have standing. Next time it may well be different. What the fuck is wrong with you??


Nah, the 2 that dissented actually sided with those who rejected it, for "technical" reasons, or whatever. Point is, even if they had dissented completely, it still would have been rejected because the rest of the court didn't agree.

Nothing is wrong with me...what is wrong with you?  Why do you want to keep living in this world of fear?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I'm safe? What the fuck are you talking about? What is it that you think that you know about me?





> What is it that you think that you know about me?



I meant your safe in that, you don't have to worry about states banning gay marriage in the future.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> IN the news today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP governor suggests it’s ‘common sense’ to ban same-sex marriage because it ‘ought to be reserved’ for a man and woman
> 
> 
> South Carolina Republican Governor Henry McMaster, seeking re-election to a second full term, denigrated the marriages of same-sex couples in a debate Wednesday and said if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn its 2015 ruling that found a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, he...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rawstory.com


 So, he didn't say he would ban gay marriage, he said that CURRENT law bans gay marriage, and he would follow the law WHATEVER IT IS.  so that means if the state repeals the gay marriage ban, he will follow that law. But, again, good luck finding anyone that will actually enforce it.

So, get back to me IF obergefell is ever repealed, AND if you see states start refusing gay marriage, then I will admit I was wrong.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> These 157 House Republicans Voted Against Protections For Same-Sex Marriage
> 
> 
> House legislation codifying protections for gay marriage passed despite the fact that a big majority of the House Republican caucus opposed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the names of every Republican representative who opposed federal protections for gay marriage:


I'm not going to go back and watch the speeches of each of those senators to find out why they voted it down, but I'll take a guess that it was because the bill is written to overrule states rights. 

Rubio said this:  "it is unnecessary, there are other priorities, and this is an issue *he’s always believed should be handled by the states*."

And Cruz said this:  "The way the Constitution set up for you to advance that position is convince your fellow citizens that if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views. In Obergefell, the court said, 'No, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must, must sanction and permit gay marriage,'” Cruz continued"

So, I'm sure you have all the links, did any of those that voted against it say they did so because they didn't think gay marriage should be legal, at all, or did they all cite states rights?

Look, I'm not denying that there ARE  people against gay marriage, I don't think they will prevail in their efforts.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Over 80 religious, conservative groups urge Senate to oppose gay marriage bill
> 
> 
> Leaders representing more than 80 religious and conservative groups have sent a letter to U S Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in an attempt to convince Republicans to vote against the Respect ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.christianpost.com


Well yeah.....I'm sure they urge the senate to do a lot of things. Christians don't believe in gay marriage....that's not new.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No
> 
> No, I just had other things to do.
> 
> But, at the expense of just rehashing all this over and over, what's the point?  I simply disagree with you, I don't believe states will return to banning gay marriage, you do.  So....where would you like to go?


Keep reading fool!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Nah, the 2 that dissented actually sided with those who rejected it, for "technical" reasons, or whatever. Point is, even if they had dissented completely, it still would have been rejected because the rest of the court didn't agree.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with me...what is wrong with you?  Why do you want to keep living in this world of fear?


Holy fucking shit! Do you not understand that if they found that  the plaintif had standing, there would have been a good chance that tree more Justices would have agreed with Thomas and Scalia-and that was before Barrot was on the court. The world is a fearsome place


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, he didn't say he would ban gay marriage, he said that CURRENT law bans gay marriage, and he would follow the law WHATEVER IT IS.  so that means if the state repeals the gay marriage ban, he will follow that law. But, again, good luck finding anyone that will actually enforce it.
> 
> So, get back to me IF obergefell is ever repealed, AND if you see states start refusing gay marriage, then I will admit I was wrong.


Give it a fucking rest. You know damned well what would happen if Obgefell were to be overturned. Once again, I am not sure if you are just playing a sick game or if you are really just that stupid


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm not going to go back and watch the speeches of each of those senators to find out why they voted it down, but I'll take a guess that it was because the bill is written to overrule states rights.
> 
> Rubio said this:  "it is unnecessary, there are other priorities, and this is an issue *he’s always believed should be handled by the states*."
> 
> And Cruz said this:  "The way the Constitution set up for you to advance that position is convince your fellow citizens that if you succeeded in convincing your fellow citizens, then your state would change the laws to reflect those views. In Obergefell, the court said, 'No, we know better than you guys do, and now every state must, must sanction and permit gay marriage,'” Cruz continued"
> 
> So, I'm sure you have all the links, did any of those that voted against it say they did so because they didn't think gay marriage should be legal, at all, or did they all cite states rights?
> 
> Look, I'm not denying that there ARE  people against gay marriage, I don't think they will prevail in their efforts.


Yes, yes. You keep bleating about states rights while ignoring individual righs to due process and equal protection under that law. More and more, it is becomming apparent that you are full of shit when you claim to support gay rights and marriage equality. And, it hardly matters why they voted against the bill, the fact is that you and they are cut from the same mold


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Well yeah.....I'm sure they urge the senate to do a lot of things. Christians don't believe in gay marriage....that's not new.


Wrong. All Christians are not bigots


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Keep reading fool!


Read...what?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! Do you not understand that if they found that  the plaintif had standing, there would have been a good chance that tree more Justices would have agreed with Thomas and Scalia-and that was before Barrot was on the court. The world is a fearsome place


But she didn't have standing..I mean, sure we could "what if" this all day, they found she didn't have standing and they all rejected it.  The system worked.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give it a fucking rest. You know damned well what would happen if Obgefell were to be overturned. Once again, I am not sure if you are just playing a sick game or if you are really just that stupid


You're right, I don't KNOW what would happen, and neither do you.  I just don't believe it will ever happen.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes, yes. You keep bleating about states rights while ignoring individual righs to due process and equal protection under that law. More and more, it is becomming apparent that you are full of shit when you claim to support gay rights and marriage equality. And, it hardly matters why they voted against the bill, the fact is that you and they are cut from the same mold


I am for the cotus and adherence to it.  I don't believe that the federal government has the right to make laws for or against gay marriage.  Those rights are for the states, and the people more than they are for the federal gov.  I believe that freedom means you should have the right to love and marry whomever you want and that no laws against it should be made.on religious grounds, because freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion. 

I don't agree that states should outlaw gay marriage, and I don't think they will, but that is for the people of that state to decide, and if necessary, take to scotus on a 14A basis.  I believe if the people of the state decide they want gay marriage to be legal, they should make sure their elected officials vote that way.

I just simply do not believe that the federal gov has the right to make laws about this, and I think scotus shouldn't make rulings on a general basis because of what you all did to roe.  I'm sorry, the courts do not make law, that is not their job.  Yes, they can protect people's rights, and I'm for that.

I just disagree with your assertion that the courts can make laws, and that the federal gov has the right to run roughshod over states rights. 

I've asked this before, and I don't know if I ever got an answer, bit, what does stated rights mean to you?  How do you view the relationship of the power of the state vs power of the federal gov?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wrong. All Christians are not bigots


You are correct, my point should have been, there will be Christians out there who will do things like that. It's not a new concept.


----------



## San Souci

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Good. It is lefty filth.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I am for the cotus and adherence to it.  I don't believe that the federal government has the right to make laws for or against gay marriage.  Those rights are for the states, and the people more than they are for the federal gov.  I believe that freedom means you should have the right to love and marry whomever you want and that no laws against it should be made.on religious grounds, because freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion.
> 
> I don't agree that states should outlaw gay marriage, and I don't think they will, but that is for the people of that state to decide, and if necessary, take to scotus on a 14A basis.  I believe if the people of the state decide they want gay marriage to be legal, they should make sure their elected officials vote that way.
> 
> I just simply do not believe that the federal gov has the right to make laws about this, and I think scotus shouldn't make rulings on a general basis because of what you all did to roe.  I'm sorry, the courts do not make law, that is not their job.  Yes, they can protect people's rights, and I'm for that.
> 
> I just disagree with your assertion that the courts can make laws, and that the federal gov has the right to run roughshod over states rights.
> 
> I've asked this before, and I don't know if I ever got an answer, bit, what does stated rights mean to you?  How do you view the relationship of the power of the state vs power of the federal gov?


I will be brief. I maintain that you are full of shit when you say : _" I believe that freedom means you should have the right to love and marry whomever you want"_ It rings hollow because you insist that it must be left to the states while ignoring the fact thagt many states would not honor that right.

At the same time, you claim that you believe that gay marriage woould be protected by the 14th  Amendment while insisting that the courts cannot "make law" rendering the SCOTUS toothless. 

You continue to put states rights over human rights and are willing to overlook the violation of human rights. And I did answer your question about what states rights means to me.vIt means that states have primary authority in matters that are reserved to the states but they do not have absolute authority in any matter. They may not exercise that authority in a way that violates the rights of individuals under the constitution. I don't know how much more simply I can put it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, he didn't say he would ban gay marriage,


Yes he did you damned fool. This piece of shit governor would never sign legislation repealing the ban. You're denying reality. 

This kind of bullshit, along with your "states right" and the "court cant make law " mantras are proof that you are, at best indifferent to gay rights, and at worst hostile to it but don't have the spine to say so. 

Instead , you try to lull others inro complacency and clain that the feds have nothing to say about what states do with marriage. I see right through you . You are a fraud and a liar


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes he did you damned fool. This piece of shit governor would never sign legislation repealing the ban. You're denying reality.
> 
> This kind of bullshit, along with your "states right" and the "court cant make law " mantras are proof that you are, at best indifferent to gay rights, and at worst hostile to it but don't have the spine to say so.
> 
> Instead , you try to lull others inro complacency and clain that the feds have nothing to say about what states do with marriage. I see right through you . You are a fraud and a liar


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I will be brief. I maintain that you are full of shit when you say : _" I believe that freedom means you should have the right to love and marry whomever you want"_ It rings hollow because you insist that it must be left to the states while ignoring the fact thagt many states would not honor that right.
> 
> At the same time, you claim that you believe that gay marriage woould be protected by the 14th  Amendment while insisting that the courts cannot "make law" rendering the SCOTUS toothless.
> 
> You continue to put states rights over human rights and are willing to overlook the violation of human rights. And I did answer your question about what states rights means to me.vIt means that states have primary authority in matters that are reserved to the states but they do not have absolute authority in any matter. They may not exercise that authority in a way that violates the rights of individuals under the constitution. I don't know how much more simply I can put it.





> insist that it must be left to the states while ignoring the fact thagt many states would not honor that right.



We will have to see, I don't think any state will reject gay marriage.



> gay marriage woould be protected by the 14th  Amendment



It will be



> insisting that the courts cannot "make law" rendering the SCOTUS toothless.



They can't make laws, its why we have the separation of powers. Making laws is invested in the legislative body, interpreting the constitution and the law is the job of the scotus.  It's why we say they don't "legislate from the bench".



> You continue to put states rights over human rights and are willing to overlook the violation of human rights



No, I'm putting states rights over federal authority where the cotus doesn't give the federal gov jurisdiction. The people, ultimately, have the power, or should. 



> means that states have primary authority in matters that are reserved to the states



Exactly, which is everything not listed as a power of the federal gov. in the 18 enumerated powers. 




> but they do not have absolute authority in any matter



They do unless the cotus grants a superior authority to the federal gov.




> They may not exercise that authority in a way that violates the rights of individuals under the constitution



Precisely!  Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights.

If we give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants, then what was the point of putting in the enumerated powers?  And saying everything not in those powers is left to the stated, and the people?  Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"?  Would have been a lot easier. 

They wrote it the way they did because they didn't want a central authoritarian government that has ultimately power. 

You would argue that the courts had the power to force states into allowing something like abortion,  but would argue against it if they said no state can ban someone from carrying a firearm, which is constitutional. If thag were to happen, you'd say "STATES RIGHTS!".

I do support the right to live and love as you see fit, but that doesn't mean we upend our system of government and ignore our cotus.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes he did you damned fool. This piece of shit governor would never sign legislation repealing the ban. You're denying reality.
> 
> This kind of bullshit, along with your "states right" and the "court cant make law " mantras are proof that you are, at best indifferent to gay rights, and at worst hostile to it but don't have the spine to say so.
> 
> Instead , you try to lull others inro complacency and clain that the feds have nothing to say about what states do with marriage. I see right through you . You are a fraud and a liar


No....he....didnt.....he said he would go with the law at hand. 

If the people want it, he will sign it, or he will be voted out. That's how it works. 

No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference.  If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights. 

I'm not trying to lull anyone into anything. And yes, the Feds have no business in the bedroom. Really the state doesn't either, which is why I oppose if any state would try to ban gay marriage. 

Those are not functions of a government, but they are the function of the scotus if a state would try to violate their rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> We will have to see, I don't think any state will reject gay marriage.


More accuratly you just don't think....or you're lying


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It will be


Marriage will be protected by the 14th Amendment ? How EXACTLY?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They can't make laws, its why we have the separation of powers. Making laws is invested in the legislative body, interpreting the constitution and the law is the job of the scotus. It's why we say they don't "legislate from the bench".


I tried to school you on the widely recognized principle of case law as it pertains to constitutional law but you blathering about how the court can't make law.

You seem to agree that the court is able to interpret laws and determine the constitutionality of laws but you can't explain what happens next. If they can't "make law"-what  EXACTLY can they do when there is a conflict between the action of a state legislature and the constitution.

To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that  the state laws that banned  same sex marriage were unconstitutional?. If so, how then, should the right to marry have been protected under the 14th amendment?. Save the bullshit. Be specific


----------



## Peace

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


I say let’em and I will open gay friendly businesses!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, I'm putting states rights over federal authority where the cotus doesn't give the federal gov jurisdiction. The people, ultimately, have the power, or should.


You have a narrow, textualist  junderstanding of states rights, and the tenth amendment that is shared by few. If you interpretation of states rights were to prevail, states could do any damned thing that they wanted , no matter how offensive to the constitution it might be, on matters reserved to the states such as marriage. Yet you claim that gay marriage to is protected by the 14th Amendment. Is it possable to you do not even inderstand how contradictory that is?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Exactly, which is everything not listed as a power of the federal gov. in the 18 enumerated powers.


See post 1490


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They do unless the cotus grants a superior authority to the federal gov.


Actually the 14th Amendment does just that.


----------



## rightwinger

Peace said:


> I say let’em and I will open gay friendly businesses!



And in some communities, let’s call them “red”, your business would be boycotted, your suppliers would dry up


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Precisely! Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights.


You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether states rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually  be protected from a state that violates their rights


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> If we give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants, then what was the point of putting in the enumerated powers? And saying everything not in those powers is left to the stated, and the people? Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"? Would have been a lot easier.
> 
> They wrote it the way they did because they didn't want a central authoritarian government that has ultimately power.


The constutution is not perfect but no one is saying that we should give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants. That is a lot different that simply enforcing  constitutional rights of the people.  Now you are just throwing dung at the wall hoping that something sticks

_You said :"Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"? Would have been a lot easier?_" Really? Without saying what those matters to be delegated would be. Sound like a recipe for chaos.

Keep in mind that the Constitution was written in a much different time and was drafted on the heals of the Articles of Confederation which did give the states much more autonomy which contributed to the reality of slave vs. free states and thus the Civil War. And before the 14th , the states retained much of that autonomy. The fact is, now they must abide by the constitution in all matters whether reserved to the states or not. You cannot seem to reconcile that fact with your belief in absolute states rights, and do not even seem to understand the contradiction


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that the state laws that banned same sex marriage were unconstitutional?



  They flat-out lied, in order to create public policy, based on a willful distortion of the Constitution, and in so doing, usurped a power that, if it does exist, belongs to the legislative branch, and not to the courts.

  There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ for a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized and treated as comparable to a genuine marriage.  There is not so much as a single word in the Constitution—in the main text or in any subsequent amendment—that was written by anyone who would have accepted this absurd premise.  It's safe to say that if anyone who wrote anything that made it into the Constitution had thought that what he wrote might be twisted to support the homosexual mockery of marriage, he would have been more careful to write it in such a way as to guarantee that it would not be twisted in any such manner.

  As has happened on other occasions, the court ruled based on a claim that the Constitution said something that it very clearly did not.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 1490



  See post 125.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They wrote it the way they did because they didn't want a central authoritarian government that has ultimately power.


That is not what we have and the only ones who want it are Trumps and his minions


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You would argue that the courts had the power to force states into allowing something like abortion, but would argue against it if they said no state can ban someone from carrying a firearm, which is constitutional. If thag were to happen, you'd say "STATES RIGHTS!".


No, on abortion, I argue that women have a right to privacy and autonomy over their bodies and that there are limits on the states ability to come between get and her doctor. 

Guns are a murkey area thanks to tje vagueness of the 2nd Amendment but again, the right to carry or even to own a gun is not absolute and must be ballanced against public safety. Why the fuck do you think that I would srgue states rights?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No....he....didnt.....he said he would go with the law at hand.
> 
> If the people want it, he will sign it, or he will be voted out. That's how it works.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No....he....didnt.....he said he would go with the law at hand.
> 
> If the people want it, he will sign it, or he will be voted out. That's how it works.


Really? !! He made it clear that he abhors gay marriage . He would follow the law only because the law already prohibits (but is unenforceable because , and only because of Obergefell. If it were not prohibited, he would do everything in his power to see to it that it was. And fuck what the people want. This is Civil Rights!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference. If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights.


Holy fucking shit on a shingle!! After insisting that you support the right of people to love and live as they see fit, and that you do not think that states should prohibit gay marriage, but now YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO IT?? My only question is , were you lying then or are you lying now? I believe that you were lying then and now you have slipped up and revealed what you really believe. You just don't give a fuck if the state - or "the people" trample on human rights. You are OK with either a tyranny of the majority, or- as it may be- a tyranny of a minority, as long as your precious states rights are preserved. What I can't fathom is your duplicity and dishonesty and your ridgidly clinging to your literal interpretation of the constitution at the expense of human rights.  You are exposed for what you are My work is done here .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm not trying to lull anyone into anything. And yes, the Feds have no business in the bedroom. Really the state doesn't either, which is why I oppose if any state would try to ban gay marriage.


You are full of shit! You just said that you're indifferent-IN THE SAME FUCKING POST!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Those are not functions of a government, but they are the function of the scotus if a state would try to violate their rights.


HOW THE FUCK WOULD SCOTUS PROTECT THAT RIGHT, it it can't "make law"??


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> HOW THE FUCK WOULD SCOTUS PROTECT THAT RIGHT, it it can't "make law"??



  Not its job, and not within its authority.

  If a law needs to be enacted in order to protect a _“right”_, then it's up to the legislative branch to do that, not the Judicial Branch.


----------



## Leweman

Marriage is marriage.  Who cares as long as both parties are old enough and willing.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Marriage will be protected by the 14th Amendment ? How EXACTLY?


Equal protection. It would be an undue burden to deny someone the right to marry based in their sex.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I tried to school you on the widely recognized principle of case law as it pertains to constitutional law but you blathering about how the court can't make law.
> 
> You seem to agree that the court is able to interpret laws and determine the constitutionality of laws but you can't explain what happens next. If they can't "make law"-what  EXACTLY can they do when there is a conflict between the action of a state legislature and the constitution.
> 
> To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that  the state laws that banned  same sex marriage were unconstitutional?. If so, how then, should the right to marry have been protected under the 14th amendment?. Save the bullshit. Be specific


Ok, so if we're going back to case law, then does that mean if the courts decide it, then it's now "law"?  If that's the case, then why do we even have separation of powers? You're basically saying that courts can create law based on precedent. I say they can only interpret the law based on the cotus and make sure states are abiding by it.

What happens next is, if a state violates a person's rights, the courts can then step in and correct it by overruling the state. 



> To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that  the state laws that banned  same sex marriage were unconstitutional?.



No, because bans on same sex marriage would be unconstitutional. They didn't create a law, they simply forced the states to uphold 14A and civil rights.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have a narrow, textualist  junderstanding of states rights, and the tenth amendment that is shared by few. If you interpretation of states rights were to prevail, states could do any damned thing that they wanted , no matter how offensive to the constitution it might be, on matters reserved to the states such as marriage. Yet you claim that gay marriage to is protected by the 14th Amendment. Is it possable to you do not even inderstand how contradictory that is?





> You have a narrow, textualist  junderstanding of states rights, and the tenth amendment that is shared by few



I know, because the dems want the cotus to be "fluid' and "living and breathing", basically, they'd love nothing more than to just get rid of it, so they can fashion their majority rule government that they so desperately want.



> states rights were to prevail, states could do any damned thing that they wanted , no matter how offensive to the constitution it might be, on matters reserved to the states such as marriage.



No, states couldn't do anything they want against the cotus. The cotus and the rights it spells out are the one thing that the federal government has jurisdiction over.

Yes, marriage would be more of a states rights than a federal gov jurisdiction. It's the people that ultimately decide though. 



I'm adamant about states rights because, if left up to dems, they would let the federal government rule everything, and states rights would just be a talking point...that is until repubs have full control, then you guys will be all about states rights.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Actually the 14th Amendment does just that.


Yeah...the cotus 14A does trump states rights. It's one of the protections that fed gov has jurisdiction on.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether states rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually  be protected from a state that violates their rights


States rights are absolute, unless it's something the cotus designates that fed gov has authority on.

If states rights weren't a thing, and fed gov was the ultimate authority, then you essentially have the federal government acting like a dictator.  The government could become oppressive...isn't getting away from that kind of stuff how thus country was formed?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Equal protection. It would be an undue burden to deny someone the right to marry based in their sex.


That is not an answer! I know that it falls under equal protection, as well as due process....that what Oberefell was based on. The question was....how is it enforced without it being "legislating from the bench "that you decry?  Stop with your stupid games!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The constutution is not perfect but no one is saying that we should give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants. That is a lot different that simply enforcing  constitutional rights of the people.  Now you are just throwing dung at the wall hoping that something sticks
> 
> _You said :"Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"? Would have been a lot easier?_" Really? Without saying what those matters to be delegated would be. Sound like a recipe for chaos.
> 
> Keep in mind that the Constitution was written in a much different time and was drafted on the heals of the Articles of Confederation which did give the states much more autonomy which contributed to the reality of slave vs. free states and thus the Civil War. And before the 14th , the states retained much of that autonomy. The fact is, now they must abide by the constitution in all matters whether reserved to the states or not. You cannot seem to reconcile that fact with your belief in absolute states rights, and do not even seem to understand the contradiction


No, you can't reconcile the fact that I've said several times now that states must abide by the cotus, but so must the federal gov. The federal gov has its duties, the states, and the people have the rest..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, so if we're going back to case law, then does that mean if the courts decide it, then it's now "law"? If that's the case, then why do we even have separation of powers? You're basically saying that courts can create law based on precedent. I say they can only interpret the law based on the cotus and make sure states are abiding by it.


The same shit over and over again! Yes they can create law! Case law! Again, if they can only interpret the law, how is that interpretation put into effect if not by the force of case law. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION! How esle do they make sure states are abiding by it? You continue to speak with forked tongue. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, because bans on same sex marriage would be unconstitutional. They didn't create a law, they simply forced the states to uphold 14A and civil rights.


Really? That is not "Legislating from the bench" OK what would be an example of legislating from the bench then.?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is not what we have and the only ones who want it are Trumps and his minions


It's not what we have, but if you start giving the federal gov more power over the states, we will have.

And more to the point, actually, we kinda are ready there. Look at all these government beauracracies, and all these laws that the federal gov has made since we've were formed as a country that were never part of their authority, yet we have them. The gov has ready exceeded it's authority by leaps and bounds, and the dems want it to get even bigger.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> know, because the dems want the cotus to be "fluid' and "living and breathing", basically, they'd love nothing more than to just get rid of it, so they can fashion their majority rule government that they so desperately want.


Horseshit/Plain and simple! We do not want to get rid of that Constitution. That would be the far right fascist who want that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It's not what we have, but if you start giving the federal gov more power over the states, we will have.
> 
> And more to the point, actually, we kinda are ready there. Look at all these government beauracracies, and all these laws that the federal gov has made since we've were formed as a country that were never part of their authority, yet we have them. The gov has ready exceeded it's authority by leaps and bounds, and the dems want it to get even bigger.


Yes ok, You don't like the federal government. I get that. What I also get is that you are ok with the states trampling in individual right in the name of states rights. And I have not forgotten that you admitted to be indifferent to gay rights. I am done with you.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No, on abortion, I argue that women have a right to privacy and autonomy over their bodies and that there are limits on the states ability to come between get and her doctor.
> 
> Guns are a murkey area thanks to tje vagueness of the 2nd Amendment but again, the right to carry or even to own a gun is not absolute and must be ballanced against public safety. Why the fuck do you think that I would srgue states rights?


I agree with you on abortion, but it's not a function of the federal gov to codify a medical procedure into law, forcing states to allow it.  

You say the 2A is murky, but the federal gov authority to regulate marriage is absolute. It's the other way around. 

The 2A is not murky, it's very clear.  The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. So,.if a state say you can't carry a firearm, that would be infringement. That is against the cotus, and against our rights. 

You would say that if cotus says gay marriage is the law, that is fine, then you would also have to recognize that if the cotus said carry laws were unconstitutional, that too would be fine...but you won't, will you?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is not an answer! I know that it falls under equal protection, as well as due process....that what Oberefell was based on. The question was....how is it enforced without it being "legislating from the bench "that you decry?  Stop with your stupid games!


It's enforced by the scotus putting an injunction on whatever law the state was trying to pass, thus uoholding the scotus.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, you can't reconcile the fact that I've said several times now that states must abide by the cotus, but so must the federal gov. The federal gov has its duties, the states, and the people have the rest..


What the fuck are you blathering about now. There is nothing to reconcile . Of course the Feds must abide by the Constitution. Again, your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only interpretation and not the prevailing one.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I agree with you on abortion, but it's not a function of the federal gov to codify a medical procedure into law, forcing states to allow it.


When the fuck did I say that it was. ?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The same shit over and over again! Yes they can create law! Case law! Again, if they can only interpret the law, how is that interpretation put into effect if not by the force of case law. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION! How esle do they make sure states are abiding by it? You continue to speak with forked tongue. You can't have it both ways.


Read the cotus...the legislative branch is vested with the job of creating laws, not the judicial branch. 

They interpret whatever law is being proposed based on the application of the cotus. If it passes, no problem, if it doesn't, then scotus rules it invalid


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> You say the 2A is murky, but the federal gov authority to regulate marriage is absolute. It's the other way around.


I did not say anything about the feds authority to regulate marriage is absolute . I said that the states authority IS NOT ABSOLUTE. Is it possible that you do not understand the difference? Are you getting more stupid as we go, or just playing more games?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? That is not "Legislating from the bench" OK what would be an example of legislating from the bench then.?


Legislating from the bench is interpreting a cotus to mean something it wasn't intended to mean. The courts can't say "gay marriage is the law", they CAN say "the state trying to ban gay marriage violates equal protection according to the cotus, and thus cannot be upheld"


Honestly, this whole argument really stems from what you all did to roe. Scotus just said that women have a right to privacy, and the leftys said "it's law!  Scotus said abortion is legal!".  They never said any such things, they just ruled on privacy issues, you all took it and ran with it, which is why the Dobbs decision happened. Scotus recognizes that roe was wrong, and it should have been a states rights issue, and they sent it back to the States.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I agree with you on abortion, but it's not a function of the federal gov to codify a medical procedure into law, forcing states to allow it.
> 
> You say the 2A is murky, but the federal gov authority to regulate marriage is absolute. It's the other way around.
> 
> The 2A is not murky, it's very clear.  The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. So,.if a state say you can't carry a firearm, that would be infringement. That is against the cotus, and against our rights.
> 
> *You would say that if cotus says gay marriage is the law, that is fine, then you would also have to recognize that if the cotus said carry laws were unconstitutional, that too would be fine...but you won't, will you?*


I would agree that it was law fool. I would not like it, but I would have to accept it as law. Nice try with your "gottcha " bullshit


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the fuck are you blathering about now. There is nothing to reconcile . Of course the Feds must abide by the Constitution. Again, your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only interpretation and not the prevailing one.


I know it's not the prevailing one, because over the years, people have gotten away from it, and we've allowed the Fed gov to run roughshod over it.   Again, you'd love nothing more than to get rid of it so you can have your one party rule.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> When the fuck did I say that it was. ?


Really?..are you saying you're not on board with Biden when he says he is going to codify roe into law?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I did not say anything about the feds authority to regulate marriage is absolute . I said that the states authority IS NOT ABSOLUTE. Is it possible that you do not understand the difference? Are you getting more stupid as we go, or just playing more games?


??? We've been arguing for...3 weeks now?  About how you are saying that scotus can make laws, and that the federal gov have the authority to make gay marriage law.  You've been clear that states rights are not absolute, which must mean you think the Fed gov has more of a jurisdiction 

So, if the states authority on gay marriage is not absolute, and the fed.gov authority on gay marriage is not absolute, then, then who or what, on gay marriage IS absolute?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I would agree that it was law fool. I would not like it, but I would have to accept it as law. Nice try with your "gottcha " bullshit


Really?  You just got done saying the 2A was "murky", basically trying to push away from the cotus ability to remove state restrictions on carrying.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Honestly, this whole argument really stems from what you all did to roe. Scotus just said that women have a right to privacy, and the leftys said "it's law! Scotus said abortion is legal!". They never said any such things, they just ruled on privacy issues, you all took it and ran with it, which is why the Dobbs decision happened. Scotus recognizes that roe was wrong, and it should have been a states rights issue, and they sent it back to the States.


Case law!! Get a grip!! Star Decisis. Binding precident that stood for 49 years until Trumps far right theocrates tossed it in the trash.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Legislating from the bench is interpreting a cotus to mean something it wasn't intended to mean. The courts can't say "gay marriage is the law", they CAN say "the state trying to ban gay marriage violates equal protection according to the cotus, and thus cannot be upheld"


No shit?? Thats what they did. Your point??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> ??? We've been arguing for...3 weeks now?  About how you are saying that scotus can make laws, and that the federal gov have the authority to make gay marriage law.  You've been clear that states rights are not absolute, which must mean you think the Fed gov has more of a jurisdiction
> 
> So, if the states authority on gay marriage is not absolute, and the fed.gov authority on gay marriage is not absolute, then, then who or what, on gay marriage IS absolute?


How about "there are no absolutes" I have tried to explain to you how that works but it has become clear that you are too obtuse to get it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Really?  You just got done saying the 2A was "murky", basically trying to push away from the cotus ability to remove state restrictions on carrying.


My point is that I would consider it case law even if I don't agree with it. It is how things work. Try to get your head around that fact


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ThisIsMe said:


> Really? You just got done saying the 2A was "murky", basically trying to push away from the cotus ability to remove state restrictions on carrying.



  What is truly Orwellian is how those on the left can find _“rights”_ in the Constitution that simply are not there—such as murdering children in the womb or forcing society to recognize a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage—but they cannot see a right—such as the people's right to keep and bear arms—that is very clearly and explicitly stated and protected.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Case law!! Get a grip!! Star Decisis. Binding precident that stood for 49 years until Trumps far right theocrates tossed it in the trash.


I KNOW!! case law, you say it has the force of law, so it might as well be the same thing.  Crap, let's just get rid of states rights then if the fed gov and the courts can simply just overrule the state whenever they want.....


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No shit?? Thats what they did. Your point??


My point is, as with roe, YOU all said it was law, that the courts created "settled law"...they didn't, they can't, YOU guys are the ones did that, and now they are calling it "precedent".  It's bad precedent, something that should never have been done.  If the scotus makes a bad decision, you can't call that law.  What they did was to undo that whole mess that you all created.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How about "there are no absolutes" I have tried to explain to you how that works but it has become clear that you are too obtuse to get it.


Ok...if there are no absolutes, then who has the ultimate authority of the legality of gay marriage, or abortion?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> My point is that I would consider it case law even if I don't agree with it. It is how things work. Try to get your head around that fact


Actually, it shouldn't be "case law", it should be the proper interpretation of the cotus. It something the states shouldn't be able to deny, because it is a cotus protected right.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Bob Blaylock said:


> What is truly Orwellian is how those on the left can find _“rights”_ in the Constitution that simply are not there—such as murdering children in the womb or forcing society to recognize a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage—but they cannot see a right—such as the people's right to keep and bear arms—that is very clearly and explicitly stated and protected.


I agree that they think cotus is a living breathing document, and thus subject to change based on what they want that day. 

Abortion isn't there, gay marriage, however, is protected by 14A.  Being "forced to recognize recognize" is a personal issue that you have to deal with on your own, unless that recognition violates your personal rights, such as religious freedom to not lend your talents to the service of a gay wedding. 

Whether YOU think it's disgusting or not is irrelevant. Our cotus give people the right to marry whom they choose, but it doesn't give the Fed gov the authority to regulate marriage laws.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ThisIsMe said:


> Abortion isn't there, gay marriage, however, is protected by 14A.



  Bullshit.

  At the time the Fourteenth was ratified, everyone understood marriage to be between a man and a woman; and there is nothing in this Amendment which contradicts that.

  I dare say that if the authors of this Amendment had anticipated that it might be twisted to support a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage, then they would have included verbiage to clearly prevent that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok...if there are no absolutes, then who has the ultimate authority of the legality of gay marriage, or abortion?


Ultimate authority and absolute authority are two different things. The federal government and the courts do not have absolute authority. The federal  court has *ultime authority* -the final word on matters of constitutonality and the interpretation of the law BUT only when such a question is before the court. *Absolute* authority would exist if and only if the courts, a federal agency, or the presidebt were able to nicromange state government and excercise control over all aspects of their functioning. Sorry, but things are just not as simple as you would like them to be


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> My point is, as with roe, YOU all said it was law, that the courts created "settled law"...they didn't, they can't, YOU guys are the ones did that, and now they are calling it "precedent".  It's bad precedent, something that should never have been done.  If the scotus makes a bad decision, you can't call that law.  What they did was to undo that whole mess that you all created.


You being of the opinion that it was not settled law and that it was a bad decision does not make any of that true


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Actually, it shouldn't be "case law", it should be the proper interpretation of the cotus. It something the states shouldn't be able to deny, because it is a cotus protected right.


Just words. The bottom line is that what the states  should or should not do is not always what they actually do. There are times when the courts must act and exert authority, whatever you call it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I agree that they think cotus is a living breathing document, and thus subject to change based on what they want that day.
> 
> Abortion isn't there, gay marriage, however, is protected by 14A.  Being "forced to recognize recognize" is a personal issue that you have to deal with on your own, unless that recognition violates your personal rights, such as religious freedom to not lend your talents to the service of a gay wedding.
> 
> Whether YOU think it's disgusting or not is irrelevant. Our cotus give people the right to marry whom they choose, but it doesn't give the Fed gov the authority to regulate marriage laws.


You are an increasingly bizarre piece of work. Both the right to same sex marriage and abortion are based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Yet you have decided that the Roe decision was wrong and the Obergefell decision was correct. At the same time, you have said that you are "indifferent to gay rights" after  spending weeks claiming that you are support the rights of people to live as they please and love who they wish. 

I will add, both decisions invalidated state laws and you have admitted that the invalidation -the finding of unconstitutionality- in not "Making Law". 
There is no consistency to yur so called arguments .You are making little sense !






						Roe v. Wade (1973) – U.S. Conlawpedia
					






					sites.gsu.edu


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> My point is, as with roe, YOU all said it was law, that the courts created "settled law"...they didn't, they can't, YOU guys are the ones did that, and now they are calling it "precedent".  It's bad precedent, something that should never have been done.  If the scotus makes a bad decision, you can't call that law.  What they did was to undo that whole mess that you all created.


Youd lesson for today in Constitutional law. Enjoy






						Penumbra Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
					

Penumbra is the implied rights provided in the U.S. constitution, or in a rule.  Literally, the term penumbra was created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses.  The term penumbra is




					definitions.uslegal.com
				






> The term penumbra is used in legal sense as a metaphor describing implied powers of the federal government. Penumbra doctrine is used to represent implied powers that arise from a specific rule, and extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra. For example, privacy rights without government intervention is implied from First Amendment of the U.S. constitution.


----------



## BackAgain

I’m still working on how a shadow emanates.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

BackAgain said:


> I’m still working on how a shadow emanates.



  It doesn't.

  It's bullshit that the Court cooked up, to try to explain how the Constitution supported something that it very clearly never did.


----------



## BackAgain

Bob Blaylock said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> It's bullshit that the Court cooked up, to try to explain how the Constitution supported something that it very clearly never did.


Yeah. I know. It’s funny. The penumbra clauses are all written in invisible ink.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Actually, it shouldn't be "case law", it should be the proper interpretation of the cotus. It something the states shouldn't be able to deny, because it is a cotus protected right.


It seems that you have gone missing, and I didn't even have a chance to say goodby!! You're not going to let me have the last word, now are you.

Let me take this opportunity to sume things up for you:

You have insisted all along that you believe in and support the right of people to love and be with those that they wish to be with. You have said that same sex marriage should not be overturned. THEN suddenly you admit that you have been lying by saying that you are “indifferent “ to gay rights 

You have been constantly bleating about how the courts “can’t make law” and refuse to recognize the existence of case law  and judicial precedent. Then you bizarrely declare an exception in situations where SCOTUS invalidates a state law as unconstitutional- which –like any other decision becomes case law 

 You prattle on about the separation of powers and rail against  the courts medaling in  legislative affairs- but wholly disregard the concept of checks and balances which is a well recognized and important role of the court. And while you blather on about how the courts “can’t make law” you have been consistently unable to articulate what exactly they can do and how. 

Your views of states rights are equally muddled and seem to be rooted in a  pre Civil War  –if not the Articles of Confederation concept of the relationship of the states to the Federal Government, seemingly believing that states rights transcends individual rights 
Lastly, you continually present your baseless opinions as facts and dumb down the issues of  states rights and the role of the courts to a binary all or nothing absolute truth rather than address the inherent complexities and ambiguities . 

I rest my case


----------



## ThisIsMe

Bob Blaylock said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> At the time the Fourteenth was ratified, everyone understood marriage to be between a man and a woman; and there is nothing in this Amendment which contradicts that.
> 
> I dare say that if the authors of this Amendment had anticipated that it might be twisted to support a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage, then they would have included verbiage to clearly prevent that.


But the wording of the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want. It doesn't matter what "eveeyone" understood, it's what the framers wrote and intended. At this point, there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ultimate authority and absolute authority are two different things. The federal government and the courts do not have absolute authority. The federal  court has *ultime authority* -the final word on matters of constitutonality and the interpretation of the law BUT only when such a question is before the court. *Absolute* authority would exist if and only if the courts, a federal agency, or the presidebt were able to nicromange state government and excercise control over all aspects of their functioning. Sorry, but things are just not as simple as you would like them to be


I'd question your statement of the courts "interpreting the law", do they interpret the law, or do they interpret the application if the law to the constitution?  I don't think they can interpret law, otherwise, the laws will always change depending on who's interpreting them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ThisIsMe said:


> But the wording of the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want.



  There is no wording in the Fourteenth Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, that even hints at any such thing.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is no wording in the Fourteenth Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, that even hints at any such thing.


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor *deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*."


----------



## Blaster

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor *deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*."


You are correct.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'd question your statement of the courts "interpreting the law", do they interpret the law, or do they interpret the application if the law to the constitution?  I don't think they can interpret law, otherwise, the laws will always change depending on who's interpreting them.


Ah there you are you little rascal! Welcome back. The fact is that it is a complicated question. However, as usual, you take it upon yourself to conjur up a pat and simplistic answer with bothering to do any research or to learn anything about the issue. That is called an appeal to authority logical fallacy-( I said it so it is right) as well as an appeal to ignorance fallacy (just trust me) Read and learn:






						Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws? - Judge
					

Free Essay on Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws? at lawaspect.com. Free law essay examples to help law students. 100% Unique Essays




					lawaspect.com


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> But the wording of the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want. It doesn't matter what "eveeyone" understood, it's what the framers wrote and intended. At this point, there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage.


Common! Seriously. Let me start by saying two things. Blaylock is my ultra nemesis and I never agree with him but I sort of do here. Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that  “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable. 

Oh and by the way, the 14th was passed long after the founders drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So it has nothing to do with what the framers intended. It's interesting how you, a defender of the literal word of the constitution, and the enumerated rights, can come up with this sort of nonsense.

You are so out to lunch

Then you say that “there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage” which is true, but it is also it is also a direct contradiction to  the first part of that paragraph..Your credibility is totally in the crapper bud.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Common! Seriously. Let me start by saying two things. Blaylock is my ultra nemesis and I never agree with him but I sort of do here. Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that  “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable.
> 
> Oh and by the way, the 14th was passed long after the founders drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So it has nothing to do with what the framers intended. It's interesting how you, a defender of the literal word of the constitution, and the enumerated rights, can come up with this sort of nonsense.
> 
> You are so out to lunch
> 
> Then you say that “there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage” which is true, but it is also it is also a direct contradiction to  the first part of that paragraph..Your credibility is totally in the crapper bud.




If Gay Marriage was "unthinkable" when the 14th Amendment was written and adopted, why do you think the writers of the amendment wanted to mandate the institution?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> If Gay Marriage was "unthinkable" when the 14th Amendment was written and adopted, why do you think the writers of the amendment wanted to mandate the institution?


What the fuck are you talking about Princess?


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the fuck are you talking about Princess?



I was simply contesting your claim that the folks who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had NO INTENTION of legalizing or permitting Homosexual Marriage.

Even though , apparently you do and think the recent Far Left Supreme Court decision was correct.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Polishprince said:


> I was simply contesting your claim that the folks who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had NO INTENTION of legalizing or permitting Homosexual Marriage.
> 
> Even though , apparently you do and think the recent Far Left Supreme Court decision was correct.


I posted in #1554 the text of the 14th Amendment.  What part did you not understand?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> I was simply contesting your claim that the folks who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had NO INTENTION of legalizing or permitting Homosexual Marriage.
> 
> Even though , apparently you do and think the recent Far Left Supreme Court decision was correct.


Holy franken fuck! What indication is that they they were thinking about same sex marriage. And yes I think that the decision was correct. Ther is no conflict or inconsitancy there  Read the 14th and read the Obergefell decision and maybe, just maybe you will be able to understand why, Then again I kind of doubt it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I posted in #1554 the text of the 14th Amendment.  What part did you not understand?


Read the Obergefell decision and tell us what part of that ,you don't understand


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> If Gay Marriage was "unthinkable" when the 14th Amendment was written and adopted, why do you think the writers of the amendment wanted to mandate the institution?


I do not think that they wanted to mandate it. Where are you getting that crap from.? They mandated due process and equal protection under the law which has many applications.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor *deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*."



  Nothing in that text even hints at supporting any _“right”_ to have a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage treated as equivalent to a genuine marriage.

  You're making up shit that isn't there.

  And I'll say it again—not one word that appears in this Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution was written by anyone who would have even thought of supporting such a sick mockery.  If any author of any text in the Constitution thought that his words might be twisted and corrupted to that end, then he surely would have written them more carefully, to prevent that.


----------



## 2aguy

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...



The democrats are already doing that


----------



## ReinyDays

2aguy said:


> The democrats are already doing that



Where? ... DemoNazis at Harvard want enforced integration on their campus ... yeah, I know, but they can't learn from their own mistakes, nothing I can do about it  ...


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy franken fuck! What indication is that they they were thinking about same sex marriage. And yes I think that the decision was correct. Ther is no conflict or inconsitancy there  Read the 14th and read the Obergefell decision and maybe, just maybe you will be able to understand why, Then again I kind of doubt it.




My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.

The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.
> 
> The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.


Holy shit Princess!! You can't even keep your own bullshit straight!
First you said: "I was simply contesting your claim that the folks who wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had NO INTENTION of legalizing or permitting Homosexual Marriage".

Then you wrote: " If Gay Marriage was "unthinkable" when the 14th Amendment was written and adopted, why do you think the writers of the amendment wanted to mandate the institution?"

BUT NOW you say:  ".......... if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way."

Do you even know what you "think"? Do you actually think at all?

In any case you just need to get over you obsession with homosexuality. You wouldn't want others to think that there is something "funny" about you,


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Polishprince said:


> My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.
> 
> The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.


You have no point.  The Equal Protection clause is very broad for a reason.  They could have included a clause not allowing anchor babies, but they didn't!


----------



## Penelope

Polishprince said:


> My point is, and remains , that if the writers of the 14th Amendment thought for a millisecond that the amendment would someday be used to mandate Gay Marriage- they would have written a clause to make sure it couldn't be misinterpreted in that way.
> 
> The people of the 19th Century, on both sides of the political aisle in America, agreed with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Normalcy.


Gay marriage is ok in my book, freedom, *don't you believe in freedom??* I'm not going around to people's home describing what I see in bedrooms, are you? 
*Why don't you worry about rape and incest??*

It's women don't have the freedom nowadays. *Don't you think so?*


----------



## SweetSue92

Penelope said:


> Gay marriage is ok in my book, freedom, *don't you believe in freedom??* I'm not going around to people's home describing what I see in bedrooms, are you?
> *Why don't you worry about rape and incest??*
> 
> It's women don't have the freedom nowadays. *Don't you think so?*



Penny you're the most bootlicking authoritarian here.  You HATE freedom.

See: my signature


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SweetSue92 said:


> Penny you're the most bootlicking authoritarian here.  You HATE freedom.
> 
> See: my signature


What is this "authoritarian" bullshit? Do you even understand the word? How is the person who believes that everyon should have the rigth  to live and love as they wish authoritarian.?


----------



## surada

Mac1958 said:


> Well, they're going full federalist.  Leave everything possible to the states.
> 
> Okay.  I understand the reasoning, but we're going to see big, big differences going from state to state.  The country will no longer be purple, it will be dark red OR dark blue.
> 
> _E Pluribus Unum_ is dead.  I think that's what they want.  It beats trying to secede.


Is same sex marriage an issue?


----------



## surada

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nothing in that text even hints at supporting any _“right”_ to have a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage treated as equivalent to a genuine marriage.
> 
> You're making up shit that isn't there.
> 
> And I'll say it again—not one word that appears in this Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution was written by anyone who would have even thought of supporting such a sick mockery.  If any author of any text in the Constitution thought that his words might be twisted and corrupted to that end, then he surely would have written them more carefully, to prevent that.



You're an autocrat. Why don't you mind your own business? How does same sex marriage affect you?


----------



## Mac1958

surada said:


> Is same sex marriage an issue?


Yeah, I'd think so.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is no wording in the Fourteenth Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, that even hints at any such thing.


Sure, it doesn't say anything about gay marriage itself but it dies talk about equal protection. You can't say it's OK for some but then say it's not for others


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ah there you are you little rascal! Welcome back. The fact is that it is a complicated question. However, as usual, you take it upon yourself to conjur up a pat and simplistic answer with bothering to do any research or to learn anything about the issue. That is called an appeal to authority logical fallacy-( I said it so it is right) as well as an appeal to ignorance fallacy (just trust me) Read and learn:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws? - Judge
> 
> 
> Free Essay on Do Judges Make Law or Merely Interpret Laws? at lawaspect.com. Free law essay examples to help law students. 100% Unique Essays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lawaspect.com





> Ah there you are you little rascal! Welcome back.



Yeah, had surgery on Thursday so this week I haven't been paying attention to usmb. 

Your link is referencing the legislative and judicial system in England, not America, so, I don't know if that would, in any way, apply.

But, in your article, it does say that primary law would always Trump secondary law (common law).  I would consider laws our legislative bodies make as primary law and court precedent as secondary law. Precedent is not always a good thing, as we have seen with roe, they set the precedent when roe was first decided, but it was the wrong precedent. The courts don't have the power to create law, so they sent it back to the States, where it belongs. 

In the case of gay marriage, the courts could only make sure that thr states are adhering to the equal protection clause of the 14A, the courts cannot create any binding statute or legal directive, by its own power (law), that a state must follow. 

Again, only the legislative branch cab make laws, the judicial branch makes sure those laws comply with the cotus.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Common! Seriously. Let me start by saying two things. Blaylock is my ultra nemesis and I never agree with him but I sort of do here. Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that  “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable.
> 
> Oh and by the way, the 14th was passed long after the founders drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So it has nothing to do with what the framers intended. It's interesting how you, a defender of the literal word of the constitution, and the enumerated rights, can come up with this sort of nonsense.
> 
> You are so out to lunch
> 
> Then you say that “there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage” which is true, but it is also it is also a direct contradiction to  the first part of that paragraph..Your credibility is totally in the crapper bud.





> Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that  “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable.



Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time.

That's my whole point about the cotus, in order for it to work as intended, we have to adhere to the document, as intended. When you start giving power to the gov that it was never intended to have, you mess up the whole idea this country was founded on.  Over the years, our government has become so bloated that its gotten far away from what it was supposed to be, and now it's doing things the cotus never said it could.  Now we're at a point to where whoever is in power wields the gov to their own  desires and the rest of us fight amongst each other.



> Then you say that “there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage” which is true, but it is also it is also a direct contradiction to  the first part of that paragraph.



No, it's not. As I said, they didn't need for it to intend on regulating marriage, their intent was to give the fed gov certain powers, and the rest to the states and people. In that, they tried to allow max freedom for the people, which would include the 14A protection of gay marriage, hundreds of years into the future.


----------



## ReinyDays

I always surprises me when conservatives demand bigger government so government can better inspection our bedrooms at night ... more regulations on how consenting adults have sex ... it's hypocritical ... how long has it been since you've read George Orwell's _1984_? ... 

Religious marriage is governed by the church ... secular marriage is governed by written law, and not surprisingly, most of marriage law is similar to contract law ... that's right, marriage is only about money in the eyes of our government, or at least ... _it better be_ ...


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nothing in that text even hints at supporting any _“right”_ to have a disgusting homosexual mockery of a marriage treated as equivalent to a genuine marriage.
> 
> You're making up shit that isn't there.
> 
> And I'll say it again—not one word that appears in this Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution was written by anyone who would have even thought of supporting such a sick mockery.  If any author of any text in the Constitution thought that his words might be twisted and corrupted to that end, then he surely would have written them more carefully, to prevent that.



Find me the Constitutional authority for the United States Air Force or Space Force.  It isn't there because the writers of the Constitution could not even imagine that there would be a need for such a military force.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ThisIsMe said:


> Sure, it doesn't say anything about gay marriage itself but it dies talk about equal protection. You can't say it's OK for some but then say it's not for others



_“Gay _‘marriage’_”_ involves fundamentally redefining marriage, away from what it has always been understood to mean.  That has nothing to do with equal protection, as affirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment.  That's about redefining and corrupting on of the most fundamental social institutions, in a manner that denies the social and biological basis and purpose of that institution.  There is no honest way to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment supports this.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ReinyDays said:


> I always surprises me when conservatives demand bigger government so government can better inspection our bedrooms at night ... more regulations on how consenting adults have sex ... it's hypocritical ... how long has it been since you've read George Orwell's _1984_? ...



  No one is doing that nor advocating that,


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Find me the Constitutional authority for the United States Air Force or Space Force.  It isn't there because the writers of the Constitution could not even imagine that there would be a need for such a military force.



  The Constitution does specifically authorize the existence of an Army and a Navy; which reflected the military needs of the time in which it was written.  Though the Constitution makes no explicit mention of other military branches, it's not much of a stretch to read into it an intent that should the advance of technology make other branches necessary or appropriate, that they should be taken to be authorized as well.  If we think we need to stick to what is literally authorized, then it would be a small matter to reorganize any new branches as sub-organizations of the Army and/or Navy.  What is now the Air Force was, in fact, originally a corps under the Army.  It came to be more expedient and efficient for it to exist as its own branch.  Similarly, the Space Force has come out of the Air Force.

  There is no problem with Constitutionally justifying the existence of an Air Corps or a Space Corps as subsidiaries of the Army or the Navy; nothing in the Constitution says we cannot have these forces, if we deem them necessary.  As much as I tend to take a strictly literalist view of the Constitution, in this case, it amounts to an absurd exercise in straining at a gnat to insist that these have to be part of the Army or Navy, if it is more expedient and practical for them to exist as separate branches.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Yeah, had surgery on Thursday so this week I haven't been paying attention to usmb.
> 
> Your link is referencing the legislative and judicial system in England, not America, so, I don't know if that would, in any way, apply.
> 
> But, in your article, it does say that primary law would always Trump secondary law (common law).  I would consider laws our legislative bodies make as primary law and court precedent as secondary law. Precedent is not always a good thing, as we have seen with roe, they set the precedent when roe was first decided, but it was the wrong precedent. The courts don't have the power to create law, so they sent it back to the States, where it belongs.
> 
> In the case of gay marriage, the courts could only make sure that thr states are adhering to the equal protection clause of the 14A, the courts cannot create any binding statute or legal directive, by its own power (law), that a state must follow.
> 
> Again, only the legislative branch cab make laws, the judicial branch makes sure those laws comply with the cotus.


MY bad...Here is US law


> Legislative intent is a construct that courts use to* discern the meaning of legislative action*, usually in the form of legislation. The concept is employed in many fields of law—including constitutional law—in the interpretation and application of statutes.
> *Legislative Intent* | *Encyclopedia.com*​
> 
> 
> www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/


Courts interpret law

I am still waiting for you to explain how Roe was a bad decision and an example to the court "making law" while being OK w/ Obergefell. Both invalidated state laws, both are based on rights that flow from the 14th Amendment, and both set precedents. But you arbitrarily decided that Roe was "the wrong precident" and that it is an example of creating law when Obergefell is not. You seem to have some sort of strange agenda here


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time.
> 
> That's my whole point about the cotus, in order for it to work as intended, we have to adhere to the document, as intended. When you start giving power to the gov that it was never intended to have, you mess up the whole idea this country was founded on. Over the years, our government has become so bloated that its gotten far away from what it was supposed to be, and now it's doing things the cotus never said it could. Now we're at a point to where whoever is in power wields the gov to their own desires and the rest of us fight amongst each other.


You are contradicting yourself in the same post! You seem to be saying that it's appropriate to find rights that were never before thought of based on changing culture and other factors, then go on to say that we have to adhear to the document as intended. I just can't figure you out


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time.
> 
> That's my whole point about the cotus, in order for it to work as intended, we have to adhere to the document, as intended. When you start giving power to the gov that it was never intended to have, you mess up the whole idea this country was founded on.  Over the years, our government has become so bloated that its gotten far away from what it was supposed to be, and now it's doing things the cotus never said it could.  Now we're at a point to where whoever is in power wields the gov to their own  desires and the rest of us fight amongst each other.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. As I said, they didn't need for it to intend on regulating marriage, their intent was to give the fed gov certain powers, and the rest to the states and people. In that, they tried to allow max freedom for the people, which would include the 14A protection of gay marriage, hundreds of years into the future


This is all so useless. Just word games really. OK, they were forward looking and understood that issues would arise in the future that they could not think of then. And yes the the 14th is the basis for same sex mariage in that marriage flows from the 4th. So what have we accomplished now? You still have two problems 1. How does Obergefell differ from Roe 2. And you insistance that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional lae


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, it's not. As I said, they didn't need for it to intend on regulating marriage, their intent was to give the fed gov certain powers, and the rest to the states and people. In that, they tried to allow max freedom for the people, which would include the 14A protection of gay marriage, hundreds of years into the future.


PS You actually have 2 peoblems

1. How does Obergefell differ from Roe'

 2. And you insistance that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional law

AND

3. You can't seem to decide whether the constitution is fluid and adapable to unforseen issues  and able to find bew, unenumerated rights, OR if we must strictly abide by the original written text and only recognise the enumerated rights

It seems that you have some soul serching to do


----------



## ThisIsMe

ReinyDays said:


> I always surprises me when conservatives demand bigger government so government can better inspection our bedrooms at night ... more regulations on how consenting adults have sex ... it's hypocritical ... how long has it been since you've read George Orwell's _1984_? ...
> 
> Religious marriage is governed by the church ... secular marriage is governed by written law, and not surprisingly, most of marriage law is similar to contract law ... that's right, marriage is only about money in the eyes of our government, or at least ... _it better be_ ...


Conservatives  want less government. It's the dems who want government to come in and make laws regarding marriage. 

Conservatives want that kind of stuff left to the states, not in the hands of a central federal gov. 

I've maintained that the federal gov should not be making any laws regarding marriage, either for or against. That's not their perview, thus, smaller government. 

As far as the churches, yeah, of course they want marriage to be traditional, that's just their thing. As long as the government sees to it that all people are protected under the cotus, what the churches want won't make any difference.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This is all so useless. Just word games really. OK, they were forward looking and understood that issues would arise in the future that they could not think of then. And yes the the 14th is the basis for same sex mariage in that marriage flows from the 4th. So what have we accomplished now? You still have two problems 1. How does Obergefell differ from Roe 2. And you insistance that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional lae


It is all pointless. You can't see that I'm arguing that gay people have a right to marry as they wish, your hangup is that I won't conceed that scotus has the right to legislate from the bench, and unilaterally create law.

Case law is "precedent" and is not "law", i.e. it's not legislation. Scotus cannot make law, it can only assert that laws being proposed, or that currently exist comply with cotus standards.  They can't interpret that law to mean something else, like roe. Scotus couldn't say abortion was the law of the land, since that's not their role in government. They could only say that the cotus gives people a right to privacy. Lefty activists were the ones that screwed that up when they took that decision and started spreading abortion as "settled law" and as a right, which scotus didn't say.  Abortion was never a right, privacy is a right.

Obergefell differs from roe in that equal protection says that you can't give to one but deny another the same thing.   Abortion is a states rights issue, gay marriage is a cotus issue.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> PS You actually have 2 peoblems
> 
> 1. How does Obergefell differ from Roe'
> 
> 2. And you insistance that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional law
> 
> AND
> 
> 3. You can't seem to decide whether the constitution is fluid and adapable to unforseen issues  and able to find bew, unenumerated rights, OR if we must strictly abide by the original written text and only recognise the enumerated rights
> 
> It seems that you have some soul serching to do


No, I'm solid. The cotus is not fluid nor is it adaptable, the words themselves are self interpreting and written to be inclusive enough to cover future issues.  Cotus was written to secure the rights of the people in their civil affairs. The right to equal protection under the law. That is as forward looking as it needs to be. No interpretation needed. 

If you adhere to the written text, you'll find that it works much better than constantly trying to change the meaning on a whim. As it was written includes all the protection from the Federal government that we will need. If we stop giving the fed gov more and more power, we wouldn't need to worry about all these things. The fact that we are where we are should be a sign that when you allow the Fed gov to control EVERYTHING, eventually someone isn't going to like how that works. 

If we adhere to its original principles, then we don't have that issue.

Remember, cotus is technically a limiting document on the Fed gov.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Bob Blaylock said:


> _“Gay _‘marriage’_”_ involves fundamentally redefining marriage, away from what it has always been understood to mean.  That has nothing to do with equal protection, as affirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment.  That's about redefining and corrupting on of the most fundamental social institutions, in a manner that denies the social and biological basis and purpose of that institution.  There is no honest way to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment supports this.


Where do you find marriage defined in the cotus?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ThisIsMe said:


> Where do you find marriage defined in the cotus?



  I never claimed that it was.  No reason it should have been needed.

  Up until recently, everyone knew what marriage was.  There is no reason to expect that anyone who had any hand in writing the original Constitution, nor any of the Amendments thereto, would have ever imagined that anything that they wrote would be twisted and corrupted to support a disgusting and immoral homosexual mockery of marriage.  If they had anticipated that, then they surely would have chosen their words more carefully to prevent it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Conservatives want less government. It's the dems who want government to come in and make laws regarding marriage.
> 
> Conservatives want that kind of stuff left to the states, not in the hands of a central federal gov.
> 
> I've maintained that the federal gov should not be making any laws regarding marriage, either for or against. That's not their perview, thus, smaller government.


Holly shit! What??!! You just can't seem to stick to your story. You seem really confused. All along you have been railing against "court made law" more accuratly known as case law, but granted some dispensation to te Obergefell decision saying that it was an approriate decision  and not an example of court made law

In  addition, you had voiced your unwaving support for "people to live and love who they whish" and for gay marriage, only to then say that you are "indifferernt " to it and now you want it left to the states. You have said that the 14th amendment protects gay marriage, but now that's out the window. Trying to understand what you believe is like trying to nail jello to the wall'

You want all marriage issues left to the states? What about interracial marriage? ...Loving V  Virginia


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> As far as the churches, yeah, of course they want marriage to be traditional, that's just their thing. As long as the government sees to it that all people are protected under the cotus, what the churches want won't make any difference.


So now we are back to all people being protected under the constitution?? The constitution is the bedrock of the federal judiciary so HOW THE FUCK would the constitution "protect all people if the  federal government has nothing to say about marriage? Christ you are a mess!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Conservatives want less government. It's the dems who want government to come in and make laws regarding marriage.


It was conservatives who passed those state laws banning same sex marriage before Obergefell. What the fuck do you call that ? WE did not make laws, we overturned them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> It is all pointless. You can't see that I'm arguing that gay people have a right to marry as they wish, your hangup is that I won't conceed that scotus has the right to legislate from the bench, and unilaterally create law.
> 
> Case law is "precedent" and is not "law", i.e. it's not legislation. Scotus cannot make law, it can only assert that laws being proposed, or that currently exist comply with cotus standards.  They can't interpret that law to mean something else, like roe. Scotus couldn't say abortion was the law of the land, since that's not their role in government. They could only say that the cotus gives people a right to privacy. Lefty activists were the ones that screwed that up when they took that decision and started spreading abortion as "settled law" and as a right, which scotus didn't say.  Abortion was never a right, privacy is a right.
> 
> Obergefell differs from roe in that equal protection says that you can't give to one but deny another the same thing.   Abortion is a states rights issue, gay marriage is a cotus issue.


You are still doing the same shit over and over again. Bleating about how case law is not law, while ignoring that fact that it carries the force of law and is in fact Constitutional Law. 

You keep claiming that you believe that gay people have the right to marry ( except when you are indifferent to it) Right here, in the same post, you say, on one hand , that Scotus cannot"legislate from the bench (regarding marriage) while ignoring the fact that if SCOTUS did not rule on the issue, many states would still not allow gay mariage.

Then you go on to once agin contadict yourself by saying that the Roe was a wrong decision while Obergefell was appropriate. And I have already addressed the issue of how Roe and obergefell are both based on the same provisions of the 14th amendment and how both invalidate state laws deemed unsonstitutional. Both deny a class of people a right that others can take for granted whether it be the right to marry, or the right to privacy and dominion over ones own body. 

I am so sick of your convoluted , inane equine excrement!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, I'm solid. The cotus is not fluid nor is it adaptable, the words themselves are self interpreting and written to be inclusive enough to cover future issues.  Cotus was written to secure the rights of the people in their civil affairs. The right to equal protection under the law. That is as forward looking as it needs to be. No interpretation needed.
> 
> If you adhere to the written text, you'll find that it works much better than constantly trying to change the meaning on a whim. As it was written includes all the protection from the Federal government that we will need. If we stop giving the fed gov more and more power, we wouldn't need to worry about all these things. The fact that we are where we are should be a sign that when you allow the Fed gov to control EVERYTHING, eventually someone isn't going to like how that works.
> 
> If we adhere to its original principles, then we don't have that issue.
> 
> Remember, cotus is technically a limiting document on the Fed gov.


You are as solid as fresh cow flop before it gets baked in the sun. You still have three problems and they are not going away.  You cannot say that the Constitution is adaptable while espousing an fundamentallt textualist philosophy. You cant rail against legislating from the bench but then make exception that suite you ( even if you later go back on that which you have with gay marriage, You can't have it both ways. You are realy a sad fucking mess.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The cotus is not fluid nor is it adaptable, the words themselves are self interpreting and written to be inclusive enough to cover future issues.


A major contradiction in ONE sentence!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> If you adhere to the written text, you'll find that it works much better than constantly trying to change the meaning on a whim. As it was written includes all the protection from the Federal government that we will need. If we stop giving the fed gov more and more power, we wouldn't need to worry about all these things. The fact that we are where we are should be a sign that when you allow the Fed gov to control EVERYTHING, eventually someone isn't going to like how that works.


Lets jut throw out the constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation. Lets have slave and free states again


----------



## ThisIsMe

Bob Blaylock said:


> I never claimed that it was.  No reason it should have been needed.
> 
> Up until recently, everyone knew what marriage was.  There is no reason to expect that anyone who had any hand in writing the original Constitution, nor any of the Amendments thereto, would have ever imagined that anything that they wrote would be twisted and corrupted to support a disgusting and immoral homosexual mockery of marriage.  If they had anticipated that, then they surely would have chosen their words more carefully to prevent it.


The problem with that approach is, then you could say that 2A only applies to muskets, since they never could have foreseen the wide array of guns we have now.

Perhaps they weren't thinking of gay marriage because they didn't need to. All they needed to do was provide freedom for future generations, and the 14A did that.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holly shit! What??!! You just can't seem to stick to your story. You seem really confused. All along you have been railing against "court made law" more accuratly known as case law, but granted some dispensation to te Obergefell decision saying that it was an approriate decision  and not an example of court made law
> 
> In  addition, you had voiced your unwaving support for "people to live and love who they whish" and for gay marriage, only to then say that you are "indifferernt " to it and now you want it left to the states. You have said that the 14th amendment protects gay marriage, but now that's out the window. Trying to understand what you believe is like trying to nail jello to the wall'
> 
> You want all marriage issues left to the states? What about interracial marriage? ...Loving V  Virginia


I still.maintain that courts don't make laws, and that's been my stance all along 

Obergefell was correct only in that it applied the issue of gay marriage to the constitution. The court itself did not try to deem that gay marriage was law.  The problem comes when leftist activists then take those words.and start parroting that gay marriage is the law of the land.  It's not, it's protected only by the cotus guarantee to equal protection. In that, it's solid. 

Gay marriage IS a state issue, not a federal issue, thats how our cotus works. I've stated that I don't believe states will ban gay marriage, but it's certainly not the federal governments job to make it law, only the courts job to make sure states are not violating the protections of the cotus.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So now we are back to all people being protected under the constitution?? The constitution is the bedrock of the federal judiciary so HOW THE FUCK would the constitution "protect all people if the  federal government has nothing to say about marriage? Christ you are a mess!





> So now we are back to all people being protected under the constitution??



I've never stated anything different.



> The constitution is the bedrock of the federal judiciary so HOW THE FUCK would the constitution "protect all people if the  federal government has nothing to say about marriage? Christ you are a mess!



The 14A.  I'm not a mess, I've been quite solid.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are as solid as fresh cow flop before it gets baked in the sun. You still have three problems and they are not going away.  You cannot say that the Constitution is adaptable while espousing an fundamentallt textualist philosophy. You cant rail against legislating from the bench but then make exception that suite you ( even if you later go back on that which you have with gay marriage, You can't have it both ways. You are realy a sad fucking mess.





> You cannot say that the Constitution is adaptable while espousing an fundamentallt textualist philosophy.



I never said the cotus was "adaptable", I don't know where you get that from.




> You cant rail against legislating from the bench but then make exception that suite you ( even if you later go back on that which you have with gay marriage



I've never made an exception that suits me. I'm solid in that the courts can't legislate from the bench. Where have I said differently?

...what's the 3rd problem?  You said there were 3...were missing one...


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A major contradiction in ONE sentence!!


When I say adaptable, I mean in the sense that dems mean it, in other words, fluid, changing it to suit your whims. The words of the cotus were written to cover a multitude of freedoms, anything that would be considered a due process and equal protections issue would be in there as well.  The cotus is solid, but it's protections are wide.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Lets jut throw out the constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation. Lets have slave and free states again


Why?  Nothing wrong with our cotus, other than it has been repeatedly violated over the years...something that we need to stop doing.


----------



## themirrorthief

ThisIsMe said:


> When I say adaptable, I mean in the sense that dems mean it, in other words, fluid, changing it to suit your whims. The words of the cotus were written to cover a multitude of freedoms, anything that would be considered a due process and equal protections issue would be in there as well.  The cotus is solid, but it's protections are wide.


queers should get married and suffer just like all us red blooded men who took the plunge


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The problem with that approach is, then you could say that 2A only applies to muskets, since they never could have foreseen the wide array of guns we have now.
> 
> Perhaps they weren't thinking of gay marriage because they didn't need to. All they needed to do was provide freedom for future generations, and the 14A did that.


The founders did not write the 14th A,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I still.maintain that courts don't make laws, and that's been my stance all along
> 
> Obergefell was correct only in that it applied the issue of gay marriage to the constitution. The court itself did not try to deem that gay marriage was law.  The problem comes when leftist activists then take those words.and start parroting that gay marriage is the law of the land.  It's not, it's protected only by the cotus guarantee to equal protection. In that, it's solid.
> 
> Gay marriage IS a state issue, not a federal issue, thats how our cotus works. I've stated that I don't believe states will ban gay marriage, but it's certainly not the federal governments job to make it law, only the courts job to make sure states are not violating the protections of the cotus.


Same shit, differnent post,Just with slightlt different words. You are trying to play both sides of the fence. The fact is that a Oberefell estblished Constilyutional LAW. The fact that you deny that it is law or do not want to call it law does not mean that it is not law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I've never stated anything different.


You have said so many contradictory things that my head is spinning


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The 14A. I'm not a mess, I've been quite solid.


Yes, as solid as fresh cow flop on a rainy day


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I never said the cotus was "adaptable", I don't know where you get that from.


You said that it was not adopable but that that the original language was flexable and could be applied to changing and unforseen issues -or something to that effect. So what the fuck are you saying? Still trying to have it both ways


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I've never made an exception that suits me. I'm solid in that the courts can't legislate from the bench. Where have I said differently?


Yes you have been consitent in saying that, but you also have said that the SCOTUS protects gay rights. They do it by way of case law but you refuse to call it law


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> When I say adaptable, I mean in the sense that dems mean it, in other words, fluid, changing it to suit your whims. The words of the cotus were written to cover a multitude of freedoms, anything that would be considered a due process and equal protections issue would be in there as well.  The cotus is solid, but it's protections are wide.


Cut the crap with the doublespeak already!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

themirrorthief said:


> queers should get married and suffer just like all us red blooded men who took the plunge


And here we hav  it! Queeers? Now you have shown your tru colors. You are so full of shit with your gay rights bullshit!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The founders did not write the 14th A,


That doesn't change anything. The argument is about what was or was not foreseen when the 14A was written, as was when the 2A was written.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Same shit, differnent post,Just with slightlt different words. You are trying to play both sides of the fence. The fact is that a Oberefell estblished Constilyutional LAW. The fact that you deny that it is law or do not want to call it law does not mean that it is not law.


Show me where the legislative body wrote, and passed that law?

Cotus law is merely precedent. We've seen that precedent is not always good. Take roe for example, since it was overturned, that is now precedent, do you agree that it is good precedent?  If scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law??


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have said so many contradictory things that my head is spinning


I've not posted any contradictions. Please list some of them if I have.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes, as solid as fresh cow flop on a rainy day


?? Lol


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You said that it was not adopable but that that the original language was flexable and could be applied to changing and unforseen issues -or something to that effect. So what the fuck are you saying? Still trying to have it both ways


That's exactly right. The cotus is fixed, but its protections are wide. As written, it is future proof, it is not until people start trying to change it does it lose its ability to be future proof.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes you have been consitent in saying that, but you also have said that the SCOTUS protects gay rights. They do it by way of case law but you refuse to call it law


No, I never said scotus protects gay rights, I said COTUS, as written, protects gay rights, and scotus can make sure that protection is applied to the people.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cut the crap with the doublespeak already!


?? What double speak?  Lol


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And here we hav  it! Queeers? Now you have shown your tru colors. You are so full of shit with your gay rights bullshit!


Uh...that wasn't me that posted that.....


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I've not posted any contradictions. Please list some of them if I have.


You can’t be serious! Like I said, trying to pin you down is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall 
Rember this....? Yes you still have Three problems. You have not adequately addressed any of this 

1. You insist that Obergefell was a proper decision but that Roe was not and that abortion should be left  to the states, but you can’t explain how Obergefell differs from Roe' 
Then you said: “No, I never said scotus protects gay rights, I said COTUS, as written, protects gay rights, and scotus can make sure that protection is applied to the people.” Word salad! ! The court does not protect rights, but the constitution does, BUT the court applies the constitution? What the fuck!! 

2. And you insist  that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional law  At the same time state that certain rights are protected by the 14th amendment while being unable to explain how tat happens unless there is a recognition of case law 

3. You can't seem to decide whether the constitution is fluid and adaptable to unforeseen 
Example. You said:” Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time. issues and able to find be, unenumerated rights, OR if we must strictly abide by the original written text and only recognize the enumerated rights” 
Double speak! 

And there is more: 

ThisIsMe said: 
Precisely! Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights. 

I replied: You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether state’s rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually be protected from a state that violates their rights 

And: 
You wrote: “No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference. If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights.” 
I replied: After insisting that you support the right of people to love and live as they see fit, and that you do not think that states should prohibit gay marriage, but now YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO IT??   

I could go on but I am not going to waste anymore of my time with your convoluted made up bullshit. There is absolutely NO theory of constitutional law that can make sense out of any of this.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Uh...that wasn't me that posted that.....


My Bad!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> ?? What double speak?  Lol


See post 1624


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> That's exactly right. The cotus is fixed, but its protections are wide. As written, it is future proof, it is not until people start trying to change it does it lose its ability to be future proof.


Roe did not chage the constitution. It was interpreted to mean that women had a right to privacy based on the provisions of the 14th Amenedment. That is what they INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Show me where the legislative body wrote, and passed that law?


Just stop with the bullshit already.I did not say that it was legislated and you know it. This is just another example of you word games


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Cotus law is merely precedent. We've seen that precedent is not always good. Take roe for example, since it was overturned, that is now precedent, do you agree that it is good precedent? If scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law??


Mearly precident.?? It is case law that established a precident. Do I think that overturning Roe is "good precedent"? You know god damned well that I do not. 

You ask ....if scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law?? It depends on  what you mean by "accept,  I would accept the fact that it is law . Would I like it? No. Would I speak out against it. Hell yes

I know what you are and what you are doing. You are basically an anti federal government/ small government conservative 

However, at the same time you are trying to come off as being moderate and reasonable with your half hearted, conditional support of gay rights and claim that you belive that the constitution protects everyone rights. You are still playing both sides of the fence but you are fooling no one, except perhpps your self.

Your invented theories of constitutional law make no sense, and I challange you to come up with an established theory that supports your views


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 1624



  See post 125.


----------



## Ringo

No comments...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> ?? What double speak?  Lol


I  see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.

Actually I have tired,  but I do have to  sum things up in some sort of comprehensive way and then I am done with you.  Otherwise this can go on forever and it already is a colossal waste of time and energy. Neither of us is going to convince the other to embrace our vastly differing views of government and the role of the courts. Moreover , your views are so convoluted, bizarre, contradictory  and half baked that I am tired of even trying to make sense out of them.  

You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot. However, beyond that, trying to understand you is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle  while tripping on acid. As I said, your views about the role and purpose of the courts and how the Constitution is applied to the issues of the day have no footing in any known Constitutional philosophy. In addition, I do believe that you are playing a sick game of duplicity where you are trying to appear to be sort of liberal while being an apologist for reactionary policies and decisions in the guise of defending the constitution.  
So, I am finished trying to understand you or bothering to counter your nonsense. Rather I will close with the clearest account of what I believe and why I believe it, and you can do with it what you will. You can choose to learn from it, or you can choose to continue on down the yellow brick road in blissful ignorance 

I am a product of the progressive movement that goes back to Teddy Roosevelt in the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government was more than an end in itself. The progressives came to understand that government can and should serve the purpose of making the lives of citizens better by expanding right and providing needed services. By extension of that philosophy, I believe that the courts play a vital role in that endeavor. For much of history, it has in fact fulfilled that vital role although there have been periods of pull back such as the one we are in now, after Trump packed the court with theocratic conservatives 

Those on the right rail against “legislating from the bench” and judicial activism when rulings do not go their way. However, the fact is that both liberals and conservative engage in judicial activism. The difference is that the “left” uses judicial activism  to move the country forward and enhance the quality of life for all people. The “right” used it to advance a repressive and regressive agenda such as was the case with the reversal of Roe. Other examples include rolling back voting rights, environmental protections, and expanding the meaning of religious rights to allow discrimination in the name of religion. And all of that is done in the guise of being true to the  constitutions and small government. 

However, there is more than one way to be true to the constitution. You can either  adhere to conservative  originalism and textualism and embrace the theory that the only rights are the enumerated rights, or you can be a progressive liberal and believe that the document is open to interpretation that allows additional  rights to flow from those stated in the original text and the amendments. But I have never encountered anyone before you who has  tried to straddle both divergent points of view, and to do it so clumsily. Nor have I ever before came across anyone who denies the reality of case law, binding precedents and the tradition of Star Decisis . Even the most conservative Justices on SCOTUS-while trampling on it at times-still understand that it is real.  

Regarding the size of government, while conservatives decry big government as bad because it supposedly  robs people of their freedom, that mantra is rings hollow with me for a number of reasons 

For me the issue is not the size of government, but rater what government does and who benefits from it, and who is harmed . A large and strong cental government and an a progressive court can do much good for the people as we have seen over the last century and more.  

In addition,  the fact is that this is a Constitutional Republic consisting of 50 states that-to a point- have dominion over much of their own affairs, and many of those states have historically abused their authority necessitating intervention by the Federal Government or the courts. It is folly to advocate for a weak, hands off central government –that supposedly affords more freedom to the people-  while allowing the states to take away freedoms. Lastly, conservatives are hypocritical in their condemnation of big government and judicial activism in they are quick to use the power of government to take away freedoms when it suits them such as  privacy, marriage, voting rights and much more.  

If you have anything more to say, try to say it in a coherent and organized manner, using reason and logic or don’t bother


----------



## Staidhup

We are a freaking Republic! Let the individual states decide.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Staidhup said:


> We are a freaking Republic! Let the individual states decide.


We are a freaking *CONSTITUTIONAL* REPUBLIC. The states must abide by the rule of law. States rights are not absolute. n Read the 14th Amendment and read the Obergefell decision,


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.



  Surely will have a difficult time understanding this, but most of us who participate on this forum have lives outside of it.  We have jobs, we have families, we have responsibilities, we have other hobbies.  We have other things to do than spend all of our time and energy arguing on those forum with a pathetic, depraved pervert/tyrant such as yourself.




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot.



  So were the great men who founded this nation, and who wrote its Constitution.  That's why the Constitution lists a very limited set of powers delegated to the central government, and states, in the Tenth Amendment, that all powers not so delegated thereto are reserved to the states or to the people.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Staidhup said:


> We are a freaking Republic! Let the individual states decide.


So gay people, who have the misfortune of living in a backwrd, shit hole red stae should be subjected to the whims of knuckle draging moronic bigots?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can’t be serious! Like I said, trying to pin you down is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall
> Rember this....? Yes you still have Three problems. You have not adequately addressed any of this
> 
> 1. You insist that Obergefell was a proper decision but that Roe was not and that abortion should be left  to the states, but you can’t explain how Obergefell differs from Roe'
> Then you said: “No, I never said scotus protects gay rights, I said COTUS, as written, protects gay rights, and scotus can make sure that protection is applied to the people.” Word salad! ! The court does not protect rights, but the constitution does, BUT the court applies the constitution? What the fuck!!
> 
> 2. And you insist  that courts do not make law (except for Obergefell) while ignoring the reality of case law as constitutional law  At the same time state that certain rights are protected by the 14th amendment while being unable to explain how tat happens unless there is a recognition of case law
> 
> 3. You can't seem to decide whether the constitution is fluid and adaptable to unforeseen
> Example. You said:” Of course it wasn't on their radar, but that's the beauty of the cotus, it didn't need to be. They wrote this document to be forward looking and future proof, because in it was supposed to be all the protections from, and limitations by, the federal gov to the people. The way they wrote it guaranteed freedoms that they might have not known about or seen at that time. issues and able to find be, unenumerated rights, OR if we must strictly abide by the original written text and only recognize the enumerated rights”
> Double speak!
> 
> And there is more:
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> Precisely! Thays where the cotus comes in. To make sure states are not violating someone's cotus rights.
> 
> I replied: You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether state’s rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually be protected from a state that violates their rights
> 
> And:
> You wrote: “No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference. If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights.”
> I replied: After insisting that you support the right of people to love and live as they see fit, and that you do not think that states should prohibit gay marriage, but now YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO IT??
> 
> I could go on but I am not going to waste anymore of my time with your convoluted made up bullshit. There is absolutely NO theory of constitutional law that can make sense out of any of this.


I've answered every one of those questions exhaustively. You can go back and read the last ....# of pages to see this.  You apparently just don't like my answers?

Yes, I support people's rights to live and love whom and how they want.  Yes, I support the states rights to make decisions that are not  part of the cotus' designation of powers to the federal government. I don't see how those two things are contradictory?  Because you think a state would ban gay marriage?  Again, I don't think that's happening, but I'd it did, that would be bad because it would be a political death nail for those politicians, and, the supreme court would strike it down anyway based on the application of the 14A.  What I don't support is the courts making law, as is what happened with roe, or rather, they made a decision on privacy, and left wing activists and our government said it was law, it never was.  I also don't support the federal government making laws about marriage, because, again, that is not their jurisdiction.  The cotus does not give the federal.government the right to regulate marriage. Thus, it must then be a states rights, and a people's rights. 

Look, I'm just trying to preserve the correct hierarchy of government, because so many people have turned it around all these years. It was never intended that federal government be the overriding power and the states and the people to be subservient to it. It was supposed to be a tool to help people in  specific affairs that could be applied equally across the states. Beyond that, the states and the people were supposed to govern themselves.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Roe did not chage the constitution. It was interpreted to mean that women had a right to privacy based on the provisions of the 14th Amenedment. That is what they INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION


Yeah, thats what it was supposed to mean, but what happened?  All of a sudden it was deemed to be "law", and for the next 50 years, it was said to be "settled law".

Now, you are coming here saying it is law because it has the "force of law".  I disagree completely that it was law or that scotus decisions have the "force of law", unless you are simply meaning that scotus decisions can ENFORCE the law, then I agree with you.  Scotus can overrule a state if they are in violation of a law by using the application to the cotus to see if it's constitutional. But, if you are suggesting that the scotus can legislate from the bench by interpreting the constitution to grant new privileges, i.e.. saying that abortion is now the law and all states must allow it, then no, scotus doesn't have that right. All they can do is say "people have a right to privacy based on the constitution".


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Mearly precident.?? It is case law that established a precident. Do I think that overturning Roe is "good precedent"? You know god damned well that I do not.
> 
> You ask ....if scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law?? It depends on  what you mean by "accept,  I would accept the fact that it is law . Would I like it? No. Would I speak out against it. Hell yes
> 
> I know what you are and what you are doing. You are basically an anti federal government/ small government conservative
> 
> However, at the same time you are trying to come off as being moderate and reasonable with your half hearted, conditional support of gay rights and claim that you belive that the constitution protects everyone rights. You are still playing both sides of the fence but you are fooling no one, except perhpps your self.
> 
> Your invented theories of constitutional law make no sense, and I challange you to come up with an established theory that supports your views





> Do I think that overturning Roe is "good precedent"? You know god damned well that I do not.



Ok then, so now we have established that not all court precedent is good, and sometimes they get it wrong.  But you see, you and I disagree with what scotus got wrong. I say cotus was wrong with the roe ruling, you say they were wrong for overturning it. Well, both are precedent...so, doesn't that kinda show that making precedent into law is not a good idea?



> You ask ....if scotus overturns obergefell, are you going to accept that as law?? It depends on  what you mean by "accept,  I would accept the fact that it is law . Would I like it? No. Would I speak out against it. Hell yes



Then I'd disagree with you, it wouldt be law, it would just be a decision based on the 14A, and would then return to the states.  Obergefell is different on that the court didn't make a ruling that was then deemed to be law, as you all did with roe, scotus simply applied the decision of gay marriage to the 14A and decided that under equal protection, it is a person's civil right to marry whom they want. If that's all there is to it, then we're good.


I'm not anti government, I'm for small government. Yes, I want the government to do its job, nothing more. Why is that a bad thing?


----------



## ThisIsMe

Ringo said:


> No comments...


Ok, so, what are you trying to say?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I  see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.
> 
> Actually I have tired,  but I do have to  sum things up in some sort of comprehensive way and then I am done with you.  Otherwise this can go on forever and it already is a colossal waste of time and energy. Neither of us is going to convince the other to embrace our vastly differing views of government and the role of the courts. Moreover , your views are so convoluted, bizarre, contradictory  and half baked that I am tired of even trying to make sense out of them.
> 
> You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot. However, beyond that, trying to understand you is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle  while tripping on acid. As I said, your views about the role and purpose of the courts and how the Constitution is applied to the issues of the day have no footing in any known Constitutional philosophy. In addition, I do believe that you are playing a sick game of duplicity where you are trying to appear to be sort of liberal while being an apologist for reactionary policies and decisions in the guise of defending the constitution.
> So, I am finished trying to understand you or bothering to counter your nonsense. Rather I will close with the clearest account of what I believe and why I believe it, and you can do with it what you will. You can choose to learn from it, or you can choose to continue on down the yellow brick road in blissful ignorance
> 
> I am a product of the progressive movement that goes back to Teddy Roosevelt in the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government was more than an end in itself. The progressives came to understand that government can and should serve the purpose of making the lives of citizens better by expanding right and providing needed services. By extension of that philosophy, I believe that the courts play a vital role in that endeavor. For much of history, it has in fact fulfilled that vital role although there have been periods of pull back such as the one we are in now, after Trump packed the court with theocratic conservatives
> 
> Those on the right rail against “legislating from the bench” and judicial activism when rulings do not go their way. However, the fact is that both liberals and conservative engage in judicial activism. The difference is that the “left” uses judicial activism  to move the country forward and enhance the quality of life for all people. The “right” used it to advance a repressive and regressive agenda such as was the case with the reversal of Roe. Other examples include rolling back voting rights, environmental protections, and expanding the meaning of religious rights to allow discrimination in the name of religion. And all of that is done in the guise of being true to the  constitutions and small government.
> 
> However, there is more than one way to be true to the constitution. You can either  adhere to conservative  originalism and textualism and embrace the theory that the only rights are the enumerated rights, or you can be a progressive liberal and believe that the document is open to interpretation that allows additional  rights to flow from those stated in the original text and the amendments. But I have never encountered anyone before you who has  tried to straddle both divergent points of view, and to do it so clumsily. Nor have I ever before came across anyone who denies the reality of case law, binding precedents and the tradition of Star Decisis . Even the most conservative Justices on SCOTUS-while trampling on it at times-still understand that it is real.
> 
> Regarding the size of government, while conservatives decry big government as bad because it supposedly  robs people of their freedom, that mantra is rings hollow with me for a number of reasons
> 
> For me the issue is not the size of government, but rater what government does and who benefits from it, and who is harmed . A large and strong cental government and an a progressive court can do much good for the people as we have seen over the last century and more.
> 
> In addition,  the fact is that this is a Constitutional Republic consisting of 50 states that-to a point- have dominion over much of their own affairs, and many of those states have historically abused their authority necessitating intervention by the Federal Government or the courts. It is folly to advocate for a weak, hands off central government –that supposedly affords more freedom to the people-  while allowing the states to take away freedoms. Lastly, conservatives are hypocritical in their condemnation of big government and judicial activism in they are quick to use the power of government to take away freedoms when it suits them such as  privacy, marriage, voting rights and much more.
> 
> If you have anything more to say, try to say it in a coherent and organized manner, using reason and logic or don’t bother





> I  see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.



I've been on vacation the last 2 weeks for a minor surgery. I've been doing other things than tending to usmb.



> You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot.



Not anti government, just small, in its place, government.  Yes, I'm for states rights. Why does trying to adhere to cotus principles make me a zealot?



> I do believe that you are playing a sick game of duplicity where you are trying to appear to be sort of liberal while being an apologist for reactionary policies and decisions in the guise of defending the constitution.



No, I'm not trying to be duplicitous, and I'm not tryingn to appear liberal. I lean more to the right, but yes, I am attempting to defend the cotus. 



> The progressives came to understand that government can and should serve the purpose of making the lives of citizens better by expanding right and providing needed services



Ok, so, here we have a fundamental difference. The federal government has no place "providing needed services".  If the people need a service, it's up to the community and or the state to help with that.  When you start using the federal gov to provide those needed services, what happens?  They have to start taxing the citizens more.  Aside from the fact that cotus does not allow for the federal government to take on additional roles, when you have a central government deciding it should provide more and more services, they get bigger, more bloated, LESS efficient, more wasteful, and eventually start making decisions that may not be good for some people, but better for others, and in the name of "needed services", start running afoul of the cotus, which is supposed to be their guiding document. All the while, the federal government keeps putting their hands in our pockets. 



> By extension of that philosophy, I believe that the courts play a vital role in that endeavor.



So you believe the courts role is to help the federal gov in facilitating the expanding of rights and needed services?  Where does the cotus say the federal gov has the right to set up new beauracrasies, and the courts can assist them with that?



> For much of history, it has in fact fulfilled that vital role although there have been periods of pull back such as the one we are in now, after Trump packed the court with theocratic conservatives



I agree, it's a tug of war, it shouldn't be. If we just stuck to the principled of the cotus, we'd be a lot better off.

But, you're right, for much of its history, it has fulfilled that role, and look where we are now.  30+ trillion in debt that can never be paid, in the backs of the citizens, (I know..military), more government beauracrasies than one can comprehend, the federal government taking united states citizens tax money and sending it all across the world, people only being able to keep a fraction of what they earn, people making government a life long career, only seeking power and enrichment, corruption spread all through our government, taxes on EVERYTHING, nobody being in agreement about qhat the government should do, and we the people constantly at each others throats because we all have different ideas of what government should be.....yeah..big government was a _great_ idea.....

If we had just stuck to the principles we were founded on, all of these needed services could still be available, they would just be provided locally and by the states, and the federal gov wouldn't need so...much...of our tax money to run all of these bloated and wasteful programs. 



> The difference is that the “left” uses judicial activism  to move the country forward and enhance the quality of life for all people. The “right” used it to advance a repressive and regressive agenda such as was the case with the reversal of Roe.



Roe wasn't regressive judicial activism, it was correcting the course that was incorrectly decided, returning the decision to the states. Again, scotus didn't ban abortion, they just said that it should have always been a states issue.




> Other examples include rolling back voting rights, environmental protections, and expanding the meaning of religious rights to allow discrimination in the name of religion



Nobody Is rolling back voting rights. Just because some people want to ensure the security of election doesn't mean they are rolling back rights. I've yet to hear anyone on the right say they are trying to suppress, or prevent anyone from voting, yet, somehow, the left came up with this notion that the right is doing just that. And of course, being the media owning dem, they spread that message far and wide. All I hear from right wing media (and remember, i listen to both), is that they just want to make sure only legal voters vote.  Not once have I heard anyone say they didn't want any legal citizen to vote.

Religious rights is in the cotus. You are all trying to use that as a way to attack Christians, but, as we've talked about, a lot, is that one should not be coerced into taking an action that would violate their constitutionally protected rights. I'm this case, being asked to perform a service indirect relation to a gay wedding. For some, that's an issue, maybe not for others though. 



> you can be a progressive liberal and believe that the document is open to interpretation that allows additional  rights to flow from those stated in the original text and the amendments.



I just can't get behind that. Being open for interpretation means that it's meaning, and scope, can change, it also opens up the fact that one's interpretation could be starkly contradictory to another's interpretation. What if I don't agree with your interpretation?  What if I think it means something else?  What if I want to make a few interpretations of my own that you may be vehemently against?  If we start saying it's open for interpretation, why even have a cotus at all, as the more we interpret it, the more muddy it's actual meaning gets.  

Granted, eliminating the cotus has been a long desires goal of the left.  If you could get rid of it, it would remove any obstscle to going about any agenda you wanted, it would allow the federal gov to be whatever it wanted. 



> A large and strong cental government and an a progressive court can do much good for the people as we have seen over the last century and more.



It sounds like you are pushing for a socialistic society where all rights and privileges flow from a central autocratic government, not realizing that a giant bloated government is probably the worst entity to be trying to handle these things, just from the wasteful and inefficiency alone. 

If the fed gov stopped taking so much money from the people, and from the states, they could keep more of that money locally, and help their own citizens on a much more manageable and efficient basis. 



> You can either  adhere to conservative  originalism and textualism and embrace the theory that the only rights are the enumerated rights



No, the only rights are not those that are enumerated, infact, cotus says this:



> The enumerated rights in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


  9th ammendment. 

Cotus says that people have rights beyond the enumerated rights, but those 18 enumerated power are supposed to be a limitation on what government can do, and the Bill of rights are the things government is in charge of preserving. 

National archives says this:



> The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. *It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government*. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people





> many of those states have historically abused their authority necessitating intervention by the Federal Government or the courts



I don't believe the federal government has the jurisdiction to step in, unless its regsrding one of the enumersted powers, or the bill of rights they are supposed to protect, through the courts, they are not the policemen of the country. When a state runs afoul of the cotus, it's the job of the supreme court to rule on the legality of whatever the state is doing, based on the application of the constitution.




> It is folly to advocate for a weak, hands off central government –that supposedly affords more freedom to the people-  while allowing the states to take away freedoms.



I don't know, seems like our federal government is pretty oppressive.  Ever made a mistake on your taxes, that the fed gov socks out of your pocket?  They have the IRS, the most powerful enforcement agency in the country that can make your life miserable if you make a mistake.on your taxes...and if you don't pay those over bloated taxes, we'll, theyll just downright put you in prison.  That's freedom?  What about the fact that you have to pay, up to 37% of your income (your labor) to the wasteful federal gov., meaning you have to work harder and harder to make a living. Is that freedom?  

As a central government gets bigger, it gains more power over the lives of the people, does that promote freedom?

Look, I want all the things you want, I just don't agree that it should be our federal government who provides it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I've answered every one of those questions exhaustively. You can go back and read the last ....# of pages to see this.  You apparently just don't like my answers?
> 
> Yes, I support people's rights to live and love whom and how they want.  Yes, I support the states rights to make decisions that are not  part of the cotus' designation of powers to the federal government. I don't see how those two things are contradictory?  Because you think a state would ban gay marriage?  Again, I don't think that's happening, but I'd it did, that would be bad because it would be a political death nail for those politicians, and, the supreme court would strike it down anyway based on the application of the 14A.  What I don't support is the courts making law, as is what happened with roe, or rather, they made a decision on privacy, and left wing activists and our government said it was law, it never was.  I also don't support the federal government making laws about marriage, because, again, that is not their jurisdiction.  The cotus does not give the federal.government the right to regulate marriage. Thus, it must then be a states rights, and a people's rights.
> 
> Look, I'm just trying to preserve the correct hierarchy of government, because so many people have turned it around all these years. It was never intended that federal government be the overriding power and the states and the people to be subservient to it. It was supposed to be a tool to help people in  specific affairs that could be applied equally across the states. Beyond that, the states and the people were supposed to govern themselves.


Let me see if I got this right.  Right now, the only way for a state to ban gay marriage is if Obergefell were first overturned-right. 

So if that happened and a state then banned gay marriage- SCOTUS would strike it down??? Are you fucking serious?? This is exactly why I am done with you


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Not anti government, just small, in its place, government. Yes, I'm for states rights. Why does trying to adhere to cotus principles make me a zealot?


It makes you a zealot because you have made it clear to you put states rights about civil rights


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> No, I'm not trying to be duplicitous, and I'm not tryingn to appear liberal. I lean more to the right, but yes, I am attempting to defend the cotus.


Your narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and at any cost!


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Let me see if I got this right.  Right now, the only way for a state to ban gay marriage is if Obergefell were first overturned-right.
> 
> So if that happened and a state then banned gay marriage- SCOTUS would strike it down??? Are you fucking serious?? This is exactly why I am done with you


They won't overturn obergefell because obergefell was not the courts making a law, it was the courts saying that gay marriage is protected by the constitution. 

Let's put it like this, for them to be able to overturn a ruling of the court, they'd have to find a way to prove that gay marriage is not protected by the equal protections and due process clause, something they will never be able to do, and honestly, I doubt they will try.

However, in the event that they somehow managed to do that, the appeals would be endless. 

Suffice to say, it's not going to happen.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It makes you a zealot because you have made it clear to you put states rights about civil rights


No, I didn't. Please show me where I said anything of the sort. I said states rights are in place over federal authority where the cotus doesn't grant the federal government a specific power.

The civil rights if the people will always be protected by the bill of rights and the 14A.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, so, here we have a fundamental difference. The federal government has no place "providing needed services". If the people need a service, it's up to the community and or the state to help with that. When you start using the federal gov to provide those needed services, what happens? They have to start taxing the citizens more. Aside from the fact that cotus does not allow for the federal government to take on additional roles, when you have a central government deciding it should provide more and more services, they get bigger, more bloated, LESS efficient, more wasteful, and eventually start making decisions that may not be good for some people, but better for others, and in the name of "needed services", start running afoul of the cotus, which is supposed to be their guiding document. All the while, the federal government keeps putting their hands in our pockets.





> General Welfare* The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens*. Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution.
> *General Welfare* legal *definition* of *General Welfare* - *TheFreeDictionary.com*​


I am surprised that you have not been decrying the scourage of socialism. Actually  you have been excpt that you have thus far avoided that word. Clearly we have fundatally differing viwes about the role of government and that is why this is all so futile.

Your cynicism about the ability of big government to accomplish it's goals and to help people is noted, but history proves you wrong. Case in point:  Social Security and Medicare


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Your narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and at any cost!


Well, it needs to be narrowly interpreted in order to keep it within its original confines, in order to keep the left wing people from broadly interpreting it to mean something more than it says.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am surprised that you have not been decrying the scourage of socialism. Actually  you have been excpt that you have thus far avoided that word. Clearly we have fundatally differing viwes about the role of government and that is why this is all so futile.
> 
> Your cynicism about the ability of big government to accomplish it's goals and to help people is noted, but history proves you wrong. Case in point:  Social Security and Medicare


So, general welfare doesn't mean what you think it means. From that link you posted: 



> The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare



And...



> According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.



From that article, it seems hamilton had a different idea of general welfare, and the courts have apparently ruled in favor of Hamilton idea, I think Madison was correct, because if you expand general welfare to mean...anything at all, then that gives the government broad powers to do anything and everything, in the name of 'general welfare", thus rendering the 18 enumersted power irrelevant, and not needed.  Why would they even include them, unless the entire scope of the cotus, including general welfare, was to be viewed from the confines of delegated powers.

Yes, there may be cynicism there, because the federal government has proven itself to be grossly inefficient and incapable of governing the people. State and local governments would do much better with that money to run their own affairs.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> They won't overturn obergefell because obergefell was not the courts making a law, it was the courts saying that gay marriage is protected by the constitution.
> 
> Let's put it like this, for them to be able to overturn a ruling of the court, they'd have to find a way to prove that gay marriage is not protected by the equal protections and due process clause, something they will never be able to do, and honestly, I doubt they will try.


What a buch of idiotic bullshit! You would have to be really, really stupid to think that they would have to prove anything, and I don't think that you are stuoi. You are many things but not stupid. That only leaves delusional or a manipulative liar. Thomas andAlity are itching for a chance to overturn it,they said as much. And I'm sure that there are 3 others who would go along. And you cling to this idea that Obergefell is not court made law while other rulings are is beyond pathetic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> However, in the event that they somehow managed to do that, the appeals would be endless.
> 
> Suffice to say, it's not going to happen.


On the other hand, maybe you are stupid:

Can Supreme Court decisions be appealed?​
Why* can you* not* appeal a Supreme Court decision?* One* cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision* because the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the United States.* Can* the* Supreme Court* overrule a state* supreme court?* Federal courts may overrule a state* supreme court decision* only when there is a federal question which springs up a federal jurisdiction.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, general welfare doesn't mean what you think it means. From that link you posted:


That is NOT from the link that I posted you lying shit! I did not post this:'



> The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power *Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general*



This is someones dishonest interpretation of it. You fail to include the last paragraph of the section:

8.18 *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, general welfare doesn't mean what you think it means. From that link you posted:
> 
> 
> 
> And...
> 
> 
> 
> From that article, it seems hamilton had a different idea of general welfare, and the courts have apparently ruled in favor of Hamilton idea, I think Madison was correct, because if you expand general welfare to mean...anything at all, then that gives the government broad powers to do anything and everything, in the name of 'general welfare", thus rendering the 18 enumersted power irrelevant, and not needed.  Why would they even include them, unless the entire scope of the cotus, including general welfare, was to be viewed from the confines of delegated powers.
> 
> Yes, there may be cynicism there, because the federal government has proven itself to be grossly inefficient and incapable of governing the people. State and local governments would do much better with that money to run their own affairs.


If what your saying is correct, and if it were upheld by the courts, there would be no Federal administrative agecies from the Deprtment of Health and Human Serices to the Department of Education and everything in between., all created by legislation. All Federal programs under the various Departments from Social Security and Medicare to food and drug safety would have been ruled unconstitutional.In your view, the only legitimat role of the Federal Government aside from defense is to dole out money to the states to do as they please with


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Well, it needs to be narrowly interpreted in order to keep it within its original confines, in order to keep the left wing people from broadly interpreting it to mean something more than it says.


Except of course when YOU think that it should be broadly interpreted and adaptable to changing and unforeen issues. You need to pick a side and stick to it


----------



## Desperado

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


While they are at it, they should strike down inter-racial marriage too


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Yes, there may be cynicism there, because the federal government has proven itself to be grossly inefficient and incapable of governing the people. State and local governments would do much better with that money to run their own affairs.


Again, it depends on who is in control and what  their agenda is. The positive ontributions of the progresive movement through federal programs and legislation is well documented. The abuse of power by the states when they have  too much autonomy is also well documeted,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Desperado said:


> While they are at it, they should strike down inter-racial marriage too


Your are a fine example of an human being and a patriotic American.

How do you think Uncle Clarance would vote?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is NOT from the link that I posted you lying shit! I did not post this:'



  In post 1647 of this thread, you posted a link to <https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d6b9...W9uJTIwb2YlMjB0aGUlMjBDb25zdGl0dXRpb24u&ntb=1>, which redirects to <General Welfare.>, which does, in fact, contain the exact text that initforme quoted therefrom, for which you are now calling him a _“lying shit”_.


----------



## Staidhup

Let me go a step further, what specific right applies to marriage in the constitution? Simply no mention, which translates into the state deciding the issue of wills, estates, division of assets, and insurance. Who gives a shit? If two people want to get married so be it, they have the freedom to do as they see fit. The real issue is the agenda to force everyone to comply and blindly accept and glorify their life choices. From a moral standpoint I find it repugnant, furthermore, do not believe one should have the freedom too force their life choices and beliefs on another. We all are endowed with constitutionally protected basic  freedom, let It not be used via federal mandate as authorization to receive benefits beyond that of another to promote their chosen life choices.


----------



## Delldude

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Civil rights are not for voters to decide


Another states rights issue covered under the 10th amendment....and decided by the voters.

You missed the part about 'Of the people, by the people and for the people'?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What a buch of idiotic bullshit! You would have to be really, really stupid to think that they would have to prove anything, and I don't think that you are stuoi. You are many things but not stupid. That only leaves delusional or a manipulative liar. Thomas andAlity are itching for a chance to overturn it,they said as much. And I'm sure that there are 3 others who would go along. And you cling to this idea that Obergefell is not court made law while other rulings are is beyond pathetic.


If they were itching to do so, then why don't they?  They have a majority on the court. 

I'd have to hear thomas give some clarification to his remarks, to determine if he is just simply wanting to try and ban gay marriage, or if his remarks are more of an issue with the how those rulings were decided under the constitution. He made reference to other "substantive decisions", aside from obergefell. Thus doesn't mean he is trying to end gay marriage, maybe he just questions the decision on the reasoning behind it. I don't know. 

Either way, it doesn't change due process, equal protection, and i really doubt they will even take up the case.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> On the other hand, maybe you are stupid:
> 
> Can Supreme Court decisions be appealed?​
> Why* can you* not* appeal a Supreme Court decision?* One* cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision* because the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the United States.* Can* the* Supreme Court* overrule a state* supreme court?* Federal courts may overrule a state* supreme court decision* only when there is a federal question which springs up a federal jurisdiction


Ahh, my bad, I thought there was a process to appeal a scotus decision. Still, very likely it's a moot point, as I don't see them doing it. At the worst, it turns the decision over to the states, and the appeals will just land there.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is NOT from the link that I posted you lying shit! I did not post this:'
> 
> 
> 
> This is someones dishonest interpretation of it. You fail to include the last paragraph of the section:
> 
> 8.18 *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.*


It is from the link you posted. Read the whole article. It's like 2 to 4 paragraphs in.

As to your quote, yes, congress can make laws, necessary and proper to the execution of powers vested to it by the cotus. In other words, it's not saying that congress can do whatever it wants, it's saying that congress can pass laws to facilitate the enumerated powers that the cotus gives to its jurisdiction. 



> The Necessary and Proper Clause1 concludes Article I's list of Congress's enumerated powers with a general statement that Congress's powers include not only those expressly listed, but also the authority to use all means “necessary and proper” for executing those express powers. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, congressional power encompasses all implied and incidental powers that are “conducive” to the “beneficial exercise” of an enumerated power.












						The Necessary and Proper Clause: Overview
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> If what your saying is correct, and if it were upheld by the courts, there would be no Federal administrative agecies from the Deprtment of Health and Human Serices to the Department of Education and everything in between., all created by legislation. All Federal programs under the various Departments from Social Security and Medicare to food and drug safety would have been ruled unconstitutional.In your view, the only legitimat role of the Federal Government aside from defense is to dole out money to the states to do as they please with


Precisely. You do realize, each state already has their own department of education,.right?  They each have their own department of health. 

And no, I don't think the federal government t should be doling out money, because if we did things the way the cotus says, the federal gov wouldn't have any money to dole out, nor would it need to. It should have just enough money to run its legitimate functions, and a little bit extra for modest salaries, as prescribed by the cotus. 

As far as social security, Medicare, food and safety, all those things would have worked themselves out eventually through state agencies, and locally.  If the federal government can do it, each state could do it as well. 

I'm not saying that social security and Medicare are bad things, but they should not be run by the Federal Government. These should be state based agencies.  As we've seen, the best way to waste or lose money is to give it to the federal government. 

On top of that, social security is starting to decline. People now are getting less out of it than they put in, and I think I heard the figure they by..2030?  People can expect to draw about 70% of what they put in.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Except of course when YOU think that it should be broadly interpreted and adaptable to changing and unforeen issues. You need to pick a side and stick to it


I am picking a side. I don't think the cotus should benefit me any more than it does anyone else. I'm saying let's stick to the original idea of the cotus, and let the states and the people have the power.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Again, it depends on who is in control and what  their agenda is. The positive ontributions of the progresive movement through federal programs and legislation is well documented. The abuse of power by the states when they have  too much autonomy is also well documeted,


Ok, that's why we have courts.

If you want to give the federal government ultimate control, then change the cotus. You simply can't say "well, we don't like how it's going, so we'll just ignore the delegated powers and let fed gov run free".

We have procedures in place to cure the failings of our governments, but ignoring the cotus is not one of them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, that's why we have courts.
> 
> If you want to give the federal government ultimate control, then change the cotus. You simply can't say "well, we don't like how it's going, so we'll just ignore the delegated powers and let fed gov run free".
> 
> We have procedures in place to cure the failings of our governments, but ignoring the cotus is not one of them.


You know, I had said that I was done with you, and summed up my reasons. However I will respond to the most agrtegiously stupid shit that you say, when I have nothing better to do which is almost never.

There is NO NEED to change the CONSTITUTION and NO one is saying that "we don't like how it's going so,..." Clearly you do not understand how things work. There is a clear criteria for when and how a state law that is alledged to be discrininatory or overly retrictive -and placing on undue burden on a particular group is addressed by the court






						Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






> In U.S. constitutional law, when a court finds that a law infringes a fundamental constitutional right, it may apply the *strict scrutiny* standard to nevertheless hold the law or policy constitutionally valid if the government can demonstrate in court that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve the compelling purpose, and uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose. Failure to show these conditions may result in a judge striking down a law as unconstitutional.





> The standard is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.



In case you need help in understanding this, in it really very simple. The state must prove that the need for the restricive law out weighs  the burden  placed on those effected by it. SCOTUS must explain why the law is unconstitutional, or why it is not. 

We on the left are not the ones saying that the Federal Government should "run free" If anyone is saying that , it's the MAGA Republicans and especially Trump  who has little or no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law, and thinks that it's OK to use the power of the IRS and the Justice Department to intimidate his enemies. And it his hand picked SCOTUS who thinks that they can disregard the constitution and settled law inorder to advance their clearly political agenda


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I am picking a side. I don't think the cotus should benefit me any more than it does anyone else. I'm saying let's stick to the original idea of the cotus, and let the states and the people have the power.


Yes, the power of the strong to savage the waek without having to answere to the constitution. Now I am beginning to see you as a libertarian, which, to me is an anarchist is sheeps cothing


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You know, I had said that I was done with you, and summed up my reasons. However I will respond to the most agrtegiously stupid shit that you say, when I have nothing better to do which is almost never.
> 
> There is NO NEED to change the CONSTITUTION and NO one is saying that "we don't like how it's going so,..." Clearly you do not understand how things work. There is a clear criteria for when and how a state law that is alledged to be discrininatory or overly retrictive -and placing on undue burden on a particular group is addressed by the court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you need help in understanding this, in it really very simple. The state must prove that the need for the restricive law out weighs  the burden  placed on those effected by it. SCOTUS must explain why the law is unconstitutional, or why it is not.
> 
> We on the left are not the ones saying that the Federal Government should "run free" If anyone is saying that , it's the MAGA Republicans and especially Trump  who has little or no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law, and thinks that it's OK to use the power of the IRS and the Justice Department to intimidate his enemies. And it his hand picked SCOTUS who thinks that they can disregard the constitution and settled law inorder to advance their clearly political agenda





> There is NO NEED to change the CONSTITUTION



I agree, but it can be changed if the people want it to be.



> and NO one is saying that "we don't like how it's going so



That's exactly what you are saying when you talk about cotus being "fluid" and having a "broad interpretation".  You are basically thumbing your nose at the document as written and trying to make it into something its not supposed to be. 



> There is a clear criteria for when and how a state law that is alledged to be discrininatory or overly retrictive -and placing on undue burden on a particular group is addressed by the court



Exactly. And the "strict scrutiny" you posted even talks about laws that violate a person's constitutional rights, and how the courts can deal with that. I've been saying this all along.....



> We on the left are not the ones saying that the Federal Government should "run free



Yes, you are. When you start wanting to make the cotus "fluid", and allowing the fed gov to exceed its delegated powers, you are essentially wanting a central autocratic government that has no restrictions....i.e. "running free"



> it's the MAGA Republicans and especially Trump  who has little or no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law,



Incorrect. Republicans just want people to adhere to the cotus, and they want secure elections and secure borders.



> and thinks that it's OK to use the power of the IRS and the Justice Department to intimidate his enemies



I'm surprised you said this, when it was you guys who used the IRS as a weapon against conservatives.  Also, when did the right use the justice department to intimidate people?



> And it his hand picked SCOTUS who thinks that they can disregard the constitution and settled law inorder to advance their clearly political agenda



Roe was not settled law, the courts can't make law.  This is the crux of the argument we've been having for over a month now.  The scotus said people have a right to privacy, and the leftists said "abortion is law!!!", completely bastardizing the scotus decision.  When they overturned roe, they corrected a long time mistake, by saying "hey, abortion is a states rights issue".



> inorder to advance their clearly political agenda



...and the left is screaming for Biden to pack the scotus.....for.....political agenda....


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes, the power of the strong to savage the waek without having to answere to the constitution. Now I am beginning to see you as a libertarian, which, to me is an anarchist is sheeps cothing


Ok, you've said this several times. What states are violating someone's cotus rights?  

At the end of it all, we have a charter in place that describes what our country is supposed to be. You want to ignore that, and just let the government do whatever. I think that is a bad idea because that "whatever" is going to be vastly different depending on who controls it. If we stick to the original idea, then it doesn't matter who controls it, because the rules are set, and each side has to abide by them.

You know, that makes me think, if we adhered to the cotus, this whole battle between Republicans and dems would be irrelevant, the only time it would matter would be at the state level.

Imagine that, not having to battle every single day for "the soul of the nation".  If we just did what cotus said, at least at the federal level, there would be no battle!


----------



## flan327

Redfish said:


> as usual you libtardians misquote and take words out of context.   What he said was that the issue of gay marriage is NOT a federal constitutional issue and as such should be decided by the voters in each state.   That is all he said, that is all justice Thomas said on this.
> 
> If you libs would stop lying we might be able to get something done in this country.


You need help


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm surprised you said this, when it was you guys who used the IRS as a weapon against conservatives. Also, when did the right use the justice department to intimidate people?


Bullshit!


			Donald Trump wanted to use IRS to go after James Comey and Andrew McCabe: John Kelly
		


And apparently he did. For some reason, and against all odd..BOTH were subjected to a deep dive audit



			It Sure Looks Like Trump Sicced the IRS on His Enemies
		







						Neal and Pascrell Seek Expanded Probe of Unprecedented Trump Use of IRS
					

WASHINGTON, DC—Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) today called on the U.S. Treasury Department to expand its probe of former President Donald Trump’s use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target his...




					waysandmeans.house.gov


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> If they were itching to do so, then why don't they? They have a majority on the court.


Because they can't "just do it" silly. They need to have a case brought before them by someone who has standing


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'd have to hear thomas give some clarification to his remarks, to determine if he is just simply wanting to try and ban gay marriage, or if his remarks are more of an issue with the how those rulings were decided under the constitution. He made reference to other "substantive decisions", aside from obergefell. Thus doesn't mean he is trying to end gay marriage, maybe he just questions the decision on the reasoning behind it. I don't know.











						Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision On Same-Sex Marriage Rights
					

The two justices said the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges hurt religious liberty and "created a problem that only it can fix."




					www.npr.org
				




They are fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage 



> The two justices agreed with the decision not to hear the case but used the occasion to take a legal baseball bat to the court's 2015 decision _*Obergefell v. Hodges*_*, which declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the 14th Amendment guarantee to equal protection of the law.*





> Writing for himself and *Alito, Thomas said that the court's decision "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots*, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Either way, it doesn't change due process, equal protection, and i really doubt they will even take up the case.


It does not matter to these people.


----------



## flan327

ReinyDays said:


> ... separate schools for white children and black children ...


Not HERE


----------



## flan327

initforme said:


> We believe in freedom....but....only a little freedom


All animals are EQUAL 
But some are MORE equal than others


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision On Same-Sex Marriage Rights
> 
> 
> The two justices said the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges hurt religious liberty and "created a problem that only it can fix."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage


PS Thomas' reasoning - that allowing  gay marriage will result in people being branded as bigots is jyst plain stupid-or just a dishonest way of attempting to justify the denial of marriage. Those who oppose marriage equality will be branded as bigots regadless of the legal status of marriage


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Those who oppose marriage equality will be branded as bigots regadless of the legal status of marriage



  Only by depraved sexual perverts and their allies.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, you've said this several times. What states are violating someone's cotus rights?


Give me a fucking break!! There are a number of states that do not protect gays from work place discrimination, housing , discrimination, discrimination in financial transactions, and public accomodations

In addition, some states still restrict of prohibit addoption by gay people. And don't forget, marriage is allowed only because of Obergefell in some states









						Mississippi
					

Know the healthcare, employment, and public accommodation laws in Mississippi that protect LGBT people and everyone living with HIV.



					www.lambdalegal.org


----------



## flan327

Bob Blaylock said:


> Only by depraved sexual perverts and their allies.


Like you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Precisely. You do realize, each state already has their own department of education,.right?  They each have their own department of health.
> 
> And no, I don't think the federal government t should be doling out money, because if we did things the way the cotus says, the federal gov wouldn't have any money to dole out, nor would it need to. It should have just enough money to run its legitimate functions, and a little bit extra for modest salaries, as prescribed by the cotus.
> 
> As far as social security, Medicare, food and safety, all those things would have worked themselves out eventually through state agencies, and locally.  If the federal government can do it, each state could do it as well.
> 
> I'm not saying that social security and Medicare are bad things, but they should not be run by the Federal Government. These should be state based agencies.  As we've seen, the best way to waste or lose money is to give it to the federal government.
> 
> On top of that, social security is starting to decline. People now are getting less out of it than they put in, and I think I heard the figure they by..2030?  People can expect to draw about 70% of what they put in.


Holy fucking shit on a shingle!! You are more extreme that I ever imagined! You are hostile to the very concept of a United States of America!! You are advocating the balkanization of the country where each state is autonomous and left to fend for themselves. That is insane!

There is already considerable disparity among the states in terms individual and collective wealth, public health and safety . And that is AFTER the federal government regulations are put in place and it redistributes a good deal of resources in various ways, not the least of which is the redistribution of funds collected through taxes.

And you think that each state should individually regulate food  and drugs and I suppose other products? Seriously? You do understand that most or all products cros state lines. How the fuck would that work with a patchwork of 50 different regulatory systems. Ya think that might put a damper on commerce? Or maybe you thing that coal producing states should be able to impliment their own environmental rules despite thet fact that air polution does not stop at the state line. Clearly, you have not thought this through. The more I think about this, the more stupid it seems

You would be creating Fiefdoms of a sort. It would not be long before tribal warfrare between the well off and not so well off states ensued.

Yet you continue to claim that the Federal Constitution protects the rights of state residents including the right to gay marriage. There is something seriously wrong with that picture. You are increasingly hard to believe, This post is a fucking classic case of insanity.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> On top of that, social security is starting to decline. People now are getting less out of it than they put in, and I think I heard the figure they by..2030? People can expect to draw about 70% of what they put in.


That's funny, I've been getting raises. But even if true, how the fuck woud the states do better?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit!
> 
> 
> Donald Trump wanted to use IRS to go after James Comey and Andrew McCabe: John Kelly
> 
> 
> 
> And apparently he did. For some reason, and against all odd..BOTH were subjected to a deep dive audit
> 
> 
> 
> It Sure Looks Like Trump Sicced the IRS on His Enemies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neal and Pascrell Seek Expanded Probe of Unprecedented Trump Use of IRS
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON, DC—Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) today called on the U.S. Treasury Department to expand its probe of former President Donald Trump’s use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target his...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waysandmeans.house.gov


I don't know know, from the first article you posted:



> The IRS says the audits are random and denies that they were politically motivated, and Trump said he had no knowledge of the audits, but the fact that two former high-level FBI officials reviled by Trump were selected led to questions about the program.



The irs themselves said the audits were not politically motivated.  

Regardless, we still shouldn't forget Lois lerner and her targeting of groups based on political affiliation.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Because they can't "just do it" silly. They need to have a case brought before them by someone who has standing


Do they?  I mean, they overturned roe without a case having been brought to them didn't they?  They can take up a case based on a past ruling without a case having been brought to them.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision On Same-Sex Marriage Rights
> 
> 
> The two justices said the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges hurt religious liberty and "created a problem that only it can fix."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage


Ok, so, their argument wasn't in the banning of gay marriage, it was about one cotus liberty vs another's religious freedoms. 



> By choosing to endorse "a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix," they said. "Until then, _Obergefell_ will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give me a fucking break!! There are a number of states that do not protect gays from work place discrimination, housing , discrimination, discrimination in financial transactions, and public accomodations
> 
> In addition, some states still restrict of prohibit addoption by gay people. And don't forget, marriage is allowed only because of Obergefell in some states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mississippi
> 
> 
> Know the healthcare, employment, and public accommodation laws in Mississippi that protect LGBT people and everyone living with HIV.
> 
> 
> 
> www.lambdalegal.org


Ok, so here we find that the bill (mississippi HB 1523) was enacted to protect religious freedom. 

From the bill:



> After the legalization of same-sex marriage, religious adoption and foster care agencies in Massachusetts, Illinois and the District of Columbia were forced to close because of their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage.  Further, a religious educational institution in Massachusetts was threatened by the government with loss of its accreditation because of its sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, and small family-owned wedding businesses in Oregon, Washington, Iowa, New York and elsewhere have endured fines or financial penalties or have been forced to close because they operated consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage;



So, again, this goes back to one's rights to love whom they choose vs someone's religious freedoms.  In this case, as we see in the text above, there were businesses and organizations who had to shut down or were being threatened by the government because of their operation based on their religious beliefs. 

It's not like the state just made a bill to discriminate against gay people, they just passed a bill to protect people freedom of religion.


----------



## AsherN

ThisIsMe, there are a few things to unpack from your post. First, it depends how the law is written. In Canada, our law specifically excludes religious institutions from having to perform marriages they don't agree with. Marriage, the legal aspect is strictly secular. Clergy are authorized as agents of the state, but a couple getting married fills out 2 sets of document, one civil and one religious.

As far as businesses, once you open a business open to the public, you must abide by the PAs in your jurisdiction. You can't be forced to sell things you don't carry, but you can't discriminate who you sell your inventory to.


----------



## Papageorgio

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


Where are any of them asking to be forgiven?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Do they?  I mean, they overturned roe without a case having been brought to them didn't they?  They can take up a case based on a past ruling without a case having been brought to them.


You can't be fucking serious. There most certainly was a case that was brought. Now I'm beginning tto think that you are just plain stupid





__





						Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | Constitution Center
					

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization



					constitutioncenter.org


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, so here we find that the bill (mississippi HB 1523) was enacted to protect religious freedom.
> 
> From the bill:
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, this goes back to one's rights to love whom they choose vs someone's religious freedoms.  In this case, as we see in the text above, there were businesses and organizations who had to shut down or were being threatened by the government because of their operation based on their religious beliefs.
> 
> It's not like the state just made a bill to discriminate against gay people, they just passed a bill to protect people freedom of religion.


First of all, I provided you with a searchable data base for all states. My point stands. Gay people may bediscriminated against in many states in a number of different ways

Secondly, the one case that you focused on just goes back to the old issue of what exactly religious freedom is, and I maintain that it is not the freedome to discriminate. Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, so, their argument wasn't in the banning of gay marriage, it was about one cotus liberty vs another's religious freedoms.


No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage by stupidly claiming that if marriage is allowed religious people who oppose it will be called bigots. But my original pont was that they are poised to overturn Obergefell. It does not matter why


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage by stupidly claiming that if marriage is allowed religious people who oppose it will be called bigots.



  And that claim has been proven to be true.  Worse than that, those of us who stand for basic morals, decency, and reason, are now routinely harassed, discriminated against, and having our very livelihoods threatened for it.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit on a shingle!! You are more extreme that I ever imagined! You are hostile to the very concept of a United States of America!! You are advocating the balkanization of the country where each state is autonomous and left to fend for themselves. That is insane!
> 
> There is already considerable disparity among the states in terms individual and collective wealth, public health and safety . And that is AFTER the federal government regulations are put in place and it redistributes a good deal of resources in various ways, not the least of which is the redistribution of funds collected through taxes.
> 
> And you think that each state should individually regulate food  and drugs and I suppose other products? Seriously? You do understand that most or all products cros state lines. How the fuck would that work with a patchwork of 50 different regulatory systems. Ya think that might put a damper on commerce? Or maybe you thing that coal producing states should be able to impliment their own environmental rules despite thet fact that air polution does not stop at the state line. Clearly, you have not thought this through. The more I think about this, the more stupid it seems
> 
> You would be creating Fiefdoms of a sort. It would not be long before tribal warfrare between the well off and not so well off states ensued.
> 
> Yet you continue to claim that the Federal Constitution protects the rights of state residents including the right to gay marriage. There is something seriously wrong with that picture. You are increasingly hard to believe, This post is a fucking classic case of insanity.


The adherence to the cotus makes me an extremist?  I disagree. 

Article 1 section 8 of the cotus says that the government has the power to regulate commerce, so that is a legitimate function of the federal government. 

You talk about the government redistributing funds across different states. Why do we need to have money flow from the states, to the government, then back to the States, that kind of inefficient. Let's just reduce the size of government, get rid of all the beauracrasies that are not supposed to exists within thr federal government, which would reduce the waste and fraud inside the federal government, and just let the states keep the money.

Your solution is socialism. You want all the states to be beholden to the federal government, where money flows from a central government.  If that's what you want, then get an article 5 convention together and have the states change the cotus from a republic to a socialistic society.  That's fine if that's what you want to do, but to just ignore the cotus like you want to do means, why even have a cotus?...which is your ultimate goal, really...

If states were to have to compete with each other, it would actually improve the quality of goods and services. Having a single authority regulating everything actually probably stifles innovation. Let's have states competing with each other and when one state does something stellar, the other states will be like "oh yeah??? Hold my beer!"

And yes, the 14A requires equal protection and due process, so it does protect gay marriage.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That's funny, I've been getting raises. But even if true, how the fuck woud the states do better?


Well, for certain they couldn't do any worse. I think it would be better because it would be managed on a local level, less red tape, less people wanting to get at that money.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage by stupidly claiming that if marriage is allowed religious people who oppose it will be called bigots. But my original pont was that they are poised to overturn Obergefell. It does not matter why





> No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage



They never made any statement about banning gay marriage, they said obergefell could cause problems with religious freedoms. That was the reason that Thomas and Alito were mentioning obergefell. 



> Writing for himself and Alito, Thomas said that the court's decision "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."





> Nevertheless, they said, the case "provides a stark reminder" of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision. *By choosing to endorse "a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,"* they said. "Until then, _Obergefell_ will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty."



They are just addressing an issue with what they feel is a problem with obergefell conflicting with religious freedom. At no point has either one of them said "I want to ban gay marriage because I don't like it"....as I stated, they are concerned with a legal issue of two conflicting freedoms.


----------



## ThisIsMe

AsherN said:


> ThisIsMe, there are a few things to unpack from your post. First, it depends how the law is written. In Canada, our law specifically excludes religious institutions from having to perform marriages they don't agree with. Marriage, the legal aspect is strictly secular. Clergy are authorized as agents of the state, but a couple getting married fills out 2 sets of document, one civil and one religious.
> 
> As far as businesses, once you open a business open to the public, you must abide by the PAs in your jurisdiction. You can't be forced to sell things you don't carry, but you can't discriminate who you sell your inventory to.


I'm not familiar with Canada's laws, so I can't comment, but, in the states we have a constitution, and that document guarantees certain freedoms, one being the free exercise of one's religion. Now, I agree, and I would never advocate for discrimination.  In the case of masterpiece bakery, they didn't refuse to sell the gay couple a cake, they actually said they would sell them any cake they already had prepared, they just said that making a cake specifically for a gay wedding would be akin to them participating in the activity by the use of their labor and talents for that specific purpose, which they felt was in conflict with their religious views.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can't be fucking serious. There most certainly was a case that was brought. Now I'm beginning tto think that you are just plain stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org


But they don't have to have a case, they can revisit a decision they've made in the past.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all, I provided you with a searchable data base for all states. My point stands. Gay people may bediscriminated against in many states in a number of different ways
> 
> Secondly, the one case that you focused on just goes back to the old issue of what exactly religious freedom is, and I maintain that it is not the freedome to discriminate. Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions


The link you posted just goes back to lambda legal and the heading about Mississippi HB 1523, I didn't know there was a searchable database lol, sorry. 

Anyway, I clicked around on that state map on a few states, mostly came up.with nothing. I think there was one article about a lawsuit because a transgender boy was asked to use a gender neutral bathroom in a public high school.  

If you have a particular state in mind, feel free to post it and I'll be happy to take a look at it and read about it.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all, I provided you with a searchable data base for all states. My point stands. Gay people may bediscriminated against in many states in a number of different ways
> 
> Secondly, the one case that you focused on just goes back to the old issue of what exactly religious freedom is, and I maintain that it is not the freedome to discriminate. Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions





> Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions



I'm not aware of the agencies in question, it lists some things that happened in other states, but it does say that these were agencies that had a religious charter of some sort....and churches, I would think, are explicitly covered under religious freedoms....


----------



## Wyatt earp

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit on a shingle!! You are more extreme that I ever imagined! You are hostile to the very concept of a United States of America!! You are advocating the balkanization of the country where each state is autonomous and left to fend for themselves. That is insane!
> 
> There is already considerable disparity among the states in terms individual and collective wealth, public health and safety . And that is AFTER the federal government regulations are put in place and it redistributes a good deal of resources in various ways, not the least of which is the redistribution of funds collected through taxes.
> 
> And you think that each state should individually regulate food  and drugs and I suppose other products? Seriously? You do understand that most or all products cros state lines. How the fuck would that work with a patchwork of 50 different regulatory systems. Ya think that might put a damper on commerce? Or maybe you thing that coal producing states should be able to impliment their own environmental rules despite thet fact that air polution does not stop at the state line. Clearly, you have not thought this through. The more I think about this, the more stupid it seems
> 
> You would be creating Fiefdoms of a sort. It would not be long before tribal warfrare between the well off and not so well off states ensued.
> 
> Yet you continue to claim that the Federal Constitution protects the rights of state residents including the right to gay marriage. There is something seriously wrong with that picture. You are increasingly hard to believe, This post is a fucking classic case of insanity.


Have you ever comprehend the term the United States? Do you know what that means?


----------



## Wyatt earp

But back to the subject, who cares if gays get married? They don't hurt no one


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> But they don't have to have a case, they can revisit a decision they've made in the past.


Bolderdash!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> The link you posted just goes back to lambda legal and the heading about Mississippi HB 1523, I didn't know there was a searchable database lol, sorry.
> 
> Anyway, I clicked around on that state map on a few states, mostly came up.with nothing. I think there was one article about a lawsuit because a transgender boy was asked to use a gender neutral bathroom in a public high school.
> 
> If you have a particular state in mind, feel free to post it and I'll be happy to take a look at it and read about it.











						LGBTQ Americans Aren't Fully Protected From Discrimination in 29 States
					






					freedomforallamericans.org


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

1srelluc said:


> Another shit decision that should have been left to the states or at least legislated in congress.
> 
> Then again Cruz is a putz for even bringing it up.....Red meat for the dems.


Leave it  to the states? This is what you get when you leave it to the states









						LGBTQ Americans Aren't Fully Protected From Discrimination in 29 States
					






					freedomforallamericans.org


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> LGBTQ Americans Aren't Fully Protected From Discrimination in 29 States
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedomforallamericans.org


So, you give me a list of 27 states, more than half the country, who haven't updated their laws to include sexual orientation,  but we have no idea why.  Are they just deferring to federal civil rights statutes?  You'd  have us believe that 27 states are just wringing their hands, biding their time, waiting for obergefell to  be overturned so they can start discriminating against gay people!

We don't know why they haven't added then, maybe they felt, with current federal protections, it would have been redundant, maybe they are hesitant because of inherent conflict with religious freedoms.  I'm just not buying that they are all ready and eager to start discriminating.

Also, you know who else doesn't include discrimination laws for LGBT?  As far as I can tell, federal civil rights act and discrimination laws also don't mention sexual orientation. 

Apparently,  the bostock vs Clayton county decision changed the definition of "sex" to also mean sexual orientation and gender, which means that all state civil rights laws inherently cover sexual orientation by their inclusion of "sex", but that the only federal reference to sexual orientation protection that I could see.  Do you have a link to the federal anti LGBT discrimination laws?


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Yes it is a federal issue
> The courts job is to defend the 14th Amendment not to pander to the hatred of the far right


can you quote the language in the 14th that addresses gay marriage?  you claim it covers it, so back up your claim----------or admit that you lied about it.


----------



## Redfish

Wyatt earp said:


> But back to the subject, who cares if gays get married? They don't hurt no one


I think the vast majority agrees with that.  its the "in your face" attitude that people object to.  Get married if you want, but don't demand that I say that I think its wonderful for civilization.


----------



## Redfish

Why is it that every commercial and tv series has to have a bi-racial couple and a gay couple in order to sell their product or entertain?


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> can you quote the language in the 14th that addresses gay marriage?  you claim it covers it, so back up your claim----------or admit that you lied about it.



Equal protection under the law

You can’t accept one type of relationship and then declare other relationships to be “yucky”
We saw the same thing with interracial marriage

*No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Equal protection under the law
> 
> You can’t accept one type of relationship and then declare other relationships to be “yucky”
> We saw the same thing with interracial marriage
> 
> *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I don't see the words gay marriage or homosexual marriage in that cite.   Personally I have no issue with gays marrying,  But they need to do it without the "in your face" attitude and the demand that everyone must approve of it.   Trying to force cultural change never works.  ask Marie Antionette and Louis XVI.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Equal protection under the law
> 
> You can’t accept one type of relationship and then declare other relationships to be “yucky”
> We saw the same thing with interracial marriage
> 
> *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


question:  does the word immunities apply to covid immunities acquired through having the disease?  said another way, how does the 14th work with mandated vaccines?


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> question:  does the word immunities apply to covid immunities acquired through having the disease?  said another way, how does the 14th work with mandated vaccines?


No, it applies to immunities of the law

14th has no bearing on COVID vaccines
If it said blacks or gays are not allowed to be vaccinated, it would apply


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> No, it applies to immunities of the law
> 
> 14th has no bearing on COVID vaccines
> If it said blacks or gays are not allowed to be vaccinated, it would apply


so the freedoms guaranteed to all citizens by the 14th do not apply to the government or a company saying " you will be fired if you don't get the shot"?   you can't have it both ways, winger.  either it applies across the board or it does not apply at all.  Selective application of constitutional guarantees will never be upheld.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> I don't see the words gay marriage or homosexual marriage in that cite.   Personally I have no issue with gays marrying,  But they need to do it without the "in your face" attitude and the demand that everyone must approve of it.   Trying to force cultural change never works.  ask Marie Antionette and Louis XVI.



You don’t have to
It says “laws”

You can’t have a law approving one type of relationship while excluding others. It is not the Governments business who you choose to love.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> so the freedoms guaranteed to all citizens by the 14th do not apply to the government or a company saying " you will be fired if you don't get the shot"?   you can't have it both ways, winger.  either it applies across the board or it does not apply at all.  Selective application of constitutional guarantees will never be upheld.



You miss the point of equal protection under the laws

Those who believe wild conspiracy theories are not a protected class


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> Personally I have no issue with gays marrying, But they need to do it without the "in your face" attitude and the demand that everyone must approve of it



Nobody says you have to approve of any marriages. You are free to hate anyone you wish.

You just can’t force the government to legislate your hatred


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> You don’t have to
> It says “laws”
> 
> You can’t have a law approving one type of relationship while excluding others. It is not the Governments business who you choose to love.


is marriage a federal guarantee?   Do you get a marriage from the federal government or the state government?   

the majority of americans are ok with gay marriage.  What they object to is mandating that they must say the approve or condone it.   Gay pride parades do not help your cause.  semi nude perverts walking the streets doing gay sex does not gain support for gay marriage.  Again, and please try to understand,  marry whoever you want, just don't demand that everyone say they love it.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> You miss the point of equal protection under the laws
> 
> Those who believe wild conspiracy theories are not a protected class


getting fired for refusing the shot is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact in both private industry and government service.   Military members are being fired as we speak for refusing the shot.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> is marriage a federal guarantee? Do you get a marriage from the federal government or the state government?



States are covered under the US Constitution

They are not allowed unequal protection under their laws either


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> States are covered under the US Constitution
> 
> They are not allowed unequal protection under their laws either


yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same.   SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same.   SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.


As long as they provide equal protection under their laws

States still  deal with the Supremacy Claise


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> can you quote the language in the 14th that addresses gay marriage?  you claim it covers it, so back up your claim----------or admit that you lied about it.


Read the Obergefell decision. Due process. Equal protection under the law.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Read the Obergefell decision. Due process. Equal protection under the law.


 I am well aware of that, the point is that the 14th is silent on both gay marriage and abortion.  As the SC ruled, those activities are the responsibility of each state's voters to decide, not the federal government.  If you want to test any state's decision in federal court, go for it.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> As long as they provide equal protection under their laws
> 
> States still  deal with the Supremacy Claise


the issue here is what equal protection means,  you libs have one definition, others have different ones.   and there is nothing in the constitution that says we all have to agree on everything


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> the issue here is what equal protection means,  you libs have one definition, others have different ones.   and there is nothing in the constitution that says we all have to agree on everything



You don’t have to agree on gay marriage, but you can’t push your hatred on others.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> You don’t have to agree on gay marriage, but you can’t push your hatred on others.


I already said that I am ok with gay marriage, do you ever read before responding?  I hate no one, the hate is all coming from the left.   The morons on the View spout hate every day and you fools think they are just great.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> I already said that I am ok with gay marriage, do you ever read before responding?  I hate no one, the hate is all coming from the left.   The morons on the View spout hate every day and you fools think they are just great.



You claim to support gay marriage but object to them being public about their relationship and “pushing it in your face”
Do you object to gays holding hands or kissing in public? Do you object to a gay teacher speaking to kids about their spouse?

Gay couples have as much right to be open about their relationship as anyone else.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> You claim to support gay marriage but object to them being public about their relationship and “pushing it in your face”
> Do you object to gays holding hands or kissing in public? Do you object to a gay teacher speaking to kids about their spouse?
> 
> Gay couples have as much right to be open about their relationship as anyone else.


as usual you totally missed the point.   there is a difference between being open and flaunting.  that is my issue.  openness is fine, flaunting is wrong no matter who is doing it.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> as usual you totally missed the point.   there is a difference between being open and flaunting.  that is my issue.  openness is fine, flaunting is wrong no matter who is doing it.


Should a school teacher be allowed to discuss their same sex partner?

You can’t in Florida


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> Should a school teacher be allowed to discuss their same sex partner?
> 
> You can’t in Florida


that is up to the voters in florida, whether at the state level or the local school board.  its not a federal issue.  Are you gay?  is that why you are so angry about this?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> I am well aware of that, the point is that the 14th is silent on both gay marriage and abortion.  As the SC ruled, those activities are the responsibility of each state's voters to decide, not the federal government.  If you want to test any state's decision in federal court, go for it.


You really don't seem to understand much about constitutional law. The 14th is also silent on interracial marriage. Was that also a bad decison.? 

The entire constitution is silent on marriage. Any kind of marriage. But the fact is that marriage  for opposit sex, consenting adults who are not too closely related had been treated as a right. And that right was denied to gay people while the states were unable to articulate a compelling government reaason or even a rational basis for doing so


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> that is up to the voters in florida, whether at the state level or the local school board.  its not a federal issue.  Are you gay?  is that why you are so angry about this?


No, I am a Democrat
I fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way

That is why it offends me when people are singled out for abuse


----------



## rightwinger

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You really don't seem to understand much about constitutional law. The 14th is also silent on interracial marriage. Was that also a bad decison.?



Clarence Thomas supports Loving v Virginia…..He has a white wife

But he voted against Oberkfell……Gay marriage is yucky, his interracial marriage is not


----------



## badger2

Penelope said:


> n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: *Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”* In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
> -----------------------------
> Here I thought God was all forgiving.


Anal retentive.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> So, you give me a list of 27 states, more than half the country, who haven't updated their laws to include sexual orientation,  but we have no idea why.  Are they just deferring to federal civil rights statutes?  You'd  have us believe that 27 states are just wringing their hands, biding their time, waiting for obergefell to  be overturned so they can start discriminating against gay people!
> 
> We don't know why they haven't added then, maybe they felt, with current federal protections, it would have been redundant, maybe they are hesitant because of inherent conflict with religious freedoms.  I'm just not buying that they are all ready and eager to start discriminating.
> 
> Also, you know who else doesn't include discrimination laws for LGBT?  As far as I can tell, federal civil rights act and discrimination laws also don't mention sexual orientation.
> 
> Apparently,  the bostock vs Clayton county decision changed the definition of "sex" to also mean sexual orientation and gender, which means that all state civil rights laws inherently cover sexual orientation by their inclusion of "sex", but that the only federal reference to sexual orientation protection that I could see.  Do you have a link to the federal anti LGBT discrimination laws?


More bizarre and contradictory bovine excrement! In the same post you first say that "maybe the states have not provided these protections because the "current federal protections' Then later acknowledge  that the  Federal Civil Rights act does not provide these protections.

My point which still stands is that those states- for whatever reason- do not provide the protections that I listed and that is irrefutable. But you try to gloss that over with speculation about why they do not afford those protections

Then to further deflect, you blather on -again- about how you do not believe that states will not ban gay marriage if Obergefell is overturned -when marriage is not even the issue that I was responding to-proving again that you are either very stupid or dishonest. 

And we have been all though this crap about religious freedom too many times. I am not even going there again.

Lastly, Bostock only covers discrimination in employment. And don't think that the current court would not overturn it if given the chance. States need to pass protections


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> that is up to the voters in florida, whether at the state level or the local school board.  its not a federal issue.  Are you gay?  is that why you are so angry about this?


All decent people who care about justice and civil rights should be angry about discrimination. The apparent fact that you think that someone who speaks up must be gay tells me all that I need to know about you


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I'm just not buying that they are all ready and eager to start discriminating.


PS, They are already discriminating, fool. Those states are allowing discrimination and you are making excuses for them. Whatever claims you b=make to supporting gay rights is complete bullshit. You are an appologist for discrimination and  a discrimination denier


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More bizarre and contradictory bovine excrement! In the same post you first say that "maybe the states have not provided these protections because the "current federal protections' Then later acknowledge  that the  Federal Civil Rights act does not provide these protections.
> 
> My point which still stands is that those states- for whatever reason- do not provide the protections that I listed and that is irrefutable. But you try to gloss that over with speculation about why they do not afford those protections
> 
> Then to further deflect, you blather on -again- about how you do not believe that states will not ban gay marriage if Obergefell is overturned -when marriage is not even the issue that I was responding to-proving again that you are either very stupid or dishonest.
> 
> And we have been all though this crap about religious freedom too many times. I am not even going there again.
> 
> Lastly, Bostock only covers discrimination in employment. And don't think that the current court would not overturn it if given the chance. States need to pass protections





> More bizarre and contradictory bovine excrement! In the same post you first say that "maybe the states have not provided these protections because the "current federal protections' Then later acknowledge  that the  Federal Civil Rights act does not provide these protections.



Ok, but the point is that you point to all these states who have not changed their civil rights laws, but our federal government hasn't even changed the national Civil rights laws to include sexual orientation.  My point was, we don't know why the states haven't included them, but that doesn't stop you from automatically inferring that it must be because they are all 27 of them just waiting for the time when they can start discriminating against gay people...  

And in bostock, the case was about firing someone based on their sexual orientation, and the court ruled that title 7 of the civil rights act, in the term "sex" would apply to same sex couples. If they decided that for employment, surely they would also apply that definition to civil rights in general.  




> But you try to gloss that over with speculation about why they do not afford those protections



I'm not glossing over anything, I'm simply saying there has to be a reason why they haven't amended their civil rights laws yet, and I'm certain it's not because "they don't like gay people".



> And don't think that the current court would not overturn it if given the chance. States need to pass protections



Sure, they need to add it to both state and federal civil rights acts.  However, you're always going to believe that states are just itching for the courts to overturn obergefell so they can ban same sex marriage.  I don't believe any state will ever outright ban same sex marriage. The 14th A would prevent that, and any state that did it would have a firestorm.on their hands with all the lawsuits, protests.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> PS, They are already discriminating, fool. Those states are allowing discrimination and you are making excuses for them. Whatever claims you b=make to supporting gay rights is complete bullshit. You are an appologist for discrimination and  a discrimination denier


What states are discriminating against gay people?  Please list them.


----------



## rightwinger

ThisIsMe said:


> What states are discriminating against gay people?  Please list them.


Florida


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Ok, but the point is that you point to all these states who have not changed their civil rights laws, but our federal government hasn't even changed the national Civil rights laws to include sexual orientation. My point was, we don't know why the states haven't included them, but that doesn't stop you from automatically inferring that it must be because they are all 27 of them just waiting for the time when they can start discriminating against gay people...


You re so  pathetically confused! You don't seem to understand tah there are two sperate issues here. Let me try to help

1. The current issue is that there are 27 states that do not provide certain protections against various forms of discrimination OTHER THAN the right to marry. Regardless of why, and regardless of what the feds have or have not done, that remains a fact-plain and simple. The botton line is that AT THIS TIME they allow discrimination! \

2. You  are  referring to a time when "they can start to discriminate" and from yiur previous posts that seems to mean the time when Obergefell might be overturned, That has  NOTHING to do with discrimination in those other areas. What are you doing? Trying to convince me that you are stupid? You're doing a good job of that


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> And in bostock, the case was about firing someone based on their sexual orientation, and the court ruled that title 7 of the civil rights act, in the term "sex" would apply to same sex couples. If they decided that for employment, surely they would also apply that definition to civil rights in general.


You're just making that shit up. Another point scored for convincing me that you are stupid


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> What states are discriminating against gay people?  Please list them.


Holy fucking shit! After all of this you are asking me that again?? There is something seriously wrong with you!! Did you  forgt those 27 states already? You are really racking up those stupid points.

Or, You are a discrimination denier. You know that there is discrimination but will not admit it. It is a ploy to try to convince people that there is no problem and that there is nothing to worry about, when you know damned well that is a lie. That is actually worse that those who are overt and unabashed bigots who promote discrimination. At least they are honest.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same.   SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.


They all have to abide by the constitution


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You really don't seem to understand much about constitutional law. The 14th is also silent on interracial marriage. Was that also a bad decison.?
> 
> The entire constitution is silent on marriage. Any kind of marriage. But the fact is that marriage  for opposit sex, consenting adults who are not too closely related had been treated as a right. And that right was denied to gay people while the states were unable to articulate a compelling government reaason or even a rational basis for doing so


your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality to be a normal human condition.   It would be easy if it was, but it is not.  homosexuality is an aberration that most likely results from a chemical imbalance in the brain.

But having said that,  I strongly believe that every human being should have the same rights and equality under the law.   So if gays want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, that should be allowed and recognized.   Whether it is called a marriage or some other social construct is a discussion for another time.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> They all have to abide by the constitution


yes they do and the issues we are discussing are not federal constitutional issues, thereby reserved for the individual states (per the constitution).  The SC has affirmed that interpretation so the issue is legally over.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality to be a normal human condition. It would be easy if it was, but it is not. homosexuality is an aberration that most likely results from a chemical imbalance in the brain.


What is normal?. There are many theories as to why people are homosexual. They include hormonal and other chemical  factors as well as epigenetic markers (no not a gay gene) Having said that, one can adopt a “disease model” which only serves to stigmatize them or you can look at it a just a variation on the biology of humans that determines or influences their sexuality. Therefor that variation on sexuality naturally exists along a continuum from straight, through the various shades of bisexuality, to gay.  

While it may be interesting to  speculate about the causes of homosexuality for academic purposes, doing so serves no useful purpose when it comes to social and legal issues. It is interesting to note that all throughout the protracted legal battles over gay marriage-from the state courts, to the lower federal court and up to SCOTUS-the issue of why people are gay never came up. The courts accepted as fact that homosexuality is an* innate and immutable* aspect of the human condition. In addition, while  those arguing in favor of state bans on gay marriage were desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with some valid justification for those bans- to the best of my knowledge, they never once brought up the issue of why people are gay  or referred to it as an aberration. They knew better. 

So no, your opinion that it is an aberration does not invalidate my argument that bans on gay marriage are discriminatory and therefor, Obergefell was within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and correctly decided. It is actually not my argument. It is the argument made on behalf of gay people and acceped by numerous Federal courts

Lastly,  being statistically rare only makes it an “aberration” only in terms of those statistics. It does not make it an aberration in the pejorative social sense. Left handedness is rare and used to be considered an aberration-something that needed to be “cured” My mother was born left handed in 1912. In school, she was forced to write and do everything with her right hand. The trauma that she experienced left her with lifetime mental scars. I am sure that the day will come when treating homosexuality as an aberration will be seen a just as stupid and primitive


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> But having said that, I strongly believe that every human being should have the same rights and equality under the law. So if gays want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, that should be allowed and recognized. Whether it is called a marriage or some other social construct is a discussion for another time.


Yes I see this a lot. After twisting one's self into a pretzel trying to justify allowing discrimination, and  arguing states rights- knowing full well that some states would never grant those rights without federal intervention- they claim to support gay rights. Oh, and it does have to be called marriage. Not “something else” Separate but equal is bullshit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> yes they do and the issues we are discussing are not federal constitutional issues, thereby reserved for the individual states (per the constitution).  The SC has affirmed that interpretation so the issue is legally over.


Say what? The SCOTUS affirmed WHAT? That marriage is not a Federal constitutional issue? Where are you getting that from.

In addition to ruling on Obergfelle there was also Loving V Virgina ( Interracial marriage-I had asked if if you disapprove of that ruling as well)  in which they overruled  state's discriminatory laws. There are about a dozen other cases involving marriage that also went to SCOTUS including the invalidating of a state law that prevented someone who owed child support from remarrying and one that barred prison inmates from marrying. They said numerous times that marriage is a fundamental right. So, no. States cannot do whatever the hell they want just because marriage is primarily a state matter

If you are going to refer to the constitution in support of your inane theories, you should first reakl the whole constitution, not just the 10th Amendment


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> yes, but each state is required by the constitution to have its own statutes and they do not all have to be the same.   SC has already ruled on this, the debate of federal or state is over.


They ruled on what exactly? What case was that??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> your argument is only valid if you consider homosexuality to be a normal human condition. It would be easy if it was, but it is not. homosexuality is an aberration that most likely results from a chemical imbalance in the brain.


Holy shit! I just realized something else. There is really something fishy about your so called argument, Red. You seem to be confused. You made two contradictory arguments. 

You sated that banning same sex marriage is discriminatory and  therefor unconstitutional if homosexuality were considered “normal”  

And AT THE SAME TIME, insisted that same sex marriage is NOT A CONSTITUTION ISSUE at all.  
So what the fuck is you argumet?


----------



## JusticeHammer

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Good. Gay is abnormal.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What is normal?. There are many theories as to why people are homosexual. They include hormonal and other chemical  factors as well as epigenetic markers (no not a gay gene) Having said that, one can adopt a “disease model” which only serves to stigmatize them or you can look at it a just a variation on the biology of humans that determines or influences their sexuality. Therefor that variation on sexuality naturally exists along a continuum from straight, through the various shades of bisexuality, to gay.
> 
> While it may be interesting to  speculate about the causes of homosexuality for academic purposes, doing so serves no useful purpose when it comes to social and legal issues. It is interesting to note that all throughout the protracted legal battles over gay marriage-from the state courts, to the lower federal court and up to SCOTUS-the issue of why people are gay never came up. The courts accepted as fact that homosexuality is an* innate and immutable* aspect of the human condition. In addition, while  those arguing in favor of state bans on gay marriage were desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with some valid justification for those bans- to the best of my knowledge, they never once brought up the issue of why people are gay  or referred to it as an aberration. They knew better.
> 
> So no, your opinion that it is an aberration does not invalidate my argument that bans on gay marriage are discriminatory and therefor, Obergefell was within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and correctly decided. It is actually not my argument. It is the argument made on behalf of gay people and acceped by numerous Federal courts
> 
> Lastly,  being statistically rare only makes it an “aberration” only in terms of those statistics. It does not make it an aberration in the pejorative social sense. Left handedness is rare and used to be considered an aberration-something that needed to be “cured” My mother was born left handed in 1912. In school, she was forced to write and do everything with her right hand. The trauma that she experienced left her with lifetime mental scars. I am sure that the day will come when treating homosexuality as an aberration will be seen a just as stupid and primitive


opinions, not a fact in your long post.   Normal is what society as a whole defines as normal.   Or what biology finds as normal.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> opinions, not a fact in your long post.   Normal is what society as a whole defines as normal.   Or what biology finds as normal.


There are no laws requiring everyone to be the same


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! I just realized something else. There is really something fishy about your so called argument, Red. You seem to be confused. You made two contradictory arguments.
> 
> You sated that banning same sex marriage is discriminatory and  therefor unconstitutional if homosexuality were considered “normal”
> And AT THE SAME TIME, insisted that same sex marriage is NOT A CONSTITUTION ISSUE at all.
> So what the fuck is you argumet?


you ignored the IF.   Include it and my position is logical and constitutional.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> There are no laws requiring everyone to be the same


of course not.  no one ever said there were.  But mammalian biology, not society, defines males and females


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> you ignored the IF.   Include it and my position is logical and constitutional.


What "if" did I ignore? If they were "normal" ? I tried to school you on why and how that is completely Irrelevant  for legal purposes. It is subjective crap. 

Your position-that the ruling on same sex marrige was inproper- in neither logical or constitutional. I clearly demonstrated why.

You seem to think that know more about constitutional law than dozens of fedeal judges as well as a majority if the Supreme Court.

You still have not explaided the decrepancy that I pointed out above. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. You have got to poick one position


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> opinions, not a fact in your long post.   Normal is what society as a whole defines as normal.   Or what biology finds as normal.


Is that supposed to be a rebuttle? Pretty damnd lame! "Society" for the most part is no talking or even thinking about whether or not  homosexuality is "normal" Theye just are who they are and that is that. While most of "society" has moved on, you are stuck in the mud. Get over it


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Rightwingers: Relax bro, nobody is going after gay marriage....


SCOTUS overturns same-sex marriage decision...

Rightwingers: Lol, of course we were lying...you guys should have codified it in the law...get over it losers


----------



## ThisIsMe

rightwinger said:


> Florida


Elaborate. What is Florida doing to gay people?  Are you referring to their bill to keep  sexually explicit material from 6th graders?  

Show me some actual discrimination...


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You re so  pathetically confused! You don't seem to understand tah there are two sperate issues here. Let me try to help
> 
> 1. The current issue is that there are 27 states that do not provide certain protections against various forms of discrimination OTHER THAN the right to marry. Regardless of why, and regardless of what the feds have or have not done, that remains a fact-plain and simple. The botton line is that AT THIS TIME they allow discrimination! \
> 
> 2. You  are  referring to a time when "they can start to discriminate" and from yiur previous posts that seems to mean the time when Obergefell might be overturned, That has  NOTHING to do with discrimination in those other areas. What are you doing? Trying to convince me that you are stupid? You're doing a good job of that





> The botton line is that AT THIS TIME they allow discrimination! \



No. They don't. Just because their civil rights acts haven't been updated doesn't mean that they are going to allow discrimination.  Again, you seem to think that these states are just chomping at the bit to start discriminating against gays. They're not. Hell, in some of these states, they already have local laws that have included sexual orientation as part of their discrimination laws. 

Do you think that if obergefell were to be overturned that discrimination would start taking place?  That companies would say "sorry, we can't hire you because you're gay", and the courts would allow that?  What discrimination is it exactly that you think is going to happen?  My gosh man, we're not in 1960, this is 2022, gay life is the norm, states are not going to allow discrimination. 

Even without those 27 states having discrimination laws, you still have "equal protection under the law" which means a state cannot treat one person in an unfair manner compared to another person in similar conditions and circumstances.


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You're just making that shit up. Another point scored for convincing me that you are stupid


Really?  You really think they are going to say "sex" is inclusive for sexual orientation for employment, but in any other circumstance say "nope, it doesn't mean that HERE"?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! After all of this you are asking me that again?? There is something seriously wrong with you!! Did you  forgt those 27 states already? You are really racking up those stupid points.
> 
> Or, You are a discrimination denier. You know that there is discrimination but will not admit it. It is a ploy to try to convince people that there is no problem and that there is nothing to worry about, when you know damned well that is a lie. That is actually worse that those who are overt and unabashed bigots who promote discrimination. At least they are honest.


I said list the states that are discriminating against gay people...you've pointed to 27 states that haven't updated their civil rights acts, but that doesn't mean they are discriminating against people. Show me the states that are actually, currently discriminating against them.

I've never denied discrimination exists, but what I am saying is that I don't believe any state is currently discriminating against gay people. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.


----------



## rightwinger

ThisIsMe said:


> Do you think that if obergefell were to be overturned that discrimination would start taking place? That companies would say "sorry, we can't hire you because you're gay", and the courts would allow that? What discrimination is it exactly that you think is going to happen? My gosh man, we're not in 1960, this is 2022, gay life is the norm, states are not going to allow discrimination.



In a minute…

Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership

The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons 

Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt


----------



## Bob Blaylock

rightwinger said:


> Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt



  That would be a very good thing.

  How does anyone think that it is a good idea to put children in the custody of depraved sexual perverts?


----------



## tahuyaman

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Cruz is right.  That's not the job of the Supreme Court


----------



## beautress

rightwinger said:


> In a minute…
> 
> Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership
> 
> The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons
> 
> Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt


The majority of some states' people read and obey their Bibles which are quite specific about family bonds that produce children. A lot of the people coming over the border practice their faith's prescriptions in such matters.


----------



## rightwinger

beautress said:


> The majority of some states' people read and obey their Bibles which are quite specific about family bonds that produce children. A lot of the people coming over the border practice their faith's prescriptions in such matters.


You are free to maintain your Biblical views
You are not free to force them on others


----------



## Bob Blaylock

rightwinger said:


> You are free to maintain your Biblical views
> You are not free to force them on others



  And yet you support the right of the lowest of sexual perverts to force their _“views”_ on others, including young children.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What "if" did I ignore? If they were "normal" ? I tried to school you on why and how that is completely Irrelevant  for legal purposes. It is subjective crap.
> 
> Your position-that the ruling on same sex marrige was inproper- in neither logical or constitutional. I clearly demonstrated why.
> 
> You seem to think that know more about constitutional law than dozens of fedeal judges as well as a majority if the Supreme Court.
> 
> You still have not explaided the decrepancy that I pointed out above. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. You have got to poick one position


poink??????????????????   are we playing ping pong?

my position is clear and based on biology.   homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, it is an aberration that is not seen in any animals except humans.  Yes, some animals display both sexes and some engage in homosexual like activities.   But you never see two male mammals or two female mammals pairing off except in humans.   You can rationalize it and try to call in normal, but its not.  I feel empathy for those afflicted with homosexuality and* believe strongly that they should not suffer discrimination of any kind.  * But you on the left must at some very basic level agree that homosexual behavior in humans is not biologically normal.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> You are free to maintain your Biblical views
> You are not free to force them on others


But you on the left try to force your beliefs on everyone else every day.  pot meet kettle,  fricken hypocrites.


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> In a minute…
> 
> Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership
> 
> The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons
> 
> Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt


your ignorance on display once again, nothing in your post has any semblance of truth.


----------



## Redfish

Bob Blaylock said:


> And yet you support the right of the lowest of sexual perverts to force their _“views”_ on others, including young children.


their hypocrisy is well established.


----------



## rightwinger

Redfish said:


> your ignorance on display once again, nothing in your post has any semblance of truth.


?


----------



## beautress

rightwinger said:


> You are free to maintain your Biblical views
> You are not free to force them on others


All I said was: The majority of some states' people read and obey their Bibles which are quite specific about family bonds that produce children. A lot of the people coming over the border practice their faith's prescriptions in such matters.

My post was not forceful, rightwinger. If it was, it wasn't intended to be. I stick to the truth that I know, but you insinuated I was trying to force others to adopt my views. That wasn't my purpose. Some debates are unwinnable, because people who reject God as atheists or agnostics have rejected the teachings of wise men of old. There's nothing in it for me personally if I happen to think God has a purpose for his word to assist mankind in decision-making. When I read my scriptures every night or listen to them on my Bible cds, it shapes my thinking that God's requirements are the shapers of peace in the heart of believers. And I therefore pray for peace in a world that prefers war to listening to the hurt of other groups, with the exception of tyrannical power grabbers. Our country is best served when we conduct our acts from mutual caring. These days, we seem to be a little short on the requirements for peace with our one-upmanship. There's a little song called "Let there be peace on earth" and its last verse says "and let it begin with me." I tend to concur with that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> it is an aberration that is not seen in any animals except humans. Yes, some animals display both sexes and some engage in homosexual like activities. But you never see two male mammals or two female mammals pairing off except in humans.


That is actually bullshit besides being totally irrelevent to the legal argument against gay marriage






						Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? – Yale Scientific Magazine
					






					www.yalescientific.org


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> poink??????????????????   are we playing ping pong?
> 
> my position is clear and based on biology.   homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, it is an aberration that is not seen in any animals except humans.  Yes, some animals display both sexes and some engage in homosexual like activities.   But you never see two male mammals or two female mammals pairing off except in humans.   You can rationalize it and try to call in normal, but its not.  I feel empathy for those afflicted with homosexuality and* believe strongly that they should not suffer discrimination of any kind.  * But you on the left must at some very basic level agree that homosexual behavior in humans is not biologically normal.


You are totally full of shit! You cant " *believe strongly that they should not suffer discrimination of any kind." *and then keep bleating about this biology crap as justifcation for claiming the the Obergefell ruling was wrong. The courts have viewed homosexuality as innate and immutable. The question of why people are gay is irrelevent. Period

Oh , I having forgotten that you also have been blathering about states rights and federal jurisdiction . You still can't seem to decide which worthless agument to want to pursue. The oing pong ball just flew past you


----------



## ThisIsMe

rightwinger said:


> In a minute…
> 
> Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership
> 
> The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons
> 
> Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt





> Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership



Again, as I've told PP, I highly doubt this, but it's a very opinionated idea, because we're not going to agree on this. 



> The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons



If it were a sincerely held religious belief, maybe, but in general, that wouldn't work. take masterpiece bakery, for example. They won the case, but what was being requested was specific. The bakery said they would have sold any already prepared cake. Had they just outright refused service, period, would they have won that case?


----------



## rightwinger

ThisIsMe said:


> Again, as I've told PP, I highly doubt this, but it's a very opinionated idea, because we're not going to agree on this.
> 
> 
> 
> If it were a sincerely held religious belief, maybe, but in general, that wouldn't work. take masterpiece bakery, for example. They won the case, but what was being requested was specific. The bakery said they would have sold any already prepared cake. Had they just outright refused service, period, would they have won that case?


The TRUMPCourt has moved past Abortion and is now centering on Religious Liberty. 
A liberty to claim religious justification for discrimination 

You talk of sincerely held religious belief. Something the TRUMPCourt is unwilling to define. Basically, it means anyone who hates gays.


----------



## ThisIsMe

rightwinger said:


> The TRUMPCourt has moved past Abortion and is now centering on Religious Liberty.
> A liberty to claim religious justification for discrimination
> 
> You talk of sincerely held religious belief. Something the TRUMPCourt is unwilling to define. Basically, it means anyone who hates gays.


Oh yeah?  What religious liberty case have they taken up?

Also, you keep saying "Trump court"....looks like that court isn't so trumpy. Look at the decisions they've made against Trump recently, including today.


----------



## rightwinger

ThisIsMe said:


> Oh yeah?  What religious liberty case have they taken up?
> 
> Also, you keep saying "Trump court"....looks like that court isn't so trumpy. Look at the decisions they've made against Trump recently, including today.











						The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union
					

The court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether.



					www.aclu.org


----------



## San Souci

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Good. Marriage is a  religious concept. Why not just call it something else? Domestic Partnership ,for example? Same rights.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> Again, as I've told PP, I highly doubt this, but it's a very opinionated idea, because we're not going to agree on this.


Discrimination denial is complicity but without the courage to say what you really believe


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Good. Marriage is a  religious concept. Why not just call it something else? Domestic Partnership ,for example? Same rights.


Bullshit first and formaost it is a civil /legal matter. You can get married without a religious ceremony but you cant get married without the marriage license. 

Civil unions may appear to be equal on paper but never worked that way in reality. Separate but equal did not work with racial equality and it does not work for marriage equality


----------



## AsherN

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit first and formaost it is a civil /legal matter. You can get married without a religious ceremony but you cant get married without the marriage license.
> 
> Civil unions may appear to be equal on paper but never worked that way in reality. Separate but equal did not work with racial equality and it does not work for marriage equality


There is a also a practical matter. There is a definition of marriage. Then there are laws, statures, regulations, etc that reference marriage.

we can change the legal definition of marriage is, or create another definition and change everywhere marriage is referenced to referenced both.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

AsherN said:


> There is a also a practical matter. There is a definition of marriage. Then there are laws, statures, regulations, etc that reference marriage.
> 
> we can change the legal definition of marriage is, or create another definition and change everywhere marriage is referenced to referenced both.


It does not have to be that complicated. For some time noe, marriage has been between two consenting adults* who are not to closely related* ( although state laws may vary  )

Prior to 1967, It was two consenting adults of the same race in some states

Prior to 2015 it was between two consenting adults of the opposite sex

Now bith race and gender have been taken out of the equation. No need to struggle with  the "definition of marriage" It is what it is. Marriage is marriage.


----------



## DGS49

This thread truly has a remarkable lifespan.

It is amazing how you can trigger Leftists with the truth.

Here's the reality.  To the extent that the USSC determined that States could not discriminate against same sex couples because of "equal protection" or privacy principles, the case was wrong.

But the more important reality is the "full faith and credit" obligation of States.   So anyone who lived in, let's say, an anti-gay marriage State could easily have traveled to a gay-mariage friendly State, got married there, and their home state would be obliged under the Full Faith & Credit clause to recognize those marriages.  That means that they would have to treat them the same as hetero marriages conducted within the State.

Furthermore, even if the current USSC overruled THAT PART of Oberkfell, no marriages that were performed while the decision was the Law of the Land would be void or affected in any way.

Cruz' remark was little more than an observation, with no practical import.  Rather like Rick Santorum's observation that the same rationale that overturned anti-sodomy laws could be used to overturn anti-incest, and anti-bestiality laws.  Which was correct.

Leftists are so pathetic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> Here's the reality. To the extent that the USSC determined that States could not discriminate against same sex couples because of "equal protection" or privacy principles, the case was wrong.


Wrong ? Really? Please elaborate


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> But the more important reality is the "full faith and credit" obligation of States. So anyone who lived in, let's say, an anti-gay marriage State could easily have traveled to a gay-mariage friendly State, got married there, and their home state would be obliged under the Full Faith & Credit clause to recognize those marriages. That means that they would have to treat them the same as hetero marriages conducted within the State.


Now THAT is wrong. The Defense of Marriage Act-which is still on the books but unenforceable and moot due to Obergefell-  specifically prohibits the application of FFC to gay marriage

Secondly, WHY THE FUCK should anyone have to go to another state to get married?


----------



## rightwinger

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now THAT is wrong. The Defense of Marriage Act-which is still on the books but unenforceable and mott due to Obergefell-  specifically prohibits the application of FFC to gay marriage
> 
> Secondly, WHY THE FUCK should anyone have to go to another state to get married?



States still will not honor marriages that they don’t sanction.

Loving vs Virginia was because Virginia arrested the Lovings even though they were legally married in DC

In the early stages of same sex marriage, states did not honor gay marriages from other states


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> Furthermore, even if the current USSC overruled THAT PART of Oberkfell, no marriages that were performed while the decision was the Law of the Land would be void or affected in any way.


You have no idea what the states would do or try to do.


----------



## rightwinger

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have no idea what the states would do or try to do.



Or what actions the court would defend

Roberts, Thomas and Alito all opposed Oberkfell
It is likely that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett Comey would do the same.

All precedents are off the table if Same Sex Marriage goes back to the Supreme Court.


----------



## ThisIsMe

rightwinger said:


> The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union
> 
> 
> The court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> www.aclu.org


How does that relate to discrimination?

In the court case you link, while im not going to read the...20 page? ruling from scotus, it appears they are talking about an area of Maine where there are no other schools available?  And, publicly available tuition money was being withheld solely on basis of the schools religious nature.  They are suggesting that it violate the free exercise clause to specifically exclude a school based on its religious charter.

Also, from my understanding, the establishment clause is a barrier from the federal government establishing a national religion, which this court ruling doesn't do. This is a case of a states use of publicly available tuition money. The establishment clause applies to the federal governments interaction with religion.  I mean, does the state give money to any other private organization?  If so, how could you disparage one group just because they are religious by nature. 

It appears that the state constitution mandates that every child gets a free public education, but some parts of the state are very remote, so they allow the parents to choose a school and that school could be public or private. As long as the school is accredited, they are eligible for the tuition payments.  Some of these schools may be religious by nature.  The state, nor the federal government are not establishing a religion in doing this, right?


----------



## ThisIsMe

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Discrimination denial is complicity but without the courage to say what you really believe


I disagree that it'd discrimination


----------



## rightwinger

ThisIsMe said:


> How does that relate to discrimination?
> 
> In the court case you link, while im not going to read the...20 page? ruling from scotus, it appears they are talking about an area of Maine where there are no other schools available?  And, publicly available tuition money was being withheld solely on basis of the schools religious nature.  They are suggesting that it violate the free exercise clause to specifically exclude a school based on its religious charter.
> 
> Also, from my understanding, the establishment clause is a barrier from the federal government establishing a national religion, which this court ruling doesn't do. This is a case of a states use of publicly available tuition money. The establishment clause applies to the federal governments interaction with religion.  I mean, does the state give money to any other private organization?  If so, how could you disparage one group just because they are religious by nature.
> 
> It appears that the state constitution mandates that every child gets a free public education, but some parts of the state are very remote, so they allow the parents to choose a school and that school could be public or private. As long as the school is accredited, they are eligible for the tuition payments.  Some of these schools may be religious by nature.  The state, nor the federal government are not establishing a religion in doing this, right?


What it shows is the line between separation of church and state is fading.
The TRUMPCourt is willing to allow religions to ignore any civil right as long as they claim religious exemption.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

ThisIsMe said:


> I disagree that it'd discrimination


I disagree with the idea that your disagreement matters in the least bit


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit first and formaost it is a civil /legal matter. You can get married without a religious ceremony but you cant get married without the marriage license.
> 
> Civil unions may appear to be equal on paper but never worked that way in reality. Separate but equal did not work with racial equality and it does not work for marriage equality


No. I said the CONCEPT of marriage. Call it something else. Gays can't concieve. With each other ,that is.


----------



## Seymour Flops

rightwinger said:


> What it shows is the line between separation of church and state is fading.
> The TRUMPCourt is willing to allow religions to ignore any civil right as long as they claim religious exemption.


The free exercise of religion is itself a civil right, and one specifically, explicitely and in no uncertain terms protected by the constitution.


----------



## San Souci

Seymour Flops said:


> The free exercise of religion is itself a civil right, and one specifically, explicitely and in no uncertain terms protected by the constitution.


There is nothing in the Constitution about Fags and trannys.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

San Souci said:


> There is nothing in the Constitution about Fags and trannys.



  Nor any basis on which to assume that anyone who had any role in writing the original Constitution, or any of the Amendments that have been added since then, would have considered such sexual deviants worthy of the support that the Constitution is now being twisted and corrupted to give them.


----------



## rightwinger

Seymour Flops said:


> The free exercise of religion is itself a civil right, and one specifically, explicitely and in no uncertain terms protected by the constitution.


You are free to exercise your religion
Just not force it on others


----------



## Seymour Flops

rightwinger said:


> You are free to exercise your religion
> Just not force it on others


I never would.


----------



## rightwinger

Seymour Flops said:


> I never would.


Unfortunately on issues like homosexuality, abortion it is forced on others


----------



## Bob Blaylock

rightwinger said:


> Seymour Flops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to exercise your religion
> Just not force it on others
> 
> 
> 
> I never would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately on issues like homosexuality, abortion it is forced on others
Click to expand...


  Yes, it is.

  Homosexuality and related perversions are being forced on young children in public schools.

  And abortion is being forced on the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings; who are murderer in cold blood.

  Sexual perversion and murder are Satan's religion.

  It isn't religion that you object to being forced on others.  It is inly god religion that you find objectionable.  You're perfectly fine with evil religion being forced on others.


----------



## Seymour Flops

rightwinger said:


> Unfortunately on issues like homosexuality, abortion it is forced on others


Homosexuality for or against isn't forced on anyone by me.

Abortion is murder, so no one has a right to do it.

Nothing to do with religion.  I knew that abortion kills a human being when I was an atheist, because science is science.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Gays can't concieve. With each other ,that is.


So what?. Some hetero sexual couples can't either. Should they not be able to call it marriage? When did concieving a child become a requirement for marriage?


----------



## HeyNorm

We have two demographic groups.

1.  A group made up of couples which are composed of those of opposite sex individuals.

2. A group made up of couples which are composed of those of the same sex individuals. 

Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, only the demographic group #1 can produce offspring, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly different.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> We have two demographic groups.
> 
> 1.  A group made up of couples which are composed of those of opposite sex individuals.
> 
> 2. A group made up of couples which are composed of those of the same sex individuals.
> 
> Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, only the demographic group #1 can produce offspring, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly different.


Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, BOTH demographics can be, and in fact are PARENTS to children who come to be in their care in a variety of ways, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly alike


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, BOTH demographics can be, and in fact are PARENTS to children who come to be in their care in a variety of ways, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly alike



Are they? One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.


----------



## AsherN

HeyNorm said:


> Are they? One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.


Both groups have couples that can't or don't want children
Both groups have couples that will adopt and/or use inseminations to conceive.

They have a lot more similarities than you want to admit.


----------



## HeyNorm

AsherN said:


> Both groups have couples that can't or don't want children
> Both groups have couples that will adopt and/or use inseminations to conceive.
> 
> They have a lot more similarities than you want to admit.



True, but only one of the groups are necessary for the existence of the species, making the difference ultimately important. The existence of the second group? Not so much. 

The difference is remarkable although some, less important similarities do exist.


----------



## bodecea

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nor any basis on which to assume that anyone who had any role in writing the original Constitution, or any of the Amendments that have been added since then, would have considered such sexual deviants worthy of the support that the Constitution is now being twisted and corrupted to give them.


You want us to go COMPLETELY with what the Founding Fathers considered?    No women voting (or having any rights)....still having chattel slavery of black people...only those with property getting the vote...the genocide of Native Americans...children as property and labor?


----------



## AsherN

HeyNorm said:


> True, but only one of the groups are necessary for the existence of the species, making the difference ultimately important. The existence of the second group? Not so much.
> 
> The difference is remarkable although some, less important similarities do exist.


So what do you do with heterosexual couples who 1) are infertile, 2) too old to bear children, 3) don't want children?

Marriage is about a LOT more than procreation. It's about 2 consenting adults who decide to spend the rest of their life together. Now, Government has decided that to make that commitment official confers financial and legal advantages. And you want to deny those rights to a portion of the population


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Regardless of the sexuality of the individuals within either, BOTH demographics can be, and in fact are PARENTS to children who come to be in their care in a variety of ways, which makes the two demographic groups incredibly alike



  Only opposite-sex couples can provided a child with a proper set of parents, a father and a mother.

  The vast majority of children, even those raised under degenerate conditions, will grow up to be heterosexual, and will want to form relationships with the opposite sex.

  My father and my mother provided a vital set of examples for me, from which to learn how to relate to my own wife.  My father showed me how to be a man, how to be a husband, and my mother showed me what to expect in a wife.  If I had not had these examples to see, as I was growing up, I cannot imagine that my own relationship with my wife would be nearly as functional as it is.

  God set us up the way he did for a reason.  God established the order of marriage, and of the family build upon that marriage, upon a father and a mother producing and raising children, teaching them by example to continue in this order.

  God knew what He was doing when he set us up this way.  When we defy this order, when we defy God, we only produce inferior results.

  The whole order of marriage, family, and procreation is deeply essential to Mankind's success and happiness.  And this is where one of our biggest vulnerabilities is to Satan's malevolent influence; where he can deceive us and lead us on false paths, with us being oblivious to the harm that is being done to us as individuals, and as societies, as we pursue false happiness that ultimately leads to misery.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor any basis on which to assume that anyone who had any role in writing the original Constitution, or any of the Amendments that have been added since then, would have considered such sexual deviants worthy of the support that the Constitution is now being twisted and corrupted to give them.
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to go COMPLETELY with what the Founding Fathers considered?    No women voting (or having any rights)....still having chattel slavery of black people...only those with property getting the vote...the genocide of Native Americans...children as property and labor?
Click to expand...







  The great men whom God raised up to found this nation, and to write its Constitution, wisely anticipated that there might be changes brought about by advances in sociology, technology, and other causes, and recognition in later generations of errors made by those that came before; and they wisely included in the Constitution, a process for amending it to reflect any such advances.

  It is wholly dishonest to try to argue that the Constitution, as it presently stands, supports any _“right”_ for a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized nd treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage.  I feel safe in saying that of all the men who have contributed in any way to any words written in the Constitution, not one would have agreed with this preposterous assertion.  Not one.  I say that if any of them thought that any of their words might be twisted to mean any such thing, that they would have chosen their words more carefully to prevent it.

  If you want the Constitution to mean that a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage should be treated as genuine marriage, then there is only one way to make it so, and that is to get a new Amendment ratified to the Constitution to that effect.

  Good luck with that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Are they? One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.


Wrong. Gay men produce sperm and donate it to a woman of any sexual orientation . Lesbians can carry the child of a sperm donor who may be gay or straight. Same sex couples are not reliant on straight people

What exactly is your point with this "incredibly different: stuff and why does it matter? This thread is about gay marriage. Are you implying this artificial difference has something to do with the marriage isse? .


----------



## AsherN

Bob Blaylock said:


> View attachment 730815
> 
> The great men whom God raised up to found this nation, and to write its Constitution, wisely anticipated that there might be changes brought about by advances in sociology, technology, and other causes, and recognition in later generations of errors made by those that came before; and they wisely included in the Constitution, a process for amending it to reflect any such advances.
> 
> It is wholly dishonest to try to argue that the Constitution, as it presently stands, supports any _“right”_ for a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage to be recognized nd treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage.  I feel safe in saying that of all the men who have contributed in any way to any words written in the Constitution, not one would have agreed with this preposterous assertion.  Not one.  I say that if any of them thought that any of their words might be twisted to mean any such thing, that they would have chosen their words more carefully to prevent it.
> 
> If you want the Constitution to mean that a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage should be treated as genuine marriage, then there is only one way to make it so, and that is to get a new Amendment ratified to the Constitution to that effect.
> 
> Good luck with that.


They also would not have agreed on Black men being free, women voting, non-landowners voting and a myriad of other things. The Constitution is a great document for it's time. It is also a great foundation. But to argue that it cannot be interpreted with today's values and can only be done with what the Founding Fathers knew then is absurd.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wrong. Gay men produce sperm and donate it to a woman of any sexual orientation . Lesbians can carry the child of a sperm donor who may be gay or straight. Same sex couples are not reliant on straight people
> 
> What exactly is your point with this "incredibly different: stuff and why does it matter? This thread is about gay marriage. Are you implying this artificial difference has something to do with the marriage isse? .


That certainly was a nice deflection. But in each and every creation of offspring, regardless of sexuality, a male component and a female component is required. 

Thanks.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

AsherN said:


> They also would not have agreed on Black men being free, women voting, non-landowners voting and a myriad of other things. The Constitution is a great document for it's time. It is also a great foundation. But to argue that it cannot be interpreted with today's values and can only be done with what the Founding Fathers knew then is absurd.



  Blacks being freed*, women voting†, non-landowners voting‡, did not happen by the Constitution being _“interpreted with today's values”_.

  These things happened by legitimately amending the Constitution, through the process that is set up to do so, to change its meaning according to those _“today's values”_.

  Do you even understand the difference between amending the Constitution, and merely claiming that it supports something which, as it stands, it clearly does not?

———
* The Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments

† The Nineteenth Amendment

‡ As far as I can tell, the Constitution never limited voting to landowners.  That's just how voting was established at lower levels of law.  The Constitution has never been amended, either, to specifically grant voting rights to non-landowners, but it is a valid extrapolation from such Amendments as the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to hold that all citizens eighteen years of age or older are entitled to vote.  I suppose Congress could pass a law that restricted voting only to landowners, and states could pass similar laws; and such a law would stand, as laws currently stand denying voting rights to such groups as convicted felons.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wrong. Gay men produce sperm and donate it to a woman of any sexual orientation . Lesbians can carry the child of a sperm donor who may be gay or straight. Same sex couples are not reliant on straight people



  Ultimately, even if it is done in such an artificial manner, and completely removed from any actual social relationship between the child, his father, and his mothers, it still takes a heterosexual act to create that child.  There is no way around this basic biological fact, and no homosexual way to produce a child.

  Surely it is deeply unethical and immoral to intentionally produce a child, with no intent of providing that child with a proper family, with a father and a mother.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> True, but only one of the groups are necessary for the existence of the species, making the difference ultimately important. The existence of the second group? Not so much.
> 
> The difference is remarkable although some, less important similarities do exist.


Gay men and lesbians are not steril

The worlds population is not in danger of collapsing


----------



## Bob Blaylock

AsherN said:


> Marriage is about a LOT more than procreation. It's about 2 consenting adults who decide to spend the rest of their life together. Now, Government has decided that to make that commitment official confers financial and legal advantages. And you want to deny those rights to a portion of the population



  Family, based on a marriage between a man and a woman, is the basis for every stable human society that has ever existed, or ever will exist.  Society has a legitimate interest in encouraging and promoting this structure, and so it is certainly legitimate for government to give financial and legal incentives in that direction.

  Why should these same incentives be given to those who only wish to undermine this structure, and to destabilize society?  That's just crazy.  That defeats the very purpose of these incentives.


----------



## Bob Blaylock




----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> That certainly was a nice deflection. But in each and every creation of offspring, regardless of sexuality, a male component and a female component is required.
> 
> Thanks.


What deflection?  It was a dirct reponse to your inane assertion that gay people need straignt people to reproduce

No one needs you to tell them that " a male and female component" is needed. That in no way negates anything that I have said

 Again I ask. What is your point and what does it have to do with the marriage issue?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

AsherN said:


> Both groups have couples that can't or don't want children
> Both groups have couples that will adopt and/or use inseminations to conceive.
> 
> They have a lot more similarities than you want to admit.


This is odd. Why is  HeyNorm giving you a thumbs up when you are pushing back against what they said? Something is wrong with this picture.


----------



## AsherN

Bob Blaylock said:


> Family, based on a marriage between a man and a woman, is the basis for every stable human society that has ever existed, or ever will exist.  Society has a legitimate interest in encouraging and promoting this structure, and so it is certainly legitimate for government to give financial and legal incentives in that direction.
> 
> Why should these same incentives be given to those who only wish to undermine this structure, and to destabilize society?  That's just crazy.  That defeats the very purpose of these incentives.


What destabilization? 2 loving people making a life together?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

AsherN said:


> What destabilization? 2 loving people making a life together?


You will soon realize that https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/bob-blaylock.55534/ is not playing with  full deck


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

tahuyaman said:


> Cruz is right.  That's not the job of the Supreme Court


Then what is the job of the Supreme Court?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> as usual you totally missed the point.   there is a difference between being open and flaunting.  that is my issue.  openness is fine, flaunting is wrong no matter who is doing it.


Define flaunting


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What deflection?  It was a dirct reponse to your inane assertion that gay people need straignt people to reproduce
> 
> No one needs you to tell them that " a male and female component" is needed. That in no way negates anything that I have said
> 
> Again I ask. What is your point and what does it have to do with the marriage issue?



I made no such assertion. Two married straight men could not create offspring from solely within their marriage either. A female, regardless of her sexuality would be a requirement to do so.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I made no such assertion. Two married straight men could not create offspring from solely within their marriage either. A female, regardless of her sexuality would be a requirement to do so.


Really? Now you are throwing curve balls with this "two married straight men " thing. You keep repeating the fact the it takes a male and a femal to produce a child but refuse to acknowledge the fact that gay people do in fact have children


  Did you not not say that gay people rely on straight people to produce children? Yes you did! Did I not explain why that is bullshit? Yes I did! And you accused me of deflecting? I am beginning to become annoyed with you.

You seem to think that because it takes a mle and a female to produce a chlild , that gays are dependent og straight people to have children. That is a non sequitur fallacy! Your premis does not support your conclusion!

Let's just cut to the chase here . Once again. This thread is about the legalization of same sex marriage. Obviously you have something that you want to say about that or you would not be here. Equally obvious is that you are not willing or able to say what it is that is on your mind.

Just cut the crap about who can produce children and how they can do it- grow a spine -and say what it is you believe about legal gay marriage and explain how this reproductive matter relates to gay marriage. Just do it! Or, as my father used to say: Shit or get off of the pot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Related News:









						Old Habits Are Hard to Break: Anti-Equality Leaders’ Dishonest and Alarmist Attacks on the Respect for Marriage Act | Right Wing Watch
					

Commentary A bipartisan majority cleared the way this week for the U.S. Senate to consider legislation that would protect legal recognition for same-sex




					www.rightwingwatch.org
				






> It’s important to note that the religious right’s claims about the Respect for Marriage Act are not only rejected by the Mormon Church. The law is backed by 40 religious organizations that represent millions of Americans from different faiths. A Thursday morning press conference supporting the legislation was co-sponsored by the Interfaith Alliance, Faithful America, Keshet, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ Justice and Local Church Ministries, National Council for Jewish Women, and Hindus for Human Rights, among others.





> Moreover, opponents of marriage equality do not come close to speaking for most Americans, most people of faith, or even most Christians. A survey released earlier this year by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 68 percent of Americans support marriage equality, as do most white Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and majorities of Black, Hispanic, White, and multiracial Americans. Almost 80 percent of Americans, including about two-thirds of Republicans, support laws protecting LGBTQ people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing. About two-thirds of Americans oppose allowing business owners to refuse to provide products or services to gay or lesbian people based on their religious beliefs.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Now you are throwing curve balls with this "two married straight men " thing. You keep repeating the fact the it takes a male and a femal to produce a child but refuse to acknowledge the fact that gay people do in fact have children
> 
> 
> Did you not not say that gay people rely on straight people to produce children? Yes you did! Did I not explain why that is bullshit? Yes I did! And you accused me of deflecting? I am beginning to become annoyed with you.
> 
> You seem to think that because it takes a mle and a female to produce a chlild , that gays are dependent og straight people to have children. That is a non sequitur fallacy! You premis does not support your conclusion!
> 
> Let's just cut to the chase here . Once again. This thread is about the legalization of same sex marriage. Obviously you have something that you want to say about that or you would not be here. Equally obvious is that you are not willing or able to say what it is that is on your mind.
> 
> Just cut the crap about who can produce children and how they can do it- grow a spine -and say what it is you believe about legal gay marriage and explain how this reproductive matter relates to gay marriage. Just do it! Or, as my father used to say: Shit or get off of the pot.



I never said gay people rely on straight people to produce offspring. 

You don’t comprehend well. 

Or do you believe same sex marriage is just about gay unions?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I never said gay people rely on straight people to produce offspring.
> 
> You don’t comprehend well.


Bullshit!
From your post 1810:



> One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.



Is there something wrong with you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I never said gay people rely on straight people to produce offspring.
> 
> You don’t comprehend well.
> 
> *Or do you believe same sex marriage is just about gay unions?*


What in the hell is that supposed to mean? It is about gay unions. The fact that two straight people of the same sex  could marry is irrelevent and it rarely happens.

 You continue to avoid the topic of the role of  producing children in relation to same sex marriage  You seem to be playing some sick and bizarre game here. I do  not have time for your childish games.

Now two questions!

1Do you think that gay couples shoud be able to marry?  Yes or no? If not, why not?

2 What role, if any does reproduction have in relation to whether or not two GAY  people of the same gender can marry ?

Very straight forward no bullshit questions. Deal with it!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit!
> From your post 1810:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something wrong with you?



Lol. The two groups were. 

1.  Couples made up of opposite sex individuals 

2. Couples made up of same sex individuals. 

No sexuality was mentioned. 

You’re becoming tiresome.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Its is about gay unions. The fact that two straight people of the same sex  could marry is irrelevent.
> 
> You continue to avoid the topic of the role of  producing children in relation to same sex marriage  You seem to be playing some sick and bizarre game here. I do  not have time for your childish games.



It’s absolutely relevant. Are you trying to limit people rights?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Lol. The two groups were.
> 
> 1.  Couples made up of opposite sex individuals
> 
> 2. Couples made up of same sex individuals.
> 
> No sexuality was mentioned.
> 
> You’re becoming tiresome.


What a bunch of bullshit!  I know and you you know what you meant. More sick games! Where are all of the same sex couples who are not gay?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> It’s absolutely relevant. Are you trying to limit people rights?


How the fuck am I trying to limit anyones rights. YOU are tiresome , Answere my questions in 1836 or get the fuck out of here


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What a bunch of bullshit!  I know and you you know what you meant. More sick games! Where are all of the same sex couples who are not gay?



Oh, so you admit the lie. Well that’s a start I suppose. Do these same sex couples who are not gay supposed to report to you?

Why the bigotry?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How the fuck am I trying to limit anyones rights. YOU are tiresome , Answere my questions in 1836 or get the fuck out of here



Sorry dude, the right is to same sex couples to marry. Sexuality is not a requirement. 

Get a clue.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Sorry dude, the right is to same sex couples to marry. Sexuality is not a requirement.
> 
> Get a clue.


No fucking shit! I never said that sexuality was a requirement. But you are Still not answeruing those questions. !


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, so you admit the lie. Well that’s a start I suppose. Do these same sex couples who are not gay supposed to report to you?
> 
> Why the bigotry?


What lie am I admitting to., ? What bigotry?. Did I ever say that two people of the same sex who are not gay cannot marry? How stupid are you? Do you eally thhink that you are smart enough to gaslight me ? Grow a spineand answe my wuestions!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

San Souci said:


> No. I said the CONCEPT of marriage. Call it something else. Gays can't concieve. With each other ,that is.


Wrong.

There’s no reason to ‘call it something else.’

The ‘concept’ of marriage is a legal contract entered into by two individuals – whether that union can produce offspring or not is legally irrelevant.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What lie am I admitting to., ? What bigotry?. Did I ever say that two people of the same sex who are not gay cannot marry? How stupid are you? Do you eally thhink that you are smart enough to gaslight me ? Grow a spineand answe my wuestions!



What bigotry? Why making the assumption that same sex marriage is simply a gay issue, when clearly the right, afforded was to all, regardless of sexuality.

Now the question is, why, when the two demographic groups are not similar in nature, they must be covered as same.


----------



## Hossfly

The issue is about gay marriage. Let the mentally ill critters be married. There's nothing we can do here on earth. But rest assured, in the end God will divorce them and they will die. That means their souls will be in oblivion for eternity.


----------



## HeyNorm

Hossfly said:


> The issue is about gay marriage. Let the mentally ill critters be married. There's nothing we can do here on earth. But rest assured, in the end God will divorce them and they will die. That means their souls will be in oblivion for eternity.



Not really, the Supreme Court created a right to same sex individuals to marry. Gays make up an incredible tiny amount of those eligible to marry their own sex, but to listen to them, they are the super majority.


----------



## tahuyaman

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then what is the job of the Supreme Court?


It's not to legislate from the bench.


  It's to ensure our legislative and administrative branches dont impose unconstitutional laws.


----------



## tahuyaman

HeyNorm said:


> It’s absolutely relevant. Are you trying to limit people rights?


Not at all


----------



## tahuyaman

AsherN said:


> What destabilization? 2 loving people making a life together?


Who says they can't do that?


----------



## beautress

San Souci said:


> Good. Marriage is a  religious concept. Why not just call it something else? Domestic Partnership ,for example? Same rights.


The Supreme Court should have ruled as you said, San Souci. They should call themselves a Domestic Partnership, and leave it at that. I'm afraid this will be the straw that broke the back of unification of the states.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> What bigotry? Why making the assumption that same sex marriage is simply a gay issue, when clearly the right, afforded was to all, regardless of sexuality.
> 
> Now the question is, why, when the two demographic groups are not similar in nature, they must be covered as same.


OK, that’s it ! I have had  enough of your duplicitous bullshit. You are a pain in the ass troll and shameless flame baiter. This topic is about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. It is about gay marriage. 
Yet, you spent day blathering about the inability  ( of same sex couples) to conceive a child and how they are different from opposite sex couples without ever once mentioning  marriage or how the issue of child baring relates to the issue of marriage 

*You clearly lack the intestinal fortitude, integrity and intellectual capacity to clearly state your position on gay marriage or to formulate a defense of that position-whatever it might be.*

 And now, having been smacked down on your idiotic bullshit about child bearing and the difference between same sex and opposite sex couples- you spring what you think is a clever trap and claim that it is not about gay couples but rather same sex couples. 

The fact is that you are not nearly as clever as you think that you are. Far from it! Proof is the fact that I never took a position on the non existent  issue of straight same sex couples and actually could not care less about any who want to marry-if they exist at all. 

That is just another dishonest distraction as is your stupidly calling me a bigot for “making it about gay couples and not all “same sex couples” All that accomplished was to make yourself look even more stupid.  

We are done here. You have wasted enough of my time. Let me know if and when you are ready to have an honest, adult conversation about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. And yes it is about gay couples. I will not be holding my breath


----------



## Clipper

Bob Blaylock said:


> Only by depraved sexual perverts and their allies.


Why is Lyin Ted ranting & raving about gay marriage when he can never remove the stink of Trump's ass off his face?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK, that’s it ! I have had  enough of your duplicitous bullshit. You are a pain in the ass troll and shameless flame baiter. This topic is about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. It is about gay marriage.
> Yet, you spent day blathering about the inability  ( of same sex couples) to conceive a child and how they are different from opposite sex couples without ever once mentioning  marriage or how the issue of child baring relates to the issue of marriage
> 
> *You clearly lack the intestinal fortitude, integrity and intellectual capacity to clearly state your position on gay marriage or to formulate a defense of that position-whatever it might be.*
> 
> And now, having been smacked down on your idiotic bullshit about child bearing and the difference between same sex and opposite sex couples- you spring what you think is a clever trap and claim that it is not about gay couples but rather same sex couples.
> 
> The fact is that you are not nearly as clever as you think that you are. Far from it! Proof is the fact that I never took a position on the non existent  issue of straight same sex couples and actually could not care less about any who want to marry-if they exist at all.
> 
> That is just another dishonest distraction as is your stupidly calling me a bigot for “making it about gay couples and not all “same sex couples” All that accomplished was to make yourself look even more stupid.
> 
> We are done here. You have wasted enough of my time. Let me know if and when you are ready to have an honest, adult conversation about same sex marriage and the Obergefell decision. And yes it is about gay couples. I will not be holding my breath



You want an honest discussion about same sex marriage but want to exclude the vast majority of individuals that are allowed access to it?

You, by the constant ranting about this thing you reference as “gay marriage”, in and of itself shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing.

Here’s a clue:

Gay individuals can, often do, have, and likely will continue to be involved in “traditional” marriage. But only those that are “gay” can be a part of “gay” marriage. 

Two completely different sets of rules. 

Sorry you won’t understand this. I wouldn’t expect any.


----------



## tahuyaman

Clipper said:


> Why is Lyin Ted ranting & raving about gay marriage when he can never remove the stink of Trump's ass off his face?


Brilliant!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You want an honest discussion about same sex marriage but want to exclude the vast majority of individuals that are allowed access to it?


You are still lying!!When the fuck did I ever say that I wanted to exclude anyone? I call it gay marriage because it is gay people who marry someone of the same gender. I have no problem with anyone who is not gay doing the same. But, who are they are where are they? I'm sure that there are a few isolated cases but that does not chage the fact that you are just trolling with this shit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You, by the constant ranting about this thing you reference as “gay marriage”, in and of itself shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing.
> 
> Here’s a clue:
> 
> Gay individuals can, often do, have, and likely will continue to be involved in “traditional” marriage. But only those that are “gay” can be a part of “gay” marriage.
> 
> Two completely different sets of rules.


Ah! A glimmer of substance and honesty! So you want two separate systems of marrige? So who is it that can be "married" and who is it that should be relegated to "something else" You're still not making a whole lot of sense. What are the separate "rules" ?

I assume that you "traditional marriage " is that of opposite sex couples?

And those that are comprised of same sex couple get the "other" form of union? ( gay or not?) Or, are you saying that even same sex "couples" who marry are traditional  if they are not gay, while gays are, "gay married" or domestice partners or whatever? It's all as clear as mud!

And my referencing gay marrige "shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing." How the fuck do you conclude that?

I will also assume that in your mind,  the need for "separate legal standing " has something to do with conceiving children bas on your earlier comments

You are still bogged down in a mountain of bovine excrement. Marriage is marriage. Period


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Gay individuals can, often do, have, and likely will continue to be involved in “traditional” marriage. But only those that are “gay” can be a part of “gay” marriage.


PS If two men, or two women are married, is there some sort of test that they can take to determine if they are gay or not, so that we know what  to call it and what rules and legal system they fall under?

If you think that I am mcking  you, you are right.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ah! A glimmer of substance and honesty! So you want two separate systems of marrige? So who is it that can be "married" and who is it that should be relegated to "something else" You're still not making a whole lot of sense. What are the separate "rules" ?
> 
> I assume that you "traditional marriage " is that of opposite sex couples?
> 
> And those that are comprised of same sex couple get the "other" form of union? ( gay or not?) Or, are you saying that even same sex "couples" who marry are traditional  if they are not gay, while gays are, "gay married" or domestice partners or whatever? It's all as clear as mud!
> 
> And my referencing gay marrige "shows clearly why traditional marriage and other forms of domestic partnerships should fall under separate legal standing." How the fuck do you conclude that?
> 
> I will also assume that in your mind,  the need for "separate legal standing " has something to do with conceiving children bas on your earlier comments
> 
> You are still bogged down in a mountain of bovine excrement. Marriage is marriage. Period



You, and a very small subset of the total can claim that a Union of opposite sex couple are similarly situated to same sex couples, but as I demonstrated in my initial post, and those since, they are worlds apart. 

Only participation of males/females combined, can offspring be created. And without offspring, the species fails to exist. 

That’s science and reality. 

The difference in vast.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> PS If two men, or two women are married, is there some sort of test that they can take to determine if they are gay or not, so that we know what  to call it and what rules and legal system they fall under?
> 
> If you think that I am mcking  you, you are right.



Why would a test be required in the first place? Whether the two individuals are gay or straight, if they are of the same sex, their biological nature as a couple are the same. Which, by the way, is quite different than opposite sex couples. 

I’m not seeing the point of the question, this is quite obvious.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Why would a test be required in the first place? Whether the two individuals are gay or straight, if they are of the same sex, their biological nature as a couple are the same. Which, by the way, is quite different than opposite sex couples.


So you are saying that regardless of seuality, all same sex couples are suject to the same rules and legal system and the union is called the same thing? And what would it be called and what exactly are the "rules"?

So  how many cases of straight people want to marry someone of their own gender have you come up with so far?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So you are saying that regardless of seuality, all same sex couples are suject to the same rules and legal system and the union is called the same thing? And what would it be called and what exactly are the "rules"?



Oh, I don’t see how the two could hold the same moniker. They serve far different purpose. One is a Marriage as traditionally defined, the second could be named something appropriate to its function, but not Marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You, and a very small subset of the total can claim that a Union of opposite sex couple are similarly situated to same sex couples, but as I demonstrated in my initial post, and those since, they are worlds apart.
> 
> Only participation of males/females combined, can offspring be created. And without offspring, the species fails to exist.
> 
> That’s science and reality.
> 
> The difference in vast.


Looks like we have come full circle. As I suspected you are still stuck in the mud over that conception issue. You do not seam to learn.  very easily. GAY PEOPLE HAVE CHILREN. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THEY ARE PARENTS TO THOSE CHILDREN WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY RELATED.


They all are similarly situated! Still waiting for you to tell us what the rules are for those gay couples. What would the law say?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, I don’t see how the two could hold the same moniker. They serve far different purpose. One is a Marriage as traditionally defined, the second could be named something appropriate to its function, but not Marriage.


What are the different purposes? Spell it out. 

At least you are finally admitting that you advocate unequal treatment for gay and straight couples, and that you are , therefore a BIGOT


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Looks like we have come full circle. As I suspected you are still stuck in the mud over that conception issue. You do not seam to learn.  very easily. GAY PEOPLE HAVE CHILREN. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THEY ARE PARENTS TO THOSE CHILDREN WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY RELATED.
> 
> 
> They all are similarly situated! Still waiting for you to tell us what the rules are for those gay couples. What would the law say?



Yes, gay people do have children, but ALWAYS rely on those of the opposite sex to conceive. That again is simple biological fact.

Gay couples cannot conceive within their own relationship, unless the gay couple are opposite sex. That is also biological fact.

To call this similar to the demographic made up of opposite sex couples is absurdity.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What are the different purposes? Spell it out.
> 
> At least you are finally admitting that you advocate unequal treatment for gay and straight couples, and that you are , therefore a BIGOT



If I demand a truck driver to have a CDL license even though they have an automobile license, am I a bigot?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> If I demand a truck driver to have a CDL license even though they have an automobile license, am I a bigot?


That is just to stupid to comment on!  You seem to be getting desparate.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yes, gay people do have children, but ALWAYS rely on those of the opposite sex to conceive. That again is simple biological fact.
> 
> Gay couples cannot conceive within their own relationship, unless the gay couple are opposite sex. That is also biological fact.
> 
> To call this similar to the demographic made up of opposite sex couples is absurdity.


You really don't learn very well and you keep proving it.
The fact that it takes the biological elemnts of a man and a woman to to conceive a child is obvious and therefore stupid to keep repeating. And the fact is that gay couples need "third party help" to conceive and that only one partner will be a biological parent. So what?

It is also true that the same can be said of many many heterosexual couples. You seem to be unable to understand that gay and lesbian people have all of the working parts needed to produce a child. You are confusing homosexuality with sterility. Please give me a sign that you are not actually that stupid!

Are you actually advocating  for those heterosexual couples-and therefor their children- to be treated differently than the same sex couples? Yes or no and why?

Children are children regardless of how they came into the world and who they  are born to ....Do you agree or not?

All children deserve to be abe to say that their parents are married. Yes or no?

All children deserve the legal protection and financial security of having two parents who are both their legal guardians Yes or No?

So what exactly are your different rules and legal system for  gay couples. Spell it out!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Gay couples cannot conceive within their own relationship, unless the gay couple are opposite sex. That is also biological fact.


No fucking shit! So what?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You really don't learn very well and you keep proving it.
> The fact that it takes the biological elemnts of a man and a woman to to conceive a child is obvious and therefore stupid to keep repeating. And the fact is that gay couples need "third party help" to conceive and that only one partner will be a biological parent. So what?
> 
> It is also true that the same can be said of many many heterosexual couples. You seem to be unable to understand that gay and lesbian people have all of the working parts needed to produce a child. You are confusing homosexuality with sterility. Please give me a sign that you are not actually that stupid!
> 
> Are you actually advocating  for those heterosexual couples-and therefor their children- to be treated differently than the same sex couples? Yes or no and why?
> 
> Children are children regardless of how they came into the world and who they  are born to ....Do you agree or not?
> 
> All children deserve to be abe to say that their parents are married. Yes or no?
> 
> All children deserve the legal protection and financial security of having two parents who are both their legal guardians Yes or No?
> 
> So what exactly are your different rules and legal system for  gay couples.  What does gay marriage or what ever you want to call actually look like. Spell it out!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yes, gay people do have children, but ALWAYS rely on those of the opposite sex to conceive. That again is simple biological fact.
> 
> Gay couples cannot conceive within their own relationship, unless the gay couple are opposite sex. That is also biological fact.
> 
> To call this similar to the demographic made up of opposite sex couples is absurdity.


You are the very definition of absurdity. Children are children. Parents are parents regadless of biology. All parents and all children deserve to be treated equally.   You bigots insist on using children as pawns in your failed and pathetic crusade against marriage equality and the more you do that, the more despicable you become. We are at a point here where you are actually nauseating me.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No fucking shit! So what?



Then the two demographic groups a quite different. But thanks for asking again.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are the very definition of absurdity. Children are children. Parents are parents regadless of biology. All parents and all children deserve to be treated equally.   You bigots insist on using children as pawns in your failed crusade against marriage equality and the more you do that, the more despicable you become. We are at a point here where you are actually nauseating me.



Children as pawns? Us? We make them!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Then the two demographic groups a quite different. But thanks for asking again.


OK ,let's back up a bit. You keep emphasising tat they are "different" My position is "not really" Not different than many heterosexual couples who cannot have children one on one and certainly not different in any meaningful way from all of the others- because have children are conceived is not important. What is important is the ability of the adults to be parents and in that respect-THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE .Obvioulsy  we are not going to agree on that. So, let me ask you this (again):

Are children of gay couples less valuable and less deserving of the rights, benefits and protections that childrenof heterosexual couples enjoy by virtue of the fact that their parents can be married? YES or NO?

I will ask you once again and I will keep asking until you grow a spine and tell the truth. What does "marriage" or what ever you want to call it for gay people actually look like and what rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy would not be extended to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN? Not a hard quetion if you arre willing to honestly stand by your convictions. But  I do not think that you are.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Children as pawns? Us? We make them!


WHAT???


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So  how many cases of straight people want to marry someone of their own gender have you come up with so far?




I could see business partners of the same sex insisting on a marriage contract to protect their interests in the case of a breakup or the death of a partner.     The idea of "same sex marriage" is a new one, the lawyers haven't figured out how to manipulate it fully.

The real problem is that people aren't permitted to have a "Same Sex Marriage" at the same time as a normative marriage, and that could be discriminatory against those who are already normatively married but entering a tricky business matter where they might want this further protection.


----------



## HeyNorm

Polishprince said:


> I could see business partners of the same sex insisting on a marriage contract to protect their interests in the case of a breakup or the death of a partner.     The idea of "same sex marriage" is a new one, the lawyers haven't figured out how to manipulate it fully.
> 
> The real problem is that people aren't permitted to have a "Same Sex Marriage" at the same time as a normative marriage, and that could be discriminatory against those who are already normatively married but entering a tricky business matter where they might want this further protection.



Or a man who lost his wife raising multiple children without good health insurance. Marries a single straight man who has great health insurance. When either finds a woman, divorce. For the cost of a cheap marriage license he gets great insurance.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK ,let's back up a bit. You keep emphasising tat they are "different" My position is "not really" Not different than many heterosexual couples who cannot have children one on one and certainly not different in any meaningful way from all of the others- because have children are conceived is not important. What is important is the ability of the adults to be parents and in that respect-THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE .Obvioulsy  we are not going to agree on that. So, let me ask you this (again):
> 
> Are children of gay couples less valuable and less deserving of the rights, benefits and protections that childrenof heterosexual couples enjoy by virtue of the fact that their parents can be married? YES or NO?
> 
> I will ask you once again and I will keep asking until you grow a spine and tell the truth. What does "marriage" or what ever you want to call it for gay people actually look like and what rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy would not be extended to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN? Not a hard quetion if you arre willing to honestly stand by your convictions. But  I do not think that you are.



Your position is not really? Well gee, ok. 

No child is less important than any other. 

And all children are created from a male/female combine.


----------



## ThisIsMe

rightwinger said:


> What it shows is the line between separation of church and state is fading.
> The TRUMPCourt is willing to allow religions to ignore any civil right as long as they claim religious exemption.


Well, I wouldn't say that. This is a case of a state using state money to help people In  remote areas send their children to a school. Were not talking about them forcing people to go to a religious school.

I know you don't agree that they exercised religious liberty, you would have people go against their religious principles.  By the way, there were only 2 dissents in the bakery decision, 2 of the left wing justices concured and one decided in favor of the bakery.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Your position is not really? Well gee, ok.
> 
> No child is less important than any other.
> 
> And all children are created from a male/female combine.


Is that supposed to be an answer? You are a sniviling coward and a liar. You took the position that gay marriages should be subject to a "separat legal standing" but thus far have refused to state what that means or what it looks like in reality aside from mentioning domestic partnershps

Now you say that "No child is less important than any other". Thats nice, but my question, which you are side stepping here was:

. What does "marriage" or what ever you want to call it for gay people actually look like an*d what rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy would not be extended to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN?*

Domestic parnerships and civil unions never have and never could work the same and serve the same purpose as marriage

You also said that They  (gay vs. opposite sex marriages)serve far different purpose. Another stupid assertion that you have been unable to explain beyond you blather about conceiving children

Answer the damned questions and cut the bullshit!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Is that supposed to be an answer? You are a sniviling coward and a liar. You took the position that gay marriages should be subject to a "separat legal standing" but thus far have refused to state what that means or what it looks like in reality aside from mentioning domestic partnershps
> 
> Now you say that "No child is less important than any other". Thats nice, but my question, which you are side stepping here was:
> 
> . What does "marriage" or what ever you want to call it for gay people actually look like an*d what rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy would not be extended to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN?*
> 
> Domestic parnerships and civil unions never have and never could work the same and serve the same purpose as marriage
> 
> You also said that They  (gay vs. opposite sex marriages)serve far different purpose. Another stupid assertion that you have been unable to explain beyond you blather about conceiving children
> 
> Answer the damned questions and cut the bullshit!



I can’t answer a question related to a law that does not exist. Got it yet.

Two gays can marry, but it is not a requirement to be gay in a same sex marriage.  You are the one trying desperately to define two different statutes, which deflect from reality. Which, by the way, two gays could always Marry, the only requirement was that they be of opposite sex. Many had, many have, and many will continue to do so.

Same sex marriage is not at all the same as gay marriage, as anyone of the same sex can marry, regardless of sexuality, under the current standard. Geez!

An interesting side note on the subject though. Almost no one, being afforded the right to Marry another of the same sex actually wanted the right in the first place. I find that incredibly compelling.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I can’t answer a question related to a law that does not exist. Got it yet.


Bullshit cowardly cope out! I did not ask you to comment on a law. I asked you what protections and benefits for gay couples  and  their children  would you be willing to deprive them of if the parents could not be married?  
For instance, the federal government does not recognize civil unions for the purpose of Federal benefits. That includes the child tax credit, social security survivor's benefits, inheritance tax exemptions and much, much more.  

At the state level, in some states, the non biological parent would not be able to adopt their partners child depriving that child of the security of having two legal parents. On the other have, if married at the time of birth, there is a presumption of parenthood, just like with heterosexual couples 

So how much of that would you be ok with in order to avoid having to call it marriage? And I don’t want to hear any bullshit about changing the laws. That is not happening and the laws are fine the way they are. What needs to change is the stupidity and bigotry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Two gays can marry, but it is not a requirement to be gay in a same sex marriage. You are the one trying desperately to define two different statutes, which deflect from reality. Which, by the way, two gays could always Marry, the only requirement was that they be of opposite sex. Many had, many have, and many will continue to do so.


What the fuck does that mean. I am not the one trying to define anything, I am good with one law for all. You are the one desperately struggling – struggling to justify discrimination. And why? Because most heterosexual couple can  have kids one on one?  
I have asked you this before and never got an answer: If  the ability to have a child one on one is the whole basis of your position on marriage, are you also willing to deprive heterosexual couples who need a third party to conceive -  the right of marriage?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Which, by the way, two gays could always Marry, the only requirement was that they be of opposite sex. Many had, many have, and many will continue to do so.


I have heard that stupid shit way too many times before

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. 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. That is a 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.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> An interesting side note on the subject though. Almost no one, being afforded the right to Marry another of the same sex actually wanted the right in the first place. I find that incredibly compelling.


Another bullshit lie! Millions of gay couples have married!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> n interesting side note on the subject though. Almost no one, being afforded the right to Marry another of the same sex actually wanted the right in the first place. I find that incredibly compelling.











						Over one million same-sex couple households in the U.S., according to Census data
					

More than 1 million American families are same-sex households. Around 710,000 of those are married, with the rest unmarried.




					www.azfamily.com
				




I find that incredibly compelling. What the fuck is wrong with you ? Still waiting  to hear  what righs and protection you are willing to deprive gay couples and their chidren  of  for the crime of not being able to conceive children in your preferred and approved way.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Another bullshit lie! Millions of gay couples have married!



Where did I say gay couples haven’t married? Oh, no where, another attempt to deflect.

You asked how same sex would be handled differently then traditional.

Ok, first that would be up to the States. Some would likely handle it differently that others.

Recognizing that we have distinctly different groups that are trying to fit into the same statute, one standard makes no sense. 

1st, the qualifications should be different depending on the group one associates with.

For opposite sex couples, the qualification for “not too closely related” makes complete sense as our government should never condone incestuous relationships that create defective blood lines.

For same sex homosexuals, it becomes less an issue, but we still wouldn’t want to encourage “grooming”.

But for same sex straights? It makes little sense as these are not sexual relationships to begin with.

Right?

And where did I say gays haven’t taken advantage of this new expansion? 

What I clearly stated was, that the vast majority of people, given the right to marry someone of the same sex, don’t see this as anything they wanted to have in the first place. 

I don’t know a single straight individual that thinks a right to marry someone of their own sex matters at all to them. You having a tough time with that? Appears so.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Where did I say gay couples haven’t married? Oh, no where, another attempt to deflect.


Give me a fucking break . You are so full of shit! You said that almost none of them wanted to marry. So do you think that all those people who got gay married did not realy want to get married? What the fuck is wrong with you? Just more sick juvenile games!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You asked how same sex would be handled differently then traditional.
> 
> Ok, first that would be up to the States. Some would likely handle it differently that others.


Jesus fucking Christ on a Cracker! Many states would limit or outright prohibit gay marriage and you know it. Thank you for admitting that you are willing to allow states to punish gay coupes and their chidren in the ways that I outlines above- for the crime of being gay


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Recognizing that we have distinctly different groups that are trying to fit into the same statute, one standard makes no sense.
> 
> 1st, the qualifications should be different depending on the group one associates with.


Now what the fuck are you blathering about. We DO NOT have distictly different groups You are a real fucking mess. Read the Obergefell decision!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> For opposite sex couples, the qualification for “not too closely related” makes complete sense as our government should never condone incestuous relationships that create defective blood lines.
> 
> For same sex homosexuals, it becomes less an issue, but we still wouldn’t want to encourage “grooming”.


What? " Grooming "?  What the fuck are you suggesting now? Are you saying that gay people groom their children? You are becomming more reprehensible and repulsive with each post


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> But for same sex straights? It makes little sense as these are not sexual relationships to begin with.
> 
> Right?


What??? You are also becomming more bizarre. I am going to stop now . I don't want to exaccerbate your mental illness and be responsable for what you might do


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give me a fucking break . You are so full of shit! You said that almost none of them wanted to marry. So do you think that all those people who got gay married did not realy want to get married? What the fuck is wrong with you? Just more sick juvenile games!



No, I said most who became eligible to marry the same sex saw a benefit in gaining such a right. Since the majority of those who became eligible are straight, this should come as no surprise


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give me a fucking break . You are so full of shit! You said that almost none of them wanted to marry. So do you think that all those people who got gay married did not realy want to get married? What the fuck is wrong with you? Just more sick juvenile games!



Almost none wanted to marry another of the same sex. Got it, most straights don’t find it a good fit for them.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now what the fuck are you blathering about. We DO NOT have distictly different groups You are a real fucking mess. Read the Obergefell decision!



I have, and Windsor as well. Do you think that only gays were made eligible to marry someone of their own sex?
Not true.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What? " Grooming " What the fuck are you suggesting now? Are you saying that gay people groom their children? You are becomming more reprehensible and repulsive with each post


Again, your comprehension is really poor. The state has an interest in limiting how closely related a couple can be. That goes for straight or gay. However, two opposite sex individuals can breed, two same sex might engage in sexual relations. Neither should and discourage same. In either case, grooming of the child is the danger and, with opposite sex couples, the possibility of defective children and bloodlines.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jesus fucking Christ on a Cracker! Many states would limit or outright prohibit gay marriage and you know it. Thank you for admitting that you are willing to allow states to punish gay coupes and their chidren in the ways that I outlines above- for the crime of being gay



Probably, but it should be the States right to do so.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Define flaunting


look it up


----------



## Redfish

rightwinger said:


> The TRUMPCourt has moved past Abortion and is now centering on Religious Liberty.
> A liberty to claim religious justification for discrimination
> 
> You talk of sincerely held religious belief. Something the TRUMPCourt is unwilling to define. Basically, it means anyone who hates gays.


horseshit. nothing you ever post is even close to true.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is actually bullshit besides being totally irrelevent to the legal argument against gay marriage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? – Yale Scientific Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yalescientific.org


its a biological rationale,  if you want to make perversion legal where does it end?   what will you want to legalize next, beastiality?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I have, and Windsor as well. Do you think that only gays were made eligible to marry someone of their own sex?
> Not true.


No I do not think that ! What the fuck is your point. ? Never mind...don't even bother.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> No, I said most who became eligible to marry the same sex saw a benefit in gaining such a right. Since the majority of those who became eligible are straight, this should come as no surprise


 Holy fucking shit! 5 more  bizarre and inane posts that says nothing  and in no way address the issues that I raised. Of course they saw a benefit in being able to marry! This is another example of how you say something stupid, get called out on it and then move the goal posts 
You continue to prove yourself to be a coward,  a fraud and a bigot


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Probably, but it should be the States right to do so.


Thank you once again for admitting that you are willing to allow the states to punish gay people and their children . 5 Posts now and that is about all that you have said. Little or nothing else of substance.  
But the question remains: to what extent are you willing to allow suffering to be inflicted on gay people who cannot produce children in your preferred and approved way? I outline just some of the harm that would be done to families and children if there were unable to marry and have run from that question  

You have also run from the question of whether or not you support marriage for opposite sex couples who  cannot produce children in your preferred and approved way? Afterall, that is the only reason that you have articulated for denying marriage to same sex couples 
It took me days to get you to any thing coherent  all about gay marriage and there are certain things that you still will not be honest about because you are such a spineless coward. I have no further use for you. You have been exposed for what you are


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Again, your comprehension is really poor. The state has an interest in limiting how closely related a couple can be. That goes for straight or gay. However, two opposite sex individuals can breed, two same sex might engage in sexual relations. Neither should and discourage same. In either case, grooming of the child is the danger and, with opposite sex couples, the possibility of defective children and bloodlines.


My comprehension is poor.? You’re ability to produce a coherent sentence is non-existent, so yes I do not comprehend gibberish


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Redfish said:


> its a biological rationale,  if you want to make perversion legal where does it end?   what will you want to legalize next, beastiality?



  Pedophilia is clearly on their near agenda.

Seventy-five-year-old men demanding to marry three-year-old boys.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> its a biological rationale,  if you want to make perversion legal where does it end?   what will you want to legalize next, beastiality?


Thank you for consitently and faithfull dragging the level of civil and intellectual discourse on the USMB into the gutter. Your question represent s a special kind of stupid


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you once again for admitting that you are willing to allow the states to punish gay people and their children . 5 Posts now and that is about all that you have said. Little or nothing else of substance.
> But the question remains: to what extent are you willing to allow suffering to be inflicted on gay people who cannot produce children in your preferred and approved way? I outline just some of the harm that would be done to families and children if there were unable to marry and have run from that question
> 
> You have also run from the question of whether or not you support marriage for opposite sex couples who  cannot produce children in your preferred and approved way? Afterall, that is the only reason that you have articulated for denying marriage to same sex couples
> It took me days to get you to any thing coherent  all about gay marriage and there are certain things that you still will not be honest about because you are such a spineless coward. I have no further use for you. You have been exposed for what you are


What is so god damned funny https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/ohpleasejustquit.83053/ ?

Do you have a vocbulary? Do you have a brain, or can you do no more than click on funnies?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What is so god damned funny https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/ohpleasejustquit.83053/ ?
> 
> Do you have a vocbulary? Do you have a brain, or can you do no more than click on funnies?


You're cute when you're triggered.

Make sure you come back tomorrow.  I'm probably going to get snowed in so I'll appreciate the entertainment.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> You're cute when you're triggered.
> 
> Make sure you come back tomorrow.  I'm probably going to get snowed in so I'll appreciate the entertainment.
> 
> 
> .


You are not smart enough to trigger me. I do not take you clows seriously enough. From the number of "funnies" that you posted, I would say that you are the one who was triggered


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are not smart enough to trigger me. I do not take you *clows* seriously enough. From the number of "funnies" that you posted, I would say that you are the one who was triggered



The smart guy calls us *CLOW*s.

Hmmmmmm.......................................


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> The smart guy calls us *CLOW*s.
> 
> Hmmmmmm.......................................
> 
> 
> .





> clow​noun​ˈklau̇
> 
> plural-s
> 1
> *: *an outfall sluice for water from a tidal river after it has deposited its sediment on flooded land
> 2
> *: *a floodgate especially for a lock or water mill


Yup thats you. You keep depositing your sediment here tyat is poluting the discourse.

You are also too stupid to actually come up with a rebuttle to my post, but insted jump on a typo and think that makes to look smart.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yup thats you. You keep depositing your sediment here tyat is poluting the discourse.
> 
> You are also too stupid to actually come up with a rebuttle to my post, but insted jump on a typo and think that makes to look smart.


So the smart guy now asks for a "rebuttle" to his post "insted".




.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> So the smart guy now asks for a "rebuttle" to his post "insted".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


So the smart guy has nothing else to say?* Instead* it has to nit pick about typos. Do you have a brain or not?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So the smart guy has nothing else to say?* Instead* it has to nit pick about typos. Do you have a brain or not?



I don't waste time listening to fools who are functionally illiterate.

Period.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> I don't waste time listening to fools who are functionally illiterate.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> .


Hey look slick. I don't waste time with zombie troll bots who have no interest in , or ability to have an adult conversation on an important topic that effects human lives


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey look slick. I don't waste time with zombie troll bots who have no interest in , or ability to have an adult conversation on an important topic that effects human lives



Okay.  

Bye.


.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! 5 more  bizarre and inane posts that says nothing  and in no way address the issues that I raised. Of course they saw a benefit in being able to marry! This is another example of how you say something stupid, get called out on it and then move the goal posts
> You continue to prove yourself to be a coward,  a fraud and a bigot



No straight male/female would find it beneficial to have been granted a right to marry one of the same sex. 

Absurd at its base.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you once again for admitting that you are willing to allow the states to punish gay people and their children . 5 Posts now and that is about all that you have said. Little or nothing else of substance.
> But the question remains: to what extent are you willing to allow suffering to be inflicted on gay people who cannot produce children in your preferred and approved way? I outline just some of the harm that would be done to families and children if there were unable to marry and have run from that question
> 
> You have also run from the question of whether or not you support marriage for opposite sex couples who  cannot produce children in your preferred and approved way? Afterall, that is the only reason that you have articulated for denying marriage to same sex couples
> It took me days to get you to any thing coherent  all about gay marriage and there are certain things that you still will not be honest about because you are such a spineless coward. I have no further use for you. You have been exposed for what you are



Why would allowing the public to vote on same sex marriage harm gays? Gays are such a tiny minority of those that could marry same sex. Afraid of democracy?

I support to the right for opposite sex couples to marry, absolutely. I’m not a bigot like you.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

HeyNorm said:


> No straight male/female would find it beneficial to have been granted a right to marry one of the same sex.
> 
> Absurd at its base.



Everything that PP posts is absurd at its base.


.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Everything that PP posts is absurd at its base.



  Below absurd.

  I just this evening noticed your joined date.  You're relatively new here, and probably haven't seen enough of this depraved freak to truly appreciate how low it is.

  Check out what it said, here, some years ago.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Anyway, my assessment of the account of what is going on there is that the child, and possibly the aunt are confused about the difference between being gay and transsexual. Children of that age are already developing a sense of gender identity and he most likely is transsexual. That is not taught nor can it be. It just happens.
> 
> Yes he used the word "gay" but there is a lot of questions about the child's understanding of what that means and even more questions about the unlikely that he has sexual feelings for anyone at that age. The fact that he used the word "gay" which he could have heard anywhere does not mean that anyone "taught him" to be anything.



  The child, in question, was a three-year-old boy.

  Now, ask yourself, what kind of sick fuck thinks of or speaks of a child that young, in such terms of whether that child might be a faggot, a tranny, or some other kind of fucked-up sexual pervert?

  That is the sort of fucked-up creature with which you have been arguing.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

Bob Blaylock said:


> Below absurd.
> 
> I just this evening noticed your joined date.  You're relatively new here, and probably haven't seen enough of this depraved freak to truly appreciate how low it is.
> 
> Check out what it said, here, some years ago.
> 
> ​
> The child, in question, was a three-year-old boy.
> 
> Now, ask yourself, what kind of sick fuck thinks of or speaks of a child that young, in such terms of whether that child might be a faggot, a tranny, or some other kind of fucked-up sexual pervert?
> 
> That is the sort of fucked-up creature with which you have been arguing.



Yikes.  Even lower than I've seen yet.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Just yikes.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I support to the right for opposite sex couples to marry, absolutely. I’m not a bigot like you


More proof of your mental illness. The voices in your head are telling you that I oppose the right of oppositr sex couples to marry so you call me a bigot . At the same time,  you  support the punishment of same sex couples AND THEIR CHILDREN by denying them the right to be married because you do not approve of how they conceive children. So who is the bigot? YOU are fucked in the head!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Why would allowing the public to vote on same sex marriage harm gays? Gays are such a tiny minority of those that could marry same sex. Afraid of democracy?


Are you really that stupid? Do you think that the people of certain red, shit whole  states would vote for gay rights? Democracy has it's place but you do not get to vote on civi rights. Then it becomes tyranny of the majority

The fact that gays are a small minority has nothing to do with it.

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. One was: Since you oppose same sex marriage because same sex couples to not have children in your preferred way, do you also oppose marriage of opposite sex couples who cant have children one one one. ?>

I don't really expect an answer knowing what a sniviling coward that you are


----------



## Bob Blaylock

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Yikes. Even lower than I've seen yet. Thanks for pointing that out.



  Now, what do you suppose it's interest is in allowing faggot to _“marry”_ each other, and to adopt children?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More proof of your mental illness. The voices in your head are telling you that I oppose the right of oppositr sex couples to marry so you call me a bigot . At the same time,  you  support the punishment of same sex couples AND THEIR CHILDREN by denying them the right to be married because you do not approve of how they conceive children. So who is the bigot? YOU are fucked in the head!



Do all non married people suffer? Interesting thought process you have.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

Bob Blaylock said:


> Now, what do you suppose it's interest is in allowing faggot to _“marry”_ each other, and to adopt children?


Ayep.

I used to have a very good friend/coworker who was gay, who tried hard to talk me into being the mother of a child for him and his partner, and I actually even thought hard about it for a short while, but I started imagining what that child's life would be like and came to my senses.

I was far more tolerant in my youth.  But not that tolerant.


.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Are you really that stupid? Do you think that the people of certain red, shitholwe states would vote for gay rights? Democracy has it's place but you do not get to vote on civi rights. Then it becomes tyranny of the majority



Oh, I see. Democracy is only good when it works for you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Everything that PP posts is absurd at its base.
> 
> 
> .


OK  smart ass. But for the record, you have not been able to come up with any rebuttles. To call me absurd while have nothing to say yourself is, well....absurd


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK  smart ass. But for the record, you have not been able to come up with any rebuttles. To call me absurd while have nothing to say yourself is, well....absurd



I'll talk to you when you learn to use spell check.

Maybe.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> No straight male/female would find it beneficial to have been granted a right to marry one of the same sex.
> 
> Absurd at its base.


Really? Then  why have you been pushing that narative? More of your sick duplicity !


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? That why have you been pushing that narative? More of your sick duplicity !



Okay, Saul.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> I'll talk to you when you learn to use spell check.
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> 
> .


Thank you again for admitting that you do not have enough functioning brain cells to actually formulate an argument to counter my position


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you again for admitting that you do not have enough functioning brain cells to actually formulate an argument to counter my position



OK.  You win.


.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? Then  why have you been pushing that narative? More of your sick duplicity !



What? Because 97% of the people given this right wouldn’t exercise it? Or think it enhances their existence?

I’d say you don’t understand the concept of “sick”


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, I see. Democracy is only good when it works for you?


More made up shit! Read the fucking constutution. Try to understand what equal protetion under the law means. We are a constitutional repulic. Learn what that means if you can.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Ayep.
> 
> I used to have a very good friend/coworker who was gay, who tried hard to talk me into being the mother of a child for him and his partner, and I actually even thought hard about it for a short while, but I started imagining what that child's life would be like and came to my senses.
> 
> I was far more tolerant in my youth.  But not that tolerant.
> 
> 
> .


And wat do you think that the child's life would have been like?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More made up shit! Read the fucking constutution. Try to understand what equal protetion under the law means. We are a constitutional repulic. Learn what that means if you can.


What’s more equal under the law than creating one that 97% of those eligible for it see it has having no practical purpose?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> What’s more equal under the law than creating one that 97% of those eligible for it see it has having no practical purpose?


More evidence of your stupidity. A minority of 3% deserves that same protection under that law as the majority who are- as you said- uneffected by it. But the minority is profoundly effected. Now please stop making a damned fool of yourself


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More made up shit! Read the fucking constutution. Try to understand what equal protetion under the law means. We are a constitutional repulic. Learn what that means if you can.



We can see how much respect you have for the *constutution.


.*


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More evidence of your stupidity. A minority of 3% deserves that same protection under that law as the majority who are- as you said- uneffected by it. But the minority is profoundly effected. Now please stop making a damned fool of yourself



Sure they do. The 3% do indeed deserve the same protection as the 97% eligible for same sex marriage. I think all people who decide on a same sex marriage should be treated equally, regardless if they are straight or gay couples. 

That however does not mean they need to fall under the same moniker as opposite sex married couples. 

BTW, do you think same sex straight couples would think their relationship is similarly situated to opposite sex couples?


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for consitently and faithfull dragging the level of civil and intellectual discourse on the USMB into the gutter. Your question represent s a special kind of stupid


nope, you leftites want to legalize "whatever feels good" no matter who it damages or how it destroys society.   you are the stupid one here.


----------



## Redfish

HeyNorm said:


> Sure they do. The 3% do indeed deserve the same protection as the 97% eligible for same sex marriage. I think all people who decide on a same sex marriage should be treated equally, regardless if they are straight or gay couples.
> 
> That however does not mean they need to fall under the same moniker as opposite sex married couples.
> 
> BTW, do you think same sex straight couples would think their relationship is similarly situated to opposite sex couples?


don't expect a reply,  liberals cannot deal with logical questions.


----------



## Redfish

back to the OP.  that is not what Cruz said.  He said that it is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be decided by the voters of each state, not the SC.  That is all he said, stop lying about this.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Do all non married people suffer? Interesting thought process you have.


Cut the moronic crap with you bullshit questing and answer my question that you have been dodging for days now:

Do you or do you not oppose marriage for opposite sex couples who cannot have children one on one since that is the reason why you oppose marriage for samesex gay couples.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cut the moronic crap with you bullshit questing and answer my question that you have been dodging for days now:
> 
> Do you or do you not oppose marriage for opposite sex couples who cannot have children one on one since that is the reason why you oppose marriage for samesex gay couples.



I have answered. I do not oppose. 

And……..


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cut the moronic crap with you bullshit questing and answer my question that you have been dodging for days now:
> 
> Do you or do you not oppose marriage for opposite sex couples who cannot have children one on one since that is the reason why you oppose marriage for samesex gay couples.



Keeeeeeeep trollin', trollin', trollin..........................


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> nope, you leftites want to legalize "whatever feels good" no matter who it damages or how it destroys society.   you are the stupid one here.


Please explain EXACTLY who has been damaged and how society has been  destroyed by gay marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I have answered. I do not oppose.
> 
> And……..


Really...so you are finally admitting that  you have been lying all along by claiming the inability for gay couples to have children one one one is you reason for opposing their marriage

I suppose that is progress. Now you just have to explain what the real reson is. However, I doubt  that you will tell the truth.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please explain EXACTLY who has been damaged and how society has been  destroyed by gay marriage.


I never said anything like that.   When a society has no norms of behavior it will crumble, history does not lie.

I am ok with gay unions, but they are not marriages and homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition, it is a mental aberration.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Sure they do. The 3% do indeed deserve the same protection as the 97% eligible for same sex marriage. I think all people who decide on a same sex marriage should be treated equally, regardless if they are straight or gay couples.


People do not decide. The constitution and the rule of law decides


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> People do not decide. The constitution and the rule of law decides





Please quote where the constitution uses the word "homosexual".


.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> People do not decide. The constitution and the rule of law decides


please quote the language from the constitution that addresses gay marriage and abortion,  show us where the constitution uses those words or refers to those activities.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> hat however does not mean they need to fall under the same moniker as opposite sex married couples.
> 
> BTW, do you think same sex straight couples would think their relationship is similarly situated to opposite sex couples?


What same sex straight couples. Who are they? Where the fuck are they!? In any case, no one is thinking much any more about this "similarly situated" stuff. Marriaige is marriage  and gay people are who they are. Society has moved on.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Please quote where the constitution uses the word "homosexual".
> 
> 
> .


Cut the stupid shit! And you called me a troll?


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Please explain EXACTLY who has been damaged and how society has been  destroyed by gay marriage.


If you don't understand now you never will, so I am not going to waste my time trying to educate one who refuses to be educated.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> please quote the language from the constitution that addresses gay marriage and abortion,  show us where the constitution uses those words or refers to those activities.


Once again you prove that you have an abysmal understanding of Constitutional Law


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What same sex straight couples. Who are they? Where the fuck are they!? In any case, no one is thinking much any more about this "similarly situated" stuff. Marriaige is marriage  and gay people are who they are. Society has moved on.


"gay" is not a normal mammalian condition.  it is a mental aberration, until you can accept that you have a mental disease you will continue to live in a vacuum of ignorance.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Once again you prove that you have an abysmal understanding of Constitutional Law


that would be you.  several of us have asked you to quote the language that you think guarantees gay marriage and abortion and you cannot do it.  We understand.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cut the stupid shit! And you called me a troll?



*You *stated, "The constitution and the rule of law decides"       The subject of the thread is homosexual marriage.

You connect the two parts of that line.



.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> I never said anything like that. When a society has no norms of behavior it will crumble, history does not lie.


You implied it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> that would be you.  several of us have asked you to quote the language that you think guarantees gay marriage and abortion and you cannot do it.  We understand.


Read the Constitution! Read the SCOTUS decisions Do your own homework


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> I am ok with gay unions, but they are not marriages and homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition, it is a mental aberration.


You're entittled to your opinion. You are not entittled to dictate to others how they should live or what rights they can or cannot have


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> *You *stated, "The constitution and the rule of law decides"       The subject of the thread is homosexual marriage.
> 
> You connect the two parts of that line.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Yes, so?  The rule of laws states that everyone is treated equally under the law.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes, so?  The rule of laws states that everyone is treated equally under the law.



Keep twisting.

It's fun.  I'm snowed in and kind of bored and I need the entertainment.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Keep twisting.
> 
> It's fun.  I'm snowed in and kind of bored and I need the entertainment.
> 
> 
> .


You might want to take the time to do some reading on Constitutional law instead of just posting foolishness


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You might want to take the time to do some reading on Constitutional law instead of just posting foolishness



At least I realize that the US Constitution, which I carry around in my purse and study up on when I'm stuck in a line or a waiting room, doesn't say anything about abortion or homosexuals.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> If you don't understand now you never will, so I am not going to waste my time trying to educate one who refuses to be educated.


Thank you for admitting that you really can't explain what your blathering about


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> At least I realize that the US Constitution, which I carry around in my purse and study up on when I'm stuck in a line or a waiting room, doesn't say anything about abortion or homosexuals.
> 
> 
> .


I said that you should read *Constitutional Law.* Not rely on a literal reading of the text. You seem to think that the only rights are those that are enumerated.  BTW Hetersexuality or rights of the unborn are mentioned either


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I said that you should read *Constitutional Law.* Not rely on a literal reading of the text. You seem to think that the only rights are those that are enumerated.  BTW Hetersexuality or rights of the unborn are mentioned either




Your opinion is noted.



.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What same sex straight couples. Who are they? Where the fuck are they!? In any case, no one is thinking much any more about this "similarly situated" stuff. Marriaige is marriage  and gay people are who they are. Society has moved on.



They don’t require a proclamation of sexuality to obtain a marriage license.

I find it interesting that on lists of reasons people marry, one item that is high on the list is financial security. Huh, no reason to believe straights wouldn’t take advantage of it? I’m sure gays have for that very reason, right?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

HeyNorm said:


> They don’t require a proclamation of sexuality to obtain a marriage license.
> 
> I find it interesting that on lists of reasons people, one item that is high on the list is financial security. Huh, no reason to believe straights wouldn’t take advantage of it? I’m sure gays have for that very reason, right?




HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts but I'd advise you to show that poster the amount of contempt it deserves and also show it your heels.  I just did.


.


----------



## HeyNorm

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts but I'd advise you to show that poster the amount of contempt it deserves and also show it your heels.  I just di.





OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts but I'd advise you to show that poster the amount of contempt it deserves and also show it your heels.  I just did.
> 
> 
> .


Thanks for the advise. Educating the obviously uninformed about same sex marriage is a calling I guess. Although this guy seems to be a tough student. 

But I’ll just have to keep trying!


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for admitting that you really can't explain what your blathering about


I can explain it quite well, but you are incapable of understanding so its a waste of time.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You implied it


bullshit


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

HeyNorm said:


> Thanks for the advise. Educating the obviously uninformed about same sex marriage is a calling I guess. Although this guy seems to be a tough student.
> 
> But I’ll just have to keep trying!



It's like trying to educate a rock.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> They don’t require a proclamation of sexuality to obtain a marriage license.


No shit! That is exactly what I have been saying. Anyone can marry anyone who the chose for any reason without explaination  as long as it involves consenting human adults who are not too closely related as per state law. Yet YOU called me a bigot for alledgely wanting to exclude them from marriage. Are you really that stupid?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I find it interesting that on lists of reasons people marry, one item that is high on the list is financial security. Huh, no reason to believe straights wouldn’t take advantage of it? I’m sure gays have for that very reason, right?


I find it interesting that you will keep comming up with a whole buch of shit like this inorder to deflect attention away from the fact YOU WERE FORCED TO ADMIT THAT YOU LIED about your reasons for opposing same sex marriage. For days on end, you insisten that it was because they- as a couple- cannot conceive a child. 

Then you sheepishly admitted that you DO NOT OPPOSE the marriage of opposite sex couples who cannot conceive on their own. You should be exceedingly embarrassed but I don't think that you are because you are not smart enough to realize how stupid you made yourself sound .

So, what will it take to get you to state the real reasons that you oppose same sex marriage? How many more days of polking at you until you break down?  This will be fun!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> I can explain it quite well, but you are incapable of understanding so its a waste of time.


Bullshit cop out!


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit cop out!




Wow.  I'm so impressed by how clever you thought you sounded saying that.



.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts but I'd advise you to show that poster the amount of contempt it deserves and also show it your heels.  I just did.
> 
> 
> .


You showed your ass and that is about it. I am here advocating for equality and human rights . If you think that is deserving of contempt, that tell me all that I need to know about you


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Wow.  I'm so impressed by how clever you thought you sounded saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> .


So that is all you have. You say shit that you can't back up. When called on it you say it would be a wastw of time to explain, and then declare victory?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Thanks for the advise. Educating the obviously uninformed about same sex marriage is a calling I guess. Although this guy seems to be a tough student.
> 
> But I’ll just have to keep trying!


What the fuck am I uninformed about? Spell it out? Lets see just how much of an ignorant bigot you are. You're the one who thought that you had to lie about your reason for opposing same sex marriage. What are you so afraid of?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So that is all you have. You say shit that you can't back up. When called on it you say it would be a wastw of time to explain, and then declare victory?



I win.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> I win.
> .


Only in your own  warped mind! What exactly did you win? I was not even responding to you. Lets try this : State clearly and concisely exactly what your position on same sex marriage is. Then formulate a premis using facts and logic to support your conclusion . No one here has actually done that. Lets see if you're smarter than the others.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> I win.
> .


You lose. In todays news:









						Senate Passes Bill Codifying Same-Sex Marriage Protections
					

Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in passing historic legislation to protect LGBTQ couples from Supreme Court conservatives going rogue again.




					www.huffpost.com
				






> The Senate on Tuesday passed a bill to codify protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, a historic vote aimed at protecting people’s civil rights in the event that the conservative-led Supreme Court decides to dismantle marriage equality on the heels of gutting abortion rights.





> The Respect for Marriage Act passed, 61 to 36. Every Democrat present voted for it, and they needed at least 10 Republicans to vote with them. They got 12.
> 
> The bill does two things: It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 federal law that banned(  Federal reccognition of* ) same-sex marriage, and it requires states to recognize valid same-sex marriages from other states. It also ensures the same protections for interracial marriages.


* My addition-  the report was inaccurate on the point

Deal with it people!!


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Redfish said:


> back to the OP.  that is not what Cruz said.  He said that it is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be decided by the voters of each state, not the SC.  That is all he said, stop lying about this.



  You might as well ask a common house fly not to eat shit, as ask TheOppressiveFaggot not to lie.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I said that you should read *Constitutional Law.* Not rely on a literal reading of the text.



  The Constitution means what it says, not what you wish it said.

  If whatever source you are calling _“Constitutional law”_ disagrees with what the Constitution literally says, then your source is bullshit.


----------



## DGS49

"“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”

Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?

Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?

Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.


----------



## candycorn

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.



Thomas said that the court needs to re-visit the decisions that allowed for same sex marriage.  Now there will be a law that ensures it remains legal (unlike Abortion).  It's a preventative measure against the nation turning into Conservistan.


----------



## excalibur

No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.


----------



## excalibur

candycorn said:


> Thomas said that the court needs to re-visit the decisions that allowed for same sex marriage.  Now there will be a law that ensures it remains legal (unlike Abortion).  It's a preventative measure against the nation turning into Conservistan.



Thomas meant the reasoning used for them. He himself is in an interracial marriage, duh.

The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.

But the left may use it if it is held to be constitutional for all sorts of other things including a national age of consent law. Bet on that.


----------



## Ivan88

Both Democrats and Republicans are the Problem.
There is no real difference between them, they both want to have power over people and to get tons of free money.


----------



## Skylar

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.



Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?


----------



## Ivan88

Video: American Troops in Poland Asked "Are you here to spread Sodomy?" - Told "It's your Number One Export"​WORLD HAL TURNER 27 NOVEMBER 2022  HITS: 23419








						Video: American Troops in Poland Asked "Are you here to spread Sodomy?" - Told "It's your Number One Export"
					

American military troops visiting a shopping mall in Poland, were asked




					halturnerradioshow.com


----------



## frigidweirdo

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.



Why are they "evil" for this?

The Supreme Court has gone to the right, despite the fact that the popular vote has been very much against Republicans (one popular vote win for president since 1990, and yet the Supreme Court has moved to the right, huh?)


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You lose. In todays news:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senate Passes Bill Codifying Same-Sex Marriage Protections
> 
> 
> Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in passing historic legislation to protect LGBTQ couples from Supreme Court conservatives going rogue again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * My addition-  the report was inaccurate on the point
> 
> Deal with it people!!



How, precisely, does that translate to "OPJQ loses"?

No.  Wait.  Nevermind.  You don't know.


.


----------



## JoeB131

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.



This supreme court has shown they have no problem overturning sensible decades old rulings.  If they can overturn _Roe_, they can overturn _Obergefell _or even _Loving_.  



excalibur said:


> Thomas meant the reasoning used for them. He himself is in an interracial marriage, duh.
> 
> The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.
> 
> But the left may use it if it is held to be constitutional for all sorts of other things including a national age of consent law. Bet on that.



Actually, the law probably passes constitutional muster, because it only covers FEDERAL recognition of marriage.  Hypothetically, if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell or even Loving, there's nothing that the Feds can do to stop a state from outlawing those marriages, but they would still be protected under the full faith and credit clause.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> How, precisely, does that translate to "OPJQ loses"?
> 
> No.  Wait.  Nevermind.  You don't know.
> 
> 
> .


You have been rooting for the bigots , have you not? If they lose, you lose


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have been rooting for the bigots , have you not? If they lose, you lose





Which bigots are those that, in your delusional world, I am rooting for?


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Which bigots are those that, in your delusional world, I am rooting for?
> 
> 
> .





			HeyNorm


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> HeyNorm



Quote me "rooting for" HeyNorm.


Edit:  Waiting TheProgressivePatriot

   Too late, TheProgressivePatriot


.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit cop out!


nope, simple truth.


----------



## initforme

Interracial marriages are probably superior to same race marriages


----------



## Curried Goats

excalibur said:


> No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.


Well you cuck boys certainly aren't going to now.


----------



## Curried Goats

excalibur said:


> Thomas meant the reasoning used for them. He himself is in an interracial marriage, duh.
> 
> The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.
> 
> But the left may use it if it is held to be constitutional for all sorts of other things including a national age of consent law. Bet on that.


Why would anti-groomers be worried about national age of consent laws?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> nope, simple truth.


Then spit it out Fish!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Quote me "rooting for" HeyNorm.
> 
> 
> Edit:  Waiting TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> Too late, TheProgressivePatriot
> 
> 
> .


Post 1972   HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts but I'd advise you to show that poster the amount of contempt it deserves and also show it your heels. I just did.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?



Why is it moral to ruin a baker or a photographer because they don't want to participate in a same sex wedding celebration?


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> This supreme court has shown they have no problem overturning sensible decades old rulings.  If they can overturn _Roe_, they can overturn _Obergefell _or even _Loving_.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the law probably passes constitutional muster, because it only covers FEDERAL recognition of marriage.  Hypothetically, if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell or even Loving, there's nothing that the Feds can do to stop a state from outlawing those marriages, but they would still be protected under the full faith and credit clause.



Obergfell should have just done what this law does in part, force States to recognize full faith and credit. Even this law doesn't force States to issue SSM licenses. 

And the Religious protection of businesses will be decided before this law would ever impact it, because the SC is already taking up those cases.

If they do it right, they will find contracted services are not PA's in these cases, and the right to free exercise in these situations overrides the right to commerce.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> This supreme court has shown they have no problem overturning sensible decades old rulings.  If they can overturn _Roe_, they can overturn _Obergefell _or even _Loving_.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the law probably passes constitutional muster, because it only covers FEDERAL recognition of marriage.  Hypothetically, if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell or even Loving, there's nothing that the Feds can do to stop a state from outlawing those marriages, but they would still be protected under the full faith and credit clause.



The problem you have here is logic. 

Almost no one who would lose the right to marry a person of the same sex would have exercised the right in the first place. So almost no one eligible, would feel slighted by the loss. That’s logic. 

Now a far greater number, would feel slighted if they were not allowed to marry an opposite sex individual of a different race. 

I know I have the right to marry another male, but I see no reason to do such an absurd thing, being that I am straight, as does roughly 97% of the population.


----------



## initforme

97 percent of the american population doesn't really care all that much who marries who.  There's logic as well.   To each his own.   Nobody else's business.


----------



## initforme

Why were interracial marriages ever frowned upon in the first place?   Those people were truly evil americans


----------



## Mr. Friscus

frigidweirdo said:


> Why are they "evil" for this?
> 
> The Supreme Court has gone to the right, despite the fact that the popular vote has been very much against Republicans (one popular vote win for president since 1990, and yet the Supreme Court has moved to the right, huh?)


It’s gone centrist.. when the radical left ceases to dominate, even equal treatment and moderation seems like extreme conservatism to them.

Basically, you’re the trust fund baby who no longer gets a red corvette for graduation. It’s so unfair to you, but the rest of us see you as just having been spoiled


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then spit it out Fish!


no matter how many times the truth is presented to you, you will never be able to understand or accept it.  you are a waste of time, a totally indoctrinated compliant sheep to your socialist masters.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> no matter how many times the truth is presented to you, you will never be able to understand or accept it.  you are a waste of time, a totally indoctrinated compliant sheep to your socialist masters.


You reakky should no say stupid shit like "you leftites want to legalize "whatever feels good" no matter who it damages or how it destroys society " if you cant back it up with facts and examples. And clearly you can not


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

I'm still waiting for TheProgressivePatriot to quote me "rooting for" HeyNorm 

Great disappearing act, no?


.


----------



## Catsnmeters

excalibur said:


> Thomas meant the reasoning used for them. He himself is in an interracial marriage, duh.
> 
> The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.



Marriage is already a constitutional right. 



excalibur said:


> But the left may use it if it is held to be constitutional for all sorts of other things including a national age of consent law. Bet on that.


----------



## Catsnmeters

excalibur said:


> No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.


Like nobody was going to take away abortion rights? Dems already fell for that once.


----------



## WorldWatcher

excalibur said:


> The law itself may be unconstitutional since Congress has no authority over marriage.



Just to address this narrow point.  Congress is not exercising authority over Civil Marriage, they are excerising their Article IV delegated power under the Full Faith & Credit class to determine the effect thereof of Public Acts between the states.

If people read the legislation, that's exactly what the RMA of 2022 does.

It requires states to honor legal Civil Marriages performed in other jurisdictions based on the Full Faith and Credit clause. It does not mandate the states perform same-sex and interracial marriages, only that they recognize Civil Marriages from other states equally.

What requires states to allow interracial and same-sex marriages internally are the SCOTUS Loving and Obergefell decisions.

If the SCOTUS were to overturn Loving and Obergefell, states could stop performing interracial and same-sex marriages, but because of the RMA of 2022 they would still be required to recognize equally Civil Marriages from other states. Which, in the event the decisions are overturned, states won't be able to discriminate - couples just cross state lines, get married and return.

Subtle difference, but one that comports with the legal authority of Congress under the FF&C clause.

WW


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

It’s less duplicity and more stupidity.
This race/homo thing is beyond apples and oranges. At least with the latter they’re both _always _fruits.
Democrats are retarded baboons.


----------



## HeyNorm

initforme said:


> 97 percent of the american population doesn't really care all that much who marries who.  There's logic as well.   To each his own.   Nobody else's business.



I know of no other “right” afforded the populace that the vast majority would not use, and in fact, are repulsed by. 

You?


----------



## initforme

HeyNorm said:


> I know of no other “right” afforded the populace that the vast majority would not use, and in fact, are repulsed by.
> 
> You?


The populace doesn't care all that much about who marries who.   Non issue.   Live and let live.  It's not my business who you marry.


----------



## HeyNorm

initforme said:


> The populace doesn't care all that much about who marries who.   Non issue.   Live and let live.  It's not my business who you marry.



Except when asked who they would marry. 

This is a solution desperately in seek of a problem.


----------



## initforme

HeyNorm said:


> Except when asked who they would marry.
> 
> This is a solution desperately in seek of a problem.


Just abolish the word marriage.   Problem solved.


----------



## HeyNorm

initforme said:


> Just abolish the word marriage.   Problem solved.


Why?

The standard that marriage exists for a reason is still valid. 

Look at the qualifications. 

Any two consenting adults, not too closely related can join in this union. 

Now for opposite sex couples those qualifications make incredible sense. 

They make far less sense for same sex couples as the need for the state to stop incest is not applicable. A same sex couple couple cannot breed. 

Now, it might make some sense to include same sex gay couples in those qualifications, because of grooming of children, but with same sex heterosexual couples, even that seems too strict a qualification.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> I'm still waiting for TheProgressivePatriot to quote me "rooting for" HeyNorm
> 
> Great disappearing act, no?
> 
> 
> .


See post 1996      HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts

If you enjoy his posts you are indeed rooting for bigotry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

In todays news....The bigots are relentless









						Old Habits Are Hard to Break: Anti-Equality Leaders’ Dishonest and Alarmist Attacks on the Respect for Marriage Act | Right Wing Watch
					

Commentary A bipartisan majority cleared the way this week for the U.S. Senate to consider legislation that would protect legal recognition for same-sex




					www.rightwingwatch.org
				













						Marco Rubio lashes out against passage of same-sex marriage bill after his attempt to create special religious rights fails
					

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) lashed out with a Bible verse Wednesday morning, after the Senate passed legislation protecting same-sex and interracial marriage, while rejecting his attempt to infuse special religious rights through an amendment that even some Republicans refused to support.The...




					www.rawstory.com


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You reakky should no say stupid shit like "you leftites want to legalize "whatever feels good" no matter who it damages or how it destroys society " if you cant back it up with facts and examples. And clearly you can not


then where is all the weird shit coming from if not from the left?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You reakky should no say stupid shit like "you leftites want to legalize "whatever feels good" no matter who it damages or how it destroys society " if you cant back it up with facts and examples. And clearly you can not



"You reakky should no say stupid shit".




.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 1996      HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts
> 
> If you enjoy his posts you are indeed rooting for bigotry



Actually, what I said was " HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts."  It's very interesting that you see that line and your brain reads "HeyNorm, I'm rooting for bigotry."  It must hurt your brain to actually make it through a day of reading.

Maybe it's an eye condition that I've never heard of.  Have you ever talked to a doctor about this?

I might be able to help you with this strange condition.  Take a look at this line and tell me what it says.  "The sky is blue and the sun is bright today".

Oh, wait!  I know.  Your mommy is actually telling you what it is you're looking at.

Cool.  Got it.


.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> then where is all the weird shit coming from if not from the left?


Cut the crap!! What weird shit? You are still dodging the issue


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cut the crap!! What weird shit? You are still dodging the issue



Like straight guys getting the right to marry guys. 

It don’t get weirder than that!


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

HeyNorm said:


> Like straight guys getting the right to marry guys.
> 
> It don’t get weirder than that!



Conversing with this loser is kind of like a really long, boring game of whack-a-mole.  You have much fortitude.


.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

HeyNorm said:


> Like straight guys getting the right to marry guys.
> 
> It don’t get weirder than that!



  Actually, yes, it does get weirder.

  Have you seen this freak's fantasy about space aliens imposing his idea of a utopia on us?




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Scenario: We are contacted by an alien life form-far more wise and advanced than we- and offered the chance to achieve universal peace and prosperity, if we agree to a few conditions. This is not in the form of a threat. If we decline, they will go on their way and we will be left as we are and they will not give us another chance for 10,000 years. At the same time, if we accept, we will be bound by their conditions for 10,000 years, enough time for us to evolve into a peaceful species. If asked to, they would leave sooner but there would be consequences- much of which will be of our own making-such as when the US left Iraq.
> 
> The conditions:
> 1.All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.
> 
> 2.All weapons of all kind must be destroyed. Militaries will be for use in natural emergencies only.
> 
> 3.Hording of wealth is strictly prohibited. Everyone need not be equal in this respect and there will still be private property, but disparity will be very limited
> 
> 4.Capitalism will be allowed, but business will be strictly regulated to ensure that people are put before profit, and that the environment is protected.
> 
> 5.All forms of discrimination against any group will be strictly prohibited. They don’t have a pill for that, we’ll just have to get over it.
> 
> 6.Necessities of life-food, shelter, medicine and clothing-will be recognized as universal human rights and will not be rationed based on a person’s ability to pay.
> 
> 7.Nations will retain their autonomy, culture and language but be must be organized into a federation of cooperative states who share all natural resources. National leaders will be selected by direct elections in all countries but the Supreme Council of Extra Planetary rulers will have the power to impeach and remove from office, anyone who violates or undermines any of these conditions. Strict term limits will be established and two members of the same family cannot hold high office within 20 years of one another.
> 
> 8.All creatures of the earth and the earth herself will be treated with respect and care. The systematic destruction of the planet and it’s life forms in the name of profit, power or sport will end.
> 
> 9.Capital punishment and most prison terms will be abolished worldwide. Minor offenses will be treated as behavioral health and educational issues with the emphasis on rehabilitation. Serious crimes such as violent offenses and white collar theft will be dealt with as described in # 10 below.
> 
> 10.While these aliens will be inconspicuous in our daily lives-they may even live among us in human form- they will be vigilant, and take action when needed. Anyone not complying with these conditions-or who commits a serious crime- will be banished to a distant war like planet where many live under Spartan conditions and subject to a small wealthy ruling class( which they will not be part of) and the rule is survival of the fittest-in other words, much like earth is now, but much, much worse


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

Bob Blaylock said:


> Actually, yes, it does get weirder.
> 
> Have you seen this freak's fantasy about space aliens imposing his idea of a utopia on us?
> 
> ​​​



Ayep.


.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> Why is it moral to ruin a baker or a photographer because they don't want to participate in a same sex wedding celebration?


Because they are awful, nasty bigots.  


martybegan said:


> Obergfell should have just done what this law does in part, force States to recognize full faith and credit. Even this law doesn't force States to issue SSM licenses.



or the bigot should sit down and shut up.  



martybegan said:


> And the Religious protection of businesses will be decided before this law would ever impact it, because the SC is already taking up those cases.


And we'll just have to find other ways to make the lives of bigots miserable. 



martybegan said:


> If they do it right, they will find contracted services are not PA's in these cases, and the right to free exercise in these situations overrides the right to commerce.


Right, because I've got my obsidian knife all ready once they rule that religion allows me to break the law.  Praise the Plumed Serpent!


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> The problem you have here is logic.
> 
> Almost no one who would lose the right to marry a person of the same sex would have exercised the right in the first place. So almost no one eligible, would feel slighted by the loss. That’s logic.
> 
> Now a far greater number, would feel slighted if they were not allowed to marry an opposite sex individual of a different race.
> 
> I know I have the right to marry another male, but I see no reason to do such an absurd thing, being that I am straight, as does roughly 97% of the population.



More like 90%, but here's the thing... what percentage of the population does it have to be before it becomes wrong?


----------



## JoeB131

Mr. Friscus said:


> It’s gone centrist.. when the radical left ceases to dominate, even equal treatment and moderation seems like extreme conservatism to them.
> 
> Basically, you’re the trust fund baby who no longer gets a red corvette for graduation. It’s so unfair to you, but the rest of us see you as just having been spoiled



Throwing out decades of precedents on issues like Affirmative Action, Abortion and gay rights is not "centrist".


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> More like 90%, but here's the thing... what percentage of the population does it have to be before it becomes wrong?



Possibly closer to 5%, but why quibble. When almost everybody who is eligible to access the “right”, would even think about doing so, I think it’s obvious that this was not done in the best interest of society. Especially when it need not have been handled so frivolously.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Actually, what I said was " HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts."  It's very interesting that you see that line and your brain reads "HeyNorm, I'm rooting for bigotry."  It must hurt your brain to actually make it through a day of reading.
> 
> Maybe it's an eye condition that I've never heard of.  Have you ever talked to a doctor about this?
> 
> I might be able to help you with this strange condition.  Take a look at this line and tell me what it says.  "The sky is blue and the sun is bright today".
> 
> Oh, wait!  I know.  Your mommy is actually telling you what it is you're looking at.
> 
> Cool.  Got it.
> 
> 
> .


HeyNorm, is a shameless bigot who opposes equality for gays and will use their children as pawns to punish them. He was also exposed as a liar who climed that he opposed gay marriage because same sex couples can't have children like others.  He then admitted that was bullshit, and that he is ok with heterosexual couples who cant have children getting married. He is also a coward who hase gone underground rather that explain his reakl reasons for opposing marriage equality.

Then you said that you enjoyed his posts . You enjoy the posts of a bigot and a coward! What does that make you? I got it exactly right.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> HeyNorm, is a shameless bigot



Yeah, I’m not the one calling same sex marriage “gay”. As though most eligible were. 

Bigot.


----------



## HeyNorm

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Actually, what I said was " HeyNorm, I'm really enjoying your posts."  It's very interesting that you see that line and your brain reads "HeyNorm, I'm rooting for bigotry."  It must hurt your brain to actually make it through a day of reading.
> 
> Maybe it's an eye condition that I've never heard of.  Have you ever talked to a doctor about this?
> 
> I might be able to help you with this strange condition.  Take a look at this line and tell me what it says.  "The sky is blue and the sun is bright today".
> 
> Oh, wait!  I know.  Your mommy is actually telling you what it is you're looking at.
> 
> Cool.  Got it.
> 
> 
> .



Watch your mailbox for your special edition HeyNorm fan club kit, complete with back stage passes!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yeah, I’m not the one calling same sex marriage “gay”. As though most eligible were.
> 
> Bigot.


Cut the bullshit, grow a spine and admit the real reason why you oppose gay marriage instead of blowing smoke. There is only one bigot here and it is not me.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Like straight guys getting the right to marry guys.
> 
> It don’t get weirder than that!


Except that they are not doing that. As I recall, uyou called me a bigot for alledgedly wanting to exclude straight people from same sex marriage -which is not true. But now you call it weird shit. There is something seriously wrong with you.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Except that they are not doing that. As I recall, uyou called me a bigot for alledgedly wanting to exclude straight people from same sex marriage -which is not true. But now you call it weird shit. There is something seriously wrong with you.



You think two straight guys marrying is normal?

Okie dokie. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You think two straight guys marrying is normal?
> 
> Okie dokie. 🤦‍♂️


I did not say that it was normal. I said that they should be and are allowed to do it. But you stupidly called me a bigot for calling same sex marriage gay marriage and claiming that I was excluding same sex straight people .

I know  what you're doing. You are desparatly using this shit as a smoke screen to divert attention away from the fact that you were forced to admit your lie about what you opposed gay marriage and now you are avoiding comming clean with your real reason......pure bigotry!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I did not say that it was normal. I said that they should be and are allowed to do it. But you stupidly called me a bigot for calling same sex marriage gay marriage and claiming that I was excluding same sex straight people .
> 
> I know  what you're doing. You are desparatly using this shit as a smoke screen to divert attention away from the fact that you were forced to admit your lie about what you opposed gay marriage and now you are avoiding comming clean with your real reason......pure bigotry!



I’ve put up with enablers long enough. Now women have to compete with grown ass men and have to look at their Johnson’s in their own locker rooms because of of a small group of sniveling pansies.

Bigot.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve put up with enablers long enough. Now women have to compete with grown ass men and have to look at their Johnson’s in their own locker rooms because of of a small group of sniveling pansies.
> 
> Bigot.



Sniveling pansies who were raised by bottomlessly ignorant, narcissistic, arrogant assholes who were willing to sacrifice their children's emotional health for a few SJW brownie points, and in the end created woman-hating sniveling pansies who, unable to compete in the real world, choose to take advantage of their biological gift to enable them to beat women up.

Here!  Take that, bitch.  That's payback for the fact that I got stuck with an evil **** for a mother and a limp-wristed, nutless, useless stoner for a dad.

The left hates women.


.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Possibly closer to 5%, but why quibble. When almost everybody who is eligible to access the “right”, would even think about doing so, I think it’s obvious that this was not done in the best interest of society. Especially when it need not have been handled so frivolously.



I don't think it was handled frivolously at all.  We had a decade of debate on the gay marriage issue, and at the end of the day, all the other side had was "I think it's icky" and "God says it's bad".  

Let's take the other issue that this law protects, interracial marriage.  Only about 7% of Americans are involved in interracial marriages, despite it being legal and "accepted" for over 50 years.  Some of that is racism, but a lot of it is that most people just like to date people who remind them of themselves.  So should we allow a state to ban it because it's just such a small percentage?


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> I don't think it was handled frivolously at all.  We had a decade of debate on the gay marriage issue, and at the end of the day, all the other side had was "I think it's icky" and "God says it's bad".
> 
> Let's take the other issue that this law protects, interracial marriage.  Only about 7% of Americans are involved in interracial marriages, despite it being legal and "accepted" for over 50 years.  Some of that is racism, but a lot of it is that most people just like to date people who remind them of themselves.  So should we allow a state to ban it because it's just such a small percentage?



Classic deflection, but I don’t blame you. 

Same sex marriage makes 100% eligible to marry someone of the same sex, but only roughly 5% of those eligible would feel slighted if the law were taken away. 

Interracial? Again 100% eligible, and a vast majority would feel slighted if that option was taken from them, regardless of their sexuality.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Classic deflection, but I don’t blame you.
> 
> Same sex marriage makes 100% eligible to marry someone of the same sex, but only roughly 5% of those eligible would feel slighted if the law were taken away.
> 
> Interracial? Again 100% eligible, and a vast majority would feel slighted if that option was taken from them, regardless of their sexuality.



I think you are a bit confused on the numbers.  

First, 









						Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71%
					

Seventy-one percent of Americans say they support legal same-sex marriage, a new high in Gallup's trend.




					news.gallup.com
				




71% support same sex marriage.   This is why the Republicans are in such a hurry to make this issue go away.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> I think you are a bit confused on the numbers.
> 
> First,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71%
> 
> 
> Seventy-one percent of Americans say they support legal same-sex marriage, a new high in Gallup's trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.gallup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 71% support same sex marriage.   This is why the Republicans are in such a hurry to make this issue go away.



More deflection, which is expected. Of that 71% in the poll, how many would feel that if the option to marry someone of the same sex was taken from them, the result would have a negative impact on their life?

Let’s do the same polling on interracial, or just about any other right granted citizens. 

Your argument that the denial of same sex marriage would somehow impact the right to marry those of another race just don’t hold water. 

It’s just that simple.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve put up with enablers long enough. Now women have to compete with grown ass men and have to look at their Johnson’s in their own locker rooms because of of a small group of sniveling pansies.
> 
> Bigot.


Holy Shit! Off on another tangent. Anything to avoid the topic of this thread which id GAY MARRIAGE. You're still running from the fact that you were forced to admit your big lie about why to would deny the right of gays to marry. And, you still are too much of a cowardto admit the real reason. You toss that "bigot" word around as though you actually understood what it means. LOOK IN THE MIRROR


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy Shit! Off on another tangent. Anything to avoid the topic of this thread which id GAY MARRIAGE. You're still running from the fact that you were forced to admit your big lie about why to would deny the right of gays to marry. And, you still are too much of a cowardto admit the real reason. You toss that "bigot" word around as though you actually understood what it means. LOOK IN THE MIRROR



Show one place in which I have stated that, even if same sex marriage was repealed, gays could not marry. 

Even before obergfell, and as have demonstrated, gays married and were never arrested for doing so. 

Next


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cut the crap!! What weird shit? You are still dodging the issue


weird shit  =  lgbtq, trannys, pedifiles, illegals, inflation, AGW, senile Joe,  crazy nancy, crying Schumer,  CNN, Antifa, BLM.  
just for starters.

its you who is dodging with your head up your ass.


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> Because they are awful, nasty bigots.
> 
> 
> or the bigot should sit down and shut up.
> 
> 
> And we'll just have to find other ways to make the lives of bigots miserable.
> 
> 
> Right, because I've got my obsidian knife all ready once they rule that religion allows me to break the law.  Praise the Plumed Serpent!



Same tired counterarguments from the same tired JoeBlowJob. 

All stemming from Joe's own bigotry over religion, which is far more toxic than any of the examples we are now seeing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Show one place in which I have stated that, even if same sex marriage was repealed, gays could not marry.
> 
> Even before obergfell, and as have demonstrated, gays married and were never arrested for doing so.
> 
> Next


Once again you are proving yourself to being a liar, a fraud and a bigot. You think that you’re slick....and you are but only because you are slime.

This is discussion has been and still is about the LEGAL ACCESS to same sex, gay marriage. It is about what you said in that regard. Now you are once again showing your cowardice and refusing to own up to it. So you move the goal posts to try to make it about what you *did not say i*nstead of what you did say .

You are not smart enough to gas light me by denying what you said or claiming that you meant something else. For the record, by the time Obergefell was decided gay were able to marry in most states, but if it is overturned many more states that were forced to accept same sex marriage by the lower courts could prohibit it again. In addition, if the majority of congressional Republicans had there way, those states would not have to recognize marriages from other states.

 It does not matter what you said  or did not say . Those are the facts and I am quite sure that you would be ok with all of it. Unless you are talking about something other than legal marriage with this tripe, your post is pointless and duplicitous. If you are talking about something other than legal marriage, it is still  pointless and duplicitous

That fact is, as I have said, you have admitted to being opposed to same sex gay marriage and by your own admission, lied  about the reason for you opposition. Now do I have to shove it all in your face  again?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> weird shit  =  lgbtq, trannys, pedifiles, illegals, inflation, AGW, senile Joe,  crazy nancy, crying Schumer,  CNN, Antifa, BLM.
> just for starters.
> 
> its you who is dodging with your head up your ass.






_Gish Gallop!_


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Once again you are proving yourself to being a liar, a fraud and a bigot. You think that you’re slick....and you are but only because you are slime.
> 
> This is discussion has been and still is about the LEGAL ACCESS to same sex, gay marriage. It is about what you said in that regard. Now you are once again showing your cowardice and refusing to own up to it. So you move the goal posts to try to make it about what you *did not say i*nstead of what you did say .
> 
> You are not smart enough to gas light me by denying what you said or claiming that you meant something else. For the record, by the time Obergefell was decided gay were able to marry in most states, but if it is overturned many more states that were forced to accept same sex marriage by the lower courts could prohibit it again. In addition, if the majority of congressional Republicans had there way, those states would not have to recognize marriages from other states.
> 
> It does not matter what you said  or did not say . Those are the facts and I am quite sure that you would be ok with all of it. Unless you are talking about something other than legal marriage with this tripe, your post is pointless and duplicitous. If you are talking about something other than legal marriage, it is still  pointless and duplicitous
> 
> That fact is, as I have said, you have admitted to being opposed to same sex gay marriage and by your own admission, lied  about the reason for you opposition. Now do I have to shove it all in your face  again?




You sure seem hot to trot for promoting the institution of Gay Marriage for someone who claims to be normative.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> its a biological rationale,  if you want to make perversion legal where does it end?   what will you want to legalize next, beastiality?


If you can't distinguish between con-senting adult humans and animals..............you need to stay away from animals.


----------



## bodecea

Bob Blaylock said:


> Pedophilia is clearly on their near agenda.
> 
> Seventy-five-year-old men demanding to marry three-year-old boys.


Hetero males are more the danger of being pedophiles than any other demographic.


----------



## bodecea

Polishprince said:


> You sure seem hot to trot for promoting the institution of Gay Marriage for someone who claims to be normative.


I can understand you not getting that.    Just like you don't get why men would support women's rights...or white people would support equal rights for minorities.


----------



## bodecea

Redfish said:


> weird shit  =  lgbtq, trannys, pedifiles, illegals, inflation, AGW, senile Joe,  crazy nancy, crying Schumer,  CNN, Antifa, BLM.
> just for starters.
> 
> its you who is dodging with your head up your ass.


Do you have Tourettes?


----------



## Dagosa

Penelope said:


> Yes , I sure they are going to ban BC pills.


It seems logical to conservatives. They’re all neutered anyway.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Once again you are proving yourself to being a liar, a fraud and a bigot. You think that you’re slick....and you are but only because you are slime.
> 
> This is discussion has been and still is about the LEGAL ACCESS to same sex, gay marriage. It is about what you said in that regard. Now you are once again showing your cowardice and refusing to own up to it. So you move the goal posts to try to make it about what you *did not say i*nstead of what you did say .
> 
> You are not smart enough to gas light me by denying what you said or claiming that you meant something else. For the record, by the time Obergefell was decided gay were able to marry in most states, but if it is overturned many more states that were forced to accept same sex marriage by the lower courts could prohibit it again. In addition, if the majority of congressional Republicans had there way, those states would not have to recognize marriages from other states.
> 
> It does not matter what you said  or did not say . Those are the facts and I am quite sure that you would be ok with all of it. Unless you are talking about something other than legal marriage with this tripe, your post is pointless and duplicitous. If you are talking about something other than legal marriage, it is still  pointless and duplicitous
> 
> That fact is, as I have said, you have admitted to being opposed to same sex gay marriage and by your own admission, lied  about the reason for you opposition. Now do I have to shove it all in your face  again?



Oh, don’t get me wrong. I don’t only oppose gay same sex marriage, I oppose all straight same sex marriage as well. 

For the record, I oppose all marriage that would allow those closely related as well for obvious reasons. But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear. And since it is your wish that all married couples be treated equally?

Well Houston, we have a problem. 

Now go and at least try to have a nice day.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> You sure seem hot to trot for promoting the institution of Gay Marriage for someone who claims to be normative.


And the freedom riders were not black


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Why is it moral to ruin a baker or a photographer because they don't want to participate in a same sex wedding celebration?



So no answer on why its evil to protect gay marriage.

If ever y'all are curious why you badly lost the gay marriage debate....you just demonstrated why. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, don’t get me wrong. I don’t only oppose gay same sex marriage, I oppose all straight same sex marriage as well.


How fucked in the head are you? A while back, you called me a bigot for alledgedly wanting to exclude straight same sex people who want to marry.( if in fact there are any) You can't seem to keep your bizarre bovine excrement straight.

Now that we have clearly established the fact that you oppose same sex marriage, isnt it time that you explaned why?


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> So no answer on why its evil to protect gay marriage.
> 
> If ever y'all are curious why you badly lost the gay marriage debate....you just demonstrated why. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic.



When did I ever say it was evil?

The issue with this law is it can be read by some as extending to individuals as opposed to just government, as the supporters propose. It provides protections for churches and clergy, but not to individual person's rights to free exercise. 

The concern is that it would make federal the current overuse of PA laws to punish people for their own free exercise right use.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> When did I ever say it was evil?
> 
> The issue with this law is it can be read by some as extending to individuals as opposed to just government, as the supporters propose. It provides protections for churches and clergy, but not to individual person's rights to free exercise.
> 
> The concern is that it would make federal the current overuse of PA laws to punish people for their own free exercise right use.



When did I say you did? 

You did quote me addressing the claim that defending gay marriage was 'evil'......and then tried to change the topic.

Demonstrating my point elegantly. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic. Which is why y'all lost the gay marriage debate.


----------



## Polishprince

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And the freedom riders were not black




Just a tip, Black people don't like to be called Homosexuals.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> When did I say you did?
> 
> You did quote me addressing the claim that defending gay marriage was 'evil'......and then tried to change the topic.
> 
> Demonstrating my point elegantly. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic. Which is why y'all lost the gay marriage debate.



The person you quoted said democrats are evil. 

I asked why is it moral to make a baker decide between their livelyhood and one transaction that violates THEIR moral code.

This all springs from States recognizing SSM as equal to traditional marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> For the record, I oppose all marriage that would allow those closely related as well for obvious reasons. But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear. And since it is your wish that all married couples be treated equally?


".......But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear"? Really, so for reasons that you can't articulate, you would deprive that group of all of the benefits and rights of marriage? You would punish their children by depriving them of the chance to have the security of two legal parents. Just like that. You sure are a fuzzy thinking selfish prick. At least your inching towards some degree of honesty


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How fucked in the head are you? A while back, you called me a bigot for alledgedly wanting to exclude straight same sex. You can't seem to keep your bizarre bovine excrement straight.
> 
> Now that we have clearly established the fact that you oppose same sex marriage, isnt it time that you explaned why?



I think I’ve expressed several very sound and well thought out reasons, but my latest wasn’t included in your quote. Why?

Again, try to have a nice day.


----------



## Skylar

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.



As to the why this law coedifying same sex marriage protdctions would be useful....is this:

In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices *“should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell”* — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.









						Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings
					

Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.




					www.politico.com


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> The person you quoted said democrats are evil.
> 
> I asked why is it moral to make a baker decide between their livelyhood and one transaction that violates THEIR moral code.
> 
> This all springs from States recognizing SSM as equal to traditional marriage.



He claimed democrats were evil.....after they voted for codifying legal protections for same sex marriage.

To which I asked 'Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?'

A simple question you couldn't answer.....and fled from like it was on fire, desperately trying to change the topic.

Demonstrating my point elegantly. Thank you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Polishprince said:


> Just a tip, Black people don't like to be called Homosexuals.


No one does Princess.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> As to the why this law coedifying same sex marriage protdctions would be useful....is this:
> 
> In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices *“should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell”* — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Thomas: SCOTUS ‘should reconsider’ contraception, same-sex marriage rulings
> 
> 
> Democrats warned that the court would seek to undo other constitutional rights if it overturned Roe v. Wade, as it did on Friday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com



The issue is the law goes beyond that, and only protects Clergy, Churches, and Religious organizations, not normal people exercising their 1st amendment rights.

If it just made State governments recognize SSM's issued by other States, I would be fine with it, that's what I thought Obergfell should do.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> He claimed democrats were evil.....after they voted for codifying legal protections for same sex marriage.
> 
> To which I asked 'Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?'
> 
> A simple question you couldn't answer.....and fled from like it was on fire, desperately trying to change the topic.
> 
> Demonstrating my point elegantly. Thank you.



I think he claims Dems are evil in general. 

The "evil" is in the wording that federalizes possibly forcing State level anti-discrimination via PA laws in situations where it isn't warranted, where it is not a case of economics or politics, but simply butthurt.

That's my answer. 

Now answer my question.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> The issue is the law goes beyond that, and only protects Clergy, Churches, and Religious organizations, not normal people exercising their 1st amendment rights.
> 
> If it just made State governments recognize SSM's issued by other States, I would be fine with it, that's what I thought Obergfell should do.




Again, why would it be evil to defend same sex marriage? Its clearly being targeted by conservatives....despite their spectacular failure to demonstrate any coherent why.

Which is again, why they lost the gay marriage debate. The rest of us couldn't think of a coherent reason to outlaw same sex marriage either.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I think I’ve expressed several very sound and well thought out reasons, but my latest wasn’t included in your quote. Why?
> 
> Again, try to have a nice day.


Which was what? If there was anything worth responding to I must have missed it, but I don't miss much

I always havea nice day. In fact smacking you down makes my day


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> I think he claims Dems are evil in general.
> 
> The "evil" is in the wording that federalizes possibly forcing State level anti-discrimination via PA laws in situations where it isn't warranted, where it is not a case of economics or politics, but simply butthurt.
> 
> That's my answer.
> 
> Now answer my question.



If you ignore the entire context of his post, sure. 

But why would a rational person ever do this.....unless they were trying to avoid the topic of the thread?

Keep running. You demonstrate my point every time you flee from my cartoon simple question:

'Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?'


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Again, why would it be evil to defend same sex marriage? Its clearly being targeted by conservatives....despite their spectacular failure to demonstrate any coherent why.
> 
> Which is again, why they lost the gay marriage debate. The rest of us couldn't think of a coherent reason to outlaw same sex marriage either.



It's against the morality of people of most of the mainline religions. He can call it evil. I don't. 

Now tell me why it's MORAL to ruin a baker over not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a SSM celebration.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ".......But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear"? Really, so for reasons that you can't articulate, you would deprive that group of all of the benefits and rights of marriage? You would punish their children by depriving them of the chance to have the security of two legal parents. Just like that. You sure are a fuzzy thinking selfish prick. At least your inching towards some degree of honesty



I can’t articulate why opposite sex couples should not be married if they are to closely related?

I’ve done it several times. But ok, since you need it restated. 

Opposite sex couples can procreate. If they are two closely related, they could have offspring with a defective bloodline that can cause harm to the offspring, and to offspring of following generations. 

That is not a concern of same sex couples, no matter the sexuality of the partners. 

If I have to explain why same sex couples would not have this as a concern, well, then I think you should go find a hobby.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> It's against the morality of people of most of the mainline religions. He can call it evil. I don't.
> 
> Now tell me why it's MORAL to ruin a baker over not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a SSM celebration.



'Cuz Jesus said so' is hardly a good reason to deny someone their rights.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> If you ignore the entire context of his post, sure.
> 
> But why would a rational person ever do this.....unless they were trying to avoid the topic of the thread?
> 
> Keep running. You demonstrate my point every time you flee from my cartoon simple question:
> 
> 'Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?'



How am I "running" if I respond to every one of your posts?

Again, why is it moral to ruin a baker over them not wanting to provide a cake for an event celebrating something they find sinful?


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> 'Cuz Jesus said so' is hardly a good reason to deny someone their rights.



What rights?

Who has the right to force someone else to perform labor they don't want to?

People have the right to free exercise. They also have the right to commerce, but neither is absolute.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> How am I "running" if I respond to every one of your posts?
> 
> Again, why is it moral to ruin a baker over them not wanting to provide a cake for an event celebrating something they find sinful?



You kept fleeing from the question I posed to the OP and the thread about the topic.

*Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?*

And demonstrated my point: the reason that your ilk lost the gay marriage debate is because when pressed for why gay marriage is wrong, you change the topic.

You finally, finally addressed the issue head on with your 'Cuz Jesus said so' argument. Which is a piss poor reason to deny someone their rights.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> What rights?
> 
> Who has the right to force someone else to perform labor they don't want to?
> 
> People have the right to free exercise. They also have the right to commerce, but neither is absolute.



The right to marry.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> You kept fleeing from the question I posed to the OP and the thread about the topic.
> 
> And demonstrated my point: the reason that your ilk lost the gay marriage debate is because when pressed for why gay marriage is wrong, you change the topic.
> 
> You finally, finally addressed the issue head on with your 'Cuz Jesus said so' argument. Which is a piss poor reason to deny someone their rights.



I answered it, you just don't like or comprehend the answer. On you, not me. 

It's wrong to some people. To me the only wrong thing was forcing States to issue SSM licenses instead of just making them recognize ones issued by other States. 

The other wrong thing is using PA laws on non PA's, as well as treating limited circumstances of free exercise the same as systemic attempts at denying someone commerce.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> The right to marry.



They can marry, they just can't have a wedding cake from this one baker. or photographs by this one photographer.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> I answered it, you just don't like or comprehend the answer. On you, not me.
> 
> It's wrong to some people. To me the only wrong thing was forcing States to issue SSM licenses instead of just making them recognize ones issued by other States.
> 
> The other wrong thing is using PA laws on non PA's, as well as treating limited circumstances of free exercise the same as systemic attempts at denying someone commerce.



You finally did try....with your 'Cuz Jesus said so' claims. But its a piss poor argument for denying someone their rights.

Which again, is why your ilk lost.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> They can marry, they just can't have a wedding cake from this one baker. or photographs by this one photographer.



They can now that the right to same sex marriage has been codified into both law and supreme court precedent.

That is a right conservatives would strip from them if they could. And are actively trying to.

Thus, the bill the OP railed against.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> You finally did try....with your 'Cuz Jesus said so' claims. But its a piss poor argument for denying someone their rights.
> 
> Which again, is why your ilk lost.



Free exercise gives people the right to say "because Jesus said so"

Again, what right? Are you saying everyone has a right to a specific wedding cake even if the person doesn't want to provide it?


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Free exercise gives people the right to say "because Jesus said so"
> 
> Again, what right? Are you saying everyone has a right to a specific wedding cake even if the person doesn't want to provide it?




But stripping someone of the right to marry 'cuz Jesus said so' isn't a free exercise of rights.

Nor is it 'evil' to defend the right to marry.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> They can now that the right to same sex marriage has been codified into both law and supreme court precedent.
> 
> That is a right conservatives would strip from them if they could. And are actively trying to.
> 
> Thus, the bill the OP railed against.



All removing Obergfell would do is stop States from being forced to issue SSM licenses. 

And to me Obergfell should still have forced States to accept SSM's from States that issue them already under full faith and credit.

The law just passed doesn't force States to issue SSM's if Obergfell is overturned. 

My issue is the wording of the law goes past government directives, and may proceed to directing people without giving them free exercise protections. the free exercise protections in the bill are limited to clergy, churches, and religious organizations, and the 1st amendment was never designed to be limited to just those items.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I can’t articulate why opposite sex couples should not be married if they are to closely related?


It was not clear that you were talking about closly related opposite sex couples. You by your own admission can't articulate why gay couples can't marry


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> But stripping someone of the right to marry 'cuz Jesus said so' isn't a free exercise of rights.
> 
> Nor is it 'evil' to defend the right to marry.



You keep arguing the wrong point, and refuse to debate the point I am trying to make. Either you are stupid, or know you will sound like a controlling SJW cuck if you try to make your point. 


So Churches should be forced to provide same sex ceremonies?


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> All removing Obergfell would do is stop States from being forced to issue SSM licenses.
> 
> And to me Obergfell should still have forced States to accept SSM's from States that issue them already under full faith and credit.
> 
> The law just passed doesn't force States to issue SSM's if Obergfell is overturned.
> 
> My issue is the wording of the law goes past government directives, and may proceed to directing people without giving them free exercise protections. the free exercise protections in the bill are limited to clergy, churches, and religious organizations, and the 1st amendment was never designed to be limited to just those items.



No, removing Obergefell would eliminate the right to marry for same sex couples in dozens of conservative states. Something conservatives are very eager to do.

'cuz Jesus said so'.

Thus, the federal law to protect same sex marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Opposite sex couples can procreate. If they are two closely related, they could have offspring with a defective bloodline that can cause harm to the offspring, and to offspring of following generations.


No shit! There are other reasons as well, if you want to get into some of the social reasons for marriage such as creating new families, but this is not the place


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> You keep arguing the wrong point, and refuse to debate the point I am trying to make. Either you are stupid, or know you will sound like a controlling SJW cuck if you try to make your point.
> 
> 
> So Churches should be forced to provide same sex ceremonies?



The wrong point, says you. I prefer my judgment to yours on issue of law, rights and freedom on issues of same sex marriage, thank you.

As your arguments always devolve into you insisting that you are the supreme legal authority.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> No, removing Obergefell would eliminate the right to marry for same sex couples in dozens of conservative states. Something conservatives are very eager to do.
> 
> 'cuz Jesus said so'.
> 
> Thus, the federal law to protect same sex marriage.



To marry, but not be married. Full faith and credit would allow them to stay married if they got hitched outside the State and came back. 

The federal law actually doesn't require States to ISSUE anything, just recognize licenses. 

Have you read the law and the parts I am questioning?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> That is not a concern of same sex couples, no matter the sexuality of the partners.
> 
> If I have to explain why same sex couples would not have this as a concern, well, then I think you should go find a hobby.



Again, No shit, so what? 

And what exactly does that have to do with your fuzzy reasons for not allowing gay people to marry? This is just another one of your bizarre curve balls intended to obfuscate the issue


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> The wrong point, says you. I prefer my judgment to yours on issue of law, rights and freedom on issues of same sex marriage, thank you.
> 
> As your arguments always devolve into you insisting that you are the supreme legal authority.



And your responses always end up arguing that my opinion is an opinion, something I have never claimed otherwise.

You don't argue on the merits because you probably aren't smart enough to, and you know it.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> To marry, but not be married. Full faith and credit would allow them to stay married if they got hitched outside the State and came back.
> 
> The federal law actually doesn't require States to ISSUE anything, just recognize licenses.
> 
> Have you read the law and the parts I am questioning?



The legal right to marry is what Obergefell protects. And the federal law protects.


----------



## bodecea

excalibur said:


> No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.


Not now they aren't.


----------



## Skylar

bodecea said:


> Not now they aren't.



Fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights are the basis of interracial marriage rights as much as they are same sex marriage rights, or the right to contraception, or the right to sex between consenting adults.

"Trust us, we wouldn't try to overturn precedent and settled law' schtick demands a healthy skepticism from a public who watched supreme court nominees straight up lie under oath on this exact topic.

Especially when republicans are actively trying to dismantle fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights as part of their campaign to strip federal rights from citizens to turn them into crimes.

As marty demonstrated for us...'cuz Jesus said so'.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It was not clear that you were talking about closly related opposite sex couples. You by your own admission can't articulate why gay couples can't marry



I made no distinction based on the sexuality of the same sex couples. Where did that come from. 

Many opposite sex couples have gay members of the couples. 

Whacko man!


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> The legal right to marry is what Obergefell protects. And the federal law protects.



The federal law only says States have to recognize it, not issue it. Read the law.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights are the basis of interracial marriage rights as much as they are same sex marriage rights, or the right to contraception, or the right to sex between consenting adults.
> 
> "Trust us, we wouldn't try to overturn precedent and settled law' schtick demands a healthy skepticism from a public who watched supreme court nominees straight up lie under oath on this exact topic.
> 
> Especially when republicans are actively trying to dismantle fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights as part of their campaign to strip federal rights from citizens to turn them into crimes.
> 
> As marty demonstrated for us...'cuz Jesus said so'.



And you are arguing "because X says so"

Why is one invalid and the other not to be questioned?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Again, No shit, so what?
> 
> And what exactly does that have to do with your fuzzy reasons for not allowing gay people to marry? This is just another one of your bizarre curve balls intended to obfuscate the issue



How am I obfuscating? No matter what sexuality the members of a same sex couple, it is impossible for them to breed together to create offspring. 

Oh!, maybe you thought they could? Is that your confusion?


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> And you are arguing "because X says so"
> 
> Why is one invalid and the other not to be questioned?



I'm arguing that 'cuz Jesus said so' is a poor reason to strip people of the right to marry.

So poor in fact, that it collapsed under scrutiny in the cultural debate over gay marriage, with your ilk losing in their attempt to prevent same sex couples from exercising the right to same sex marriage.

So poor, in fact......that they usually flee from even a discussion on why gay marriage is wrong or shouldn't be protected. As you did for about a page and a half before your 'cuz Jesus said so' argument.


----------



## HeyNorm

martybegan said:


> When did I ever say it was evil?
> 
> The issue with this law is it can be read by some as extending to individuals as opposed to just government, as the supporters propose. It provides protections for churches and clergy, but not to individual person's rights to free exercise.
> 
> The concern is that it would make federal the current overuse of PA laws to punish people for their own free exercise right use.



I have a feeling that the baker would be opposed to supplying a cake for a straight same sex marriage as well. So where’s the discrimination based on sexuality in the first place?

Oh, right, gays think the right extending the right to marry someone of their own sex only applies to them.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> I'm arguing that 'cuz Jesus said so' is a poor reason to strip people of the right to marry.
> 
> So poor in fact, that it collapsed under scrutiny in the cultural debate over gay marriage, with your ilk losing in their attempt to prevent same sex couples from exercising the right to same sex marriage.
> 
> So poor, in fact......that they usually flee from even a discussion on why gay marriage is wrong or shouldn't be protected. As you did for about a page and a half before your 'cuz Jesus said so' argument.



Due to a shit SC decision in Obergfell, based on the same flawed logic in Roe. 

Again, are you for forcing Churches to officiate and hose Same Sex Weddings?

I am not against SSM, I am against using the courts to force it instead of letting Legislatures change marriage laws.

It's too new of a concept to be lumped in with interracial marriage, which is what Obergfell tried to do.


----------



## martybegan

HeyNorm said:


> I have a feeling that the baker would be opposed to supplying a cake for a straight same sex marriage as well. So where’s the discrimination based on sexuality in the first place?
> 
> Oh, right, gays think the right extending the right to marry someone of their own sex only applies to them.



The baker in the largest of these cases doesn't even make Halloween cakes because of his Religious beliefs.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I made no distinction based on the sexuality of the same sex couples. Where did that come from.
> 
> Many opposite sex couples have gay members of the couples.
> 
> Whacko man!


You have all sorts of couples. Some people are bi. Some are gay but may not be out. The issure is, should SAME SEX COUPLES be allowed to legally marry?. If not why not.  Just try to deal with that


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> How am I obfuscating? No matter what sexuality the members of a same sex couple, it is impossible for them to breed together to create offspring.
> 
> Oh!, maybe you thought they could? Is that your confusion?


Oh we are back to that.  Good grief. Some they can't "breed " together. I did not think that they could smart ass. But what does that have to do with marriage, if anything ?

You never did answer this: If not allowing marriage for same sex couples on the basis of their inability to"breed" (to use your crude term) how do you justify allowing opposite sex coupke who can't "breed" to marry. 

Lets so just how full of shit you are.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have all sorts of couples. Some people are bi. Some are gay but may not be out. Is issure is, should SAME SEX COUPLES be allowed to legally marry?. If not why no.  Just try to deal with that



Then why are the rules to marry based on only those of the opposite sex couple? Maybe this similarly situated argument was silly in the first place. 

Now go out and have a great day!


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Due to a shit SC decision in Obergfell, based on the same flawed logic in Roe.



Oh, the conservative intent to strip our citizens of a myriad of rights and turn them into crimes is well telegraphed.

Given the power, conservatives would re-criminalize homosexuality, strip gay couple of the right to marry, strip Americans of the right to contraception, strip Americans of the right to privacy, and eliminate prohibitions on interracial marriage bans.

To start.

Thus the push back like this federal law. It won't be the last push back.

'Cuz Jesus said so' is a garbage argument for stripping people of their rights. As 2022 demonstrated, the electorate isn't fond of conservatives attempting to codify their religion into our laws.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Once again you are proving yourself to being a liar, a fraud and a bigot. You think that you’re slick....and you are but only because you are slime.
> 
> This is discussion has been and still is about the LEGAL ACCESS to same sex, gay marriage. It is about what you said in that regard. Now you are once again showing your cowardice and refusing to own up to it. So you move the goal posts to try to make it about what you *did not say i*nstead of what you did say .
> 
> You are not smart enough to gas light me by denying what you said or claiming that you meant something else. For the record, by the time Obergefell was decided gay were able to marry in most states, but if it is overturned many more states that were forced to accept same sex marriage by the lower courts could prohibit it again. In addition, if the majority of congressional Republicans had there way, those states would not have to recognize marriages from other states.
> 
> It does not matter what you said  or did not say . Those are the facts and I am quite sure that you would be ok with all of it. Unless you are talking about something other than legal marriage with this tripe, your post is pointless and duplicitous. If you are talking about something other than legal marriage, it is still  pointless and duplicitous
> 
> That fact is, as I have said, you have admitted to being opposed to same sex gay marriage and by your own admission, lied  about the reason for you opposition. Now do I have to shove it all in your face  again?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> Hetero males are more the danger of being pedophiles than any other demographic.



  Faggots make up less than 4% of the population, but account for almost half of all childfuckers.

  Little boys are sexually abused almost as often as little boys.

  It sure as Hell is not hetero males who molest boys.  By definition, anyone who is hetero is only sexually interested in the opposite sex.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Then why are the rules to marry based on only those of the opposite sex couple? Maybe this similarly situated argument was silly in the first place.
> 
> Now go out and have a great day!


The rules are not based on opposite sex couples. Gender has been taken out of the equation. Before legalization of same sex marriage, gender was used as an arbitrary factor. It was not mentioned in law. It was just assumed that marriage was opposite sex couples. States started to expressly prohibit it when gays started to demand equality. Now they have it


----------



## HeyNorm

martybegan said:


> The baker in the largest of these cases doesn't even make Halloween cakes because of his Religious beliefs.



Well, I would think if the baker would agree, and I see no reason he wouldn’t, to supply cake to a couple that was made up of a lesbian and a gay man, then his problem is solved. right?

His refusal to supply cake to same sex couples, regardless of sexuality, but agrees to supply cake to an opposite sex gay couple would comply with discrimination laws, PLUS he would be able to comply with biblical teaching as they only care if the couple are opposite sex. 

Damn, that was easy.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Oh, the conservative intent to strip our citizens of a myriad of rights and turn them into crimes is well telegraphed.
> 
> Given the power, conservatives would re-criminalize homosexuality, strip gay couple of the right to marry, strip Americans of the right to contraception, strip Americans of the right to privacy, and eliminate prohibitions on interracial marriage bans.
> 
> Thus the push back like this federal law. It won't be the last push back.
> 
> 'Cuz Jesus said so' is a garbage argument for stripping people of their rights. As 2022 demonstrated, the electorate isn't fond of conservatives attempting to codify their religion into our laws.



Meanwhile RKBA isn't a right at all, right? Even though it's explicit. 

No, they would not.  Most of them just don't want their kids being told women can have penises. 


well then "fuck jezus said so" is just as bad of a reason to strip someone of their rights.


----------



## martybegan

HeyNorm said:


> Well, I would think if the baker would agree, and I see no reason he wouldn’t, to supply cake to a couple that was made up of a lesbian and a gay man, then his problem is solved. right?
> 
> His refusal to supply cake to same sex couples, regardless of sexuality, but agrees to supply cake to an opposite sex gay couple would comply with discrimination laws, PLUS he would be able to comply with biblical teaching as they only care if the couple are opposite sex.
> 
> Damn, that was easy.



We shouldn't have to do such mental acrobatics and just tell the couple to go to another baker.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The rules are not based on opposite sex couples. Gender has been taken out of the equation. Before legalization of same sex marriage, gender was used as an arbitrary factor. It was not mentioned in law. It was just assumed that marriage was opposite sex couples. States started to expressly prohibit it when gays started to demand equality. Now they have it



Huh, then why the qualification as to “not closely related”?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

bodecea said:


> I can understand you not getting that.    Just like you don't get why men would support women's rights...or white people would support equal rights for minorities.



…or non-pedophiles support the rights of pedophiles to fuck children?


----------



## HeyNorm

martybegan said:


> We shouldn't have to do such mental acrobatics and just tell the couple to go to another baker.



Absolutely no acrobatics required. He just doesn’t supply cakes to same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality. 

Seems a win/win to me. It can’t be discrimination when you exclude 100% of those eligible.


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Meanwhile RKBA isn't a right at all, right? Even though it's explicit.
> 
> No, they would not.  Most of them just don't want their kids being told women can have penises.
> 
> 
> well then "fuck jezus said so" is just as bad of a reason to strip someone of their rights.



Meanwhile, conservatives are eager to strip Americans of their rights. The right to privacy. The right to equal protection under the law. The right to same sex marriage. The right to not have their bedroom activities between consenting adults regulated by the State. The right to marry someone of a different 'race'. The right to contraception.

Just to start.

All to impose their extreme religious ideology on an unwilling public.

No thank you. You're going to get push back as you try and strip people of their rights


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> Meanwhile, conservatives are eager to strip Americans of their rights. The right to privacy. The right to equal protection under the law. The right to same sex marriage. The right to not have their bedroom activities between consenting adults regulated by the State. The right to marry someone of a different 'race'. The right to contraception.
> 
> All to impose their extreme religious ideology on an unwilling public.
> 
> No thank you.



No, it was the gay argument that wanted government intrusion into the bedroom. Remember the “we are similarly situated because some opposite sex couples can’t procreate” crap?

🤦‍♂️


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Meanwhile, conservatives are eager to strip Americans of their rights. The right to privacy. The right to equal protection under the law. The right to same sex marriage. The right to not have their bedroom activities between consenting adults regulated by the State. The right to marry someone of a different 'race'. The right to contraception.
> 
> Just to start.
> 
> All to impose their extreme religious ideology on an unwilling public.
> 
> No thank you. You're going to get push back as you try and strip people of their rights



Where is the right to privacy in the Constitution?

All of the others are boogeymen. 

You want to strip Americans of free exercise rights. 

The only ideology being pushed these days is SJW woke bullshit, like women can have penises.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> No, it was the gay argument that wanted government intrusion into the bedroom. Remember the “we are similarly situated because some opposite sex couples can’t procreate” crap?
> 
> 🤦‍♂️



It was not.

When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving in Virginia....they did so in an attempt to catch them in another criminal act: interracial sex. Had they caught Richard and Mildred in the act of marital relations *in their own bedrooom*, they would have been charged with even more serious crimes.

These are the protections that consevatives are eager to strip from Americans, so your bedroom activity between consenting adults can be regulated by the state.

*Even allowing the police to raid your house in the middle of the night to try and arrest you for consensual sex with your spouse.*

The conservative mindset is a horror of authoritarianism.

As for 'procreation' as an argument against gay marriage, no state requires children or the capacity to produce them as a pre-requisite to marry.

Why then would we invent an imaginary, non-existent standard that no one is held to......to prevent same sex couples from marrying?


----------



## Skylar

martybegan said:


> Where is the right to privacy in the Constitution?
> 
> All of the others are boogeymen.
> 
> You want to strip Americans of free exercise rights.
> 
> The only ideology being pushed these days is SJW woke bullshit, like women can have penises.



Now we're just discussing why I'm right in my assertion that conservatives are trying to strip Americans of their rights and turn them into crimes.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> It was not.
> 
> When the police raided the home of Richard and Mildred Loving in Virginia....they did so in an attempt to catch them in another criminal act: interracial sex. Had they caught Richard and Mildred in the act of marital relations *in their own bedrooom*, they would have been charged with even more serious crimes.
> 
> These are the protections that consevatives are eager to strip from Americans, so your bedroom activity between consenting adults can be regulated by the state.
> 
> *Even allowing the police to raid your house in the middle of the night to try and arrest you for consensual sex with your spouse.*
> 
> The conservative mindset is a horror of authoritarianism.
> 
> As for 'procreation' as an argument against gay marriage, no state requires children or the capacity to produce them as a pre-requisite to marry.
> 
> Why then would we invent an imaginary, non-existent standard that no one is held to......to prevent same sex couples from marrying?



Loving is not an issue. Interracial marriage is not an issue. Well it is, but only to gay folks, which are roughly 3% of the population, so no real threat. 

The requirements for marriage are that the two cannot be closely related and that they must be old enough to meet consent concerns. 

So, why then must they not be too closely related?

Go ahead.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> Now we're just discussing why I'm right in my assertion that conservatives are trying to strip Americans of their rights and turn them into crimes.



You realize that most Americans wouldn’t really care if they lose the right to marry a member of their same sex.

You do realize the right to marry same sex is not based on sexuality, right? And few straight people would EVER want to partake of it.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> You realize that most Americans wouldn’t really care if they lose the right to marry a member of their same sex.
> 
> You do realize the right to marry same sex is not based on sexuality, right? And few straight people would EVER want to partake of it.



Actually, support for same sex marriage is quite strong.

Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71%
​


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Huh, then why the qualification as to “not closely related”?


WTF! You answered that question yourself!  Do you think that it is at all possible fro you to deal with the topic of legal same sex marriage and stop throwing all of this shit at the wall hoping to distract. I am not going to forget what I asked:

"If not allowing marriage for same sex couples on the basis of their inability to"breed" (to use your crude term) how do you justify allowing opposite sex coupke who can't "breed" to marry."

Did you forget that you finally admitted that you would let such opposite sex couples to marry, which exposed your big lie about the "breeding" requirement that only exists in your mind?  But now we have come full circle. I will hold your feet to the fire until you explain how same sex couples who cany"breed" are different that opposite sex couples who "can't  breed"


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> Actually, support for same sex marriage is quite strong.
> 
> Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71%​​​



I never mentioned support for. What I did say was most people, afforded the “right” to marry the same sex, could care less if that right was removed from them. And that’s 97% of the total population. 

In comparison, I would expect the vast majority, regardless of sexuality, appreciate that they have the right to marry outside their race.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> WTF! You answered that question yourself!  Do you think that it is at all possible fro you to deal with the topic of legal same sex marriage and stop throwing all of this shit at the wall hoping to distract. I am not going to forget what I asked:
> 
> "If not allowing marriage for same sex couples on the basis of their inability to"breed" (to use your crude term) how do you justify allowing opposite sex coupke who can't "breed" to marry."
> 
> Did you forget that you finally admitted that you would let such opposite sex couples to marry, which exposed your big lie about the "breeding" requirement that only exists in your mind?  But now we have come full circle. I will hold your feet to the fire until you explain how same sex couples who cany"breed" are different that opposite sex couples who "can't  breed"



How do I justify it? They are a part of the specific demographic group. That’s kind of clear. 

Some within that group suffer from a reproductive disability. Are you saying same sex couples can’t procreate because of a reproductive disability?


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> I never mentioned support for. What I did say was most people, afforded the “right” to marry the same sex, could care less if that right was removed from them. And that’s 97% of the total population.
> 
> In comparison, I would expect the vast majority, regardless of sexuality, appreciate that they have the right to marry outside their race.



As the poll demonstrates elegantly, plenty would object if the right were stripped from everyone. Including same sex couples.

Conservatives are on the losing side of this issue because they can't come up with a credible reason to justify stripping gays and lesbians of the right to marry someone of the same sex.

And of course, interracial marriage is *one of many, many rights conservatives are determined to strip from Americans.* Conservatives want to eliminate the right to privacy, the right have relations in their own bedroom with any consenting adult they wish, the right to contraception.

And that's just to start.

And then there's the snitch state that conservatives are trying to establish, putting bounties on speech or abortions.....encouraging people to rat out their friends, family, even teachers for a heavy reward. A policy that is hugely popular among conservatives, with more and more conservative states pitching the policy to offer bounties for you *to turn on your own family.*

This is the conservative vision of the future. And it is an authoritarian nightmare.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> As the poll demonstrates elegantly, plenty would object if the right were stripped from everyone. Including same sex couples.
> 
> Conservatives are on the losing side of this issue because they can't come up with a credible reason to justify stripping gays and lesbians of the right to marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> And of course, interracial marriage is *one of many, many rights conservatives are determined to strip from Americans.* Conservatives want to eliminate the right to privacy, the right have relations in their own bedroom with any consenting adult they wish, the right to contraception.
> 
> And that's just to start.
> 
> And then there's the snitch state that conservatives are trying to establish, putting bounties on speech or abortions.....encouraging people to rat out their friends, family, even teachers for a heavy reward. A policy that is hugely popular among conservatives, with more and more conservative states pitching the policy to offer bounties for you *to turn on your own family.*
> 
> This is the conservative vision of the future. And it is an authoritarian nightmare.



Oh, I never argued about the poll, except that statewide votes on the subject, prior to obergfell, had a much different result. I think even California voted it down twice. 

What I did say, unlike nearly any other “right” granted by our government, the vast, vast majority would have zero problem with having the right to marry someone of their own sex stripped away from them.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, I never argued about the poll, except that statewide votes on the subject, prior to obergfell, had a much different result. I think even California voted it down twice.
> 
> What I did say, unlike nearly any other “right” granted by our government, the vast, vast majority would have zero problem with having the right to marry someone of their own sex stripped away from them.



A man that's never going to carry a child can certainly object to a woman being stripped of the right to make that decision for herself.

I won't be advertising on Twitter anytime soon. But I would strongly object to the government stripping other people or businesses of the right to make that decision for themselves.

Your premise that no one case about other people having rights stripped from them......is nonsense. As 71% of the public supporting same sex right to marry demonstrates, plenty of straight people defend and support a right they won't exercise personally.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> A man that's never going to carry a child can certainly object to a woman being stripped of the right to make that decision for herself.
> 
> I won't be advertising on Twitter anytime soon. But I would strongly object to the government stripping other people or businesses of the right to make that decision for themselves.
> 
> Your premise that no one case about other people having rights stripped from them......is nonsense. As 71% of the public supporting same sex right to marry demonstrates, plenty of straight people defend and support a right they won't exercise personally.



See, there ya go again, claiming same sex marriage is only for gays. I do believe most people believe that as well, but it’s dishonest as hell. 

Let’s do a “man on the street series”

Let’s walk up to members of each sex and ask them……..

If I told you that you were not allowed to marry a member of your own sex, would that bother you?

I think we both know the answer would be a resounding NO.


----------



## Unkotare

initforme said:


> Why were interracial marriages ever frowned upon in the first place?   Those people were truly evil americans


Forward that message to brokeloser.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> See, there ya go again, claiming same sex marriage is only for gays. I do believe most people believe that as well, but it’s dishonest as hell.
> 
> Let’s do a “man on the street series”
> 
> Let’s walk up to members of each sex and ask them……..
> 
> If I told you that you were not allowed to marry a member of your own sex, would that bother you?
> 
> I think we both know the answer would be a resounding NO.



Again, just because someone isn't exercising a right personally doesn't mean they don't care if its stripped from someone else.

I may not be interested in a same sex marriage. Or an interracial marriage. Or any marriage. But I'd certainly object to a same sex couple or an interracial couple of being stripped of their right to make that choice for themselves.

Your central premise that people won't care about other people's rights being stripped is nonsense. As 71% support for same sex marriage demonstrates......plenty of folks not looking to marry someone of the same sex still support same sex marriage.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> Again, just because someone isn't exercising a right personally doesn't mean they don't care if its stripped from someone else.
> 
> I may not be interested in a same sex marriage. Or an interracial marriage. Or any marriage. But I'd certainly object to a same sex couple or an interracial couple of being stripped of their right to make that choice for themselves.
> 
> Your central premise that people won't care about other people's rights being stripped is nonsense. As 71% support for same sex marriage demonstrates......plenty of folks not looking to marry someone of the same sex still support same sex marriage.


If your so confident, why continue to bring interracial marriage into this. 

Again, let’s do a second man on the street and ask “would it bother you if I told you you could not marry someone of a different race?

I think we both know the answer would be a resounding YES

So be it.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> If your so confident, why continue to bring interracial marriage into this.
> 
> Again, let’s do a second man on the street and ask “would it bother you if I told you you could not marry someone of a different race?
> 
> I think we both know the answer would be a resounding YES
> 
> So be it.



I've brought in ALL the rights that conservatives are interested in stripping from Americans. Same sex marriage, the right to contraception, interracial marriage, the right to privacy, the right to consensual sex in your own home without State interference. 

Just to start.

Again, your central premise that no one cares about rights being stripped from someone else if they themselves aren't exercising that right is nonsense. 

As 71% support for same sex marriage demonstrates......there are lots of straight folks who believe in same sex couples being allowed to marry.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> How do I justify it? They are a part of the specific demographic group. That’s kind of clear.
> 
> Some within that group suffer from a reproductive disability. Are you saying same sex couples can’t procreate because of a reproductive disability?


No I am not saying that same sex couples have a disability. I am saying that the respective reasons why each group does not have children without some help is a moot point The fact is that both groups manage to have children in the same ways including through adoption. Both groups are parents to those children and both groups do all of the same things that parents and members of a community do.

It is hard for me to express the disgust and anger that I feel  for the level of cruelty and depravity that you represent. I outlined the benefits of marriage for families and chidren through a myriad of state and Federal benefits, legal protections and security that marriage brings to families and chidren Yet you would deprive those families of all of that based on a false distinction??! Why? I suspect that it is fueled by some deep disdain for gay people that you do not have the integrety to express so you just make some shit up.

If there is any group that suffers from any sort of disability it is bigots like you. A mental disability.  A while back, you made the statement that all children are equally valued. Apparently that was just another example of your dishonesty since you now admit that children of gays are not valued at all. Don't ever let me hear you utter one word expressing concern for children.

You should be ashamed but I doubt that you are. You just got your ass handed to you big time but you are not smart enough to even know it  Try to have a nice day but I don't think that hateful people like you ever have a nice day!


----------



## HeyNorm

You forgot the right to plural marriage, which, if same sex marriage is legal, this prohibition makes no sense. 

We also oppose incestuous marriage, but it only makes sense in opposite sex marriage. Oops. 

I don’t know any other conservative that want Birth Control abolished, but again, gay unions have no use for them, or abortion for that matter, but sure do make a tizzy over them. 

Oh, and it is the advocates of SSM want the bedroom police. Ya know the whole “some opposite sex couples don’t procreate” gambit. I swear gays want state sanctioned rape.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> You forgot the right to plural marriage, which, if same sex marriage is legal, this prohibition makes no sense.
> 
> We also oppose incestuous marriage, but it only makes sense in opposite sex marriage. Oops.
> 
> I don’t know any other conservative that want Birth Control abolished, but again, gay unions have no use for them, or abortion for that matter, but sure do make a tizzy over them.
> 
> Oh, and it is the advocates of SSM want the bedroom police. Ya know the whole “some opposite sex couples don’t procreate” gambit. I swear gays want state sanctioned rape.



I remember all the hysteria about how polygamy would be legalized the moment gay marriage was legalized.

Its been 8 years. 

Where is it?


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> I remember all the hysteria about how polygamy would be legalized the moment gay marriage was legalized.
> 
> Its been 8 years.
> 
> Where is it?



Give it time, hell, it’ll probably be three dudes suing for it.

Why the hell not?


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> Give it time, hell, it’ll probably be three dudes suing for it.
> 
> Why the hell not?



Yeah, the hysterics said that too, back in 2015.

Its been 8 years. 

That 'slippery slope'......isn't.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> Yeah, the hysterics said that too, back in 2015.
> 
> Its been 8 years.
> 
> That 'slippery slope'......isn't.



You mean like dudes dressing up like chicks stealing their athletic scholarships. 

Or maybe dudes dressing up like chicks doing pole dances for minors. 

Nah, that was never warned!


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> You mean like dudes dressing up like chicks stealing their athletic scholarships.
> 
> Or maybe dudes dressing up like chicks doing pole dances for minors.
> 
> Nah, that was never warned!



I mean polygamous marriage. The 'slippery slope' has been predicted for approaching a decade.

Where is it?


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> I mean polygamy.
> 
> Where is it?


Likely around the corner, and will be brought to you by the LBGTQA+ LMNOP

They are a wild and crazy bunch!


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> Likely around the corner, and will be brought to you by the LBGTQA+ LMNOP
> 
> They are a wild and crazy bunch!



Its been 8 years. 

If same sex marriage was going to result in polyamours marriages, it would have.

Yet, nothing. History is not the friend of the hysterics.


----------



## Ringo

Biden promised to sign the law on same-sex marriage. He explained this by caring about future generations of LGBT youth.
Has something new appeared in biology? What are the "future generations" of LGBT people? Budding?
Or is everything much more prosaic, forcible removal of children from normal families and transfer to degenerates?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringo said:


> Biden promised to sign the law on same-sex marriage. He explained this by caring about future generations of LGBT youth.
> Has something new appeared in biology? What are the "future generations" of LGBT people? Budding?
> Or is everything much more prosaic, forcible removal of children from normal families and transfer to degenerates?


What the fuck are you blathering about ? Gay coupls have Children  Gay couples are parents. How stupid are you?

Children are removed from straight parents who have abused, neglected and abandoned them and are placed in loving home where the adults might be gay. I know. I was a protective services case manager and made those placements


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> Its been 8 years.
> 
> If same sex marriage was going to result in polyamours marriages, it would have.
> 
> Yet, nothing. History is not the friend of the hysterics.



Probably afraid at this time since SSM is hanging by a thread.  

Hang in there, if you want plural marriage, I’m sure your buddies at the LBGTQ will get if for ya.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> Probably afraid at this time since SSM is hanging by a thread.
> 
> Hang in there, if you want plural marriage, I’m sure your buddies at the LBGTQ will get if for ya.



I heard at the time of the SSM debate in 2014.....that if same sex marriage was allowed, we'd have polygamous marriage right after.

Nothing happened.

Why then would I concern myself with more empty predictions that have an 8 year record of perfect failure?


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> I heard at the time of the SSM debate in 2014.....that if same sex marriage was allowed, we'd have polygamous marriage right after.
> 
> Nothing happened.
> 
> Why then would I concern myself with more empty predictions that have an 8 year record of perfect failure?



You were also warned that members of the T in LGBTQ, would try to indoctrinate our children. Pole dancing and lap dancing with minors is kind of what we warned about. 

And warned about men wanting in teen girl locker rooms. Yup, that’s happened too. 

Hey, with you fetish lovers, time is on your side right?


----------



## Ringo

The Canadian Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian ambassador because of the embassy's tweet that the family is a man + a woman + children
"Russian homophobic propaganda is not welcome here!" — the Federal Minister of Canada, an open lesbian Pascal Saint-Onge, indignantly declared.
In response, the Russian Embassy invited the Minister to think and answer how she herself was born.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> You were also warned that members of the T in LGBTQ, would try to indoctrinate our children. Pole dancing and lap dancing with minors is kind of what we warned about.
> 
> And warned about men wanting in teen girl locker rooms. Yup, that’s happened too.
> 
> Hey, with you fetish lovers, time is on your side right?



So you've just completely abandoned your claims about same sex marriage and inane predictions about polygamous marriage?

If you're going to treat your claims like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the midden heap, surely you'll understand why I treat them the same way.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the fuck are you blathering about ? Gay coupls have Children  Gay couples are parents. How stupid are you?


When one is a lesbian and the other is a gay male. Then, and only then can a gay couple produce a child. Fun fact, even the, the chances they have a gay child is really really slim. 

Oh you meant the third person that is ALWAYS required for a same sex couple to have a child with at least some dna of the United couple. Got it, still the couple will have a slim chance of having a gay child. 

But Joe? He’s not the sharpest tack in the box.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> So you've just completely abandoned your claims about same sex marriage and inane predictions about polygamous marriage?
> 
> If you're going to treat your claims like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the midden heap, surely you'll understand why I treat them the same way.



Nah, it makes just as much, and actually more sense if the participants are mixed sex, then SSM.


----------



## Skylar

HeyNorm said:


> Nah, it makes just as much, and actually more sense if the participants are mixed sex, then SSM.



Its been 8 years. If same sex marriage means polyamory marriage...

Where is it?


----------



## 22lcidw

Skylar said:


> Its been 8 years. If same sex marriage means polyamory marriage...
> 
> Where is it?


Poly marriage, pedophile relationships, bestiality and euthanasia are on the docket. This has to happen because of the arrow on your campaign slogans. Progs spent so much time on MAGA that they blurred what their own slogans are about. The arrow means continue to move.


----------



## Skylar

22lcidw said:


> Poly marriage, pedophile relationships, bestiality and euthanasia are on the docket. This has to happen because of the arrow on your campaign slogans. Progs spent so much time on MAGA that they blurred what their own slogans are about. The arrow means continue to move.


I remember hearing all that hysterics too, back in 2014.

Its been 8 years.

Where is it?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> More deflection, which is expected. Of that 71% in the poll, how many would feel that if the option to marry someone of the same sex was taken from them, the result would have a negative impact on their life?
> 
> Let’s do the same polling on interracial, or just about any other right granted citizens.
> 
> Your argument that the denial of same sex marriage would somehow impact the right to marry those of another race just don’t hold water.



But that's the point.  Most people marry the opposite sex of the same race, but most people don't like it when the bigots try to take that away from people. 

Support for interracial marriage was only at 20% when Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1969. In fact, it didn't hit over 50% until 1996!  





Support for Gay marriage was already close to 60% when Obergefell was decided. 






The Republicans know this is a loser issue for them.   They know this because their corporate masters (The people who really run the GOP) have told them it's a loser and to knock it the fuck off.


----------



## JoeB131

martybegan said:


> The issue is the law goes beyond that, and only protects Clergy, Churches, and Religious organizations, not normal people exercising their 1st amendment rights.
> 
> If it just made State governments recognize SSM's issued by other States, I would be fine with it, that's what I thought Obergfell should do.



"Normal" people are free to believe what they want.  They just can't break the law to do it. 

You want to be a homophobic bigot, do it on your own time.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> But that's the point.  Most people marry the opposite sex of the same race, but most people don't like it when the bigots try to take that away from people.
> 
> Support for interracial marriage was only at 20% when Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1969. In fact, it didn't hit over 50% until 1996!
> 
> View attachment 733364
> 
> Support for Gay marriage was already close to 60% when Obergefell was decided.
> 
> View attachment 733365
> 
> 
> The Republicans know this is a loser issue for them.   They know this because their corporate masters (The people who really run the GOP) have told them it's a loser and to knock it the fuck off.



Just need a few more cross dressers flaunting their stuff to lil kids and we will proceed from there. 

And yet, if we did the man on the street interviews, nearly nobody would feel they would lose anything if not allowed to marry a same sex partner. 

You can’t seriously think that’s incorrect?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Just need a few more cross dressers flaunting their stuff to lil kids and we will proceed from there.



You tried that in the midterms. It didn't work out so good for you.  The way you were carrying on, you'd think there was an army of drag queens attacking.  



HeyNorm said:


> And yet, if we did the man on the street interviews, nearly nobody would feel they would lose anything if not allowed to marry a same sex partner.



Or a different race partner.  Or a partner that was a lot younger or older.  But they would be dead set against someone telling them they couldn't. 



HeyNorm said:


> You can’t seriously think that’s incorrect?



I think Americans are a lot more decent than you do.  They will do the right thing, EVEN IF THEY DON'T BENEFIT.


----------



## Ivan88

Guaranteeing homosexual liberation is a curse on America in addition to the other curses.


----------



## Ivan88

Democrat Duplicity? Both parties are basically con artists, seeking more power and more money for themselves. There is no real difference between them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> When one is a lesbian and the other is a gay male. Then, and only then can a gay couple produce a child. Fun fact, even the, the chances they have a gay child is really really slim.
> 
> Oh you meant the third person that is ALWAYS required for a same sex couple to have a child with at least some dna of the United couple. Got it, still the couple will have a slim chance of having a gay child.
> 
> But Joe? He’s not the sharpest tack in the box.


Holy shit what???Is that really all that you can say after I excoriated you on your shameful and cruel bigotry ? That is just too fucking stupid!! We are seriously done here


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringo said:


> The Canadian Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian ambassador because of the embassy's tweet that the family is a man + a woman + children
> "Russian homophobic propaganda is not welcome here!" — the Federal Minister of Canada, an open lesbian Pascal Saint-Onge, indignantly declared.
> In response, the Russian Embassy invited the Minister to think and answer how she herself was born.


*Gay people have children and are parents.*


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So what?. Some hetero sexual couples can't either. Should they not be able to call it marriage? When did concieving a child become a requirement for marriage?


No. It is perverted. Unamerican.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> You tried that in the midterms. It didn't work out so good for you.  The way you were carrying on, you'd think there was an army of drag queens attacking.
> 
> 
> 
> Or a different race partner.  Or a partner that was a lot younger or older.  But they would be dead set against someone telling them they couldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Americans are a lot more decent than you do.  They will do the right thing, EVEN IF THEY DON'T BENEFIT.



Nope, decency is quite different then you think. Decent people don’t enable b


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit what???Is that really all that you can say after I excoriated you on your shameful and cruel bigotry ? That is just too fucking stupid!! We are seriously done here



Because you remain wrong.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Gay people have children and are parents.*


But only opposite sex people, regardless of sexuality, can create one. 

A truth you fail to grasp.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> No. It is perverted. Unamerican.


What exactly is perverted and unamerican? Having children with a little help from your friends?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> But only opposite sex people, regardless of sexuality, can create one.
> 
> A truth you fail to grasp.


You fail to grasp the thruth of your parthetic stupidity and hate


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You fail to grasp the thruth of your parthetic stupidity and hate


Can Men get pregnant?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Because you remain wrong.


Wrong? For supporting marriage equality? For wanting the best life for all families and children.? Got news for you . You are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of morality. You are a dying breed and will soon go the way of the dinasour. Your argument against same sex marriage is about as pathetic and stupid as any I have ever seen,Get out of my face. Once again you have been exposed for what you are . My work is done here


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Can Men get pregnant?



A trans man can. So what is your point regarding gay marriage , exactly>?


----------



## HeyNorm

San Souci said:


> Can Men get pregnant?


Of course not.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wrong? For supporting marriage equality? For wanting the best life for all families and children.? Got news for you . You are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of morality. You are a dying breed and will soon go the way of the dinasour. Your argument against same sex marriage is about as pathetic and stupid as any I have ever seen,Get out of my face. Once again you have been exposed for what you are . My work is done here



I know many happy families that a sans any license. What are they doing wrong?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I know many happy families that a sans any license. What are they doing wrong?


WHAT?? Get the fuck out of here bigot!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> WHAT?? Get the fuck out of here bigot!



Yes, one with 4 children. Opposite sex couple. Lived together 20 years, not married.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A trans man can. So what is your point regarding gay marriage , exactly>?
> View attachment 733478



  That's a woman.  Mentally fucked up, and physically mutilated, but not to the point of rendering her infertile.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yes, one with 4 children. Opposite sex couple. Lived together 20 years, not married.


Irrelevant to the topic,. Doing so by choice has nothing to do with the shameless bigotry that you promote. Get the fuck out of here!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Irrelevant to the topic,. Doing so by choice has nothing to do with the shameless bigotry that you promote. Get the fuck out of here!



Nope.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Nope, decency is quite different then you think. Decent people don’t enable b



Right, decent people don't enable bigots.  

You are on the wrong side of history.


----------



## citygator

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.


You could have said the same about abortion rights before the Supreme Court went radical and threw out precedent. The democrats know the republicans have no honor and are codifying a barrier to republican’s endgame: a Christian white nation.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Right, decent people don't enable bigots.
> 
> You are on the wrong side of history.



Nope, history will prove I’m right. It’s an absurd idea to grant a right to those who don’t want it or that has any practical need.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Nope, history will prove I’m right. It’s an absurd idea to grant a right to those who don’t want it or that has any practical need.



Hmmm.... let's look at that.  

Well, since I've never ever been arrested, or been in any kind of trouble with the law... I guess I don't need any of those rights afforded to the accused in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh or Eighth Amendments.  

Except being a decent person, I wouldn't want to see ANYONE abused by overzealous police or prosecutors, so I am glad those protections are out there.  

Now, here's the thing.  Laws against gay marriage were supported by the fact that there were laws against "Sodomy". The underlying act was illegal.  That ended with Lawrence v. Texas.  So once your argument was reduced to "I think it's icky", you really didn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Hmmm.... let's look at that.
> 
> Well, since I've never ever been arrested, or been in any kind of trouble with the law... I guess I don't need any of those rights afforded to the accused in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh or Eighth Amendments.
> 
> Except being a decent person, I wouldn't want to see ANYONE abused by overzealous police or prosecutors, so I am glad those protections are out there.
> 
> Now, here's the thing.  Laws against gay marriage were supported by the fact that there were laws against "Sodomy". The underlying act was illegal.  That ended with Lawrence v. Texas.  So once your argument was reduced to "I think it's icky", you really didn't have a leg to stand on.



Why would I ever think that two straight men getting married is icky? Yet I oppose SSM regardless

Do you think all those people who would never consider marriage to someone of the same sex are also bigots?

Please explain.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Hmmm.... let's look at that.
> 
> Well, since I've never ever been arrested, or been in any kind of trouble with the law... I guess I don't need any of those rights afforded to the accused in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh or Eighth Amendments.
> 
> Except being a decent person, I wouldn't want to see ANYONE abused by overzealous police or prosecutors, so I am glad those protections are out there.
> 
> Now, here's the thing.  Laws against gay marriage were supported by the fact that there were laws against "Sodomy". The underlying act was illegal.  That ended with Lawrence v. Texas.  So once your argument was reduced to "I think it's icky", you really didn't have a leg to stand on.



Hey Joe, you seem a bit confused. 

Can you explain your proclamation that I’m a bigot?

I’ve not discriminated against anyone with my opinion that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. 

Clue me in buddy.


----------



## martybegan

Skylar said:


> Now we're just discussing why I'm right in my assertion that conservatives are trying to strip Americans of their rights and turn them into crimes.



The only side trying to criminalize rights is your side. 

"Your speech is violence, our violence is speech"


----------



## surada

excalibur said:


> No one was taking away interracial marriage between a man and a woman—damned liars.



You completely missed the point.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

candycorn said:


> Thomas said that the court needs to re-visit the decisions that allowed for same sex marriage.  Now there will be a law that ensures it remains legal (unlike Abortion).  It's a preventative measure against the nation turning into Conservistan.



Why do you think the leftists tacked on interracial marriage.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

martybegan said:


> The only side trying to criminalize rights is your side.
> 
> "Your speech is violence, our violence is speech"



Nailed it!


----------



## martybegan

JoeB131 said:


> "Normal" people are free to believe what they want.  They just can't break the law to do it.
> 
> You want to be a homophobic bigot, do it on your own time.



Just because you want to sell something doesn't mean you give up your right to free exercise.


----------



## HeyNorm

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> Why do you think the leftists tacked on interracial marriage.



Because the argument that excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage is discriminatory is a baseless argument. 

Remember, the additional rights afforded under obergfell is to “same sex couples” not just gay couples. Marriage law has never excluded any sexuality from the right to Marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. 

The opponents of my view will say I am excluding gays from the right to marry someone of the same sex, which is true, but it also excludes straights from it as well.


----------



## HeyNorm

Skylar said:


> When did I say you did?
> 
> You did quote me addressing the claim that defending gay marriage was 'evil'......and then tried to change the topic.
> 
> Demonstrating my point elegantly. Whenever pressed to demonstrate why we gay marriage is wrong, your ilk change the topic. Which is why y'all lost the gay marriage debate.



So you want gay marriage separated from straight same sex marriage?

Will you people make up your damn minds already?


----------



## candycorn

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> Why do you think the leftists tacked on interracial marriage.



So the hateful republicans won't try to strip away that right either


----------



## HeyNorm

candycorn said:


> So the hateful republicans won't try to strip away that right either



More likely a less than clever deflection.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> View attachment 733235
> _Gish Gallop!_


typical lib, when defeated by facts and truth, post a foolish picture.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Irrelevant to the topic,. Doing so by choice has nothing to do with the shameless bigotry that you promote. Get the fuck out of here!



What bigotry? What group am a discriminating against by saying a marriage should be 1 man and one woman?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> View attachment 733235
> _Gish Gallop!_


Look up Gish Gallop. Now that is fooish and the last resort of someone who has the communication skills of a turnip


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> What bigotry? What group am a discriminating against by saying a marriage should be 1 man and one woman?


Now I can add stupid to the long list of things that you are. You can't be fucking serious.!

You have an irrational annimosity towards gay people because they do not do something according to a way that you approve of( having children) As a result you advocate ounishing then and depriving them of certain rights.

In addition, no thinking person will believe that your position is just about how they have kids. There is more more to this that you are too much of a coward to admit.

The proof of that is that you have no problems with opposite sex couple who cannot have kids in a way that you approve of


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now I can add stupid to the long list of things that you are. You can't be fucking serious.!
> 
> You have an irrational annimosity towards gay people because they do not do something according to a way that you approve of( having children) As a result you advocate ounishing then and depriving them of certain rights.
> 
> In addition, no thinking person will believe that your position is just about how they have kids. There is more more to this that you are too much of a coward to admit.
> 
> The proof of that is that you have no problems with opposite sex couple who cannot have kids in a way that you approve of



Yet you think it’s appropriate to discriminate against the disabled. 

And I’m the bigot?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yet you think it’s appropriate to discriminate against the disabled.
> 
> And I’m the bigot?


How the fuck am I discriminating against the disabled.?  What disabled?  I chided you for being ok with marriage for hetero couples who can't have children WHEN YOU DISAPPROVE OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE. If you think that you can twist that to mean that I want to deny those hetero couple marriage, you are even sicker than  I thought

Ya know, I can't figure out if you are insane, a manipulative socio path ot just plain stupid!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> typical lib, when defeated by facts and truth, post a foolish picture.


Typical batr shit crazt right winger. The disgussion is about gay marriage and you bring up illegals, inflation, AGW, senile Joe, crazy nancy,etc.    GISH GALLOP!


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Typical batr shit crazt right winger. The disgussion is about gay marriage and you bring up illegals, inflation, AGW, senile Joe, crazy nancy,etc.    GISH GALLOP!


you asked what is liberal weird shit,  I gave you several examples.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> you asked what is liberal weird shit,  I gave you several examples.


The topic is same sex marriage. Gish Gallop!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How the fuck am I discriminating against the disabled.?  What disabled?  I chided you for being ok with marriage for hetero couples who can't have children WHEN YOU DISAPPROVE OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE. If you think that you can twist that to mean that I want to deny those hetero couple marriage, you are even sicker than  I thought
> 
> Ya know, I can't figure out if you are insane, a manipulative socio path ot just plain stupid!



This has been discussed before. 

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because it takes a part of both to create a child. 

You asserted that some couples can’t have children. 

Yes, there are some opposite sex couples that cannot have children. Many because of a reproductive disability. Yet they retain the qualification of one being male and the other female. 

As a demographic group, it is still responsible for every child ever born, no matter what the sexuality of the two participants. 

This is quite a huge difference from Same Sex couples who, regardless of the sexuality of the partners, have never created a single child.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

candycorn said:


> So the hateful republicans won't try to strip away that right either



Wrong as usual. It’s so Nancy and Chucky can claim anyone who’s against same sex marriage is a racist. Watch this sundays “news” shows to prove I’m right.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> This has been discussed before.
> 
> Marriage has always been between a man and a woman because it takes a part of both to create a child.
> 
> You asserted that some couples can’t have children.
> 
> Yes, there are some opposite sex couples that cannot have children. Many because of a reproductive disability. Yet they retain the qualification of one being male and the other female.
> 
> As a demographic group, it is still responsible for every child ever born, no matter what the sexuality of the two participants.
> 
> This is quite a huge difference from Same Sex couples who, regardless of the sexuality of the partners, have never created a single child.


Putting asside for a minute that gay people have children, know this: Producing children is not a requirement for marriage. In there years before Obergefell was decided, there were dozens of of cases heard in the lower courts on the issue. 

NOT ONCE as far as I know, did a lawyer for any state seeking to preserve bans on gay/same sex marriage try to argue that gays could not have children as a reason for excluding them from marriage. They did not go there because they knew that is was STUPID and a losing argument . But here you are, endlessly and pathetically bleating the same tired shit day after day. I almost feel sorry for you. You really should stop making such a damned fool of yourself. 

You  might be doing better to say what you really think about gays and why you want tp punish them and their children. Children have been used as pawns in the failed crusaded against marriage equality but in different ways. It's usually about gays being perverts or just bad parrents. But regardless you bigots are all alike in that you put your ideology of hate and exclusion ahead of any consideration for the well being of children. Disgusting and shameful. It's amazing how this all just rolls of of your back, but I supose that is easy when you have no heart, no soul and no fucking  brain.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The topic is same sex marriage. Gish Gallop!


yes, then why did you go off topic when you asked that question?

for the record:  what cruz said is that the SC should have sent the issue to the states for a vote since it is not a federal constitutional issue.  That is all he said and in that context.  Do you libs ever stop lying?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Putting asside for a minute that gay people have children, know this: Producing children is not a requirement for marriage. In there years before Obergefell was decided, there were dozens of of cases heard in the lower courts on the issue.
> 
> NOT ONCE as far as I know, did a lawyer for any state seeking to preserve bans on gay/same sex marriage try to argue that gays could not have children as a reason for excluding them from marriage. They did not go there because they knew that is was STUPID and a losing argument . But here you are, endlessly and pathetically bleating the same tired shit day after day. I almost feel sorry for you. You really should stop making such a damned fool of yourself.
> 
> You  might be doing better to say what you really think about gays and why you want tp punish them and their children. Children have been used as pawns in the failed crusaded against marriage equality but in different ways. It's usually about gays being perverts or just bad parrents. But regardless you bigots are all alike in that you put your ideology of hate and exclusion ahead of any consideration for the well being of children. Disgusting and shameful. It's amazing how this all just rolls of of your back, but I supose that is easy when you have no heart, no soul and no fucking  brain.



If you’re going to disagree with me, please do so over something I actually said.

I’ve never said a gay couple can’t create a child. That is simply untrue. Any gay couple consisting of a male and female can, have, and will continue to create children. 🤦‍♂️. They could also marry if they wish as they meet the requirement.

Now same sex couples (and I’m embarrassed that you apparently didn’t already know this), cannot create a child within their union 

Fun Fact #1. Even if the gay male/female couple can’t create a child together, they could still Marry!

Fun Fact #2. Just as procreating is not a requirement of marriage, neither is being sexually attracted to the partner!

You just have to be, one man and one woman, not too closely related and of legal age to consent.

Interesting, that “not too closely related” qualification though. It would seem to really only apply to opposite sex couples, and no real reason for same sex.

Oh well. Hope you have a nice day. It’s always a pleasure teaching you new stuff.


----------



## d0gbreath

rightwinger said:


> Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage
> 
> The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”


Knowing them, they'll leave it up to the states.


----------



## rightwinger

d0gbreath said:


> Knowing them, they'll leave it up to the states.


Thankfully, Congress acted to force states to accept gay marriages from other states

Some Republicans actually supported it


----------



## d0gbreath

rightwinger said:


> Thankfully, Congress acted to force states to accept gay marriages from other states
> 
> Some Republicans actually supported it


As they should. There has always been the same percentage of Gay Americans, as there is now.


----------



## HeyNorm

rightwinger said:


> Thankfully, Congress acted to force states to accept gay marriages from other states
> 
> Some Republicans actually supported it



You mean same sex marriage, right. Common mistake.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> yes, then why did you go off topic when you asked that question?
> 
> for the record:  what cruz said is that the SC should have sent the issue to the states for a vote since it is not a federal constitutional issue.  That is all he said and in that context.  Do you libs ever stop lying?


Cruz lied when he said that marriage has always been a state matter. That is true only withing limits that he ignored






						14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right  |  American Foundation for Equal Rights
					






					afer.org
				




Cruze lied. We did not


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve never said a gay couple can’t create a child. That is simply untrue. Any gay couple consisting of a male and female can, have, and will continue to create children. 🤦‍♂️. They could also marry if they wish as they meet the requirement.


More of your sick bullshit games, The subject is SAME SEX GAY COUPLES


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Now same sex couples (and I’m embarrassed that you apparently didn’t already know this), cannot create a child within their union


I am embarrassed for you because you keep making an  ass of yourself. The ability inability  to creat a child is IRRELEVENT to the legal issue of marriage


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Fun Fact #1. Even if the gay male/female couple can’t create a child together, they could still Marry!


No shit !! How stupid are you?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More of your sick bullshit games, The subject is SAME SEX GAY COUPLES


Did you know, that at no time in the history of marriage was sexuality a qualification to marry? Another fun fact

And explain to us all about this “gay marriage” you keep harping about. It must be quite different then the rest, right?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Fun Fact #2. Just as procreating is not a requirement of marriage, neither is being sexually attracted to the partner!


Right But people have a fundamental right to be able to choose some one who they are attracted to. I realy don't know what you point is with this tripe You seem to be getting more stupid and insane with each post


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am embarrassed for you because you keep making an  ass of yourself. The ability inability  to creat a child is IRRELEVENT to the legal issue of marriage



Now where did I ever say that one must create a child within a marriage for it to be legitimate?

All that is required is to have partners that are part of the demographic group that can create one within their union.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Right? But people have a fundamental right to be able to choose some one who they are attracted to. I realy don't know what you point is with this tripe You seem to be getting more stupid and insane with each post



And they have a fundamental right not to, or not marry in the first place.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Did you know, that at no time in the history of marriage was sexuality a qualification to marry? Another fun fact
> 
> And explain to us all about this “gay marriage” you keep harping about. It must be quite different then the rest, right?


Gay marriage and same sex marriage for all practical purposed is the same thing because there are virtually no people who are not gay who want to marry their own gender.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> ow where did I ever say that one must create a child within a marriage for it to be legitimate?
> 
> All that is required is to have partners that are part of the demographic group that can create one within their union.


Yes that is what you said More proof of your stupidity and bigotry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> And they have a fundamental right not to, or not marry in the first place.


So? No shit! Still throwing shit at the wall in the hope of scoring a pont?  My image of you is of someone who has dug himself a deep hole and after realizing that he can;t climb out is deperatly clawing at the sides of the hole while it fills up with water and doesn't know how to swim


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Gay marriage and same sex marriage for all practical purposed is the same thing because there are virtually no people who are not gay who want to marry their own gender.


So, everyone eligible for same sex marriage is gay?????

DAYAM FOLKS!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So? No shit! Still throwing shit at the wall in the hope of scoring a pont?  My mage of you is of someone who has dug himself a deep hole and after realizing that he can;t climb out is deperatly clawing at the sides of the hole while it fills up with water and doesn't know how to swim



Yeah, throwing shit against the wall like, procreation is not a requirement to marry?

We talked about that numerous times, and yet you harp on it constantly.


----------



## AsherN

HeyNorm said:


> Now where did I ever say that one must create a child within a marriage for it to be legitimate?
> 
> All that is required is to have partners that are part of the demographic group that can create one within their union.


So, how about older people past their childbearing years? They can't get married?


----------



## HeyNorm

AsherN said:


> So, how about older people past their childbearing years? They can't get married?



Sure they could as long as they belong to the demographic group Male/Female. We sure don’t want to discriminate. And I may add, a gay older couple could marry as well, as long as they are 1 man and 1 woman.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> So, everyone eligible for same sex marriage is gay?????
> 
> DAYAM FOLKS!


Jesus fucking Christ!! Are you really so STUPID that you think that is what I said? I guess so.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Sure they could as long as they belong to the demographic group Male/Female. We sure don’t want to discriminate. And I may add, a gay older couple could marry as well, as long as they are 1 man and 1 woman.


Still trying to claw your way out of that hole that youg I see. You are a pathetic mess....and a BIGOT


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yeah, throwing shit against the wall like, procreation is not a requirement to marry?
> 
> We talked about that numerous times, and yet you harp on it constantly.


Oh, Now you say that procreation is NOT a requirement to marry? But you say that gays should not be able to marry because they can't procreate? WHAT THE FUCK!!??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You mean same sex marriage, right. Common mistake.


You are a common nuisance


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jesus fucking Christ!! Are you really so STUPID that you think that is what I said? I guess so.



That is why I think your a bigot.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh, Now you say that procreation is NOT a requirement to marry? But you say that gays should not be able to marry because they can't procreate? WHAT THE FUCK!!??



You’re leaning.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Still trying to claw your way out of that hole that youg I see. You are a pathetic mess....and a BIGOT



I’ve included each and every group! Even the elderly and disabled!

You, and this “gay marriage” thingy excludes 97% of the population! And I’m the bigot?  🤦‍♂️


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Why would I ever think that two straight men getting married is icky? Yet I oppose SSM regardless
> 
> Do you think all those people who would never consider marriage to someone of the same sex are also bigots?



Yes, I think that anyone who is worked up over this is a bigot.  I'd never want to marry another dude because I like women.  But I'd never deny two men who love each other the right to get married.  



HeyNorm said:


> Hey Joe, you seem a bit confused.
> 
> Can you explain your proclamation that I’m a bigot?
> 
> I’ve not discriminated against anyone with my opinion that marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman.



except for those who are attracted to the same sex.   

You, sir, are a bigot.  Because you haven't really justified your position in anything other than your own disdain for gay people.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Because the argument that excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage is discriminatory is a baseless argument.
> 
> Remember, the additional rights afforded under obergfell is to “same sex couples” not just gay couples. Marriage law has never excluded any sexuality from the right to Marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
> 
> The opponents of my view will say I am excluding gays from the right to marry someone of the same sex, which is true, but it also excludes straights from it as well.



Wow.  Let's see your logic here.  You want to exclude sexuality from marriage.  So it's okay for a couple who have never had sex to get married, to let's say, get someone a green card, but two gay people in a committed loving relationship shouldn't be able to get married because they are of the same sex.  

Is this what you are going with here?  

The fact is, love and sex are implied in marriage.  It's why the ICE insists that you be able to prove that there's a real relationship before they will issue a green card for an immigrant seeking to marry a citizen.  It's why a lack of consummation of a marriage is grounds for legal annulment. 

So just admit, that you think that two men having sex is icky. (Ever notice that homophobes only talk about men having sex, and never women?  Hmmm)


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, I think that anyone who is worked up over this is a bigot.  I'd never want to marry another dude because I like women.  But I'd never deny two men who love each other the right to get married.
> 
> 
> 
> except for those who are attracted to the same sex.
> 
> You, sir, are a bigot.  Because you haven't really justified your position in anything other than your own disdain for gay people.


But I have no distain for gay people. No more than straight people who want to involve themselves in an institution that has served an incredibly important purpose for centuries.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Wow.  Let's see your logic here.  You want to exclude sexuality from marriage.  So it's okay for a couple who have never had sex to get married, to let's say, get someone a green card, but two gay people in a committed loving relationship shouldn't be able to get married because they are of the same sex.
> 
> Is this what you are going with here?
> 
> The fact is, love and sex are implied in marriage.  It's why the ICE insists that you be able to prove that there's a real relationship before they will issue a green card for an immigrant seeking to marry a citizen.  It's why a lack of consummation of a marriage is grounds for legal annulment.
> 
> So just admit, that you think that two men having sex is icky. (Ever notice that homophobes only talk about men having sex, and never women?  Hmmm)



Joe, I’ve never mentioned men having sex. You just did. Are you a homophobe?


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Wow.  Let's see your logic here.  You want to exclude sexuality from marriage.  So it's okay for a couple who have never had sex to get married, to let's say, get someone a green card, but two gay people in a committed loving relationship shouldn't be able to get married because they are of the same sex.
> 
> Is this what you are going with here?
> 
> The fact is, love and sex are implied in marriage.  It's why the ICE insists that you be able to prove that there's a real relationship before they will issue a green card for an immigrant seeking to marry a citizen.  It's why a lack of consummation of a marriage is grounds for legal annulment.
> 
> So just admit, that you think that two men having sex is icky. (Ever notice that homophobes only talk about men having sex, and never women?  Hmmm)



Ohhhh, now you want to argue something is valid because “it is implied”. 

Well Joe, nothing is more of an implication that procreation is an important part to marriage then only allowing marriage between a man and a woman. 

Thanks for the assist Joe!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve included each and every group! Even the elderly and disabled!
> 
> You, and this “gay marriage” thingy excludes 97% of the population! And I’m the bigot?  🤦‍♂️


Oh my fucking god! What? I am excluding people from what? How. I still can't decide if you are insane or just stupid. Most likely somewhere in between a sociopath playing a sick game.

In any case, I have noticed that you do not respond to anything like a normal human being . No matter how thoroughly excoriated you have not actual emotional reaction. Not only do you not react on an emotional level but there seems to be something missing on an intellectual/cognitive level as well. You never actually present a counter argument. Rather, you throw out some new and bizarre crap in order to deflect and distract from whatever was said . It is like your are some sort of zombie troll bot who does not know he is dead. The fact is that you are dead and I will not let you eat my brains


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh my fucking god! What? I am excluding people from what? How. I still can't decide if you are insane or just stupid. Most likely somewhere in between a sociopath playing a sick game.
> 
> In any case, I have noticed that you do not respond to anything like a normal human being . No matter how thoroughly excoriated you have not actual emotional reaction. Not only do you not react on an emotional level but there seems to be something missing on an intellectual/cognitive level as well. You never actually present a counter argument. Rather, you throw out some new and bizarre crap in order to deflect and distract from whatever was said . It is like your are some sort of zombie troll bot who does not know he is dead. The fact is that you are dead and I will not let you eat my brains



Now let’s get back to the discussion about how you think that just because we don’t force women to give birth, you think a same sex couple is similar to an opposite sex couple.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> But I have no distain for gay people. No more than straight people who want to involve themselves in an institution that has served an incredibly important purpose for centuries.



For most of those centuries, the woman was considered a piece of property.   Did you know that marital rape wasn't illegal in this country until 1978?  Yup, it was understood that if you were married, you could not be raped by your  husband.  He had a right to sex on demand!  

Up until 1967, in many parts of the country, it would be illegal for me to marry my Asian girlfriend. 

We redefine marriage all the time.  



HeyNorm said:


> Ohhhh, now you want to argue something is valid because “it is implied”.
> 
> Well Joe, nothing is more of an implication that procreation is an important part to marriage then only allowing marriage between a man and a woman.



35% of children are born out of wedlock today.  People figured out you don't need to get married to have a kid!   Of course, gay people have kids, too, thanks to surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> For most of those centuries, the woman was considered a piece of property.   Did you know that marital rape wasn't illegal in this country until 1978?  Yup, it was understood that if you were married, you could not be raped by your  husband.  He had a right to sex on demand!
> 
> Up until 1967, in many parts of the country, it would be illegal for me to marry my Asian girlfriend.
> 
> We redefine marriage all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 35% of children are born out of wedlock today.  People figured out you don't need to get married to have a kid!   Of course, gay people have kids, too, thanks to surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization.



What any of this has to do with our discussion is beyond me.

As we both know, the discovery that people can have children outside of wedlock is nothing new Joe, and has nothing to do with marriage being the Union between a man and a woman.

Now let’s discuss this assertion  that marriage had nothing to do with procreation, when as you asserted earlier, the mere implication is enough to create validity. 

And, how your side believes that women should be forced to give birth should obergfell get overturned.


----------



## JoeB131

Okay, now your homophobic ass is getting into weird territory..



HeyNorm said:


> What any of this has to do with our discussion is beyond me.
> 
> As we both know, the discovery that people can have children outside of wedlock is nothing new Joe, and has nothing to do with marriage being the Union between a man and a woman.



Yes, they can.   I'll go one further, 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is often rough on the kids.  So this notion that marriage is this sacred beast that is there for the creation of families, and we can't let it be sullied by icky, icky gay people is just a tad silly.  



HeyNorm said:


> Now let’s discuss this assertion that marriage had nothing to do with procreation, when as you asserted earlier, the mere implication is enough to create validity.



No, it has to do with two people wanting to make a commitment to each other.  The 50% divorce rate notwithstanding, gay people have a right to make a commitment to the people they love just like straight people.  



HeyNorm said:


> And, how your side believes that women should be forced to give birth should obergfell get overturned.


No, your side is trying to do that by overturning Roe.


----------



## HeyNorm

Sacred is a religious term Joe. One I’ve not used.

Now for icky sex. I’ve not brought up gay sex as either icky or pleasant. The only one that has brought up that subject is you.

What I have brought up is the fact that gay sex had never resulted in the creation of a separate human life. Straight sex has Joe. Get it yet. One is essential to our species, the other?

Not so much.

So, since we are on the subject of icky. All gay individuals had, since the beginning of time, the availability to marry, even though they thought the sex within a marriage was “icky”.

So explain to the world what kind of phobia it is that gays have against straights?

And since you claim I’m homophobic because I oppose all same sex marriage…….

Fun Fact: I oppose same sex marriage regardless of the sexuality of the partners. 

Your claim that the opposition to same sex marriage makes me homophobic is therefore baseless. 

Try having an open mind Joe.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> What I have brought up is the fact that gay sex had never resulted in the creation of a separate human life. Straight sex has Joe. Get it yet. One is essential to our species, the other?



Except gays can have kids through in-vitro fertilization or adoption or hiring surrogates.  



HeyNorm said:


> So explain to the world what kind of phobia it is that gays have against straights?



The fear of being murdered by a bigot like you like Matt Shephard was?


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Except gays can have kids through in-vitro fertilization or adoption or hiring surrogates.
> 
> 
> 
> The fear of being murdered by a bigot like you like Matt Shephard was?



1.  I never claimed anyone could not marry the sperm or egg donor. 

2. To be a bigot I would be ok with straights marrying as a same sex couple but exclude gays. I oppose both. 

Your claim that I am a bigot fails once again.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cruz lied when he said that marriage has always been a state matter. That is true only withing limits that he ignored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right  |  American Foundation for Equal Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> afer.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cruze lied. We did not


where is marriage mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights?   Its not, therefore it is NOT a federal issue and that is all Cruz said.   Why are you lefties so scared of letting the people of each state vote on gay marriage and abortion?  Try to answer honestly if you can.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> 1. I never claimed anyone could not marry the sperm or egg donor.
> 
> 2. To be a bigot I would be ok with straights marrying as a same sex couple but exclude gays. I oppose both.
> 
> Your claim that I am a bigot fails once again.



No, guy, you are just being silly at this point.  There's no reason for straights to marry as a same-sex couple.  There's no reason for gays to marry the opposite sex.  

People should be able to marry whoever they want, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> No, guy, you are just being silly at this point.  There's no reason for straights to marry as a same-sex couple.  There's no reason for gays to marry the opposite sex.
> 
> People should be able to marry whoever they want, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.



Thanks, so two brothers should be able to marry?

If not, explain as to why? And why limit this to just two?

And as far as being silly?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Now let’s get back to the discussion about how you think that just because we don’t force women to give birth, you think a same sex couple is similar to an opposite sex couple.


What is it that I think??! "Just because we don't force women......."WHAT??! Were is that bizarre shit coming from? This is the same shit that yu have been doing all along. When you get bogged down in your old bullshit, you come up with some new bullshit in an attempt to gaslight me and troll the topc.  

I told you exactly what I think about why SAME SEX couples are essentially te same as opposite sex couples and it did not include anything about  women not being forced to givebirth. 

The discussion about who should be able to marry is OVER. You have been exposed as a bigot who has no valid argument against marriage for SAME SEX COUPLES.  

Having established that you're a bigot since your wish to deny SAME SEX couples the ability to marry really has nothing to do with having children -since you admit  that that criteria does not apply to opposite sex couples-there is only one thing  left to discuss. That is WHAT IS THE REAL REASON that you are a bigot. 

Clearly you harbor considerable irrational animosity . You want to punish people and their children for being gay by denying them the financial and legal security of marriage for reason that are unknown because you have been to much of a coward to disclose your reasons. You are a pathetic fool! Grow a fucking spine and say what is on your diseased mind 
]


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What is it that I think??! "Just because we don't force women......."WHAT??! Were is that bizarre shit coming from? This is the same shit that yu have been doing all along. When you get bogged down in your old bullshit, you come up with some new bullshit in an attempt to gaslight me and troll the topc.
> 
> I told you exactly what I think about why SAME SEX couples are essentially te same as opposite sex couples and it did not include anything about  women not being forced to givebirth.
> 
> The discussion about who should be able to marry is OVER. You have been exposed as a bigot who has no valid argument against marriage for SAME SEX COUPLES.
> 
> Having established that you're a bigot since your wish to deny SAME SEX couples the ability to marry really has nothing to do with having children -since you admit  that that criteria does not apply to opposite sex couples-there is only one thing  left to discuss. That is WHAT IS THE REAL REASON that you are a bigot.
> 
> Clearly you harbor considerable irrational animosity . You want to punish people and their children for being gay by denying them the financial and legal security of marriage for reason that are unknown because you have been to much of a coward to disclose your reasons. You are a pathetic fool! Grow a fucking spine and say what is on your diseased mind
> ]



Before I destroy your argument, show one place where I made a bigoted comment. 

I will wait.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Thanks, so two brothers should be able to marry?
> 
> If not, explain as to why? And why limit this to just two?
> 
> And as far as being silly?



Same reason a brother and sister can't marry.  Incest is against the law.  Same reason that you can't marry a nine-year old.  Pedophilia is against the law.  Same reason you can't marry more than one person.  Bigamy is against the law.  

Now, at one time, my having a relationship with my Chinese girlfriend would have been against the law, but the laws changed.  But you can't make an argument against it other than bigotry.  Same thing with gays getting married. 

Incest is against the law for good reasons.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Same reason a brother and sister can't marry.  Incest is against the law.  Same reason that you can't marry a nine-year old.  Pedophilia is against the law.  Same reason you can't marry more than one person.  Bigamy is against the law.
> 
> Now, at one time, my having a relationship with my Chinese girlfriend would have been against the law, but the laws changed.  But you can't make an argument against it other than bigotry.  Same thing with gays getting married.
> 
> Incest is against the law for good reasons.



Two brothers can’t marry because they would pass defective genes onto their offspring??

How’s that work Joe?

Now who’s being silly?

Oh, and it just occurred to me that, since marriage is not about procreation, then why assume it involves sex in the first place? Obviously a straight same sex couple would not join in a sexual relationship. The only possible sexual relations in a same sex marriage between partners, would be if both partners were gay and that doesn’t  create a child anyway.

Bizarre requirement for same sex couples, wouldn’t you say, Joe?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Before I destroy your argument, show one place where I made a bigoted comment.
> 
> I will wait.


I won't keep you waiting:
First lets review the definition of bigotry:



> big·ot·ry
> [ˈbiɡətrē]
> 
> NOUN
> 
> obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:
> "the difficulties of combating prejudice


*"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion" *Your belief and opinion that you have expressed that SAME SEX couples should not be able to marry for no reason other than the fact that they are gay and therefore "different"

While you tried to justfy it based on there inability to have children one on one that argument fell flat  when you admitted that you would hold opposite sex couples  who could not have children  to a different standard and would allow them to marry, 

I will add that the argument  about conceiving children has NEVER been seccessfully argued.

With that argument dead in the water, it is apparent that you harbor deep prejudice towards gay people not withstading the fact that you won't admit it or say why. But there is no other explaiantion

The bottom line is that you support a restictive and exclusionary policy for a group for no  reasonable or rational reason. 

Read more:








						Why is opposition to gay marriage bigoted?
					

Answer (1 of 6): I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle:  I don't think the government should grant ANYBODY a marriage, whether they be straight or LGBT.   The problem with marriage is that it is a religious institution to begin with.  Somewhere along the line, government start...




					www.quora.com
				






> The idea that people don't deserve equal treatment based on their sexual orientation is bigoted, therefore any decision that follows from that is, by it's very nature, bigoted. Any argument made against equality of marriage in a secular society doesn't hold up.





> Every argument against gay marriage boils down to, "I don't like it, gay people are gross," or "Religion says it's bad." Neither of those arguments should have any bearing on a decision made by a secular government. Marriage is an institution that is maintained by the state in the US, not by religion.





Now, what exactly do you think that you are going to destroy? I can't wait to see what sort of bizarre bullshit you come up with


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> where is marriage mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights?   Its not, therefore it is NOT a federal issue and that is all Cruz said.   Why are you lefties so scared of letting the people of each state vote on gay marriage and abortion?  Try to answer honestly if you can.


Fish,  Equal protection under the law and due process are in the constitution. I documented the fact that the SCOTUS has, on numerous occaisions ruled that the states domain over marriage is not absolute. While marriageitself can besaid to bea state matter, that does not mean that it can beadministered ina way that violates individual rights.

You are the ones who should be afraid of putting those issues to a popular vote an, in fact abortion had been voted on in a number of syayes recently. It did no go well for concervatives. 

The right to same sex marriage would also prevail in most states . But the fact is that issues of rights should not be left to the people or the states because there will always be cases where righhts are voted down and the rule of law ignored. This is a Constitutional Republic. It is not a Federation of states tat can do whatever the hell they want.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I won't keep you waiting:
> First lets review the definition of bigotry:
> 
> 
> *"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion" *Your belief and opinion that you have expressed that SAME SEX couples should not be able to marry for no reason other than the fact that they are gay and therefore "different"
> 
> While you tried to justfy it based on there inability to have children one on one that argument fell flat  when you admitted that you would hold opposite sex couples  who could not have children  to a different standard and would allow them to marry,
> 
> I will add that the argument  about conceiving children has NEVER been seccessfully argued.
> 
> With that argument dead in the water, it is apparent that you harbor deep prejudice towards gay people not withstading the fact that you won't admit it or say why. But there is no other explaiantion
> 
> The bottom line is that you support a restictive and exclusionary policy for a group for no  reasonable or rational reason.
> 
> Read more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is opposition to gay marriage bigoted?
> 
> 
> Answer (1 of 6): I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle:  I don't think the government should grant ANYBODY a marriage, whether they be straight or LGBT.   The problem with marriage is that it is a religious institution to begin with.  Somewhere along the line, government start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.quora.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what exactly do you think that you are going to destroy? I can't wait to see what sort of bizarre bullshit you come up with



Your word salad means nothing.

Two people, not closely related only make sense if those two can create a child within the Union.

I am not the bigot, that would be you. Unless you have an explanation as to how a Union between 2 same sex individuals can create a child, you have nothing except a pipe dream.


----------



## HeyNorm

Redfish said:


> where is marriage mentioned in the constitution or the bill of rights?   Its not, therefore it is NOT a federal issue and that is all Cruz said.   Why are you lefties so scared of letting the people of each state vote on gay marriage and abortion?  Try to answer honestly if you can.



Gays can marry anybody of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. 

They just think straight sex is icky.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Your word salad means nothing.


It means  nothing to you beause you have shit for brains


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It mesnd nothing to you beause you have shit for brains


Shit for brains would be a substantial upgrade for you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Two people, not closely related only make sense if those two can create a child within the Union.


Same shit different post. You are totally obtuse. Marriage is many things and serves many purposes   besides making babies . You are stuck in the mud. Is this how you were going to suposidly " destroy" my argument. You're destroying yourself


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I am not the bigot, that would be you. Unless you have an explanation as to how a Union between 2 same sex individuals can create a child, you have nothing except a pipe dream.


That makes no fucking sence. How am I the bigot when I am not trying to exclude anyone from marriage except someone who wants to marry his or her minor child. So much for destroying me. 

And I an STILL waiting for you to step up and admit what the real reasons are for you wanting to punish gays  AND THEIR CHILDREN


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It means  nothing to you beause you have shit for brains


Wow, now you are really showing your superior intellect!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Same shit different post. You are totally obtuse. Marriage is many things and  besides making babies . You are stuck in the mud. Is this how you were going to suposidly " destroy" my argument. You're destroying yourself



Thank you. Now explain the reasoning for the couple to not be closely related. 

You are a laugh a minute.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Wow, now you are really showing your suprior intellect!



A superior intellect, replying to his own post. 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Gays can marry anybody of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.


Now THAT is bigoted bullshit that I previously excoriated you on. You're actually saying that gays do not have the right marry someone who they are emotionally and physically attracted to what that right is understood among heterosexuals. No only do you not respect the rights of individuals, you are degrading the institution of marriage andreducing to a loveless buisness arrangement. I have to want what sort of relationships you have if any.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That makes no fucking sence. How am I the bigot when I am not trying to exclude anyone from marriage except someone who wants to marry his or her minor child. So much for destroying me.
> 
> And I an STILL waiting for you to step up and admit what the real reasons are for you wanting to punish gays  AND THEIR CHILDREN



Oh, so you don’t mind incest. Got it.

So you think it’s perfectly fine for a Father to Marry a Daughter as long as they are adults. 

You are one sick dude.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now THAT is bigoted bullshit that I previously excoriated you on. You're actually saying that gays do not have the right marry someone who they are emotionally and physically attracted to what that right is understood among heterosexuals. No only do you not respect the rights of individuals, you are degrading the institution of marriage andreducing to a loveless buisness arrangement. I have to want what sort of relationships you have if any.



Sexual and emotional attraction is not a requirement of a marriage license. 

Is someone forcing you to marry? Sounds like it. 

And many. Many gays married prior to obergfell.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now THAT is bigoted bullshit that I previously excoriated you on. You're actually saying that gays do not have the right marry someone who they are emotionally and physically attracted to what that right is understood among heterosexuals. No only do you not respect the rights of individuals, you are degrading the institution of marriage andreducing to a loveless buisness arrangement. I have to want what sort of relationships you have if any.



Hey you changed the law, not me. Why else would the law change to make it legal for same sex straights to marry?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, so you don’t mind incest. Got it.
> 
> So you think it’s perfectly fine for a Father to Marry a Daughter as long as they are adults.
> 
> You are one sick dude.


You are beyong stupid! I said exactly the opposite!! What the fuck is wrong with you??!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Hey you changed the law, not me. Why else would the law change to make it legal for same sex straights to marry?


More stupidity.  That does not even address my point

 You're really outdoing yourself today Oberegfell simply to gender out of the equation. There is no law makes same sex straight people can mary and there is no law against it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Sexual and emotional attraction is not a requirement of a marriage license.


Of course not legally. But most people including gays require it in ther personal  lives and the law must respect that. Have you ever experience an emotional attraction?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are beyong stupid! I said exactly the opposite!! What the fuck is wrong with you??!!





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How am I the bigot when I am not trying to exclude anyone from marriage except someone who wants to marry his or her minor child. So much for destroying me.



“ I am not trying to exclude anyone from marriage except someone who wants to marry his or her own minor child”

So you would not exclude adult Fathers marrying Adult daughters. 

You’ve shown your true colors. And I am happy to show them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> And many. Many gays married prior to obergfell.


So what. ? Look. Let me know when you have sometyhing new to contribute, including your reasons for wanting to PUNISH GAYS AND THEIR CHILDRE, Until then don't bother me

Oh I'm still waiting for you to destroy my argument. If you think that you have you must be  psychotic as well as stupid


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Of course not legally. But most people including gays require it in ther personal  lives and the law must respect that. Have you ever experience an emotional attraction?



Often, but allowing straight same sex couples the right to marry kinda makes my point, now don’t it.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So what. ? Look. Let me know when you have sometyhing new to contribute, including your reasons for wanting to PUNISH GAYS AND THEIR CHILDRE, Until then don't bother me
> 
> Oh I'm still waiting for you to destroy my argument. If you think that you have you must be  psychotic as well as stupid



I did, your just to stupid to see it!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Often, but allowing straight same sex couples the right to marry kinda makes my point, now don’t it.


I don't even know what inane point it is that you think your making. I told you not to bother be until you have something new to say,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I did, your just to stupid to see it!


Really.? Those voices in you head might be telling you that but reality is reality


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I don't even know what inane point it is that you think your making. I told you not to bother be until you have something new to say,



when you said you wouldn’t exclude adult siblings and adult parent/children to marry, you showed you are not adult enough to have a mature conversation with.

Hope you fail in this attempt. It’s really, really perverted


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> when you said you wouldn’t exclude adult siblings and adult parent/children to marry, you showed you are not adult enough to have a mature conversation with.
> 
> Hope you fail in this attempt. It’s really, really perverted


I did not say that you fucking slimy troll. Just because I specifically mentioned minor children, you can't take that as a statement on my views of adult incest. How stupid are you? That is a complicated subject and not the topic of this thread. I will say that although it may involve consenting adults, it has the potential to upend society. So go ahead and call me a bigot again . You are not same and honest enought to have any conversation with


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I did not say that you fucking slimy troll. Just because I specifically mentioned minor children, you can't take that as a statement on my views of adult incest. How stupid are you? That is a complicated subject and not the topic of this thread. I will say that although it may involve consenting adults, it has the potential to upend society. So go ahead and call me a bigot again . You are not same and honest enought to have any conversation with



Bullshit, you specifically said you would only exclude parents from marrying their own minor children. 

Go away perv


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That makes no fucking sence. How am I the bigot when I am not trying to exclude anyone from marriage except someone who wants to marry his or her minor child. So much for destroying me.
> 
> And I an STILL waiting for you to step up and admit what the real reasons are for you wanting to punish gays  AND THEIR CHILDREN



See above, your ONLY EXCLUSSION


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> See above, your ONLY EXCLUSSION


Get the fuck out of here and stop poluting the thread with your trolling bullshit,.  Excluding some people from marriage if there is a rational basis and compelling societal interst in doing so does not make one a bigot ( and no, I am not going to get into all of that)

Come back when you are ready to honestly explain why you have such animosity for gay people that you will punish them AND THEIR CHIDREN by excluding them fom marriage. 

Excluding a class of people from marriage when there is NO RATIONAL BASIS OR COMPELLING SOCIETAL INTEREST does make someone a bigot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Bullshit, you specifically said you would only exclude parents from marrying their own minor children.
> 
> Go away perv


So that makes me a perv.? You do not really have to keep   trying so hard to prove that you are a dangerous combination of crazy and stupid


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Get the fuck out of here and stop poluting the thread with your trolling bullshit,.  Excluding some people from marriage if there is a rational basis and compelling societal interst in doing so does not make one a bigot ( and no, I am not going to get into all of that)
> 
> Come back when you are ready to honestly explain why you have such animosity for gay people that you will punish them AND THEIR CHIDREN by excluding them fom marriage.
> 
> Excluding a class of people from marriage when there is NO RATIONAL BASIS OR COMPELLING SOCIETAL INTEREST does make someone a bigot.



So, you want to only exclude parents and their minor children from marriage. So in your view, it would be fine for dad to marry daughter if both are adults. And of course, grandpa could marry granddaughter as well. Right?

What a bizarre world you live in.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So that makes me a perv.? You do not really have to keep   trying so hard to prove that you are a dangerous combination of crazy and stupid



Yes, the advocation of and adult daughter marrying their adult father, is by definition, perverted.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Get the fuck out of here and stop poluting the thread with your trolling bullshit,.  Excluding some people from marriage if there is a rational basis and compelling societal interst in doing so does not make one a bigot ( and no, I am not going to get into all of that)
> 
> Come back when you are ready to honestly explain why you have such animosity for gay people that you will punish them AND THEIR CHIDREN by excluding them fom marriage.
> 
> Excluding a class of people from marriage when there is NO RATIONAL BASIS OR COMPELLING SOCIETAL INTEREST does make someone a bigot.



The only class of people I exclude are minors, those too closely related and those incapable of giving consent. 

You on the other hand find adult incestuous marriage acceptable.


----------



## emilynghiem

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Striking down a ban as unconstitutional is consistent with judicial function.

States writing and making their own laws through their elected reps is legislative duty.

Judges do not write or make laws, but can rule on whether policies and laws violate Constitutional rights limits process or protections of govt.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Fish,  Equal protection under the law and due process are in the constitution. I documented the fact that the SCOTUS has, on numerous occaisions ruled that the states domain over marriage is not absolute. While marriageitself can besaid to bea state matter, that does not mean that it can beadministered ina way that violates individual rights.
> 
> You are the ones who should be afraid of putting those issues to a popular vote an, in fact abortion had been voted on in a number of syayes recently. It did no go well for concervatives.
> 
> The right to same sex marriage would also prevail in most states . But the fact is that issues of rights should not be left to the people or the states because there will always be cases where righhts are voted down and the rule of law ignored. This is a Constitutional Republic. It is not a Federation of states tat can do whatever the hell they want.


does equal protection language apply to mentally ill people who want to walk free on our streets?  Does it apply to drug dealers who are poisoning the youth of america?   Yes, those people should have access to a trial before being prosecuted but my analogy remains valid.   Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests.  

Personally I have no issue with gay unions, but I will never understand why you libs insist on calling them marriages.  A marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nothing else.  Some of your fellow libs on the west coast are ;pushing for multiple person "marriages" and person/dog marriages and person/sex doll marriages.  Where does this shit end?   

you claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> So, you want to only exclude parents and their minor children from marriage. So in your view, it would be fine for dad to marry daughter if both are adults. And of course, grandpa could marry granddaughter as well. Right?
> 
> What a bizarre world you live in.


Look troll . The thread is about GAY MARRIAGE, I am not going to let you derail it by making it about incest inorder to avaid discussion about your bigotry and animosity towards gays


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yes, the advocation of and adult daughter marrying their adult father, is by definition, perverted.


The topic is gay marriage and you admitted bigotry


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Redfish said:


> you [TheOppressiveFaggot] claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?



  Because he knows it's a lie.

  Even here, in relentlessly left *wrong*-wing California, the issue came up twice on the ballot, and both times, Californians solidly voted to reject the disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage; both times to shortly be overruled by corrupt faggot judges.

  If the homosexual mockery of marriage can't pass an honest vote in California, then it seems unlikely that it could pass anywhere in this country.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> The only class of people I exclude are minors, those too closely related and those incapable of giving consent.
> 
> You on the other hand find adult incestuous marriage acceptable.


You are full of shit.!! 
I never took a position on adult incestual marriage and that is not the topic . 

You clearly and unabashedly stated that you wish to exclude same sex couples- both gay and straight ( if there are any) -from marriage.

Then you lied about your reasons for being against it- the inability to have children one on one

Your lie was exposed when you were forced to admit that you would not apply that same standard to opposite sex couple who could not have children.

Since then you have been too much of a dishonest coward  to say why you really want to punish gay people AND THERE CHILDREN by depriving gay people of the ability to marry.

That is where we are at. That is the only thing that there si to discuuse. Not incest, not your made up same ses straight couples, or any other troll topics that you tried to use inorder to divert attention away from your bigotry,


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The topic is gay marriage and you admitted bigotry



So you advocate that gay marriage requires a separate institution. 

That’s what we’ve been saying from the start.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are full of shit.!!
> I never took a position on adult incestual marriage and that is not the topic .
> 
> You clearly and unabashedly stated that you wish to exclude same sex couples- both gay and straight ( if there are any) -from marriage.
> 
> Then you lied about your reasons for being against it- the inability to have children one on one
> 
> Your lie was exposed when you were forced to admit that you would not apply that same standard to opposite sex couple who could not have children.
> 
> Since then you have been too much of a dishonest coward  to say why you really want to punish gay people AND THERE CHILDREN by depriving gay people of the ability to marry.
> 
> That is where we are at. That is the only thing that there si to discuuse. Not incest, not your made up same ses straight couples, or any other troll topics that you tried to use inorder to divert attention away from your bigotry,



All I did was to quote your post that asserted that you would only exclude the right to marry to a parent and their children.

And your pissed off because I pointed out your absurdity?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are full of shit.!!
> I never took a position on adult incestual marriage and that is not the topic .
> 
> You clearly and unabashedly stated that you wish to exclude same sex couples- both gay and straight ( if there are any) -from marriage.
> 
> Then you lied about your reasons for being against it- the inability to have children one on one
> 
> Your lie was exposed when you were forced to admit that you would not apply that same standard to opposite sex couple who could not have children.
> 
> Since then you have been too much of a dishonest coward  to say why you really want to punish gay people AND THERE CHILDREN by depriving gay people of the ability to marry.
> 
> That is where we are at. That is the only thing that there si to discuuse. Not incest, not your made up same ses straight couples, or any other troll topics that you tried to use inorder to divert attention away from your bigotry,



Tell me PP, how do you know the number of straight same sex married couples when no one is reguired to disclose sexuality on a marriage license application?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The topic is gay marriage and you admitted bigotry



Not too closely related is a part of the marriage requirement, and no, this isn’t about something you call gay marriage, it’s about same sex marriage. 

Odd, sexuality is never mentioned in marriage law, only gays bring it up. Are you actually here in an effort to promote a separate institution for gays?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> So you advocate that gay marriage requires a separate institution.
> 
> That’s what we’ve been saying from the start.


That is just plain stupid! Where do you get that shit from? YOU are the one who aid that gay marriage requires a separate legal structure or something like that. There is not way that you can really be so stupis as to think that I said that


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Tell me PP, how do you know the number of straight same sex married couples when no one is reguired to disclose sexuality on a marriage license application?


There you go again making up shit. I never said that I knew any such thing. I said that I doubt if very many -if any-exist. This is just another of you deflections to avoid a disgussion of your bigotry and lies


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Not too closely related is a part of the marriage requirement, and no, this isn’t about something you call gay marriage, it’s about same sex marriage.


It is not a factor in the issue of whether or not GAY MARRIAGE should be legal. The Obergefell ruling's intent was to allow gay people to marry their own gender. If a heterosexual wants to go along for the ride they are welcome to it.

When are you going to get around to explaining your bigotry and your real rason for opposing GAY MARRIAGE Stop being such a troll and a coward!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Odd, sexuality is never mentioned in marriage law, only gays bring it up. Are you actually here in an effort to promote a separate institution for gays?


I guess you really are that stupid. Marriage is marriage. YOU STATED that YOU want a separat institution. Stop trolling inorder to avaoid a disgussion of your bigotry and lies

Your latest troll tactic is not working. I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> does equal protection language apply to mentally ill people who want to walk free on our streets? Does it apply to drug dealers who are poisoning the youth of america? Yes, those people should have access to a trial before being prosecuted but my analogy remains valid. Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests.


Everyone is entittled to constituional protections That does not mean that danerous people and criminals should be allowed to roam free. Thet are however entittled to due process.

I don't kwhat the rest of this means:

".......my analogy remains valid. Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> Personally I have no issue with gay unions, but I will never understand why you libs insist on calling them marriages. A marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nothing else. Some of your fellow libs on the west coast are ;pushing for multiple person "marriages" and person/dog marriages and person/sex doll marriages. Where does this shit end?


The real questionis "why NOT call it marriage?" What compellig  societal or goverment interst is there in denying gay people the use of the word marriage. Your bleating that marriage is a man and a woman does not make it true and for some time now it has not been true,

On the other hand there are compelling reasons to call it Marriage:


Anything short of simply extending the right of marriage to gays just  panders to the religious right and other bigots, while  not appeasing those opposed to same sex unions.
Marriage has a special meaning to many people-religious and secular, gay and straight alike. It is universally understood to mean a certain thing. The fact that many do not understand what a civil union is was a big problem for gay couples before Obergefell and would be a problem for every one if we reverted to it now.
The Federal Government does not reccognise Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships as qualiying for Federal benefits of which there are many

But no one loses if it is called marriage


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> you claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?


I explained why. "Most" is not "all" In  addition Civil rights are to be determind the Constitution , not the will of tjhe people


----------



## playtime

ted cruz has no idea what a real marriage is.

look how he threw his 'traditional' spouse under the bus for a 3x married  adulterous fornicator that banged a porn star a mere 4 months after his 5th spawn was birthed by his 3rd baby mama -  putting them at risk with contracting some nasty STD.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is just plain stupid! Where do you get that shit from? YOU are the one who aid that gay marriage requires a separate legal structure or something like that. There is not way that you can really be so stupis as to think that I said that



Because you define it as something different…….

Over and over and over and over.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I guess you really are that stupid. Marriage is marriage. YOU STATED that YOU want a separat institution. Stop trolling inorder to avaoid a disgussion of your bigotry and lies
> 
> Your latest troll tactic is not working. I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth



Sure, and all were treated equally before obergfell.  

Did you know that the requirement that every marriage include one man to one woman, regardless of sexuality, was not a guarantee that everyone would find another that wanted to engage with them?

You pulled a fast one, and I’m just pointing that out. 

Maybe you just didn’t look hard or long enough. 

Sad, really.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I explained why. "Most" is not "all" In  addition Civil rights are to be determind the Constitution , not the will of tjhe people



But this isn’t a civil rights issue. Hell, there’s no biological proof homosexuality even really exist.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> ted cruz has no idea what a real marriage is.
> 
> look how he threw his 'traditional' spouse under the bus for a 3x married  adulterous fornicator that banged a porn star a mere 4 months after his 5th spawn was birthed by his 3rd baby mama -  putting them at risk with contracting some nasty STD.



Where in the marriage law does it say you can’t keep dating. 

Hell, if I married another straight man, I’m sure we would both keep dating women.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> But this isn’t a civil rights issue.



of course it is.  




HeyNorm said:


> Hell, there’s no biological proof homosexuality even really exist.



okey dokey ... you go ahead & pretend yer gay ... 

homosexuality is found thru out nature.  you can't get any more biological than that, given that every other mammal  on this earth is free from the religious & societal hang ups you so evidently have.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Where in the marriage law does it say you can’t keep dating.



ever hear of the word : _temptation_?  

start there.




HeyNorm said:


> Hell, if I married another straight man, I’m sure we would both keep dating women.



then you wouldn't be in a true marriage.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> of course it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> okey dokey ... you go ahead & pretend yer gay ...
> 
> homosexuality is found thru out nature.  you can't get any more biological than that, given that every other mammal  on this earth is free from the religious & societal hang ups you so evidently have.



OK, so are homosexuals genes different? DNA? No?

Maybe they have different spleens? Smaller kidneys?

During an autopsy of an unknown male or female, what would the medical examiner use to determine sexuality?

And, regardless, fun fact, the marriage law, pre obergfell made no distinction between straight or gay.

All you had to do is find an opposite sex human, not too closely related, of certain age and competent to consent, to agree to the license.

It’s really not that hard to comply.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> ever hear of the word : _temptation_?
> 
> start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then you wouldn't be in a true marriage.



Huh, who are you to say what a true marriage is?

The couple involved in the marriage are allowed to construct the Union as they wish. 

As bizarre as it seems, gays have married opposite sex individuals in days gone by. Why?

None of my business.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> OK, so are homosexuals genes different? DNA? No?



nobody said they were.  but no matter how hard you try -  you won't be turned on by the same sex as you.... why is that?  cause sexuality starts in the brain.  




HeyNorm said:


> Maybe they have different spleens? Smaller kidneys?
> 
> During an autopsy of an unknown male or female, what would the medical examiner use to determine sexuality?



you're silly.



HeyNorm said:


> And, regardless, fun fact, the marriage law, pre obergfell made no distinction between straight or gay.



well, if you wanna get technical - marriage is a societal construct to keep money & blood lines pure.  



HeyNorm said:


> All you had to do is find an opposite sex human, not too closely related, of certain age and competent to consent, to agree to the license.
> 
> It’s really not that hard to comply.



marriage is much more than a license.  the 'license' is almost an afterthought.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Huh, who are you to say what a true marriage is?



a true marriage goes beyond cash or blood line.  




HeyNorm said:


> The couple involved in the marriage are allowed to construct the Union as they wish.



i never said otherwise.  homogays included.




HeyNorm said:


> As bizarre as it seems, gays have married opposite sex individuals in days gone by. Why?



really?  you can't figure that one out?




HeyNorm said:


> None of my business.



exactly ... whether they are out or still in the closet for whatever reason.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> nobody said they were.  but no matter how hard you try -  you won't be turned on by the same sex as you.... why is that?  cause sexuality starts in the brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're silly.
> 
> 
> 
> well, if you wanna get technical - marriage is a societal construct to keep money & blood lines pure.
> 
> 
> 
> marriage is much more than a license.  the 'license' is almost an afterthought.



I would agree on the bloodlines issue. Incest is a nasty, nasty thing, but only only a problem when we talk pre obergfell. You need to keep track of bloodlines, regardless of the sexuality composition of the couple. 

Tracking the bloodline of same sex couple offspring is …………..

Well, as you say, silly.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> I would agree on the bloodlines issue. Incest is a nasty, nasty thing, but only only a problem when we talk pre obergfell. You need to keep track of bloodlines, regardless of the sexuality composition of the couple.
> 
> Tracking the bloodline of same sex couple offspring is …………..
> 
> Well, as you say, silly.



i never mentioned incest.

'blue blood'  marrying 'blue blood' does not mean incest. it means the wealthy like to keep their money.


----------



## HeyNorm

HeyNorm said:


> I would agree on the bloodlines issue. Incest is a nasty, nasty thing, but only only a problem when we talk pre obergfell. You need to keep track of bloodlines, regardless of the sexuality composition of the couple.
> 
> Tracking the bloodline of same sex couple offspring is …………..
> 
> Well, as you say, silly.



Um, no, a true marriage is whatever the couple agrees to, as long as they are of opposite sex, not to closely related and of legal age to consent. 

The rest is non sense and found nowhere in marriage law.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> i never mentioned incest.
> 
> 'blue blood'  marrying 'blue blood' does not mean incest. it means the wealthy like to keep their money.



Oh, now it’s blue bloods? 

You realize that individuals breeding with others too closely related can cause genetically inferior bloodlines that can have dire consequences for generations. 

But I guess some just don’t care, and if you can’t breed, why would you care?


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Um, no, a true marriage is whatever the couple agrees to, as long as they are of opposite sex, not to closely related and of legal age to consent.
> 
> The rest is non sense and found nowhere in marriage law.



laws change & evolve, hence:  loving   v   virginia


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, now it’s blue bloods?



that's what i said from the start.  bloodlines does not = incest. 




HeyNorm said:


> You realize that individuals breeding with others too closely related can cause genetically inferior bloodlines that can have dire consequences for generations.



of course.



HeyNorm said:


> But I guess some just don’t care, and if you can’t breed, why would you care?



a hetero marriage doesn't always produce offspring -  whether by choice or nature.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> laws change & evolve, hence:  loving   v   virginia


If the medical examiner we spoke about earlier performed an autopsy on a body, he could determine the sex. Regardless of the race, which is still determinable during an autopsy, they still could not determine sexuality. 

But yes, race is a civil rights issue. Same sex marriage is not.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> that's what i said from the start.  bloodlines does not = incest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course.
> 
> 
> 
> a hetero marriage doesn't always produce offspring -  whether by choice or nature.



Nope, producing offspring is not a qualification. Some can’t because of reproductive disability. 

Are you saying gay same sex couples can’t create offspring because they are disabled? Fun fact, opposite sex fertile gay couples can, but still have to comply with not being too closely related. 

Not fair?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Because you define it as something different…….
> 
> Over and over and over and over.


Bullshit ! Same sex marriage is gay marriage and it will contine to me gay marriage until you present evidence that straight peple marrying their own gender is commonplace

But don't bother,. Even if they are out there , marriage is still marriage. Opposit sex straight couples, opposite sex gay couplessame sex gay couples and same sex straight couples ....all subjected to the same laws. 

You're stil trying to gaslight me with this newest troll game. Not working . I will not let you and the world forget that you are a bigot amd a liar


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit ! Same sex marriage is gay marriage and it will contine to me gay marriage until you present evidence that straight peple marrying their own gender is commonplace
> 
> But don't bother,. Even if they are out there , marriage is still marriage. Opposit sex straight couples, opposite sex gay couplessame sex gay couples and same sex straight couples ....all subjected to the same laws.
> 
> You're stil trying to gaslight me with this newest troll game. Not working . I will not let you and the world forget that you are a bigot amd a liar



Lol, bigot. 

Denying the right of same sex straights to marriage is repulsive. 

Shame on you!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Sure, and all were treated equally before obergfell.


WHAT??!! How stupid are you?


----------



## HeyNorm

HeyNorm said:


> Lol, bigot.
> 
> Denying the right of same sex straights to marriage is repulsive.
> 
> Shame on you!



Supply me with all these gay marriage licenses you imply exist. 

Thanks


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> WHAT??!! How stupid are you?



Yep, all were.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Lol, bigot.
> 
> Denying the right of same sex straights to marriage is repulsive.
> 
> Shame on you!


I did not deny then anything you moron. ! You have a serious problem with comprehension. Either that of you are so stupid that you think that you can  gaslight me by claiming that I said the opposite of what I really said and that I would believe you

None of that shit is working I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Supply me with all these gay marriage licenses you imply exist.
> 
> Thanks


There is no such thing as a gay marriage license or straight marriagelicense. There are just marriage licenses and no one implied otherwise . This bulshit will not save you

I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I did not deny then anything you moron. ! You have a serious problem with comprehension. Either that of you are so stupid that you think that you can  gaslight me by claiming that I said the opposite of what I really said and that I would believe you
> 
> None of that shit is working I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth



I’ve never said anything but that I oppose same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality?

Senile?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There is no such thing as a gay marriage license or straight marriagelicense. There are just marriage licenses and no one implied otherwise . This bulshit will not save you
> 
> I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth



You just admitted that it’s not gay marriage then, and you, just moments ago said there was such a thing. 

Not only that, you required documentation of something, then admit such documentation can’t even exist. 

is your entire life as confused as it looks to be?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yep, all were.


Really? Gay peope who  wanted to marry their own gender but could not do so had rights equal to straight people? Please explain

I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You just admitted that it’s not gay marriage then, and you, just moments ago said there was such a thing.


Stop with the stupid gaes LEGALLYmarriage is marriage . The the participants are gay, and same sex, it is gay marriage from a social matter


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Not only that, you required documentation of something, then admit such documentation can’t even exist.


I did what??!! I said nothing about a gay marriage license until you brought it up , fool. Srop trying to hide behind your duplicitous bullshit and deal with the real issue

I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve never said anything but that I oppose same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality?
> 
> Senile?


Really? You didn't spend days claiming that you opposed same sex marriage because they cannot produce children in their own union ?

You did not finally admit that you would not apply that sane standard to opposite sex couples who could not have children?

STOP LYING


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I did what??!! I said nothing about a gay marriage license until you brought it up , fool. Srop trying to hide behind your duplicitous bullshit and deal with the real issue
> 
> I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth



You wanted proof that same sex straight couples marry. Then you say that those documents required for proof don’t exist. 

Damn dude, make up your mind!

Oh, and claiming same sex marriage is gay marriage is a bigoted statement. I for one am eligible for a same sex marriage, and not anywhere close to gay, and neither are the vast vast majority of those eligible!

🤦‍♂️


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? You didn't spend days claiming that you opposed same sex marriage because they cannot produce children in their own union ?
> 
> You did not finally admit that you would not apply that sane standard to opposite sex couples who could not have children?
> 
> STOP LYING



Good job bro. You figured out that same sex couples can’t produce children from their unions.  

There is hope for you!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Good job bro. You figured out that same sex couples can’t produce children from their unions.
> 
> There is hope for you!


I never said otherwise Moron ! Stop deflecting and adit why you hate and want to punish gays AND THEIR CHILREN. I will hold your feet to the fire until you grow a spin and tell the truth and stop hiding behind all of this other bullshit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You wanted proof that same sex straight couples marry. Then you say that those documents required for proof don’t exist.


I did not say that I wanted proof in the form of marriage licenses . I simply challanged you to produce evidence that straight people are marrying their own gender and you failed miserably like you always do


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, and claiming same sex marriage is gay marriage is a bigoted statement. I for one am eligible for a same sex marriage, and not anywhere close to gay, and neither are the vast vast majority of those eligible!


Clearly you do not understand what bigotry is, You call me a bigot when I am not denying rights for or desparing any group including any straight people who want to marry their own gender

At the same to you lacck the insight and self awarness to reccognize  your own bigotry

 I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Clearly you do not understand what bigotry is, You call me a bigot when I am not denying rights for or desparing any group including any straight people who want to marry their own gender
> 
> At the same to you lacck the insight and self awarness to reccognize  your own bigotry
> 
> I will not let you forget that you admitted to a lie about why you oppse same sex marriage and now you are too much of a worm and a coward to tell the truth



If you like I’ll restate why I oppose same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality. 

Because a marriage is the Union of a man to a woman, not closely related, when both of are of legal age and with the ability to consent freely. 

Now I would add that the above should and always had included many gays who chose to marry a partner of the opposite sex. 

Thanks.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Two brothers can’t marry because they would pass defective genes onto their offspring??


Nope, they can't get married because they are closely related.    Don't be fucking dense.  



HeyNorm said:


> Oh, and it just occurred to me that, since marriage is not about procreation, then why assume it involves sex in the first place? Obviously a straight same sex couple would not join in a sexual relationship. The only possible sexual relations in a same sex marriage between partners, would be if both partners were gay and that doesn’t create a child anyway.



Well, you probably shouldn't try thinking, it hurts your brain.   More to the point, stupid, there's really not a good reason to get married without a sexual component being involved.  There's barely a good one with one.   



HeyNorm said:


> Bizarre requirement for same sex couples, wouldn’t you say, Joe?



Nope.  Frankly, you guys had this argument, and your best shot was "I think it's icky and God says it's bad."   That just didn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, they can't get married because they are closely related.    Don't be fucking dense.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you probably shouldn't try thinking, it hurts your brain.   More to the point, stupid, there's really not a good reason to get married without a sexual component being involved.  There's barely a good one with one.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Frankly, you guys had this argument, and your best shot was "I think it's icky and God says it's bad."   That just didn't pass the laugh test.



But Joe, if we say same sex couples can’t get married just because, you call that unjust.

So Joe, why cant you marry because you are too closely related?

It’s scary to actually answer questions, but at least try.

Oh, and Joe, I’m sure we all appreciate you giving your opinion on the essentials of marriage, but I think it’s bigoted to require a sexual component to marriage, especially to those that have suffered injuries making that impossible.

Strange argument by someone arguing for equality.


----------



## lennypartiv

Skylar said:


> I mean polygamous marriage. The 'slippery slope' has been predicted for approaching a decade.
> Where is it?


Where else?

---Vanguard is affiliated with the Kingston polygamist group, known as “The Order.”---









						Polygamy charter school ordered to remove entire school board - Network For Public Education
					

In a dramatic move, the Utah State Charter School Board ordered Vanguard Academy to replace all seven members of its school board. In addition, the USBE will appoint a temporary director to work with the current director. Vanguard is affiliated with the Kingston polygamist group, known as “The...




					networkforpubliceducation.org


----------



## AsherN

HeyNorm said:


> Because a marriage is the Union of a man to a woman, not closely related, when both of are of legal age and with the ability to consent freely.


That was then. It is now the union of 2 consenting adults, not closely related. 

That simple.


----------



## HeyNorm

AsherN said:


> That was then. It is now the union of 2 consenting adults, not closely related.
> 
> That simple.



For now.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> But Joe, if we say same sex couples can’t get married just because, you call that unjust.
> 
> So Joe, why cant you marry because you are too closely related?



Because it's specifically against the law.   And not even consistently, because some states you can marry a second cousin. Some states you can even marry a first cousin.  Having sex with a close relation is also against the law, but it is almost never enforced with adults.






It gets better.  Even if a child was adopted, he or she cannot have legal sex or marriage with an adopted sibling because the law STILL sees the relationship as incestuous even if there is NO GENETIC relation.









						Can Adopted Siblings Marry?
					

There are some states that prohibit adopted siblings from legally marrying, while others are not as specific regarding the matter.




					www.liveabout.com
				




Although adopted siblings wishing to marry is an extremely rare and unusual situation, it is a possibility. But is it legal? The short answer is "no." It appears that throughout the U.S. and in most of the world, parties that are direct descendants or siblings—including adopted (by law) relationships— are not allowed to marry. In some rare instances, however, there may be exceptions.


In most locales, it is commonly believed that when two individuals share the same parents—regardless if one has been adopted—they are full siblings. One state that leaves this issue a bit open-ended is Colorado. The wording of the Colorado statute regarding prohibitive relationships does not include the word "adopted," so adopted siblings who want to marry one another should follow up with a county clerk in that state.



HeyNorm said:


> Oh, and Joe, I’m sure we all appreciate you giving your opinion on the essentials of marriage, but I think it’s bigoted to require a sexual component to marriage, especially to those that have suffered injuries making that impossible.



Hardly my opinion.   Lack of consummation of the marriage IS grounds for annulment of a marriage. This is actually black letter law.





__





						StackPath
					





					www.sterlinglawyers.com
				




A party lacked the physical capacity to *consummate the marriage* through sexual intercourse.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Because it's specifically against the law.   And not even consistently, because some states you can marry a second cousin. Some states you can even marry a first cousin.  Having sex with a close relation is also against the law, but it is almost never enforced with adults.
> 
> View attachment 734798
> 
> It gets better.  Even if a child was adopted, he or she cannot have legal sex or marriage with an adopted sibling because the law STILL sees the relationship as incestuous even if there is NO GENETIC relation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can Adopted Siblings Marry?
> 
> 
> There are some states that prohibit adopted siblings from legally marrying, while others are not as specific regarding the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.liveabout.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although adopted siblings wishing to marry is an extremely rare and unusual situation, it is a possibility. But is it legal? The short answer is "no." It appears that throughout the U.S. and in most of the world, parties that are direct descendants or siblings—including adopted (by law) relationships— are not allowed to marry. In some rare instances, however, there may be exceptions.
> 
> 
> In most locales, it is commonly believed that when two individuals share the same parents—regardless if one has been adopted—they are full siblings. One state that leaves this issue a bit open-ended is Colorado. The wording of the Colorado statute regarding prohibitive relationships does not include the word "adopted," so adopted siblings who want to marry one another should follow up with a county clerk in that state.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly my opinion.   Lack of consummation of the marriage IS grounds for annulment of a marriage. This is actually black letter law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StackPath
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sterlinglawyers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A party lacked the physical capacity to *consummate the marriage* through sexual intercourse.



Lol, annulment is quite different Joe. The State can’t force dissolution. 

So if a couple can’t have sex due to accident or illness, it remains their choice.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Lol, annulment is quite different Joe. The State can’t force dissolution.
> 
> So if a couple can’t have sex due to accident or illness, it remains their choice.



Wow, the point keeps going over your head, doesn't it?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> If you like I’ll restate why I oppose same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality.
> 
> Because a marriage is the Union of a man to a woman, not closely related, when both of are of legal age and with the ability to consent freely.
> 
> Now I would add that the above should and always had included many gays who chose to marry a partner of the opposite sex.
> 
> Thanks.


Well we're making some progress here I suppose. You could have saved us all alot of trouble by stating that up front instead of taking us through that long charade about conceiving children which was then revealed as bullshit 

 OK so, you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. OK  Your entitled to your beliefs , but you are not entitled to impose those beliefs on  others. I will add that while that may be your belief , it is 1) not true in that marriage has NOT been just between a man and a woman in many place for quite some time now and 2) large segments of the population do not believe your definition of marriage is valid 

Yet, you will take that antiquated definition and use it as a justification to deprive millions of gay people the ability to marry their own gender depriving them AND THEIR CHILDREN the financial and legal security of marriage. 
I am not finished. Your expressed belief only scratches the surface. There is still more that you are not saying. There is something, some belief about gay people that compels you to cling to that belief . You are not off of the hook yet


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, the point keeps going over your head, doesn't it?


Not at all Joe, not in the least bit. 

Although, it’s a bit funny you think it does.


----------



## AsherN

HeyNorm said:


> For now.


And if challenged, we will take a look at societal norms. Polygamy might be the next challenge. It is older than monogamy, even in religious context. It is also far more complex because all laws relating to marriage are written with the assumption of monogamy. I don't see it happening in the near or even medium term future.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now I can add stupid to the long list of things that you are. You can't be fucking serious.!
> 
> You have an irrational annimosity towards gay people because they do not do something according to a way that you approve of( having children) As a result you advocate ounishing then and depriving them of certain rights.
> 
> In addition, no thinking person will believe that your position is just about how they have kids. There is more more to this that you are too much of a coward to admit.
> 
> The proof of that is that you have no problems with opposite sex couple who cannot have kids in a way that you approve of


The right to fudge pack? Usta be called Sodomy. Remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Besides ,this filthy habit started AIDS. The AIDS epidemic was started by Fags.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> A trans man can. So what is your point regarding gay marriage , exactly>?
> View attachment 733478


No such thing. They are all sick perverts.


----------



## HeyNorm

AsherN said:


> And if challenged, we will take a look at societal norms. Polygamy might be the next challenge. It is older than monogamy, even in religious context. It is also far more complex because all laws relating to marriage are written with the assumption of monogamy. I don't see it happening in the near or even medium term future.



Yeah, the woke crap that propped it up is in its death throes. Give it a year or two, three max.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Not at all Joe, not in the least bit.
> 
> Although, it’s a bit funny you think it does.



Nope, it really did.   You know how I know that?  Because like most homophobes, your go-to for being against gay marriage is to talk about just about anything other than gay marriage.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, it really did.   You know how I know that?  Because like most homophobes, your go-to for being against gay marriage is to talk about just about anything other than gay marriage.



Thanks again Joe, so it appears that you think gay marriage is a separate issue?

Interesting.

One minute you claim it’s not, then you claim it is?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Thanks again Joe, so it appears that you think gay marriage is a separate issue?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> One minute you claim it’s not, then you claim it is?



Nope, you are the one who brought up incest, which is illegal. 
Gay sex isn't illegal anymore, so there's no logical reason to deny gay people the right to marriage.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, you are the one who brought up incest, which is illegal.
> Gay sex isn't illegal anymore, so there's no logical reason to deny gay people the right to marriage.


Joe, point out a single place in which I said  gay people were ever denied the right to marry.

And yes, incest is current illegal, as was same sex marriage. But we have one person on this thread that believes that incest apparently should be legal except for a parent marrying his/her own child. That person is on your side Joe, not mine. 

Now this talk about your desire to exclude soldiers, who have been severely wounded in combat, that suffered body altering injuries, making them unable to “consumate”, denial of the right to marry.

Are you the bedroom police Joe? And as we progress with this discussion, I sure hope you realize that couples get to individually define what happiness is within their unions, not you Joe.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, it really did.   You know how I know that?  Because like most homophobes, your go-to for being against gay marriage is to talk about just about anything other than gay marriage.


Hypocrite.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Because it's specifically against the law.   And not even consistently, because some states you can marry a second cousin. Some states you can even marry a first cousin.  Having sex with a close relation is also against the law, but it is almost never enforced with adults.
> 
> View attachment 734798
> 
> It gets better.  Even if a child was adopted, he or she cannot have legal sex or marriage with an adopted sibling because the law STILL sees the relationship as incestuous even if there is NO GENETIC relation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can Adopted Siblings Marry?
> 
> 
> There are some states that prohibit adopted siblings from legally marrying, while others are not as specific regarding the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.liveabout.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although adopted siblings wishing to marry is an extremely rare and unusual situation, it is a possibility. But is it legal? The short answer is "no." It appears that throughout the U.S. and in most of the world, parties that are direct descendants or siblings—including adopted (by law) relationships— are not allowed to marry. In some rare instances, however, there may be exceptions.
> 
> 
> In most locales, it is commonly believed that when two individuals share the same parents—regardless if one has been adopted—they are full siblings. One state that leaves this issue a bit open-ended is Colorado. The wording of the Colorado statute regarding prohibitive relationships does not include the word "adopted," so adopted siblings who want to marry one another should follow up with a county clerk in that state.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly my opinion.   Lack of consummation of the marriage IS grounds for annulment of a marriage. This is actually black letter law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StackPath
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sterlinglawyers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A party lacked the physical capacity to *consummate the marriage* through sexual intercourse.



Since you bolded the importance of a couple to consumate, did you know there are only a few ways to accomplish this?

Can you explain exactly, the compelling State interest in consumation by oral or anal sex?

I’ll wait


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> The right to fudge pack? Usta be called Sodomy. Remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Besides ,this filthy habit started AIDS. The AIDS epidemic was started by Fags.


You think about anal sex alot it seemsl But what does that have to do with gay marriage. If you're concerned about AIDS you should support gay marriage. Married gay men have lower rates of the disease


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> If the medical examiner we spoke about earlier performed an autopsy on a body, he could determine the sex. Regardless of the race, which is still determinable during an autopsy, they still could not determine sexuality.
> 
> But yes, race is a civil rights issue. Same sex marriage is not.



. if you are discriminated against when evry other person has a certain right, then indeed it is.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> If you like I’ll restate why I oppose same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality.



no need to.  you find it icky, therefore you want to deny others what you can legally have.

it really is that bottom line. 

pun intended.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> . if you are discriminated against when evry other person has a certain right, then indeed it is.



Point out where I did so. In fact, I pointed out that, prior to obergfell, everyone had the right to marry, regardless of sexuality.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> no need to.  you find it icky, therefore you want to deny others what you can legally have.
> 
> it really is that bottom line.
> 
> pun intended.



Interesting, so your saying that you find heterosexual intercourse “icky”?

And why would I find anything “icky” as it relates to straight same sex marriage? Yet still I oppose all same sex marriage.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Point out where I did so. In fact, I pointed out that, prior to obergfell, everyone had the right to marry, regardless of sexuality.



& you feel differently now ... why?


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Interesting, so your saying that you find heterosexual intercourse “icky”?



i am a born & raised hetero female, & married to a male for 37 years.

so, uh ... _no._


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> & you feel differently now ... why?



Nope, as long as the two partners consist of one man and one woman, as was the case prior to obergfell, I see no problem with allowing such a marriage.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Nope, as long as the two partners consist of one man and one woman, as was the case prior to obergfell, I see no problem with allowing such a marriage.



on pure 'legal;' grounds, only?

sorry -  i just don't buy it.


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> on pure 'legal;' grounds, only?
> 
> sorry -  i just don't buy it.


Ok, I accept you don’t buy it. 

But the arguments are what they are.


----------



## playtime

HeyNorm said:


> Ok, I accept you don’t buy it.
> 
> But the arguments are what they are.



so, for only legal reasons, right?


----------



## HeyNorm

playtime said:


> so, for only legal reasons, right?


We are speaking of the law, so yes. And the legal standards used to change the law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Point out where I did so. In fact, I pointed out that, prior to obergfell, everyone had the right to marry, regardless of sexuality.


Before Obergefell, gay people in some states COULD NOT MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME GENDER who they were physically and romatically attracted to. Straight people always could marry the person who they were physically and romatically attracted to.

That is the descriminination the YOU advocate

And  please spare us the lame as bullshit that you tried before about attraction not being a requirement. We are not talking about requirements. We are talking about rights

I am still waiting for you to come clean about why you really want to punish gays and their children by depriving them of marriage. This one man=one woman mantra is just the symtom of some unerlying disease


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Before Obergefell, gay people in some states COULD NOT MARRY A PERSON OF THE SAME GENDER who they were physically and romatically attracted to. Straight people always could marry the person who they were physically and romatically attracted to.
> 
> That is the descriminination the YOU advocate
> 
> And  please spare us the lame as bullshit that you tried before about attraction not being a requirement. We are not talking about requirements. We are talking about rights
> 
> I am still waiting for you to come clean about why you really want to punish gays and their children by depriving them of marriage. This one man=one woman mantra is just the symtom of some unerlying disease



Before obergfell, no one could marry someone of the same sex regardless of their sexuality, but they could, regardless of their sexuality marry.

What are you yapping about again.

And people not sexually or romantically attracted to their partners are, nowhere in the law, prohibited to marry.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I explained why. "Most" is not "all" In  addition Civil rights are to be determind the Constitution , not the will of tjhe people


wrong, our rights come from God, not any government, and being mentally confused is an illness not a right.


----------



## Redfish

the real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal mammalian condition.  THAT is the real issue that neither side is willing to discuss.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I explained why. "Most" is not "all" In  addition Civil rights are to be determind the Constitution , not the will of tjhe people


so your fear is that your perverted lifestyle might be prohibited in some states?  I think I get it.


----------



## AsherN

Redfish said:


> the real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal mammalian condition.  THAT is the real issue that neither side is willing to discuss.


It is.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Joe, point out a single place in which I said gay people were ever denied the right to marry.
> 
> And yes, incest is current illegal, as was same sex marriage. But we have one person on this thread that believes that incest apparently should be legal except for a parent marrying his/her own child. That person is on your side Joe, not mine.



You miss the point, as usual.  The act of incest is illegal, not the act of marrying a blood relative (or even an adopted relative).  Therefore, incestuous relationships cannot be sanctified by marriage.  

Before Lawrence v. Texas struck them down, the acts that gay people engaged in to pleasure themselves - anal and oral - were illegal in most states, which is why marriage licenses couldn't be granted.  When that happened, gay marriage became inevitable. 



HeyNorm said:


> Now this talk about your desire to exclude soldiers, who have been severely wounded in combat, that suffered body altering injuries, making them unable to “consumate”, denial of the right to marry.



Would seem like kind of a waste to me, but okay.  Point was, if she gets to the pant-dropping point of the marriage and finds out he has no equipment, she has grounds to have the marriage annulled.  



HeyNorm said:


> Are you the bedroom police Joe? And as we progress with this discussion, I sure hope you realize that couples get to individually define what happiness is within their unions, not you Joe.


I agree. Which is why you religious bigots need to sit down and shut the fuck up about gay marriage.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Since you bolded the importance of a couple to consumate, did you know there are only a few ways to accomplish this?


And I doubt you've ever experienced any of them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Before obergfell, no one could marry someone of the same sex regardless of their sexuality, but they could, regardless of their sexuality marry.
> 
> What are you yapping about again.
> 
> And people not sexually or romantically attracted to their partners are, nowhere in the law, prohibited to marry.


You see. This is exactly what I meant when I said that your “one man-one woman” trope is just the symptom. It’s clear that your hate and disregard for gay people runs much deeper than can be explained simply by an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Indeed, you are displaying a callous disregard for gay people and seemingly do not even afford them the right to happiness and fulfillment.

 Proof is when you keep repeating  things like gays could have married someone of the opposite sex and that the law says nothing about being sexually or romantically attracted . Either you do not have the capacity to understand how hurtful that is or you don’t care. In either case you are seriously fucked up in the head. Maybe that argument would have worked  in an era of arranged marriages when no one had a reasonable expectation of fulfillment and happiness. But the year is 2022 when everyone has the opportunity to find love and happiness. Everybogy that is except gays in your twisted mind. Clearly you do not even regard them as fully human.

I don’t know what to attribute it to but some things come to mind. Maybe you never found happiness and fulfillment and are resentful of others who have, especially those that are part of a group who are easy to vilify.

Maybe you harbor some unexpressed religious beliefs

Maybe you have issues with your own sexuality and need to put as much distance as possible between you and “them”

Maybe you are threatened by the changes in society that you don’t understand and  can’t adjust to.

That last point may partially explain your clinging to the one man-one woman thing. However, the fact that you have been educated about the damage that is done by the discrimination that you advocate makes it clear to me that there has got to be more to it than just a need to cling to tradition.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> so your fear is that your perverted lifestyle might be prohibited in some states?  I think I get it.


My perverted lifestyle? What is it that you think that you know about my lifestyle?


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> You miss the point, as usual.  The act of incest is illegal, not the act of marrying a blood relative (or even an adopted relative).  Therefore, incestuous relationships cannot be sanctified by marriage.
> 
> Before Lawrence v. Texas struck them down, the acts that gay people engaged in to pleasure themselves - anal and oral - were illegal in most states, which is why marriage licenses couldn't be granted.  When that happened, gay marriage became inevitable.
> 
> 
> 
> Would seem like kind of a waste to me, but okay.  Point was, if she gets to the pant-dropping point of the marriage and finds out he has no equipment, she has grounds to have the marriage annulled.
> 
> 
> I agree. Which is why you religious bigots need to sit down and shut the fuck up about gay marriage.



Joe, fun fact, a couple too closely related can not have a marriage license issued. It would be against the law. 

Fun fact # 2, there is no physical required to have a marriage license issued. Do you understand the difference between a void contract and one that is voidable Joe?

Appears you don’t. Glad I could point you in the direction to learn something today. 

And Joe, I’m sure the brave Marine and his wife would love to teach you something about love, but I’d caution him, you ain’t too bright.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> And I doubt you've ever experienced any of them.



Poor ol Joe, been losing so damn badly he starts the personal attacks.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You see. This is exactly what I meant when I said that your “one man-one woman” trope is just the symptom. It’s clear that your hate and disregard for gay people runs much deeper than can be explained simply by an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. Indeed, you are displaying a callous disregard for gay people and seemingly do not even afford them the right to happiness and fulfillment.
> 
> Proof is when you keep repeating  things like gays could have married someone of the opposite sex and that the law says nothing about being sexually or romantically attracted . Either you do not have the capacity to understand how hurtful that is or you don’t care. In either case you are seriously fucked up in the head. Maybe in an era of arranged marriages when no one had a reasonable expectation of fulfillment and happinessClearly you do not even regard them as fully human.
> 
> I don’t know what to attribute it to but some things come to mind. Maybe you never found happiness and fulfillment and are resentful of others who have, especially those that are part of a group who are easy to vilify.
> 
> Maybe you harbor some unexpressed religious beliefs
> 
> Maybe you have issues with your own sexuality and need to put as much distance as possible between you and “them”
> 
> Maybe you are threatened by the changes in society that you don’t understand and  can’t adjust to.
> 
> That last point may partially explain your clinging to the one man-one woman thing. However, the fact that you have been educated about the damage that is done by the discrimination that you advocate makes it clear to me that there has got to be more to it than just a need to cling to tradition.



How can you say I hate gays when I don’t deny them the right to marry?

You make no sense.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> wrong, our rights come from God, not any government, and being mentally confused is an illness not a right.


You can believe that if you want. Hey, consider this. God might not be a bigot. You might be in for an unpleasant surprise someday when you stand before her.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Joe, fun fact, a couple too closely related can not have a marriage license issued. It would be against the law.



Fun fact, a couple too closely related can be arrested for having sex.   That's why they can't get marriage licenses. 



HeyNorm said:


> Fun fact # 2, there is no physical required to have a marriage license issued. Do you understand the difference between a void contract and one that is voidable Joe?



Uh, wow, you miss the point again, don't you? 



HeyNorm said:


> And Joe, I’m sure the brave Marine and his wife would love to teach you something about love, but I’d caution him, you ain’t too bright.



Do you know how many career military get divorced? 



HeyNorm said:


> Poor ol Joe, been losing so damn badly he starts the personal attacks.



Not at all... you are the classic definition of a prude... someone who lives in mortal fear that someone else might be enjoying himself.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> How can you say I hate gays when I don’t deny them the right to marry?
> 
> You make no sense.


Holy fucking shit! Once again, there is something seriously wrong with you. You can't seem to process anything that I have said, or pretending to not get it. In any case you are not responding with any human emotion. I am begining to think that you are a preprogramed troll bot


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Fun fact, a couple too closely related can be arrested for having sex.   That's why they can't get marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, wow, you miss the point again, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how many career military get divorced?
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all... you are the classic definition of a prude... someone who lives in mortal fear that someone else might be enjoying himself.



Now we are getting somewhere. What is the reasoning for making sexual relations between those too closely illegal Joe?

Spoiler alert, Joe’s answer will be something in the line of: “cuz it’s illegal!”


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! Once again, there is something seriously wrong with you. You can't seem to process anything that I have said, or pretending to not get it. In any case you are not responding with any human emotion. I am begining to think that you are a preprogramed troll bot



Or, someone more interest in factual debate based on the issue, and less on emotional drivel.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> How can you say I hate gays when I don’t deny them the right to marry?
> 
> You make no sense.


Do you not deny them the right to marry for love and romantic/sexual attra


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Or, someone more interest in factual debate based on the issue, and less on emotional drivel.


Facts do not seem to have any effect on you. You also seem devoid of all human emotions or any capacity for empathy. The drivel is all yours


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Facts do not seem to have any effect on you. You also seem devoid of all human emotions or any capacity for empathy. The drivel is all yours



Your lack of comprehension skills is astonishing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Your lack of comprehension skills is astonishing.


 I nailed you deal with it. I know , the truth hurts, but so does hate. My work is done here


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Your lack of comprehension skills is astonishing.


What is it that I don't comprehend?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What is it that I don't comprehend?


Reality.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Now we are getting somewhere. What is the reasoning for making sexual relations between those too closely illegal Joe?
> 
> Spoiler alert, Joe’s answer will be something in the line of: “cuz it’s illegal!”



Oh, there's a reasoning, but it doesn't entirely make sense.  

There's really no reason why you can't bang your stepsister.  You aren't going to create an inbred idiot who is going to vote MAGA at some point. 

But the law is written in such a way to prevent that. 

On the other hand, there's no law against having gay sex  at this point.  So no reason to deny them marriage licenses. 

Now, unless you have something substantive to add to the conversation (you don't), I'll just ignore more of your pretzel logic to rationalize your homophobia.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, there's a reasoning, but it doesn't entirely make sense.
> 
> There's really no reason why you can't bang your stepsister.  You aren't going to create an inbred idiot who is going to vote MAGA at some point.
> 
> But the law is written in such a way to prevent that.
> 
> On the other hand, there's no law against having gay sex  at this point.  So no reason to deny them marriage licenses.
> 
> Now, unless you have something substantive to add to the conversation (you don't), I'll just ignore more of your pretzel logic to rationalize your homophobia.



So, the marriage law limiting the Union of one man to one woman, not too closely related, and of legal age with the ability to consent, had rational reasoning behind it?

And that reason was to eliminate the government sanctioning inbreeding, correct?

And to eliminate child exploitation and exploitation of the incompetent, right?

I really don’t expect a straight forward answer from you as your more the emotional fragile type.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your fear is that your perverted lifestyle might be prohibited in some states?  I think I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> My perverted lifestyle? What is it that you think that you know about my lifestyle?
Click to expand...


  At the very least, you're an admitted adulterer.

  And much, much worse than that can be inferred from your body of work on this forum.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Reality.


I called you out. I nailed you . Gay people are human beings. They have the same rights as everyone else. No  one believes your lies or buys into your duplicitous con games. That is reality.

The only question is, do you believe your own bullshit or are you just a con artist who is not very god at it. If the former, you're psychotic. If that latter your a not so bright  sociopath


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I called yu out. I nailed you . Gay people are human beings. They have the same rights as everyone else. No  one believes your lies or buys into your duplicitous con games. That is reality.
> 
> The only question is, do you believe your own bullshit or are you just a con artist who is not very god at it. If the former, you're psychotic. If that later your a no so bright  sociopath



A bus driver is licensed to transport passengers. 

An airline pilot is licensed to transport passengers. 

Both human, both deserve my respect, but the bus driver is not allowed to fly an airliner just because he has a CDL. 

Now you have a great day.


----------



## HeyNorm

Bob Blaylock said:


> At the very least, you're an admitted adulterer.
> 
> And much, much worse than that can be inferred from your body of work on this forum.



HOLY GUACAMOLE!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Redfish said:


> the real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal mammalian condition.  THAT is the real issue that neither side is willing to discuss.


Funny how that issue ws never raised in any court during the protracted litigation leading up to the Obergefell ruling. Even the bigots trying to defend the states ban on same sex marriage knew how stupid it was. Why don't you?


HeyNorm said:


> A bus driver is licensed to transport passengers.
> 
> An airline pilot is licensed to transport passengers.
> 
> Both human, both deserve my respect, but the bus driver is not allowed to fly an airliner just because he has a CDL.
> 
> Now you have a great day.


Holy fucking shit! WHAT?
OH. let me guess. Same  sex couples are not allowed to marry because they can't have children. Right? Get the fuck over it


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Funny how that issue ws never raised in any court during the protracted litigation leading up to the Obergefell ruling. Even the bigots trying to defend the states ban on same sex marriage knew how stupid it was. Why don't you?
> 
> Holy fucking shit! WHAT?
> OH. let me guess. Same  sex couples are not allowed to marry because they can't have children. Right? Get the fuck over it



Nope, just combined, no same sex couple can ever create a child. NOT EVEN AT A SAME SEX ORGY. 🤪


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> So, the marriage law limiting the Union of one man to one woman, not too closely related, and of legal age with the ability to consent, had rational reasoning behind it?



But follow me here, stupid. 

There's a good reason to limit how closely people are related, because of inbreeding. 
There's a good reason to limit age, because it is believe you need a certain level of maturity to consent.
There's really no good reason to limit it to just heterosexual couples, other than pandering to bible-thumping bigots.... 

Happy to have cleared that up to you, you seem to be a bit dopey.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> But follow me here, stupid.
> 
> There's a good reason to limit how closely people are related, because of inbreeding.
> There's a good reason to limit age, because it is believe you need a certain level of maturity to consent.
> There's really no good reason to limit it to just heterosexual couples, other than pandering to bible-thumping bigots....
> 
> Happy to have cleared that up to you, you seem to be a bit dopey.



Thanks, you just showed that the dynamics of the two groups are extraordinarily different, therefore not similarly situated as are interracial marriages as the dynamics remain exactly the same.



And this is why, when this gets kicked back to the States, you will see reality once again.

And not a civil rights issue. 

Glad I could straighten ya out. 

Been nice talkin to ya Joe.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Nope, just combined, no same sex couple can ever create a child. NOT EVEN AT A SAME SEX ORGY. 🤪


Thats it! We are really done here. You are either seriously mentally ill, or a zombie troll bot. Not doing this any more.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thats it! We are really done here. You are either seriously mentally ill, or a zombie troll bot. Not doing this any more.



Got a party to go to?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

HeyNorm said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the very least, you're an admitted adulterer.
> 
> 
> 
> HOLY GUACAMOLE!
Click to expand...


  Goes directly to show how much respect he has for marriage in general.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Thanks, you just showed that the dynamics of the two groups are extraordinarily different, therefore not similarly situated as are interracial marriages as the dynamics remain exactly the same.



Uh, you missed the point entirely.   There are no good reasons to ban interracial marriages or same sex marriages other than bigotry. 




HeyNorm said:


> And this is why, when this gets kicked back to the States, you will see reality once again.
> 
> And not a civil rights issue.



Actually, it's not going to get kicked back to the states.   The Respect for Marriage Act put an end to that.   You lose.  

Here's the other reason why you lose.   Big corporations are done with homophobia.  They've pretty much told the states to knock it the fuck off.  



HeyNorm said:


> Glad I could straighten ya out.
> 
> Been nice talkin to ya Joe.



You aren't straightened out, you are desperately trying to rationalize your own homophobia.   Did you know that there have been scientific studies proving that homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals?


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, you missed the point entirely.   There are no good reasons to ban interracial marriages or same sex marriages other than bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not going to get kicked back to the states.   The Respect for Marriage Act put an end to that.   You lose.
> 
> Here's the other reason why you lose.   Big corporations are done with homophobia.  They've pretty much told the states to knock it the fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't straightened out, you are desperately trying to rationalize your own homophobia.   Did you know that there have been scientific studies proving that homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals?



Progressive democrats disagree that the protection of marriage act will do as you say Joe. Are they stupid Joe.

I’ve demonstrated that Marriage Law, post obergfell is overly broad by the inclusion of an act, only some within its coverage are burdened with Joe. Making it bad, Ill conceived (pardon the pun) law.

Why, in the world would the state have a compelling interest in not sanctioning incestuously produced offspring by same sex couples? 

And now Joe wants corporations creating Laws? Big corporations embraced slavery and child labor in the past Joe. How’d that work out. Hmmmm, and Joe, how’d that embrace work for Disney?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Progressive democrats disagree that the protection of marriage act will do as you say Joe. Are they stupid Joe.
> 
> I’ve demonstrated that Marriage Law, post obergfell is overly broad by the inclusion of an act, only some within its coverage are burdened with Joe. Making it bad, Ill conceived (pardon the pun) law.



Uh, guy, nobody has overturned Obergefell...or Loving... and this law makes it less likely they can.  



HeyNorm said:


> Why, in the world would the state have a compelling interest in not sanctioning incestuously produced offspring by same sex couples?



Um, what?  Okay, now you are going off the rails with your bigotry.   Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not.   



HeyNorm said:


> And now Joe wants corporations creating Laws? Big corporations embraced slavery and child labor in the past Joe. How’d that work out. Hmmmm, and Joe, how’d that embrace work for Disney?



Reasonably well.   Disney is still out there.  Disney's problem isn't inclusion, it's that they are making bad product from beloved IP's like Star Wars.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, nobody has overturned Obergefell...or Loving... and this law makes it less likely they can.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, what?  Okay, now you are going off the rails with your bigotry.   Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonably well.   Disney is still out there.  Disney's problem isn't inclusion, it's that they are making bad product from beloved IP's like Star Wars.



Yep, you just illustrated perfectly how the law is overly broad.

So what is the compelling state interest in denying two straight closely related people from the institution of marriage?

Appreciate that Joe.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Yep, you just illustrated perfectly how the law is overly broad.



I never said it wasn't.  It's meant to be overly broad, It's meant to prevent the bigots from finding any back door to sneak their bigotry in through.


----------



## Redfish

AsherN said:


> It is.


really?  where are the gay dogs, cats, horses, cows, deer, rabbits, and bears?   you may see short episodes of same sex contact in other mammals but only humans pretend that is a lifelong condition over which they have no control.  In humans it seems to be a mental aberration, not a normal condition.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you not deny them the right to marry for love and romantic/sexual attra


yes, mentally ill people should be able to make a commitment to another mentally ill person.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I called you out. I nailed you . Gay people are human beings. They have the same rights as everyone else. No  one believes your lies or buys into your duplicitous con games. That is reality.
> 
> The only question is, do you believe your own bullshit or are you just a con artist who is not very god at it. If the former, you're psychotic. If that latter your a not so bright  sociopath


yes, and bi polar people have the same rights as all others.  any form of mental illness does not remove rights guaranteed by the constitution.

maybe you should try a muslim country where gays are thrown off roof tops.   The USA is the only country that shows complete tolerance to your aberrant behavior.


----------



## Redfish

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can believe that if you want. Hey, consider this. God might not be a bigot. You might be in for an unpleasant surprise someday when you stand before her.


by the way, progressive patriot is an oxymoron.  you cannot be both.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> I never said it wasn't.  It's meant to be overly broad, It's meant to prevent the bigots from finding any back door to sneak their bigotry in through.



Can you identify this bigotry? Who? I treat straight, gay, male and female equally, regardless of race, acknowledging that only opposite sex, closely related couples can create defective bloodlines that the government should not sanction.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131

It appears your most compelling argument is that marriage, in and of itself, no longer needs to exist.

You argue that the law, which at its conception, was to stop incestuous relationships from creating defective bloodlines, stop shotgun weddings, and eliminate marriage to individuals too young to give proper consent, is moot, because all of the above is illegal anyway.

Interesting, I will have to give that some thought.

I wonder though, how that would play with public opinion.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.


You lie!  Where are these couples? They are in every shit hole red state, thats where. Same sex couples are more at risk, only because it is more aceptable to shit on gay people than on racial minorities ( unless they are immigrants) Racial discrimination, while still ramped, is somewhat less acceptable

If obergefell were to be overturned without the Respect for Marriage Act in place this is what would happen

1. Same sex marriage would quickly be halted in at least a dozen states
2. Same sex couples already married in those states could face having their marriages invalidated
3. Gay couples living in those states would NOT be able to go to another state to get married and then have that marriage recognized in their home state (because of the defense of marriage act that is still on the books, but unenforceable because of Obergefell)
4. The Federal government would no longer recognize same sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits in states that still permit them (Also because of the defense of marriage act )

*The Respect for Marriage Act would*:
1)Protect existing marriages in all states although it does not compell states to issue new licenses
2)Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act allowing the Federal Govenment to continue to provide benefits to married same sex couples where allowed
3) Compell shit hole red states that ban same sex marriages to honor marriages that tale place  in states that allow it

As for as interracial marriage goes, I am willing to bet that if gay marriage goes down, interracial marriage will be next

Now where is the duplicity?


----------



## emilynghiem

Redfish said:


> does equal protection language apply to mentally ill people who want to walk free on our streets?  Does it apply to drug dealers who are poisoning the youth of america?   Yes, those people should have access to a trial before being prosecuted but my analogy remains valid.   Equal protection only applies as determined by the citizens to be in the overall best interests.
> 
> Personally I have no issue with gay unions, but I will never understand why you libs insist on calling them marriages.  A marriage is the union of one man and one woman, nothing else.  Some of your fellow libs on the west coast are ;pushing for multiple person "marriages" and person/dog marriages and person/sex doll marriages.  Where does this shit end?
> 
> you claim that same sex marriage would prevail in most states, then why are you scared of letting the voters of each state make that decision?


The same reason gun rights activists don't trust state govt to make laws affecting those rights.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Facts do not seem to have any effect on you. You also seem devoid of all human emotions or any capacity for empathy. The drivel is all yours


Dear TheProgressivePatriot and HeyNorm 
1. I don't find many people on both left and right who can sympathize with the other side in wanting to defend their beliefs "treated equally as their own beliefs". Most people are conditioned politically to fight to defend their OWN creed beliefs and interests, even using Govt to endorse and impose that, but HATE when govt is abused to impose the OTHER side's beliefs and policies that violate their own rights beliefs and protections.

2. With rightwing Christians and Conservatives: Many cannot distinguish the BELIEFS in right to life, personhood beginning at conception, or Constitutionalism as a belief system as a CHOICE of belief that govt cannot force on others. Most believe "that is just the truth" and these rights are natural and not a choice. 

3. With liberals, the inability to distinguish discriminating "against PEOPLE based on LGBT identity" versus "refusing a type of SERVICE, speech or activity" shows a similar ideological bias and belief.  Similar to believing "right to health care" is a natural right for everyone. Or believing that public tax dollars can be voted on to pay for abortions, LGBT education in schools, etc  even if the tax money comes from citizens who don't believe govt has authority to establish such faith based policies or force nonbelievers to pay for that through govt.  

all these biases in ideology come across to the opponents as unreasonable and lacking respect.

But people cannot help having these beliefs. Like people cannot help if they are Atheist or believe in God and cannot be forced by Govt to change their beliefs.

Why not and when can we address political beliefs ideology and creed, and give the same respect and protections that we would not to harass Christians or Buddhists or Muslims for their beliefs?

How can we ask Govt to protect people of different beliefs from imposition or infringement by other groups. If we are still in the business of bashing and attacking each other for different beliefs?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Can you identify this bigotry? Who? I treat straight, gay, male and female equally, regardless of race, acknowledging that only opposite sex, closely related couples can create defective bloodlines that the government should not sanction.



You, sir, are a bigot.  You want to keep gay people from getting married to the people they care about.  

Give me a compelling reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.  



HeyNorm said:


> It appears your most compelling argument is that marriage, in and of itself, no longer needs to exist.


Nope, didn't argue that...  



HeyNorm said:


> You argue that the law, which at its conception, was to stop incestuous relationships from creating defective bloodlines, stop shotgun weddings, and eliminate marriage to individuals too young to give proper consent, is moot, because all of the above is illegal anyway.



Nope, never argued anything of the sort.  



HeyNorm said:


> Interesting, I will have to give that some thought.


You'd need a fucking brain to do that.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> You, sir, are a bigot.  You want to keep gay people from getting married to the people they care about.
> 
> Give me a compelling reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't argue that...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, never argued anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> You'd need a fucking brain to do that.



I think you come on here just to call people names. When asked to point out this “bigotry”, you can’t. But hey, if being a victim turns you on, I’m sure there’s a bigot around every corner for you. 

I however, just seek to treat all equally. And as you have pointed out quite nicely, perhaps marriage is an antiquated law that simply needs to be put in the dumpster of history like the horse and buggy. 

I can’t see why this would upset you so much. 

Equality perfected, right?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> I think you come on here just to call people names. When asked to point out this “bigotry”, you can’t. But hey, if being a victim turns you on, I’m sure there’s a bigot around every corner for you.



You hate gay people.  That's pretty clear.  Not sure why.  Hey, I'm sure that one time at camp was just a phase for you. 



HeyNorm said:


> I however, just seek to treat all equally. And as you have pointed out quite nicely, perhaps marriage is an antiquated law that simply needs to be put in the dumpster of history like the horse and buggy.



No, it just needs to be modified to reflect how people live, and not what the bigots want.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> You hate gay people.  That's pretty clear.  Not sure why.  Hey, I'm sure that one time at camp was just a phase for you.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it just needs to be modified to reflect how people live, and not what the bigots want.



Find one hateful things I’ve said about homosexuals. 

Joe, is the truth that you hate heterosexuals?

That’s OK Joe, we don’t really mind if you do. 

But that’s the Uniter in me I guess


----------



## HeyNorm

HeyNorm said:


> Find one hateful things I’ve said about homosexuals.
> 
> Joe, is the truth that you hate heterosexuals?
> 
> That’s OK Joe, we don’t really mind if you do.
> 
> But that’s the Uniter in me I guess



And JoeB131 i know a bus driver that has the ability to transport people on the ground with his CDL license. 

Amazingly enough though, he is not allowed to fly passengers in an airliner because, as he explains it, the dynamics of air flight are a lot different than bus travel. 

You would think that I would think less of the bus driver than I do the airline pilot, but I don’t.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

JoeB131 said:


> You, sir, are a bigot.  You want to keep gay people from getting married to the people they care about.
> 
> Give me a compelling reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry.
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't argue that...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, never argued anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> You'd need a fucking brain to do that.


Hey Joe . FYI Watch out with that Norm thing. I believe that it is a zombie troll bot that does not know it's dead. Check out it's antics here :





__





						Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
					

In todays news....The bigots are relentless  https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/old-habits-are-hard-to-break-anti-equality-leaders-dishonest-and-alarmist-attacks-on-the-respect-for-marriage-act/...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




It constantly tries to gas light people by misrepresenting or outright lying about what was said to try to make you think that you're crazy. It is on a mission to obfuscate any issue with all sorts of bizarre twists and turns.

It is a shameless and heartless bigot who will try to turn the tables and make you the bigot. When confronted with obvious lies annd logical fallacies, it will pivot too some newand more bizarre diversion. It denies being a bigot but redily admits  to wanting to deny gays the right to marry because "that is not bigotry. 

It will eat you're brains if given the chance. Ignor it and it will wither and die.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey Joe . FYI Watch out with that Norm thing. I believe that it is a zombie troll bot that does not know it's dead. Check out it's antics here :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> In todays news....The bigots are relentless  https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/old-habits-are-hard-to-break-anti-equality-leaders-dishonest-and-alarmist-attacks-on-the-respect-for-marriage-act/...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It constantly tries to gas light people by misrepresenting or outright lying about what was said to try to make you think that you're crazy. It is on a mission to obfuscate any issue with all sorts of bizarre twists and turns.
> 
> It is a shameless and heartless bigot who will try to turn the tables and make you the bigot. When confronted with obvious lies annd logical fallacies, it will pivot too some newand more bizarre diversion
> 
> It will eat you're brains if given the chance. Ignor it and it will wither and die.



Just because I defend the rights of straights to marry same sex? Or understand that a bus driver can’t fly an airliner because the dynamics are far different?

But, I love all I posted about above regardless.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Just because I defend the rights of straights to marry same sex? Or understand that a bus driver can’t fly an airliner because the dynamics are far different?
> 
> But, I love all I posted about above regardless.


YOU are ignored!

You see... JoeB131 This is exactly what I am talking about. I never said that straight people could not marry their own gender if that was what floats their boat.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> YOU are ignored!


You follow me, then ignore me?

😳


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You follow me, then ignore me?
> 
> 😳


Thats right deal with it. I don't have you on ignore. But for the most part I will ignore you until I feeling have a little fun and call you out on your shit


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thats right deal with it. I don't have you on ignore. But for the most part I will ignore you until I feeling have a little fun and call you out on your shit



I am so happy now!


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> And @JoeB131 i know a bus driver that has the ability to transport people on the ground with his CDL license.
> 
> Amazingly enough though, he is not allowed to fly passengers in an airliner because, as he explains it, the dynamics of air flight are a lot different than bus travel.
> 
> You would think that I would think less of the bus driver than I do the airline pilot, but I don’t.



Uh, not sure why you are comparing professional licenses to marriage licenses.  

I have a friend who has been in a committed relationship with her partner for 20 years. 

I know a straight couple where the marriage fell apart in a year, and everyone knew it would.  

WHy is the latter given more credit than the former?


----------



## JoeB131

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey Joe . FYI Watch out with that Norm thing. I believe that it is a zombie troll bot that does not know it's dead. Check out it's antics here :





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It constantly tries to gas light people by misrepresenting or outright lying about what was said to try to make you think that you're crazy. It is on a mission to obfuscate any issue with all sorts of bizarre twists and turns.



I've noticed that.   HIs antics seem truly bizarre, because he can't give you ONE RATIONAL REASON why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.


----------



## lantern2814

HeyNorm said:


> Find one hateful things I’ve said about homosexuals.
> 
> Joe, is the truth that you hate heterosexuals?
> 
> That’s OK Joe, we don’t really mind if you do.
> 
> But that’s the Uniter in me I guess


Joe is a misogynist who has repeatedly declared that women are “whores who only want half my stuff”. Then wonders why he’s an Incel.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, not sure why you are comparing professional licenses to marriage licenses.
> 
> I have a friend who has been in a committed relationship with her partner for 20 years.
> 
> I know a straight couple where the marriage fell apart in a year, and everyone knew it would.
> 
> WHy is the latter given more credit than the former?



I know a straight couple, not married, been in a happy union for well into their 3rd decade. 

I simply am not in the business of putting my nose into others decisions.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> 1. I don't find many people on both left and right who can sympathize with the other side in wanting to defend their beliefs "treated equally as their own beliefs". Most people are conditioned politically to fight to defend their OWN creed beliefs and interests, even using Govt to endorse and impose that, but HATE when govt is abused to impose the OTHER side's beliefs and policies that violate their own rights beliefs and protections.


Conditioned politically?. I am conditioned morally . Bigotry is bigotray. Hate is hate. Stop try to say that " there were very fine people on both sides" just using different words


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> 2. With rightwing Christians and Conservatives: Many cannot distinguish the BELIEFS in right to life, personhood beginning at conception, or Constitutionalism as a belief system as a CHOICE of belief that govt cannot force on others. Most believe "that is just the truth" and these rights are natural and not a choice.


Then they should live by their truths and beliefs and let others do the same.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> I know a straight couple, not married, been in a happy union for well into their 3rd decade.
> 
> I simply am not in the business of putting my nose into others decisions.



Except when you try to prevent them from getting married. 

Give me a good reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.  

Otherwise we're done.


----------



## JustAGuy1

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thats right deal with it. I don't have you on ignore. But for the most part I will ignore you until I feeling have a little fun and call you out on your shit



Too funny, you're just another punk with a too high opinion of himself.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> . With liberals, the inability to distinguish discriminating "against PEOPLE based on LGBT identity" versus "refusing a type of SERVICE, speech or activity" shows a similar ideological bias and belief.


There is no distinction to be made. If you provide a service to the public then that service must be provided to the entire public. Again, it is a moral position that has , unfortuatly become tied to ideology


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Except when you try to prevent them from getting married.
> 
> Give me a good reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
> 
> Otherwise we're done.



Gay couples have been getting married for centuries Joe! They just married gays of the opposite sex!  AND I APPLAUD THEM!

But I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality of the couple.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> There is no distinction to be made. If you provide a service to the public then that service must be provided to the entire public. Again, it is a moral position that has , unfortuatly become tied to ideology


If I am a business entity and am not a subordinate component of the government, then I can refuse service.  

No shirt, no shoes, no service. 

While I happen to agree that it is kind of silly to refuse to sell a cake decorated with two grooms  to a gay couple, it is also baseless to claim that I don’t have that right. 

How on Earth do you as an American condone the notion that the government can compel a store owner to provide a service to any customers if that “service” violates the store owner’s religious convictions?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Similar to believing "right to health care" is a natural right for everyone. Or believing that public tax dollars can be voted on to pay for abortions, LGBT education in schools, etc even if the tax money comes from citizens who don't believe govt has authority to establish such faith based policies or force nonbelievers to pay for that through govt.


Religion should just stay the hell out of politics and the political system should insulate itself from religion. The only considertion should be what is  in the interest of the greater good such as helth care being available to everyone. Problem solved


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> But people cannot help having these beliefs. Like people cannot help if they are Atheist or believe in God and cannot be forced by Govt to change their beliefs.


But people can help it when they interfear with the lives of others whho do not believe as they do


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Gay couples have been getting married for centuries Joe! They just married gays of the opposite sex!  AND I APPLAUD THEM!
> 
> But I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality of the couple.


Give me a good reason why gay COUPLES shouldn't be allowed to marry.  

Don't tell me that you oppose same-sex marriage, give me a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Why not and when can we address political beliefs ideology and creed, and give the same respect and protections that we would not to harass Christians or Buddhists or Muslims for their beliefs?


We can. The problem is that there are too many asshols out there who do not respect others beliefs


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> How can we ask Govt to protect people of different beliefs from imposition or infringement by other groups. If we are still in the business of bashing and attacking each other for different beliefs?


We can't so stop the bashing and attacking which for the most part comes from the right


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Give me a good reason why gay COUPLES shouldn't be allowed to marry.
> 
> Don't tell me that you oppose same-sex marriage, give me a good reason why they shouldn't be allowed.



For the same reason straight same sex couples shouldn’t. 

I think we’ve been through this a few times already. 

Do I have to continue to describe the different dynamics of each relationship. 

It’s getting redundant


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> For the same reason straight same sex couples shouldn’t.
> 
> I think we’ve been through this a few times already.
> 
> Do I have to continue to describe the different dynamics of each relationship.
> 
> It’s getting redundant



One more time... Give me a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.  

Come on, man, be honest in your bigotry.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> One more time... Give me a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
> 
> Come on, man, be honest in your bigotry.



Because the principle dynamic of a same sex couple, regardless the sexuality make up of said couple is radically different than that of an opposite sex couple, regardless of sexuality. 

Just admit it Joe, you are a bigot toward heterosexuals because you find they’re sexual practices icky.


----------



## jknowgood

Skylar said:


> Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?


Have you seen how crazy things have become since it was made legal? Now liberals are trying to make pedophiles normal. I was for civil unions from the start, but redefining marriage was a mistake.


----------



## jknowgood

JoeB131 said:


> One more time... Give me a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
> 
> Come on, man, be honest in your bigotry.


Civil unions yes, but redefining marriage no. Liberals are wanting pedophiles to be accepted as normal now.


----------



## DGS49

Keep in mind, sexual irregulars went from being FELONS under most states' laws to being free to enjoy their sexual activities with no interference from the Authorities, along with being free to pledge their unending faithful commitment to one another, with no outside interference whatsoever.  (In fact, when monogamous relationships among gay men are more motivated by fear of the spread of disease than anything else.)

But this wasn't enough. They had to RE-DEFINE the most fundamental relationship of the human condition: marriage.  Homosexual marriage is an absurdity.  They cannot produce offspring, they cannot constitute a family unless you completely redefine "family" at the same time.

The Gay Mafia demands, not tolerance, but a societal and legal EMBRACE, recasting our most fundamental institutions for their benefit.

They are, along with the rest of the political Left, evil.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> We can't so stop the bashing and attacking which for the most part comes from the right


Yes,the bashing can stop by having both sides agree to quit pushing agenda and trying to force all the Public and all taxpayers to fund that agenda.

If prolife don't want to have "right to health care" forced on people through govt, then why not agree to back off from forcing "right to life" mandates on others through govt.

If the liberal left want to defund the death penalty, why not agree to similar strategies for defunding abortion?

If businesses should declare themselves "religious businesses" to avoid conflicts over discrimination, why not agree to have political parties designated as political religions in order to protect free exercise and expression but WITHOUT establishing or regulating such policies through govt? Why not agree to operate through Party so people have free choice to follow fund or participate or not?


----------



## HeyNorm

emilynghiem said:


> Yes,the bashing can stop by having both sides agree to quit pushing agenda and trying to force all the Public and all taxpayers to fund that agenda.
> 
> If prolife don't want to have "right to health care" forced on people through govt, then why not agree to back off from forcing "right to life" mandates on others through govt.
> 
> If the liberal left want to defund the death penalty, why not agree to similar strategies for defunding abortion?
> 
> If businesses should declare themselves "religious businesses" to avoid conflicts over discrimination, why not agree to have political parties designated as political religions in order to protect free exercise and expression but WITHOUT establishing or regulating such policies through govt? Why not agree to operate through Party so people have free choice to follow fund or participate or not?



Or we can just discuss our opinions and not try to back the other in a corner. I find using logic to be the best formula.


----------



## HeyNorm

DGS49 said:


> Keep in mind, sexual irregulars went from being FELONS under most states' laws to being free to enjoy their sexual activities with no interference from the Authorities, along with being free to pledge their unending faithful commitment to one another, with no outside interference whatsoever.  (In fact, when monogamous relationships among gay men are more motivated by fear of the spread of disease than anything else.)
> 
> But this wasn't enough. They had to RE-DEFINE the most fundamental relationship of the human condition: marriage.  Homosexual marriage is an absurdity.  They cannot produce offspring, they cannot constitute a family unless you completely redefine "family" at the same time.
> 
> The Gay Mafia demands, not tolerance, but a societal and legal EMBRACE, recasting our most fundamental institutions for their benefit.
> 
> They are, along with the rest of the political Left, evil.



The greatest absurdity is that the right to marry a same sex partner includes straights. 

So get this, straights gained the right to marry others of their same sex?

Yippee!


----------



## Rogue AI

Skylar said:


> No, removing Obergefell would eliminate the right to marry for same sex couples in dozens of conservative states. Something conservatives are very eager to do.
> 
> 'cuz Jesus said so'.
> 
> Thus, the federal law to protect same sex marriage.


Actually it has little to do with Jesus, over 30 states amended their Constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This ridiculous new law will not meet the standards set forth in the DOMA ruling. Nothing has changed in the federal government's ability to define marriage. Thus it falls to the states.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Because the principle dynamic of a same sex couple, regardless the sexuality make up of said couple is radically different than that of an opposite sex couple, regardless of sexuality.
> 
> Just admit it Joe, you are a bigot toward heterosexuals because you find they’re sexual practices icky.



My girlfriend would argue otherwise.  But here's the thing.   I'm white and she's Asian, and once upon a time, within my lifetime, in fact, our relationship would have been illegal in many states because we aren't of the same racial group.  Then people realized such laws are kind of silly.   Same thing here. 

Give me a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm here are some guys who at least have the guts to try to answer the question... They are stupid answers. 



jknowgood said:


> Have you seen how crazy things have become since it was made legal? Now liberals are trying to make pedophiles normal. I was for civil unions from the start, but redefining marriage was a mistake.



When did this happen? Last time I checked that was against the law and no one was endorsing it. You must mean teaching kids how sex works (which we've been doing for 50 years) is bad.  But we've been doing it for 50 years and the teenage pregnancy rate has actually declined.... so maybe not. 



jknowgood said:


> Civil unions yes, but redefining marriage no. Liberals are wanting pedophiles to be accepted as normal now.



Link?  

No, there's not good reason why we should have second class marriage in this country for some people.  Without babbling about pedophilia (which is more likely to happen within the home than anywhere else) can you give me a good reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed all the same benefits of marriage. 



DGS49 said:


> Keep in mind, sexual irregulars went from being FELONS under most states' laws to being free to enjoy their sexual activities with no interference from the Authorities, along with being free to pledge their unending faithful commitment to one another, with no outside interference whatsoever. (In fact, when monogamous relationships among gay men are more motivated by fear of the spread of disease than anything else.)


As stated above, until 1967, interracial relationships were illegal in this country.  

It's not just being able to enjoy sex, it's about getting the protections of marriage. the right to joint property, the right to make medical decisions for your partner, the right to visitation in the hospital, etc.  



DGS49 said:


> But this wasn't enough. They had to RE-DEFINE the most fundamental relationship of the human condition: marriage. Homosexual marriage is an absurdity. They cannot produce offspring, they cannot constitute a family unless you completely redefine "family" at the same time.



I might get married to my Asian girlfriend within the next year.  We are both in our early 60's.  There's no way we are producing kids at this point.  Should we be disallowed to get married?  What about people who are on their second marriages, have gotten vasectomies or tubal ligations?   



DGS49 said:


> The Gay Mafia demands, not tolerance, but a societal and legal EMBRACE, recasting our most fundamental institutions for their benefit.
> 
> They are, along with the rest of the political Left, evil.



When you are privileged, equality can seem like oppression.  Gays aren't asking for anything that you don't already enjoy.


----------



## HeyNorm

Thanks for the invite Joe.

Fun fact: did you know that, if a black woman goes through a medical examination, the doctor can determine she is a woman, with no real physical characteristics different than any other woman, with the exception of skin color. And if you noticed Joe, all woman have at least 1 skin color.

But if a guy went through a physical examination, the doctor couldn’t define his sexuality by doing such an examination. He would just have to take the patients word for it.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> My girlfriend would argue otherwise.  But here's the thing.   I'm white and she's Asian, and once upon a time, within my lifetime, in fact, our relationship would have been illegal in many states because we aren't of the same racial group.  Then people realized such laws are kind of silly.   Same thing here.
> 
> Give me a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.



Joe, someday when you need a mechanic, or god forbid a doctor that can perform a life saving surgery on you, you can thank opposite sex unions for producing the person doing the work! 

And by your own argument, marriage should not exist in the first place because incest, child marriage and forced unions are illegal anyway.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Fun fact: did you know that, if a black woman goes through a medical examination, the doctor can determine she is a woman, with no real physical characteristics different than any other woman, with the exception of skin color. And if you noticed Joe, all woman have at least 1 skin color.
> 
> But if a guy went through a physical examination, the doctor couldn’t define his sexuality by doing such an examination. He would just have to take his word for it.



Actually, you can usually tell just by looking at his butthole.  That's why they army used to make us all bend over and grab our ankles.  

Not sure why this disqualifies anyone from getting the legal protections of marriage.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Joe, someday when you need a mechanic, or god forbid a doctor that can perform a life saving surgery on you, you can thank opposite sex unions for producing the person doing the work!
> 
> And by your own argument, marriage should not exist in the first place because incest, child marriage and forced unions are illegal anyway.



Except we don't need marriage to produce children.  35% of kids today are born out of wedlock.   Furthermore, thanks to in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy, gay people are just as capable of having children as straight people.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, you can usually tell just by looking at his butthole.  That's why they army used to make us all bend over and grab our ankles.
> 
> Not sure why this disqualifies anyone from getting the legal protections of marriage.



So woman don’t engage in anal sex Joe?

Interesting, really.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Except we don't need marriage to produce children.  35% of kids today are born out of wedlock.   Furthermore, thanks to in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy, gay people are just as capable of having children as straight people.



So you continue to argue there is no need for the institution to exist. 

Go with that Joe.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> So woman don’t engage in anal sex Joe?
> 
> Interesting, really.



Sure they do... but that's not what you asked.  You asked how a doctor can tell a man is gay by physical examination.  Like you didn't know from all the gay porn you must be watching. 



HeyNorm said:


> So you continue to argue there is no need for the institution to exist.



There's no NEED for the institution, but some people WANT the institution. 

The advantage for marriage is so that a couple can have legal rights related to joint property, visitation, the right to make medical decisions, and yes, the right to parent children conceived naturally or in other ways.  There are also disadvantages to marriage, like filing at a higher tax rate and the liability of divorce.  

But you really haven't given me a good reason why gay couple shouldn't have the right to get married, other than you think it's icky.


----------



## Seymour Flops

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.





DGS49 said:


> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.





For once, I'm going to side with Democrats, evil though are, no sarcasm.  Same-sex and inter-racial couples indeed need more protection than a USSC decision, subject to change by a later USSC decision.  Saying that we don't need to guarantee their rights because no one is trying to take them away rings hollow when those rights have been non-existent in the past.

Democrats, I just agreed with you about something so read this with an open mind:  How it sounds to you when Republicans say we don't need to protect the integrity of marriage because we can't name someone who is going to take away marriage rights it exactly how it sounds to me when you say we don't need to protect the integrity of elections because we can't name people who have cheated in elections.


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> Democrats, I just agreed with you about something so read this with an open mind: How it sounds to you when Republicans say we don't need to protect the integrity of marriage because we can't name someone who is going to take away marriage rights it exactly how it sounds to me when you say we don't need to protect the integrity of elections because we can't name people who have cheated in elections.



Except we know that there are people who want to attack the integrity of marriage, from the idiot clerk who won't issue a marriage license to same sex couples to the asshole bakers who won't bake a cake with two plastic ladies on top.  

The problem with you guys who scream about "election integrity" is that what you really want is to make it harder for poor people to vote.   And given your history of shit like Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests, people have a right to be concerned about being given an anal probe when showing up to vote.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Sure they do... but that's not what you asked.  You asked how a doctor can tell a man is gay by physical examination.  Like you didn't know from all the gay porn you must be watching.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no NEED for the institution, but some people WANT the institution.
> 
> The advantage for marriage is so that a couple can have legal rights related to joint property, visitation, the right to make medical decisions, and yes, the right to parent children conceived naturally or in other ways.  There are also disadvantages to marriage, like filing at a higher tax rate and the liability of divorce.
> 
> But you really haven't given me a good reason why gay couple shouldn't have the right to get married, other than you think it's icky.



So what’s the compelling state interest Joe? None, right? Thanks for assisting a small fringe of people that wants it dismantled. 

And I don’t think dudes raped in prison are gay Joe. You?  The doctor, defining a rape victim as gay was jumping to a conclusion Joe. An assumption. He can determine race however with standard testing.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> So what’s the compelling state interest Joe? None, right? Thanks for assisting a small fringe of people that wants it dismantled.
> 
> And I don’t think dudes raped in prison are gay Joe. You? The doctor, defining a rape victim as gay was jumping to a conclusion Joe. An assumption. He can determine race however with standard testing.



Actually, prison rape is rarer than you think.  What is more common in prison is people who turn to homosexuality because that's all they have available to them.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, prison rape is rarer than you think.  What is more common in prison is people who turn to homosexuality because that's all they have available to them.



Joe, you just admitted a doctor can’t determine sexuality through a physical examination unless you think that rape victims are gay. 

And you also clearly implied that homosexuality is nurture, not nature. 

Please stop Joe, same sex marriage supporters should be embarrassed that you are on their side. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> My girlfriend would argue otherwise.  But here's the thing.   I'm white and she's Asian, and once upon a time, within my lifetime, in fact, our relationship would have been illegal in many states because we aren't of the same racial group.  Then people realized such laws are kind of silly.   Same thing here.
> 
> Give me a good reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.


You know damn well that Hetero marriage is hard work. Divorces were eased many decades ago but the payment by the breadwinner for alimony and child support exists and can be debilitating. To cheapen the sacrament of marriage affected all of us no matter what. This is no game. Half of the millennial males will not even consider getting married. That is destructive. The costs of what we are doing is immense. The ideas sound good. The push to put these ideas into practice affect other sound institutions.


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> Except we know that there are people who want to attack the integrity of marriage, from the idiot clerk who won't issue a marriage license to same sex couples to the asshole bakers who won't bake a cake with two plastic ladies on top.


Yes that is true.

Also true that we know that there are people who want to attack the Integrity of elections. Many more such people than bakers  who don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple or clerks willing to be fired rather than issue a legal marriage license to a same-sex couple. 

Just because the mainstream media refuses to recognize such people, does not mean that they don't exist.


JoeB131 said:


> The problem with you guys who scream about "election integrity" is that what you really want is to make it harder for poor people to vote.   And given your history of shit like Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests, people have a right to be concerned about being given an anal probe when showing up to vote.


Not true. Poor people are able to show photo ID when they apply for welfare and other benefits. Black people are just as capable of getting a driver's license as white people, be wailing of the idiotic Democrats notwithstanding. 

Speaking of democrats, it was Democrats who used poll taxes and literacy tests to stop black people from voting. Republican have been all about black people voting since they fought for that in the civil war.

The lie that election security means no voting for poor people is promulgated by assholes and believed by morons. Democrats have zero interest in truth or fairness. All they care about is getting what they want when they want it. That's the difference between the modern day student loan deadbeat type Democrat and the working class Democrats of the past.


----------



## Captain Caveman

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So gay people, who have the misfortune of living in a backwrd, shit hole red stae should be subjected to the whims of knuckle draging moronic bigots?


Click on personal life. Not all gays wanted gay marriage legalised.









						Christopher Biggins - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> So what’s the compelling state interest Joe? None, right? Thanks for assisting a small fringe of people that wants it dismantled.


Hey Normy. I am watching this and there are some things that I just can’t let go. Are you asking what  the compelling interest of government is to ALLOW same sex marriage? If so it just further highlights your ignorance of how things work. In this case, government ( the states ) sought to deny the ability of  gay couples ( same sex couples if you prefer)  to marry . The burden of proof is then on those states to articulate a compelling government interest in NOT ALLOWING those marriages . 

The high court applied a standard of strict scrutiny and found that there was no compelling interest in denying marriage to gay couples given that fact that marriage is treated as a right for opposite sex couples because-and I know that you hate this-they are "similarly situated". That is how Obergefell was decided 

Now Normy,  perhaps you would like to tell us what compelling government interest YOU think that there is in denying marriage to gay couples


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Captain Caveman said:


> Click on personal life. Not all gays wanted gay marriage legalised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher Biggins - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


So what.? That is one man's opinion. Maybeyou could fine a few more like him. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey Normy. I am watching this and there are some things that I just can’t let go. Are you asking what  the compelling interest of government is to ALLOW same sex marriage? If so it just further highlights your ignorance of how things work. In this case, government ( the states ) sought to deny the ability of  gay couples ( same sex couples if you prefer)  to marry . The burden of proof is then on those states to articulate a compelling government interest in NOT ALLOWING those marriages .
> 
> The high court applied a standard of strict scrutiny and found that there was no compelling interest in denying marriage to gay couples given that fact that marriage is treated as a right for opposite sex couples because-and I know that you hate this-they are "similarly situated". That is how Obergefell was decided
> 
> Now Normy,  perhaps you would like to tell us what compelling government interest YOU think that there is in denying marriage to gay couples



Glad you came back

The compelling state interest is, that if the state bases marriage on sexuality, it must rescind all bigamy and multiple partner laws to accommodate bisexuality. 

Clear enough?


----------



## Captain Caveman

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So what.? That is one man's opinion. Maybeyou could fine a few more like him. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.


Not one, many.

Just like some Lefties support X,y, and z, some don't. Some Righties support a,b, and c, some don't. Only thickos think all gays support gay marriage, what's your take on it!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Captain Caveman said:


> Not one, many.
> 
> Just like some Lefties support X,y, and z, some don't. Some Righties support a,b, and c, some don't. Only thickos think all gays support gay marriage, what's your take on it!


Now we do not think that all gays support gay marriage. Do you know that all straight people do not support straight marriage?

Now that we  havegotten that out of the way, do ypu have anything relevant to contribute to the topic?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Glad you came back
> 
> The compelling state interest is, that if the state bases marriage on sexuality, it must rescind all bigamy and multiple partner laws to accommodate bisexuality.
> 
> Clear enough?


Actually, that is a rather thoughtful observation. Bi sexual people might actually have a case if they were to pursue it. But that is not a state interest. It is a bi sexual interest that has yet to be raised. The courts were not compelled to ensure that everyoneis accomodated when the question of bisexual accomodation and plural marriage was not before the court. So there is still no compelling state interest that should delay same sex marriage untill the issue of bisexuality is raised and resolved. But, nice try


----------



## Captain Caveman

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Now we do not think that all gays support gay marriage. Do you know that all straight people do not support straight marriage?
> 
> Now that we  havegotten that out of the way, do ypu have anything relevant to contribute to the topic?


Yes, back to #2,270


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Actually, that is a rather thoughtful observation. Bi sexual people might actually have a case if they were to pursue it. But that is not a state interest. It is a bi sexual interest that has yet to be raised. The courts were not compelled to ensure that everyoneis accomodated when the question of bisexual accomodation and plural marriage was not before the court. So there is still no compelling state interest that should delay same sex marriage untill the issue of bisexuality is raised and resolved. But, nice try



Hey, I didn’t want the change in the first place as I saw what opening the door would create. 

The state now has an interest to provide accommodation to all sexualities. 

It’s kind of bigoted to argue the interest does not exist.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Captain Caveman said:


> Yes, back to #2,270


OK < So  you don't have anything  relevant to say.  By-by


----------



## Captain Caveman

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK < So  you don't have anything  relevant to say.  By-by


If you go back to my post #2,270, it clearly states the relevance to the thread. You're not a full shilling.


----------



## HeyNorm

Captain Caveman said:


> Click on personal life. Not all gays wanted gay marriage legalised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher Biggins - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org



Interesting on two points:

One, he proves the point that’s gays were never excluded from marriage as has often been claimed

And two, a gay man, having been married in the past to a woman, agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Seems he should know best.


----------



## Captain Caveman

HeyNorm said:


> Interesting on two points:
> 
> One, he proves the point that’s gays were never excluded from marriage as has often been claimed
> 
> And two, a gay man, having been married in the past to a woman, agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
> 
> Seems he should know best.


Thank you, it's a shame TheProgressivePatriot can't read links and grasp relevancy.

Christopher Biggins is one the few homosexuals with their head screwed on.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Hey, I didn’t want the change in the first place as I saw what opening the door would create.
> 
> The state now has an interest to provide accommodation to all sexualities.
> 
> It’s kind of bigoted to argue the interest does not exist.


Look Normy, your constant charges of   bigotry against everyone has long since worn thin, so stop it. You might get more respect. And here, you are suggesting that I am a bigot because I argue the interest does not exist?  That is another annoying and childish thing that you do*. I made no such argument .* I said that the accommodation of bisexual has NOT BEEN RAISED AS AN ISSUE.  To be clear, I am not arguing for or against the accommodation of bi people, so again,  please stuff the bigot bullshit 

Now what door is it that gay marriage opened, Plural marriage? I am not aware if any movement to implement it. The fact is that you can’t argue that the right of gay people to marry one other person of the same gender is in anyway tied to the  idea that a person can marry more than once person. The prohibition on plural marriage existed long before gay marriage. There is no compelling government interest in prohibiting gay marriage because  bisexuals can’t marry two people. That is not what a compelling government interest is  And, you can’t expect gays to wait for the right to marry until an issue, which is not actually a current issue, and may never be an issue is resolved 
Another fact is that plural marriage is infinitely more complex  as a legal and social issue. Gay were able to argue that they were “similarly situated” in relation to opposite sex couples because in both cases, it involved people who wished to be in a relationship with one other person. Bisexuals who want to marry more than one person have no other group who can marry more than one person to point to and claim that they are being treated differently. 

Now having said that, I can see were bisexuals might have a valid argument if they claim discrimination because gay and straight people are being accommodated  and they are not. And as I said the  counter argument is that no one can marry more than one person so there is no discrimination. It would be interesting to see how it would all shake out in the legal system and political arena. Bisexuals are certainly free to organize and pursue the matter through the courts and the law making process. My guess is that the would have a lot to overcome and that the country is just not ready for plural marriage. But then again, there wa a time not long ago when it was not ready for gay marriage 

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, can you think of any ACTUAL compelling government interests in banning gay marriage?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Captain Caveman said:


> Thank you, it's a shame TheProgressivePatriot can't read links and grasp relevancy.
> 
> Christopher Biggins is one the few homosexuals with their head screwed on.


Look boys. The thread is about the legal arguments for and against same sex marriage. I am not the one having trouble grasping something


----------



## HeyNorm

You just keep putting your foot in your mouth. 

How many times in your post did you mention “gay marriage”? A dozen, maybe more?

Including an accommodation, based on sexuality, not sex, already opened the door. 

And changing the number individuals within a marriage to accommodate a sexuality is minor in comparison to the Union of one man to one woman, regardless of their sexualities. 

Got it bigot?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Look boys. The thread is about the legal arguments for and against same sex marriage. I am not the one having trouble grasping something



Even though, you still look silly.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You just keep putting your foot in your mouth.
> 
> How many times in your post did you mention “gay marriage”? A dozen, maybe more?
> 
> Including an accommodation, based on sexuality, not sex, already opened the door.
> 
> And changing the number individuals within a marriage to accommodate a sexuality is minor in comparison to the Union of one man to one woman, regardless of their sexualities.
> 
> Got it bigot?


OK Fuck head. I thought for in minute that there was a chance of our communicating on a rational level but I was clearly wrong. I use same sex marriage and gay marriage interchangeably You cling to a false distinction as a diversionary tactic in order to avoid dealing with the real issue. 

You really think that going from a marriage of two to a plural marriage is minor? How stupid are you? Clearly you have not thought much about it. I would go into it but I will not suborn your latest attempt to troll the thread off into a new tangent. Plus I don't think that you are bright enought to understand. 

And here you are calling be a bigot again after I clearly said that I was not taking a stand against  plural marriage but just that I have concerns about it and see it as a separate issue. While I at least look for ways to acccomodtae others while you dig  deep for excuses to exclude gays. You're a sick joke without a punchline.  So, you can fuck off again. Grow the fuck up


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> OK Fuck head. I thought for in minute that there was a chance of our communicating on a rational level but I was clearly wrong. I use same sex marriage and gay marriage interchangeably You cling to a false distinction as a diversionary tactic in order to avoid dealing with the real issue.
> 
> You really think that going from a marriage of two to a plural marriage is minor? How stupid are you? Clearly you have not thought much about it. I would go into it but I will not suborn your latest attempt to troll the thread off into a new tangent. And here you are calling be a bigot again after I clearly said that I was not taking a stand against  plural marriage but just that I have concerns about it and see it as a separate issue. So, you can fuck off again. Grow the fuck up



Now, we have a law that makes the qualification of two individuals, not closely related……….

Obviously the above is only applicable to opposite sex couples, unless you want to add, in the case of same sex couples, their sperm or egg donors can not be closely related………

Of legal age and have the ability to freely consent.

YEAH, PP, now that makes all the sense in the damn world!

You just look dumber and dumber as this conversation progresses.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Now, we have a law that makes the qualification of two individuals, not closely related……….
> 
> Obviously the above is only applicable to opposite sex couples, unless you want to add, in the case of same sex couples, their sperm or egg donors can not be closely related………
> 
> Of legal age and have the ability to freely consent.
> 
> YEAH, PP, now that makes all the sense in the damn world!
> 
> You just look dumber and dumber as this conversation progresses.


Fuck off troll! None of that even makes sense. Try dealing with the points that I make instead of comming back with an inane  word salad rant.I would not call this a conversation. You do not know how to converse like an adult


----------



## otto105

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


Good olde teddy should take care of his house first.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Joe, you just admitted a doctor can’t determine sexuality through a physical examination unless you think that rape victims are gay.
> 
> And you also clearly implied that homosexuality is nurture, not nature.
> 
> Please stop Joe, same sex marriage supporters should be embarrassed that you are on their side.



Uh, no, you really are going off on twenty different tangents to avoid admitting your own homophobia.  
Also, sexual orientation is hardly a choice.  

That you can't answer the simple question- what compelling reason is there for preventing gays from marrying?   You don't have one.


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes that is true.
> 
> Also true that we know that there are people who want to attack the Integrity of elections. Many more such people than bakers who don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple or clerks willing to be fired rather than issue a legal marriage license to a same-sex couple.
> 
> Just because the mainstream media refuses to recognize such people, does not mean that they don't exist.



Nope.  Whenever you guys talk about "integrity of election", you are really saying, "We are upset poor people showed up and threw Trump  out on his ass."  



Seymour Flops said:


> Not true. Poor people are able to show photo ID when they apply for welfare and other benefits. Black people are just as capable of getting a driver's license as white people, be wailing of the idiotic Democrats notwithstanding.



Well, no, they really aren't if they move frequently or aren't at a fixed address. 



Seymour Flops said:


> Speaking of democrats, it was Democrats who used poll taxes and literacy tests to stop black people from voting. Republican have been all about black people voting since they fought for that in the civil war.



Actually, Republicans pretty much gave up on that after Rutherford B. Hayes stole the presidency in 1876. 



Seymour Flops said:


> The lie that election security means no voting for poor people is promulgated by assholes and believed by morons. Democrats have zero interest in truth or fairness. All they care about is getting what they want when they want it. That's the difference between the modern day student loan deadbeat type Democrat and the working class Democrats of the past.



Except that whenever you guys pull this shit, like "Cleaning up the voting rolls", you end up throwing a lot of poor people off the voting rolls who were entitled to vote, and didn't know they had been removed until they showed up on election day. 

We should be making it EASIER to vote, not harder.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, you really are going off on twenty different tangents to avoid admitting your own homophobia.
> Also, sexual orientation is hardly a choice.
> 
> That you can't answer the simple question- what compelling reason is there for preventing gays from marrying?   You don't have one.



Wait, what. In your prison scenario you claimed homosexuality was indeed a choice.

When are you going to start standing by your own words!


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Wait, what. In your prison scenario you claimed homosexuality was indeed a choice.



Except that prison sex isn't about choice, it's about dominance.   But you probably already know that from your time as a prison bitch. 

No wonder you are so angry at the gays.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Except that prison sex isn't about choice, it's about dominance.   But you probably already know that from your time as a prison bitch.
> 
> No wonder you are so angry at the gays.


You are a laugh a minute Joe. 

I was going to ask you earlier how you knew so much about prison sex, but I have way too much class for that. 

But it’s clear you don’t. 

And Joe, why would a qualification in the marriage law exist that gay or straight same sex partners be “not closely related”?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> I was going to ask you earlier how you knew so much about prison sex, but I have way too much class for that.



Your the one who brought prison sex up... but we know that you probably got traded for a pack of smokes. 



HeyNorm said:


> And Joe, why would a qualification in the marriage law exist that gay or straight same sex partners be “not closely related”?



For the same reason why it's there for straight couples, or even adopted families.   

Incest is already against the law.   Pedophilia is against the law.  Bigamy is against the law. That's why your "Slipperly slope" arguments are silly.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Penelope said:


> Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage
> 
> 
> "Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> I just knew it would come up soon.


The SCOTUS decision, is its decision.  He should just move on to other topics.  The heart wants who the heart wants.  For all I care some woman can marry her favorite horse.  I just don't want to witness what goes on behind the stable doors.


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> Nope.  Whenever you guys talk about "integrity of election", you are really saying, "We are upset poor people showed up and threw Trump  out on his ass."
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, they really aren't if they move frequently or aren't at a fixed address.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Republicans pretty much gave up on that after Rutherford B. Hayes stole the presidency in 1876.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that whenever you guys pull this shit, like "Cleaning up the voting rolls", you end up throwing a lot of poor people off the voting rolls who were entitled to vote, and didn't know they had been removed until they showed up on election day.
> 
> We should be making it EASIER to vote, not harder.


You're just making claims with no support.

Name some these homeless people who showed up to vote and were turned away.

I'm all for easy. ID at registration and the same ID to vote. Simple

If Democrooks were so concerned about homeless voters they'd meet them on the streets or at the shelter and take them to get state ID.

 Hey! Then they could clean threm up and find them jobs!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Now, we have a law that makes the qualification of two individuals, not closely related……….
> 
> Obviously the above is only applicable to opposite sex couples, unless you want to add, in the case of same sex couples, their sperm or egg donors can not be closely related………
> 
> Of legal age and have the ability to freely consent.
> 
> YEAH, PP, now that makes all the sense in the damn world!
> 
> You just look dumber and dumber as this conversation progresses.


Let me give you a word of advise kid. Learn how to organize your thoughts. Learn how to write in coherent sentences and how to put those sentences into a concise and cogent  paragraph . Clearly state your position-the conclusion that you have come to- and formulate your premise to support that conclusion using facts and logic. I don’t know if what you are trying to express reflects a fundamentally confused and immature thought process or if it is just a matter of your lacking the skills to express yourself in writing but something is wrong with you.

 In any case, your writing is a mess. You might know what it is you want to say but no one else does. Everything that you say is a jumbles mess of poorly constructed and fuzzy thoughts . A third grader in special ed could do better. Clean up your act. Take a writing course. Get an adult to help you. Do something!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Let me give you a word of advise kid. Learn how to organize your thoughts. Learn how to write in coherent sentences and how to put those sentences into a concise and cogent  paragraph . Clearly state your position-the conclusion that you have come to- and formulate your premise to support that conclusion using facts and logic. I don’t know if what you are trying to express reflects a fundamentally confused and immature thought process or if it is just a matter of your lacking the skills to express yourself in writing but something is wrong with you.
> 
> In any case, your writing is a mess. You might know what it is you want to say but no one else does. Everything that you say is a jumbles mess of poorly constructed and fuzzy thoughts . A third grader in special ed could do better. Clean up your act. Take a writing course. Get an adult to help you. Do something!



Or seek out a more intelligent audience?


----------



## Unkotare

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Let me give you a word of advise [sic] kid. ...


Wow........


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Your the one who brought prison sex up... but we know that you probably got traded for a pack of smokes.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason why it's there for straight couples, or even adopted families.
> 
> Incest is already against the law.   Pedophilia is against the law.  Bigamy is against the law. That's why your "Slipperly slope" arguments are silly.



Um, Joe, I asked how, during a physical examination just how the examiner could tell a gay from a straight man?

Then I added that this examiner could indeed find a physical distinction between a black woman and one of a different raced woman.

Your reaction was that the examiner making his determination because of the gays rectum.

Then I had to remind you that some straight men get anal raped.

You sure seemed to know a lot about prison rape. Almost like you’ve been there.

Hey Joe, why the bigotry toward bisexuals?

Do you find that they have straight sex sometimes icky?

Is that why you don’t want them happily married to the ones they love?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Now that's what we need.  Writing advice from an illiterate, incoherent moron.



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Let me give you a word of advise kid. Learn how to organize your thoughts. Learn how to write in coherent sentences and how to put those sentences into a concise and cogent  paragraph . Clearly state your position-the conclusion that you have come to- and formulate your premise to support that conclusion using facts and logic. I don’t know if what you are trying to express reflects a fundamentally confused and immature thought process or if it is just a matter of your lacking the skills to express yourself in writing but something is wrong with you.
> 
> In any case, your writing is a mess. You might know what it is you want to say but no one else does. Everything that you say is a jumbles mess of poorly constructed and fuzzy thoughts . A third grader in special ed could do better. Clean up your act. Take a writing course. Get an adult to help you. Do something!


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> You're just making claims with no support.
> 
> Name some these homeless people who showed up to vote and were turned away.
> 
> I'm all for easy. ID at registration and the same ID to vote. Simple
> 
> If Democrooks were so concerned about homeless voters they'd meet them on the streets or at the shelter and take them to get state ID.



Except that's exactly what they did, and that's what you are complaining about....


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Um, Joe, I asked how, during a physical examination just how the examiner could tell a gay from a straight man?
> 
> Then I added that this examiner could indeed find a physical distinction between a black woman and one of a different raced woman.
> 
> Your reaction was that the examiner making his determination because of the gays rectum.
> 
> Then I had to remind you that some straight men get anal raped.



And not sure what any of that had to do with marriage, other than your attempt to distract from answering the question. 

What valid reason do you have for two gay people not being able to get married.  No distractions about your anal rape fantasies or incest or whatever else you are watching on Pornhub.com, just straight up, answer the question... other than your bigotry, what compelling reason is there to deny two gay people a marriage license if they otherwise are consenting, non-related adults.


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> Except that's exactly what they did, and that's what you are complaining about....


I hope they did, but I haven't heard about it.  Sure you're not just making that up, again?

I complain about not requiring voter ID, not about Democrats or anyone else helping people get them.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> And not sure what any of that had to do with marriage, other than your attempt to distract from answering the question.
> 
> What valid reason do you have for two gay people not being able to get married.  No distractions about your anal rape fantasies or incest or whatever else you are watching on Pornhub.com, just straight up, answer the question... other than your bigotry, what compelling reason is there to deny two gay people a marriage license if they otherwise are consenting, non-related adults.



The argument is, once again, what individual has been denied access to marriage?  It’s been demonstrated that all individuals have equal access to it.

Because you can’t find someone who would agree to a marriage with you, then I would try harder or lower your standards.

Opening up a time honored institution to one niche sexuality make discriminating against any other sexuality the poster child for discrimination.

Just because you don’t want to do the work required does not meet the standard definition of discrimination.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> he argument is, once again, what individual has been denied access to marriage? It’s been demonstrated that all individuals have equal access to it.



Well, they do now.  But you want to deny it to some people.  

You just haven't given anyone a good reason other than you think it's icky.  

So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married?


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> I hope they did, but I haven't heard about it. Sure you're not just making that up, again?
> 
> I complain about not requiring voter ID, not about Democrats or anyone else helping people get them.



There's no reason for voter ID.  If you can walk up to the voting place, tell them your name and your address, that should be enough.

If you mail in your ballot, that should be enough.   We allow tax returns and census information to be collected by mail.  Why not ballots? 

Oh, that's right.  Because poor people vote by mail.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Well, they do now.  But you want to deny it to some people.
> 
> You just haven't given anyone a good reason other than you think it's icky.
> 
> So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married?



You don’t listen Joe. What is your defense in denying a bisexual from marrying two other people? Because it’s illegal?

You and your arguments are a joke. And I’ve demonstrated that dozens of times.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> You don’t listen Joe. What is your defense in denying a bisexual from marrying two other people? Because it’s illegal?



Yes, bigamy is illegal.  Whether it should be or not, is a matter for debate.  I'd personally have no problem with polygamy, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. 

We have polygamy now, except one is called the "Wife" and the other is called "the mistress".  



HeyNorm said:


> You and your arguments are a joke. And I’ve demonstrated that dozens of times.


So do you have a compelling reason why gays can't get married without going into ten other topics. 

Look, man, I get it, you don't like the gay stuff.   Especially after that one time at camp, we all know you have a case of the not-gays.  

But at least come up with a coherent reason for your position.


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> There's no reason for voter ID.  If you can walk up to the voting place, tell them your name and your address, that should be enough.


Enough to vote as many times as you want.


JoeB131 said:


> If you mail in your ballot, that should be enough.   We allow tax returns and census information to be collected by mail.  Why not ballots?


Why not allow someone to withdraw money from the bank account by walking up the counter and saying, "Hi I'm Joe B.  Here to clean out his - I mean my - account."


JoeB131 said:


> Oh, that's right.  Because poor people vote by mail.


No!  *sob, sob* they cannot afford stamps, you insensitive brute!


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, bigamy is illegal.  Whether it should be or not, is a matter for debate.  I'd personally have no problem with polygamy, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
> 
> We have polygamy now, except one is called the "Wife" and the other is called "the mistress".
> 
> 
> So do you have a compelling reason why gays can't get married without going into ten other topics.
> 
> Look, man, I get it, you don't like the gay stuff.   Especially after that one time at camp, we all know you have a case of the not-gays.
> 
> But at least come up with a coherent reason for your position.



Gays have always married Joe. By limiting the number of participants in a marriage, you have actually created a more discriminatory policy that more closely resembles traditional marriage, and is far more productive.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Gays have always married Joe. By limiting the number of participants in a marriage, you have actually created a more discriminatory policy that more closely resembles traditional marriage, and is far more productive.


You are so full of shit. You're just flam baiting here. I seriously doubt that someone who opposes  same sex marriage realy wants to allow bisexuals to marry more than one person so that  they can be with more then one gender. You lie about our position on those matters and call us bigots.

Then you keep repeating that same sick shit about how gays always could marry ( someone of the opposite sex) providing beyond a doubt who the real bigot is

And you STILL have not come up with a straight and honest answer as to why gays people should not be able to marry someone of their own gender


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are so full of shit. You're just flam baiting here. I seriously doubt that someone who opposes  same sex marriage realy wants to allow bisexuals to marry more than one person so that  they can be with more then one gender. You lie about our position on those matters and call us bigots.
> 
> Then you keep repeating that same sick shit about how gays always could marry ( someone of the opposite sex) providing beyond a doubt who the real bigot is
> 
> And you STILL have not come up with a straight and honest answer as to why gays people should not be able to marry someone of their own gender



Oh, I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality. But if sexuality, and remember, you claim same sex marriage is gay marriage, then excluding any other niche sexuality should be equally as repulsive. 

Clear now?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality. But if sexuality, and remember, you claim same sex marriage is gay marriage, then excluding any other niche sexuality should be equally as repulsive.
> 
> Clear now?


I have never advocated excluding anyone from marriage. You are the self proclaimed bigot, and yiu still lack the charachter and the confidence in your convictions to explain why

Yes I say same sex marriage is gay marriage. While the obergefell ruling does not mention "gay marriage" or gay people no one can deny that the intent of removing gender from the requirement was for the benefit of gay people. The result of course is that any two people of the same gender can marry but few if any have. So yes same sex marriage is gay marriage. Clear now

Now you're pushing the issue of including bi sexuals in a way that would allow them to marry more  than one person-presumedly a man and a woman. Being fuly aware of the fact that that is just another of your troll tactics to obfucate the real issue, lets see what that would look like. We could do one of two thing

1. Pass laws saying the bi sexuals but only bi sexuals can marry more than one person ......but waite now. You have an aversion to oppening up an institution to a "nitch sexuality only results in more discrimination-AND YOU ARE RIGHT for once. I can just hear all of the other peoplewho are not bi but who want to get into the plural marriage game crying foul. Then of course there would be the messy issue of determining who is actually bi. Another question that would come up is: If a Bi personwants to marry both a man and a woman, would they also be required to be bi inorder to bepart of it.

2. Or we can approach it like we did with "gay marriage" where we simply removed the gender requirement without regards to sexuality. In the case bisexual marriage, we could simply modify the number of people someone, anyone can marry-again-without regards to sexuality. But *unlike* with same sex marriage where few people who are not gay choose to partake , this plural marriage might be very appealing to people all accross the spectrum of sexual orientation. Now THAT would open the flood gats.

Well this was just an excercise because I know you really don't want any of that . You just want to talk about it, use it to call others bigots if they don't embrace it while denying that you are a  bigot and doing everything possible to avoid discussing your reasons for not wanting to allow GAY MARRIAGE'  Got it Bubba? 

And NO  ONE is buying that bovine excrement about  you opposing same sex marriage because the government is not accomodating bi people and therefore discriminating against them ARE WE CLEAR?


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So what.? That is one man's opinion. Maybeyou could fine a few more like him. It has no bearing on the issue at hand.


Where it applies is that public policy is supposed to reflect a consensus by the public. If people disagree on personal policies, those should remain optional.

Where even Libertarians have no issue with state govt involved in "domestic partnerships" "civil unions" "guardian or estate agreements" that are neutral of any social implications or beliefs, we could have a consensus on that.

And if both prochoice and prolife taxpayers agree to let citizens fund the health care policies of their choice, and not impose costs or conditions on others outside of that group's consent on policies, then we could have a consensus on health care and benefits.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have never advocated excluding anyone from marriage. You are the self proclaimed bigot, and yiu still lack the charachter and the confidence in your convictions to explain why
> 
> Yes I say same sex marriage is gay marriage. While the obergefell ruling does not mention "gay marriage" or gay people no one can deny that the intent of removing gender from the requirement was for the benefit of gay people. The result of course is that any two people of the same gender can marry but few if any have. So yes same sex marriage is gay marriage. Clear now
> 
> Now you're pushing the issue of including bi sexuals in a way that would allow them to marry more  than one person-presumedly a man and a woman. Being fuly aware of the fact that that is just another of your troll tactics to obfucate the real issue, lets see what that would look like. We could do one of two thing
> 
> 1. Pass laws saying the bi sexuals but only bi sexuals can marry more than one person ......but waite now. You have an aversion to oppening up an institution to a "nitch sexuality only results in more discrimination-AND YOU ARE RIGHT for once. I can just hear all of the other peoplewho are not bi but who want to get into the plural marriage game crying foul. Then of course there would be the messy issue of determining who is actually bi. Another question that would come up is: If a Bi personwants to marry both a man and a woman, would they also be required to be bi inorder to bepart of it.
> 
> 2. Or we can approach it like we did with "gay marriage" where we simply removed the gender requirement without regards to sexuality. In the case bisexual marriage, we could simply modify the number of people someone, anyone can marry-again-without regards to sexuality. But *unlike* with same sex marriage where few people who are not gay choose to partake , this plural marriage might be very appealing to people all accross the spectrum of sexual orientation. Now THAT would open the flood gats.
> 
> Well this was just an excercise because I know you really don't want any of that . You just want to talk about it, use it to call others bigots if they don't embrace it while denying that you are a  bigot and doing everything possible to avoid discussing your reasons for not wanting to allow GAY MARRIAGE'  Got it Bubba?
> 
> And NO  ONE is buying that bovine excrement about  you opposing same sex marriage because the government is not accomodating bi people and therefore discriminating against them ARE WE CLEAR?



Wait? A bisexual would have to prove he’s a bisexual? How would one do that? Submit to a physical examination? There are no distinct physical characteristics between a straight person, a gay person and a bisexual person, all of the same sex. Are there? And even dna testing can’t determine this.

If we are to believe that a gay person can’t marry because of sexuality pre obergfell, then why are we to believe a bisexual person can marry after?

Try being a bit less bigoted in your thinking.

Besides, the current law is still prejudiced toward certain people wishing to marry still.

I would oppose their marriage, as I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.

But that’s for another day.

And, can you explain just how you know that only a few straight same sex marriages exist when the question of sexuality does not appear on the marriage license application? Hell, even if it did, what documentation exists that the applicants are?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Wait? A bisexual would have to prove he’s a bisexual? How would one do that? Submit to a physical examination? There are no distinct physical characteristics between a straight person, a gay person and a bisexual person, all of the same sex. Are there? And even dna testing can’t determine this.


Damn kid!! YOu reading comprehension is as abysmal as your writing skills. I agreed with you. I said that laws and policies based on sexuality are ill advised. They are unworkable for a number of reasons. You really need to get an adult, or a special ed teacher to help you with your reading andwriting


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Damn kid!! YOu reading comprehension is as abysmal as your writing skills. I agreed with you. I said that laws and policies based on sexuality are ill advised. They are unworkable for a number of reasons. You really need to get an adult, or a special ed teacher to help you with your reading andwriting



Great, whew, then you agree that obergfell opened the door to the destruction of an institution that has lasted through many centuries.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> If we are to believe that a gay person can’t marry because of sexuality pre obergfell, then why are we to believe a bisexual person can marry after?
> 
> Try being a bit less bigoted in your thinking.


Jesus Fucking Christ! You call me bigoted when youkeep posting this stupid and hatful shit??!! Pre Gay Mariage - Agay person could only marry a person of the opposite sex depriving them of a truely fullfilling marriage. YOU being ok with that make YOU a FUCKING BIGOT. And what  the fuck is that about a bi sexual? Any body can marry anybody else regardless of sexuality. How fucking stupid are you?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Great, whew, then you agree that obergfell opened the door to the destruction of an institution that has lasted through many centuries.


Marriage? How was it destroyed exactly? Your armor is showing a crack. Finally a glimmer of what you really believe  Tell us all about what has happened to marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I would oppose their marriage, as I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.


But I'm the bigot??!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Where it applies is that public policy is supposed to reflect a consensus by the public. If people disagree on personal policies, those should remain optional.
> 
> Where even Libertarians have no issue with state govt involved in "domestic partnerships" "civil unions" "guardian or estate agreements" that are neutral of any social implications or beliefs, we could have a consensus on that.


First of all, the current consensus is that Gay marriage is acceptable. Secondly, regardless of consensus, we as a Constitutional Rebublic to not decide matters of rights by consensus. If these people do not believe in gay marriage, just don't get gay married and leave others alone.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But I'm the bigot??!!



Yes, I am clear I hold the same standard to all regardless of sexuality.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Marriage? How was it destroyed exactly? Your armor is showing a crack. Finally a glimmer of what you really believe  Tell us all about what has happened to marriage.



Because it was always, prior to obergfell only a contract that could be entered into by only two people. 

I know of no other civil contract that was allowed to limit the numbers of participants in such an agreement. It was indeed unique in that way. 

Hate to see this venerable institution be destroyed over frivolous claims that a niche couldn’t participate in it, which had been proven false.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Jesus Fucking Christ! You call me bigoted when youkeep posting this stupid and hatful shit??!! Pre Gay Mariage - Agay person could only marry a person of the opposite sex depriving them of a truely fullfilling marriage. YOU being ok with that make YOU a FUCKING BIGOT. And what  the fuck is that about a bi sexual? Any body can marry anybody else regardless of sexuality. How fucking stupid are you?



Wait, what? So the claim I can’t have truly fulfilling marriage if I’m only really happy with 6 woman was all I needed to allow such?

Interesting.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yes, I am clear I hold the same standard to all regardless of sexuality.


Bullshit. You support the ability of heterosexuals to marry for love and sexual attraction but do not extend that ability to gay people .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Wait, what? So the claim I can’t have truly fulfilling marriage if I’m only really happy with 6 woman was all I needed to allow such?
> 
> Interesting.


Stop trolling and lets get back to how gay marriage has destroyed an intitution


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Because it was always, prior to obergfell only a contract that could be entered into by only two people.
> 
> I know of no other civil contract that was allowed to limit the numbers of participants in such an agreement. It was indeed unique in that way.
> 
> Hate to see this venerable institution be destroyed over frivolous claims that a niche couldn’t participate in it, which had been proven false.


What the fuck is this crap now? A slippery slope logical fallacy.? We've had same sex  marriage for quite some time now. Where is the social movement to open it up to more than  two people? It is only brought up by clowns like you inorder to distract , confuse and sow fear. This is just another pathetic attempt to excuse your bigotry


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit. You support the ability of heterosexuals to marry for love and sexual attraction but do not extend that ability to gay people .



No one said that a heterosexual must or even need to be in love or sexually attracted to their partner. Hell, you didn’t even have to be a heterosexual. Even so, there is no way to prove one is heterosexual to begin with you big silly.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What the fuck is this crap now? A slippery slope logical fallacy.? We've had same sex  marriage for quite some time now. Where is the social movement to open it up to more than  two people? It is only brought up by clowns like you inorder to distract , confuse and sow fear. This is just another pathetic attempt to excuse your bigotry



There you go being a bigot again. Because you got your way, exclude the other niche sexualities


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stop trolling and lets get back to how gay marriage has destroyed an intitution



Can you name another civil contract that, by law can only be entered into by two people? But we know that there are niche sexualities that require more than two, and unless we cater to all, we should cater to none. 

Wouldn’t you agree. After all, fair is fair.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have never advocated excluding anyone from marriage



  Such as a creepy 75-year-old man wanting to _“marry”_ a three-year-old boy?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DGS49 said:


> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?


Republican-controled States.

Republicans are evil. Never forget that.


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> Why not allow someone to withdraw money from the bank account by walking up the counter and saying, "Hi I'm Joe B. Here to clean out his - I mean my - account."



Voting isn't the same as closing out a bank account.  
I do bank transactions all the time, and they never check my ID.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> Such as a creepy 75-year-old man wanting to _“marry”_ a three-year-old boy?



Or a creepy 35 year old cult leader marrying a 14 year old girl.  

Oh, wait, that was Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

jknowgood said:


> Civil unions yes, but redefining marriage no. Liberals are wanting pedophiles to be accepted as normal now.


Wrong. 

The measure has nothing to do with marriage as religious ritual.

Religious institutions remain at liberty to discriminate against gay and interracial couples.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DGS49 said:


> Keep in mind, sexual irregulars went from being FELONS under most states' laws to being free to enjoy their sexual activities with no interference from the Authorities, along with being free to pledge their unending faithful commitment to one another, with no outside interference whatsoever.  (In fact, when monogamous relationships among gay men are more motivated by fear of the spread of disease than anything else.)
> 
> But this wasn't enough. They had to RE-DEFINE the most fundamental relationship of the human condition: marriage.  Homosexual marriage is an absurdity.  They cannot produce offspring, they cannot constitute a family unless you completely redefine "family" at the same time.
> 
> The Gay Mafia demands, not tolerance, but a societal and legal EMBRACE, recasting our most fundamental institutions for their benefit.
> 
> They are, along with the rest of the political Left, evil.


This is a lie. 

The measure addresses only state marriage contract law pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. 

Private conservative organizations and individuals remain at liberty to be racists and bigots and discriminate against gay Americans and Americans of color.


----------



## HeyNorm

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The measure has nothing to do with marriage as religious ritual.
> 
> Religious institutions remain at liberty to discriminate against gay and interracial couples.



Correct, it is a civil contract limited, like no other I can think of, between two separate individuals that, for some odd reason excludes those closely related. Which makes a lot of sense if it was only opposite sex couples who can engage such a contract, but only limited sense for same sex gay couples and absolutely no sense for same sex straight couples. 

I can’t think of another civil contract limited to such a small number of participants. 

But, now to be fair, since sexuality is now a reason to be married, there are sexualities that require more than two. So even that could be thrown out the window. 

But, I remain steadfast in opposition to same sex marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the partners.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> But, I remain steadfast in opposition to same sex marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the partners.



Yet you can't give a coherent reason WHY it's a bad idea.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

HeyNorm said:


> Correct, it is a civil contract limited, like no other I can think of, between two separate individuals that, for some odd reason excludes those closely related. Which makes a lot of sense if it was only opposite sex couples who can engage such a contract, but only limited sense for same sex gay couples and absolutely no sense for same sex straight couples.
> 
> I can’t think of another civil contract limited to such a small number of participants.
> 
> But, now to be fair, since sexuality is now a reason to be married, there are sexualities that require more than two. So even that could be thrown out the window.
> 
> But, I remain steadfast in opposition to same sex marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the partners.


And as an ignorant, hateful bigot, you're at liberty to do so, this measure doesn't change that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> No one said that a heterosexual must or even need to be in love or sexually attracted to their partner. Hell, you didn’t even have to be a heterosexual. Even so, there is no way to prove one is heterosexual to begin with you big silly.


Sounds like your circling the drain here kid. Is this really your best shot?. Deal with my pont. If you had it your way, gay people, unlike straight people, WOULD NOT have the opportunity to marry for romantic love and attraction. You're just distracting from the issue and your bigotry with this crap about proving sexuality or what people must do.  FUCKIG BIGOT and a COWARD


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> There you go being a bigot again. Because you got your way, exclude the other niche sexualities


You are a sjick puppy


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sounds like your circling the drain here kid. Is this really your best shot?. Deal with my pont. If you had it your way, gay people, unlike straight people, WOULD NOT have the opportunity to marry for romantic love and attraction. You're just distracting from the issue and your bigotry with this crap about proving sexuality or what people must do.  FUCKIG BIGOT and a COWARD



Sure they can silly bean, they just have to do so with someone of the opposite sex.


----------



## HeyNorm

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And as an ignorant, hateful bigot, you're at liberty to do so, this measure doesn't change that.


How am I a bigot? I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Yet you can't give a coherent reason WHY it's a bad idea.



Oh, I have Joe. The group dynamic is incredibly different. 

Know why there is this silly rule about “not too closely related”? Joe?

It’s all because one group might make faulty bloodlines. And that group isn’t same sex. 

Group dynamics Joe, group dynamics.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, I have Joe. The group dynamic is incredibly different.
> 
> Know why there is this silly rule about “not too closely related”? Joe?
> 
> It’s all because one group might make faulty bloodlines. And that group isn’t same sex.
> 
> Group dynamics Joe, group dynamics.



There's actually more to it than that, which is why adopted siblings can't marry or legally have sex. 

Which has nothing to do with why gays should be allowed to get married.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> There's actually more to it than that, which is why adopted siblings can't marry or legally have sex.
> 
> Which has nothing to do with why gays should be allowed to get married.



I’m all ears Joe. Hit us with this wisdom.

Grooming perhaps?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Can you name another civil contract that, by law can only be entered into by two people? But we know that there are niche sexualities that require more than two, and unless we cater to all, we should cater to none.
> 
> Wouldn’t you agree. After all, fair is fair.


Not necessarily . It depends on what sort of “niche “ we are talking about . Each must be evaluated on its own merits and assessed in terms of the impact on those involved  society as a whole . Remember the lesson that I tried to get across to you on how, when the government tries to restrict or deny something that someone sees as a right, they must articulate a compelling government interest in doing so? Probably not . Now in the case of same sex marriage, the states were not able to meet that criteria. 
There is no end to the possible “niche sexualities “ that might arise, some that could be very harmful.   Suppose that a group started to push the idea that we should go back to arranged marriages and the consent was not necessary.? Do we automatically cater to that. ?  

In the case of plural marriage as I have said before there is a whole new set of legal and societal implications that have to be considered. Out systems are based on the marriage of TWO adults. Plural marriage has the potential to upend the social order and legal system. I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or that I oppose it. I and just saying that it is not a given and we do not have to “cater to all or to none” 
But I understand where you are coming from, You are desperately pushing this latest of a long list of bogus reasons why you oppose same sex marriage  even though plural marriage is no where on the horizon and the fact that it would be a tough sell politically  and the government might just be able to meet that standard of a compelling interest in not allowing it.   But keep trying Maybe someday you hit on something that sticks


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> I’m all ears Joe. Hit us with this wisdom.



Um, you are the one who is making an assertation.   Why shouldn't gay be allowed to marry each other.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, I have Joe. The group dynamic is incredibly different.
> 
> Know why there is this silly rule about “not too closely related”? Joe?
> 
> It’s all because one group might make faulty bloodlines. And that group isn’t same sex.
> 
> Group dynamics Joe, group dynamics.


WHAT!!???


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> WHAT!!???



Did you know that same sex couples can’t create children, but opposite sex, regardless of sexuality, can?

That’s a hugely different dynamic.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Not necessarily . It depends on what sort of “niche “ we are talking about . Each must be evaluated on its own merits and assessed in terms of the impact on those involved  society as a whole . Remember the lesson that I tried to get across to you on how, when the government tries to restrict or deny something that someone sees as a right, they must articulate a compelling government interest in doing so? Probably not . Now in the case of same sex marriage, the states were not able to meet that criteria.
> There is no end to the possible “niche sexualities “ that might arise, some that could be very harmful.   Suppose that a group started to push the idea that we should go back to arranged marriages and the consent was not necessary.? Do we automatically cater to that. ?
> 
> In the case of plural marriage as I have said before there is a whole new set of legal and societal implications that have to be considered. Out systems are based on the marriage of TWO adults. Plural marriage has the potential to upend the social order and legal system. I am not saying that would be a bad thing, or that I oppose it. I and just saying that it is not a given and we do not have to “cater to all or to none”
> But I understand where you are coming from, You are desperately pushing this latest of a long list of bogus reasons why you oppose same sex marriage  even though plural marriage is no where on the horizon and the fact that it would be a tough sell politically  and the government might just be able to meet that standard of a compelling interest in not allowing it.   But keep trying Maybe someday you hit on something that sticks



Sounds like you are just reaching for reasons to discriminate. Surely it can’t harm things, right?


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> Voting isn't the same as closing out a bank account.


Right, nothing is exactly the same as anything else. That's the Democrats fall back position for every analogy that goes against them.

Orwell talked about that in 1984. The book, not the year.

 Voting is much more important than closing a bank account.


JoeB131 said:


> I do bank transactions all the time, and they never check my ID.


Which bank is this whose policy is to give out its depositors' money without requiring an ID? I will check with them to verify that.

Or not.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Did you know that same sex couples can’t create children, but opposite sex, regardless of sexuality, can?
> 
> That’s a hugely different dynamic.


Holy fucking shit! We are right back to square 1 This is where it all started. I have lost track of all of the pathetically stupid reasons what you oppose same sex/GAY marriage

Do you know that some opposite sex couples can't create children? 

Do you remember when you admitted that you were ok with opposite sex couples who could not create children getting married? Do you understand how that exposed you as a bigot and a liar? A bigot because you hold gays to a different standard, and a liar because you would not admit your double standard until I dragged it out of you.

 So why the fuck are you bringing this up again now. ? Do you enjoy being humiliated? You are a mess Kid!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all, the current consensus is that Gay marriage is acceptable. Secondly, regardless of consensus, we as a Constitutional Rebublic to not decide matters of rights by consensus. If these people do not believe in gay marriage, just don't get gay married and leave others alone.



Civil rights, but rights in general are often left up to legislative bodies. 

Just not to long ago, the right to work was left up to the executive branch and/or regulatory commissions. 

But this is not a civil rights issue.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit! We are right back to square 1 This is where it all started. I have lost track of all of the pathetically stupid reasons what you oppose same sex/GAY marriage
> 
> Do you know that some opposite sex couples can't create children?
> 
> Do you remember when you admitted that you were ok with opposite sex couples who could not create children getting married? Do you understand how that exposed you as a bigot and a liar? A bigot because you hold gays to a different standard, and a liar because you would not admit your double standard until I dragged it out of you.
> 
> So why the fuck are you bringing this up again now. ? Do you enjoy being humiliated? You are a mess Kid!



Yes, some can’t. Are you claiming same sex couples can’t because of disability or because of old age?

Get a new act bro, this is getting old.

And I never ran from the fact that some that can can still marry, it’s about demographic groups after all.

And one cannot create a child while the other has created all children.

That’s a huge different dynamic.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Sounds like you are just reaching for reasons to discriminate. Surely it can’t harm things, right?


You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Andwhie your at it, your mental health

While you accuse me of looking for reasons to discrimiate,  YOU admit to supporting discrimination! How fucking stupid are you?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Andwhie your at it, your mental health
> 
> While you accuse me of looking for reasons to discrimiate,  YOU admit to supporting discrimination! How fucking stupid are you?



I do not discriminate!  

Who am I discriminating against?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yes, some can’t. Are you claiming same sex couples can’t because of disability or because of old age?
> 
> Get a new act bro, this is getting old.


We have been all though this before!  Soulds like you program has reset to the beginning after running out of materiel. . It does not matter why anyone cant have chidren and having children is not a requiremet for marriage. Now I am convinced that you are a zombie troll bot. THis is absolute proff! We are done here .


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I do not discriminate!
> 
> Who am I discriminating against?


Zombie troll bots tend to ask stupid questions.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Civil rights, but rights in general are often left up to legislative bodies.
> 
> Just not to long ago, the right to work was left up to the executive branch and/or regulatory commissions.
> 
> But this is not a civil rights issue.


What is not a civil rights issue?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> We have been all though this before!  Soulds like you program has reset to the beginning after running out of materiel. . It does not matter why anyone cant have chidren and having children is not a requiremet for marriage. Now I am convinced that you are a zombie troll bot. THis is absolute proff! We are done here .



It’s really really important that people have children. Can you guess why?

And one demographic group supplies them all.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Zombie troll bots tend to ask stupid questions.


You can try to redefine discrimination till the cows come home. You can’t find me doing it!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Sure they can silly bean, they just have to do so with someone of the opposite sex.


Thank yu again for admitting that you are a shameless bigot


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What is not a civil rights issue?


This


----------



## Wapasha

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.


Is there a state that does not recognize the same sex, or interracial marriage performed by another state?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank yu again for admitting that you are a shameless bigot


No bigotry here. I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.


----------



## HeyNorm

Wapasha said:


> Is there a state that does not recognize the same sex, or interracial marriage performed by another state?


Not exactly, but some states require consumation of the marriage to make a marriage valid. And that’s nearly impossible for same sex straight couples.

But other states don’t require it, and they can just get married in one of those and all states must recognize it.

Now, I oppose same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality, so it’s not for me, but that’s the state of the world Now a days


----------



## Wapasha

HeyNorm said:


> Not exactly, but some states require consumation of the marriage to make a marriage valid. And that’s nearly impossible for same sex straight couples.
> 
> But other states don’t require it, and they can just get married in one of those and all states must recognize it.
> 
> Now, I oppose same sex marriage, regardless of sexuality, so it’s not for me, but that’s the state of the world Now a days


That sounds a bit absurd. Have you got any actual proof of this? I've never heard a state that looks at a marriage license and ask if the couple have proof they engaged intercourse. I think there might be some states that seek proof the couple live together in the same home. 

I know of some military couples who were found guilty in a court martial because they got married for the money. It was found out that each spouse slept in a separate bedroom with their lover, and other evidence that the marriage was just for the money and tax breaks.

Same sex couples can live together under the same roof, which is about all consummating the marriage means. The state is not going to spontaneously annul the marriage because it thinks the couple are not having sex. Unless one spouse makes this claim, how is the state going to infer they are not having sex?

Annulment of a marriage was usually because one spouse refused to have sex with the other, or a spouse was in a coma, or some other condition where they could not have normal relations, and they went to court to annul the marriage. Of course some third party could bring suit before the state, because they have proof the couple have never lived under the same roof, and their marriage is a sham.


----------



## HeyNorm

Wapasha said:


> That sounds a bit absurd. Have you got any actual proof of this? I've never heard a state that looks at a marriage license and ask if the couple have proof they engaged intercourse. I think there might be some states that seek proof the couple live together in the same home.
> 
> I know of some military couples who were found guilty in a court martial because they got married for the money. It was found out that each spouse slept in a separate bedroom with their lover, and other evidence that the marriage was just for the money and tax breaks.
> 
> Same sex couples can live together under the same roof, which is about all consummating the marriage means. The state is not going to spontaneously annul the marriage because it thinks the couple are not having sex. Unless one spouse makes this claim, how is the state going to infer they are not having sex?
> 
> Annulment of a marriage was usually because one spouse refused to have sex with the other, or a spouse was in a coma, or some other condition where they could not have normal relations, and they went to court to annul the marriage. Of course some third party could bring suit before the state, because they have proof the couple have never lived under the same roof, and their marriage is a sham.


It ain’t what it used to be, that’s for sure


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Wapasha said:


> That sounds a bit absurd. Have you got any actual proof of this? I've never heard a state that looks at a marriage license and ask if the couple have proof they engaged intercourse. I think there might be some states that seek proof the couple live together in the same home.
> 
> I know of some military couples who were found guilty in a court martial because they got married for the money. It was found out that each spouse slept in a separate bedroom with their lover, and other evidence that the marriage was just for the money and tax breaks.
> 
> Same sex couples can live together under the same roof, which is about all consummating the marriage means. The state is not going to spontaneously annul the marriage because it thinks the couple are not having sex. Unless one spouse makes this claim, how is the state going to infer they are not having sex?
> 
> Annulment of a marriage was usually because one spouse refused to have sex with the other, or a spouse was in a coma, or some other condition where they could not have normal relations, and they went to court to annul the marriage. Of course some third party could bring suit before the state, because they have proof the couple have never lived under the same roof, and their marriage is a sham.


Caution!! You are dealing with a zombie troll bot. Don't let it eat your brains


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> No bigotry here. I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.


You are still a bigot, And a zombie troll bot.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are still a bigot, And a zombie troll bot.


Bigot? Wherever did that come from?

Zombie? Well it has been a long day

Troll Bot? Does it pay well?


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You think about anal sex alot it seemsl But what does that have to do with gay marriage. If you're concerned about AIDS you should support gay marriage. Married gay men have lower rates of the disease


Buggery is a filthy habit. I support traditional values. And fags are not a part of that.


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> Right, nothing is exactly the same as anything else. That's the Democrats fall back position for every analogy that goes against them.



Yes, we do need an apple to apples comparison.   As stated, the Government is perfectly fine collecting Census and Tax documents by mail, or even over the internet.   So why not ballots?   

In 2060, some census reviewer is going to be very confused why I wrote down "Klingon" under race on my Census form in 1990.   



Seymour Flops said:


> Which bank is this whose policy is to give out its depositors' money without requiring an ID? I will check with them to verify that.



As long as I have my bank account number, they don't care.


----------



## Papageorgio

Catsnmeters said:


> Like nobody was going to take away abortion rights? Dems already fell for that once.


The Democrats fell for nothing, they used abortion as a wedge issue and failed to act for 50 years.


----------



## Papageorgio

HeyNorm said:


> Bigot? Wherever did that come from?
> 
> Zombie? Well it has been a long day
> 
> Troll Bot? Does it pay well?


He seems to like it.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> The Democrats fell for nothing, they used abortion as a wedge issue and failed to act for 50 years.



Why should they have to?  Every Republican they put on the Supreme Court said that they respected precedent.  Not a one of them said during their confirmation hearings that they would overturn Roe because it was wrongly decided.   

Five of them clearly lied.

If anyone has been using Abortion as a wedge issue, it's Republicans.    

Of the 7 Justices that voted for Roe, Five were appointed by Nixon and Ike.  

Of the 11 Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, five of them continued to support Roe.   Only because Trump was too clumsy or stupid to realize that you didn't want the court to overturn Roe, did he stack the court with religious fanatics.  

And now the GOP is going to pay a price. If 2022 was a disappointment for you clowns, wait until 2024, when these stupid laws you've put into effect start really impacting actual women.


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, we do need an apple to apples comparison.   As stated, the Government is perfectly fine collecting Census and Tax documents by mail, or even over the internet.   So why not ballots?


Actually we probably do need some kind of review for the census. That is open to partisan Shenanigans also. But for right now let's solve the problem of completely unsecure elections that are trusted by less than half of americans.


JoeB131 said:


> In 2060, some census reviewer is going to be very confused why I wrote down "Klingon" under race on my Census form in 1990.


Yes, I'm sure that they read each one very carefully. I'm sure that will seem very original to them also. They will elbow each other and say look this guy said klingon! Yuck yuck!


JoeB131 said:


> As long as I have my bank account number, they don't care.


All I need is the name of this bank that don't care so I can verify your veracity.


----------



## rightwinger

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.


The Conservative threat to same sex marriage was real

Still is


----------



## HeyNorm

Papageorgio said:


> He seems to like it.



Yeah, I keep asking him to find a bigoted post of mine. 

Given the opportunity he continues to fail. 

See, I’m a uniter not a divider.


----------



## HeyNorm

rightwinger said:


> The Conservative threat to same sex marriage was real
> 
> Still is



I’ve never considered my right to marry someone of my same sex important enough that the Congress should stop the important business it needs to do.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> Buggery is a filthy habit. I support traditional values. And fags are not a part of that.


Thank you for that very thoughtful and well researched dissertation on  the immensely  critical subject of the right of gay people to marry. Clearly you have dedicated your life to civil rights and humanitarian endeavors. You bring your Lazor sharp  intellect and critical thinking skills to fight for social justice and tolerance. 

You must have advanced degrees from the finest institutions of higher learning in fields as diverse as constitutional law, psychology, sociology and human sexuality. As always you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse and a civil exchange of ideas on the USMB > Please continue to share your indispensable   pears of wisdom. God Bless YOU


----------



## rightwinger

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve never considered my right to marry someone of my same sex important enough that the Congress should stop the important business it needs to do.



Congress is capable of handling more than one issue at a time


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> It's against the morality of people of most of the mainline religions. He can call it evil. I don't.
> 
> Now tell me why it's MORAL to ruin a baker over not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a SSM celebration.



There was no problem.. no lawsuit until the baker went on Facebook to brag and mock the gay couple.


----------



## Catsnmeters

Papageorgio said:


> The Democrats fell for nothing, they used abortion as a wedge issue and failed to act for 50 years.


Thank you. That was my point. 

You expect them to do the same about marriage and fail to act for 50 years or take action like they did?


----------



## HeyNorm

rightwinger said:


> Congress is capable of handling more than one issue at a time



Sure, we are 30 some trillion in debt, homeless filling the streets and they choose this to work on?  🤦‍♂️


----------



## rightwinger

HeyNorm said:


> Sure, we are 30 some trillion in debt, homeless filling the streets and they choose this to work on?  🤦‍♂️


Congress can work on many things

What does the Republican House plan on working on?
Hunters Laptop


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yeah, I keep asking him to find a bigoted post of mine.
> 
> Given the opportunity he continues to fail.
> 
> See, I’m a uniter not a divider.


big·ot·ry
[ˈbiɡətrē]
NOUN



> obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:



Example 1 “Gays were always able to marry, they could always marry the opposite sex”
Why is it bigoted?

a) I It reflects the unfounded and unreasonable opinion that gays do not experience romantic love and  sexual attraction and therefore it is not important to them to be able to marry a person of their gender......and/or

b) It reflects the  opinion gays  do not deserve to find fulfillment and happiness in marriage because they are who and what they are

In both a and b above, no factual, objective, or compelling reason has been presented to support the position

Example 2  Gays should not be allowed to marry their own gender .

Why is it bigoted? It reflects the opinion that gays should not be able to marry the person of their choosing because they are  “different” in some way that precludes their right to marry. That is an obstinate and unreasonable belief, in the absence of any factual or objective or rational  reason for it


----------



## Papageorgio

Catsnmeters said:


> Thank you. That was my point.
> 
> You expect them to do the same about marriage and fail to act for 50 years or take action like they did?


If it gains them votes, it will.


----------



## Catsnmeters

Papageorgio said:


> If it gains them votes, it will.


No way...policy for votes? Say it isn't so.


----------



## Papageorgio

Catsnmeters said:


> No way...policy for votes? Say it isn't so.


Some don’t believe it happens, many liberals after the Dodds decision took Joe’s opinion. So talk to them because they don’t believe it.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> big·ot·ry
> [ˈbiɡətrē]
> NOUN
> 
> 
> 
> Example 1 “Gays were always able to marry, they could always marry the opposite sex”
> Why is it bigoted?
> 
> a) I It reflects the unfounded and unreasonable opinion that gays do not experience romantic love and  sexual attraction and therefore it is not important to them to be able to marry a person of their gender......and/or
> 
> b) It reflects the  opinion gays  do not deserve to find fulfillment and happiness in marriage because they are who and what they are
> 
> In both a and b above, no factual, objective, or compelling reason has been presented to support the position
> 
> Example 2  Gays should not be allowed to marry their own gender .
> 
> Why is it bigoted? It reflects the opinion that gays should not be able to marry the person of their choosing because they are  “different” in some way that precludes their right to marry. That is an obstinate and unreasonable belief, in the absence of any factual or objective or rational  reason for it



1.  Fact. Gays have always married you goofball. Just like straights, they married someone of the opposite sex. 🤦‍♂️ And they’ve been doing it for centuries. From what I’ve heard, some have even said, after such, they discovered they were not gay after all.

1.A. I never said they didn’t. Those Romantic love and sexual attraction are not, in my humble opinion, a requirement to marry. And many have fulfilling lifelong loving relationships without marriage, so thinking one must be married to have such, is actually somewhat bigoted in itself.

1.B. I think everyone should seek happiness, but marriage does not require that nor does it guarantee same.

Example 2.  I wouldn’t allow any same same sex couple to  marry, regardless of sexuality, while continuing the time honored tradition of allowing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex, even if the other was also gay. 

See, not bigoted at all.

And, while we’re at it. If we are going to make marriage about sexuality, how can a bisexual ever find joy and happiness?

Is that why they’re installing the suicide nets under the Golden Gate Bridge?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> 1. Fact. Gays have always married you goofball. Just like straights, they married someone of the opposite sex. 🤦‍♂️ And they’ve been doing it for centuries. From what I’ve heard, some have even said, after such, they discovered they were not gay after all.


You are just repeating the same bigoted bull shit while in no way presenting anything resembling a counter argument. From what you heard....? Are you fucking serious?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> .A. I never said they didn’t. Those Romantic love and sexual attraction are not, in my humble opinion, a requirement to marry. And many have fulfilling lifelong loving relationships without marriage, so thinking one must be married to have such, is actually somewhat bigoted in itself.
> 
> 1.B. I think everyone should seek happiness, but marriage does not require that nor does it guarantee same.


More bullshit! You are not responding to the point that I made. I never said that love and attraction is required. That is just your pathetic attempt to squirm out of the truth of your bigotry. The point is that EVERYONE should havethe opportunity to seek love and sexual attraction HOWEVER they wish be  it in marrage or not or with a same sex partner or not. You are just confirming your obvious  bigotry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Example 2. I wouldn’t allow any same same sex couple to marry, regardless of sexuality.


First of all you and I both know that is a pathetic and dishonest ploy because you have no evidence of any straight people wanting to marry their own gender. Secondly, if you really want to go that rout, then we can say that if it is not bigotry based on sexual orientation, it's bigotry based on gender. Keep in mind that the Obergefell decision was in fact based on gender


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> More bullshit! You are not responding to the point that I made. I never said that love and attraction is required. That is just your pathetic attempt to squirm out of the truth of your bigotry. The point is that EVERYONE should havethe opportunity to seek love and sexual attraction HOWEVER they wish be  it in marrage or not or with a same sex partner or not. You are just confirming your obvious  bigotry



That’s why I feel so bad about that niche sexuality, bisexuals, they can never find true happiness because the law limits love and happiness to just two. 

And I oppose it anyway.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all you and I both know that is a pathetic and dishonest ploy because you have no evidence of any straight people wanting to marry their own gender. Secondly, if you really want to go that rout, then we can say that if it is not bigotry based on sexual orientation, it's bigotry based on gender. Keep in mind that the Obergefell decision was in fact based on gender



And you have no evidence they have not!

Geez


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> First of all you and I both know that is a pathetic and dishonest ploy because you have no evidence of any straight people wanting to marry their own gender. Secondly, if you really want to go that rout, then we can say that if it is not bigotry based on sexual orientation, it's bigotry based on gender. Keep in mind that the Obergefell decision was in fact based on gender



Nope, I allow any and all “genders” to marry, as long as one is biologically male and the other biologically female.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> And, while we’re at it. If we are going to make marriage about sexuality, how can a bisexual ever find joy and happiness?


Plural marriage is a separate issue. We have been all through it. To say that gays should not be able to marry their own gender until bisexual- who you do not give a rats ass about- can marry more than one person is bizarre bullshit with no basis in law.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.


Just more political posturing and gamesmanship.
Maybe not, but it sure seems like the Democrats do it a LOT more than Republicans.
  It is a useless bill that does nothing


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> And you have no evidence they have not!
> 
> Geez


The burden of proff is on you. I can't prove a negative


----------



## JoeB131

Seymour Flops said:


> Actually we probably do need some kind of review for the census. That is open to partisan Shenanigans also. But for right now let's solve the problem of completely unsecure elections that are trusted by less than half of americans.



No, the Census is fine when done properly.   Of course, Trump fucked the last one up, which is why we didn't get a good count of minority communities. 

"not trusted" means, "Wah, my guy lost".   Deal with it and grow up.  



Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, I'm sure that they read each one very carefully. I'm sure that will seem very original to them also. They will elbow each other and say look this guy said klingon! Yuck yuck!



I guess it would depend if Star Trek is still a thing in another 40 years.. but it's lasted this long.  The 1990 Census happened when Star Trek was at the height of it's popularity, that's what made it funny.  

I did get a chance to look at stuff from the 1940 Census and tracked down the address my grandparents lived at then. It was kind of interesting. 



Seymour Flops said:


> All I need is the name of this bank that don't care so I can verify your veracity.


My bank let's me cash checks and send money over a phone app.  (I'm old school and still drop checks off).


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Nope, I allow any and all “genders” to marry, as long as one is biologically male and the other biologically female.


It is still gender discrimination. Read Obergefell. No one gives a fuck what you woud allow


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> 1. Fact. Gays have always married you goofball. Just like straights, they married someone of the opposite sex. 🤦‍♂️ And they’ve been doing it for centuries. From what I’ve heard, some have even said, after such, they discovered they were not gay after all.



Actually, I had an aunt who was a lesbian.  But she went through with a sham of a marriage to make her Catholic parents happy.  It lasted about a year, long enough to produce one kid, and she moved back in with her parents.  She was actually pretty miserable and made her kid miserable.  



HeyNorm said:


> 1.A. I never said they didn’t. Those Romantic love and sexual attraction are not, in my humble opinion, a requirement to marry. And many have fulfilling lifelong loving relationships without marriage, so thinking one must be married to have such, is actually somewhat bigoted in itself.



No, you get married to gain certain legal protections.  Gays should have the same access to those protections as straights. 

Now, are there people who get married for non-romantic or non-sexual reasons? I guess.  But those marriages are considered fraudulent.  In fact, they might even be a crime. 









						Officials crack down on green-card marriages
					

Immigration officials and prosecutors say phony green-card marriages are a common and growing crime, and they are cracking down.




					www.nbcnews.com
				






HeyNorm said:


> 1.B. I think everyone should seek happiness, but marriage does not require that nor does it guarantee same.



Nope, but the PURSUIT of happiness is one of those American virtues.  It's even in the Declaration of Independence. 



HeyNorm said:


> Example 2. I wouldn’t allow any same same sex couple to marry, regardless of sexuality, while continuing the time honored tradition of allowing gays to marry someone of the opposite sex, even if the other was also gay.



Except you keep refusing to give a reason why they SHOULD be denied same-sex marriage. 



HeyNorm said:


> And, while we’re at it. If we are going to make marriage about sexuality, how can a bisexual ever find joy and happiness?



Sure, they can.  They just find someone they love.  



HeyNorm said:


> Is that why they’re installing the suicide nets under the Golden Gate Bridge?



Have you tried them out?


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I had an aunt who was a lesbian.  But she went through with a sham of a marriage to make her Catholic parents happy.  It lasted about a year, long enough to produce one kid, and she moved back in with her parents.  She was actually pretty miserable and made her kid miserable.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you get married to gain certain legal protections.  Gays should have the same access to those protections as straights.
> 
> Now, are there people who get married for non-romantic or non-sexual reasons? I guess.  But those marriages are considered fraudulent.  In fact, they might even be a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials crack down on green-card marriages
> 
> 
> Immigration officials and prosecutors say phony green-card marriages are a common and growing crime, and they are cracking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but the PURSUIT of happiness is one of those American virtues.  It's even in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> Except you keep refusing to give a reason why they SHOULD be denied same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can.  They just find someone they love.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried them out?


Cut all of the taxes, fees and hidden charges in half in every way and let's see where we are at in what you type. False social improvements show up in that scenario. If it stands than you are correct.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> That’s why I feel so bad about that niche sexuality, bisexuals, they can never find true happiness because the law limits love and happiness to just two.
> 
> And I oppose it anyway.


You feel bad??! You are a liar. You do not feel anything.


----------



## JoeB131

22lcidw said:


> Cut all of the taxes, fees and hidden charges in half in every way and let's see where we are at in what you type. False social improvements show up in that scenario. If it stands than you are correct.



Does your doctor know you are off your meds again?  Half your fucking responses have nothing to do with the post they are responding to.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Plural marriage is a separate issue. We have been all through it. To say that gays should not be able to marry their own gender until bisexual- who you do not give a rats ass about- can marry more than one person is bizarre bullshit with no basis in law.



Hey, you seem much more interested in your own happiness and nobody else’s. 

Again, you brought sexuality into the whole marriage debate, not me.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The burden of proff is on you. I can't prove a negative


Ummm, no, you made the assertion full well knowing that sexuality is not a question on the marriage license. Prove me wrong bucko. 

Oh, but wait, I forgot, there is no physically distinctive difference between a straight or a gay if the same sex. 

Huh, anyone answering the question could be lying. How’d ya know? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You feel bad??! You are a liar. You do not feel anything.



Well if marriage is the only way they can have this fulfilling life you rant about, how can bisexuals possibly be happy? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Wapasha

HeyNorm said:


> It ain’t what it used to be, that’s for sure


It's never been that.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I had an aunt who was a lesbian.  But she went through with a sham of a marriage to make her Catholic parents happy.  It lasted about a year, long enough to produce one kid, and she moved back in with her parents.  She was actually pretty miserable and made her kid miserable.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you get married to gain certain legal protections.  Gays should have the same access to those protections as straights.
> 
> Now, are there people who get married for non-romantic or non-sexual reasons? I guess.  But those marriages are considered fraudulent.  In fact, they might even be a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials crack down on green-card marriages
> 
> 
> Immigration officials and prosecutors say phony green-card marriages are a common and growing crime, and they are cracking down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but the PURSUIT of happiness is one of those American virtues.  It's even in the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> 
> 
> Except you keep refusing to give a reason why they SHOULD be denied same-sex marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can.  They just find someone they love.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried them out?



They just have to neglect their true feeling for more than one you mean. How heartless of you Joe. 

You can pursue happiness all day long, but if, for what ever reason you don’t find it, that’s not on me. Maybe try harder next time?

Marriages without romance are considered frauds?  You the romance police Joe? Define romance Joe. Define Love Joe?  And do you have a testing device for those? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## HeyNorm

Wapasha said:


> It's never been that.


Yeah, I’m pretty sure it was.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Hey, you seem much more interested in your own happiness and nobody else’s.
> 
> Again, you brought sexuality into the whole marriage debate, not me.


Sexuality has been the elepant in the room. The litigation centered on gender but we all know what it is about, As usual you deflect instead of actually dealing with what was said. And my happiness is not a topic for disgussion.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Ummm, no, you made the assertion full well knowing that sexuality is not a question on the marriage license. Prove me wrong bucko.
> 
> Oh, but wait, I forgot, there is no physically distinctive difference between a straight or a gay if the same sex.
> 
> Huh, anyone answering the question could be lying. How’d ya know? 🤷‍♂️


Bullshit, the fact that there is nothing about sexuality on the license does not matter. There are other ways that you might determine if these same sex straight married couples exist. You trotted that issue out as a means of trying to prove you are not a bigot and you failed as always


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Well if marriage is the only way they can have this fulfilling life you rant about, how can bisexuals possibly be happy? 🤷‍♂️


Again you are making shit up! No one has said that marriage is the only way


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sexuality has been the elepant in the room. The litigation centered on gender but we all know what it is about, As usual you deflect instead of actually dealing with what was said. And my happiness is not a topic for disgussion.



And I guess bisexuals happiness isn’t either. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit, the fact that there is nothing about sexuality on the license does not matter. There are other ways that you might determine if these same sex straight married couples exist. You trotted that issue out as a means of trying to prove you are not a bigot and you failed as always



Why would I need to prove same sex straight couples exist?  I oppose any same sex couples from marrying regardless of sexuality. 

Have you developed that sexuality tester yet?

No?

🤷‍♂️


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> And I guess bisexuals happiness isn’t either. 🤷‍♂️


Certainly not for you. I am willing to bet that you are so consumed by your hate that you are miserable and wish misery on everyone else. I have discuused the impact of the type of bigotry that you represent and the discrimination that you  advocate. You have shown nothing in the way of empathy or concern for the people who  you want to deny basisc rights to for no rational  reason that you can articulate


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Why would I need to prove same sex straight couples exist? I oppose any same sex couples from marrying regardless of sexuality.


Because YOU claim that they exist and are using those phantom couples to  prove that yu are not a bigot. But as I pointed out , even if tey are real you are still a bigot. You are also a sick joke without a punch line.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Certainly not for you. I am willing to bet that you are so consumed by your hate that you are miserable and wish misery on everyone else. I have discuused the impact of the type of bigotry that you represent and the discrimination that you  advocate. You have shown nothing in the way of empathy or concern for the people who  you want to deny basisc rights to for no rational  reason that you can articulate



Nah, I love everyone. So much I nearly burst. 

But that’s a different subject. 

But I am curious about determining who is gay, and who is straight. Now I can determine a black, from a brown, from a white easy enough. But I’m not clear on this sexuality test you must have developed. What gives?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Because YOU claim that they exist and are using those phantom couples to  prove that yu are not a bigot. But as I pointed out , even if tey are real you are still a bigot. You are also a sick joke without a punch line.



Maybe I just don’t want to intrude on their lives? I mean, they might not want your wrath upon them. Maybe ones a baker? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Certainly not for you. I am willing to bet that you are so consumed by your hate that you are miserable and wish misery on everyone else. I have discuused the impact of the type of bigotry that you represent and the discrimination that you  advocate. You have shown nothing in the way of empathy or concern for the people who  you want to deny basisc rights to for no rational  reason that you can articulate


 Rational, is that it, you want rational reasoning? 🤷‍♂️


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> They just have to neglect their true feeling for more than one you mean. How heartless of you Joe.
> 
> You can pursue happiness all day long, but if, for what ever reason you don’t find it, that’s not on me. Maybe try harder next time?
> 
> Marriages without romance are considered frauds? You the romance police Joe? Define romance Joe. Define Love Joe? And do you have a testing device for those?



I wouldn't presume.   If two people say to me that they are in love and want to get married, I would take them at their word.   

Even if they are two dudes.


----------



## Wapasha

HeyNorm said:


> Yeah, I’m pretty sure it was.


Well show the proof that state governments demanded proof that married couples were having intercourse. Don't disappoint.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> I wouldn't presume.   If two people say to me that they are in love and want to get married, I would take them at their word.
> 
> Even if they are two dudes.



But the question is, what if a dude wants to marry two ladies because she’s bi. Why not right? I mean, we did open up marriage by reason of sexuality, correct?

See, there you have it. Proof of love is not a requirement to marry. Glad we got through that.


----------



## HeyNorm

Wapasha said:


> Well show the proof that state governments demanded proof that married couples were having intercourse. Don't disappoint.



And, I never said they did. 

Hope your not disappointed.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for that very thoughtful and well researched dissertation on  the immensely  critical subject of the right of gay people to marry. Clearly you have dedicated your life to civil rights and humanitarian endeavors. You bring your Lazor sharp  intellect and critical thinking skills to fight for social justice and tolerance.
> 
> You must have advanced degrees from the finest institutions of higher learning in fields as diverse as constitutional law, psychology, sociology and human sexuality. As always you raise the bar on the level of intellectual discourse and a civil exchange of ideas on the USMB > Please continue to share your indispensable   pears of wisdom. God Bless YOU


China is not concentrating on "Gender Identity". Yet they will soon overtake the USA. Also ,Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for faggin' off. AIDS was a warning shot from God. When a great civilization loses its Morals ,it FALLS. Consider Rome.


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> No, the Census is fine when done properly.   Of course, Trump fucked the last one up, which is why we didn't get a good count of minority communities.
> 
> "not trusted" means, "Wah, my guy lost".   Deal with it and grow up.


No, it is not one-sided at all:

*Forty-nine percent of all Americans — including a majority of Republicans and half of all self-described independents — believe there will either be "a lot" or "some" fraud this fall, an indication of how pervasive disinformation about the 2020 election has spread and how much trust in democracy has eroded in just two years.*

*The poll also found**:*


*Democrats have more confidence in the integrity of the election than independents or Republicans, but one in three still believe there will be "a lot" or "some" fraud in the midterms*
*Fifty percent of Democrats responded they believe there will be "barely any" or "none"*
*Seniors were the most likely generation to trust the integrity of the vote. Concerns about fraud were particularly common among middle-aged Americans*
*A quarter of all Americans who believe there will be fraud say it will be significant enough this fall to change the balance of power in Congress. That included 36% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats*


----------



## Seymour Flops

JoeB131 said:


> My bank let's me cash checks and send money over a phone app.  (I'm old school and still drop checks off).


Please give me the name of the bank that lets someone walk in and say, "I'm Joe B." and gives the person your money.  

Just the name, I ask for the umpteenth time so I can verify your veracity.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Seymour Flops said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bank let's me cash checks and send money over a phone app. (I'm old school and still drop checks off).
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me the name of the bank that lets someone walk in and say, "I'm Joe B." and gives the person your money.
> Just the name, I ask for the umpteenth time so I can verify your veracity.
Click to expand...


  As is usual for him, Incel Joe is lying.  If not a direct, literal lie, an incomplete truth stated in order to imply an untruth.

  No bank is going to allow such transactions, without verifying, in some way, that the one requesting the transaction is someone who is authorized to access that account.  Showing a valid ID in person is one way.  A valid username and password on an online app or web site is another.  My credit union lets me log in by fingerprint, via the fingerprint sensor on my phone.  But one way or another, the bank is going to require some credentials before it allows access to an account.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Bob Blaylock said:


> As is usual for him, Incel Joe is lying.  If not a direct, literal lie, an incomplete truth stated in order to imply an untruth.
> 
> No bank is going to allow such transactions, without verifying, in some way, that the one requesting the transaction is someone who is authorized to access that account.  Showing a valid ID in person is one way.  A valid username and password on an online app or web site is another.  My credit union lets me log in by fingerprint, via the fingerprint sensor on my phone.  But one way or another, the bank is going to require some credentials before it allows access to an account.


Exactly.  Of course he is lying.  Banks don't give out money with no verification that you're the account holder.  You can beg, plead that it's racism to require ID, or protest being "dis-accounted," and they won't budge on that requirement.  Nor should they.

There is no reason not to have fingerprint login to vote.  I fingerprint login twice a day to clock in at my job.

Elections can be secure, Democrats just don't want them to be.


----------



## otto105

DGS49 said:


> "“*We can ease the fear that millions of same-sex and interracial couples have that their freedoms and their rights could be stripped away*,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a sponsor of the bill. “*We are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal*.”
> 
> Where exactly, are these same-sex couples and inter-racial couples whose marriages are endangered?
> 
> Is Justice Clarence Thomas worried?  Mitch McConnell?  Mayor Pete?
> 
> Democrats are evil.  Never forget it.


Dude, do you have any critical thinking skills at all?


Did not justice ginny claim the Obergfell decision was wrongly decided.


Ducking idiot


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> But the question is, what if a dude wants to marry two ladies because she’s bi. Why not right? I mean, we did open up marriage by reason of sexuality, correct?
> 
> See, there you have it. Proof of love is not a requirement to marry. Glad we got through that.



Well, Bigamy is still against the law, so that isn't going to happen.  





Seymour Flops said:


> No, it is not one-sided at all:
> 
> *Forty-nine percent of all Americans — including a majority of Republicans and half of all self-described independents — believe there will either be "a lot" or "some" fraud this fall, an indication of how pervasive disinformation about the 2020 election has spread and how much trust in democracy has eroded in just two years.*



Yes, you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true.   But it is the Big Lie.   The election was fine.  Trump lost.  

You guys don't want to safeguard elections,  you just want to make it harder for minorities and poor people to vote.  Full stop.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> No bank is going to allow such transactions, without verifying, in some way, that the one requesting the transaction is someone who is authorized to access that account. Showing a valid ID in person is one way. A valid username and password on an online app or web site is another. My credit union lets me log in by fingerprint, via the fingerprint sensor on my phone. But one way or another, the bank is going to require some credentials before it allows access to an account.



But that's the point, stupid...  most of those transactions are done without identification.   An online app isn't a person checking your ID.   Frankly, I haven't even SEEN anyone from my bank in person in months, but yet I do dozens of transactions every month.   Most of them electronic.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Well, Bigamy is still against the law, so that isn't going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true.   But it is the Big Lie.   The election was fine.  Trump lost.
> 
> You guys don't want to safeguard elections,  you just want to make it harder for minorities and poor people to vote.  Full stop.
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the point, stupid...  most of those transactions are done without identification.   An online app isn't a person checking your ID.   Frankly, I haven't even SEEN anyone from my bank in person in months, but yet I do dozens of transactions every month.   Most of them electronic.



Cuz it’s illegal? You crack me up. Joe lives in a world that nothing ever changes. 

You crack me up.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Cuz it’s illegal? You crack me up. Joe lives in a world that nothing ever changes.
> 
> You crack me up.



Except no one is advocating for changing the bigamy laws...  that's the thing.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Except no one is advocating for changing the bigamy laws...  that's the thing.



You are the group that included sexuality as the reason for changing from traditional marriage, not me Joe. Now you want to exclude groups from it because they don’t fit in?

That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

They, members of this other sexuality, are supposed to live lives unhappy that they can’t marry because their sexuality is different than yours?

Give the compelling State interest to exclude this group? 

Where have we heard that before Joe?

You crack me up.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> You are the group that included sexuality as the reason for changing from traditional marriage, not me Joe. Now you want to exclude groups from it because they don’t fit in?



No, they are legally prohibited from getting married because bigamy is against the law.   Change the law, I'd have no problem with thruples. Heck, given the housing crisis in this country, group marriages MIGHT be the way to go.  

The problem with threesomes is someone always goes away disappointed.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

JoeB131 said:


> No, they are legally prohibited from getting married because bigamy is against the law.   Change the law, I'd have no problem with thruples. Heck, given the housing crisis in this country, group marriages MIGHT be the way to go.
> 
> The problem with threesomes is someone always goes away disappointed.


Normy is just being a whiney pain in the ass Troll Bot. There is no way that he really cares about this invented plight of bisexuals, or that he would really support plural marriage


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Normy is just being a whiney pain in the ass. There is no way that he really cares about this invented plight of bisexuals, or that he would really support plural marriage



As long as your niche is protected, screw the rest, right?


----------



## HeyNorm

HeyNorm said:


> As long as your niche is protected, screw the rest, right?



But you are right, I would not support it, regardless of the sexuality of the participants


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Except no one is advocating for changing the bigamy laws...  that's the thing.



Actually you are. Your entire argument is that, sexuality of the individuals that compose the group should not exclude that group from marriage whoever they want, regardless of the demographic makeup of that group. 

And I ask the same question I have asked you before, now that the law has been changed from marriage being compromised of simply two biological units required to create offspring, to one without that qualification, then what is the compelling state interest in excluding any number of individuals to qualify, based on sexuality? Obviously it excluded bisexuals, a sexuality, only because of an arbitrary number that exists nowhere else with civil contracts. 

Remember, traditional marriage never excluded sexuality as long as they were of opposite sex partners.

Have you found another civil contract that limits the participation to only two?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You are the group that included sexuality as the reason for changing from traditional marriage, not me Joe. Now you want to exclude groups from it because they don’t fit in?
> 
> That’s hypocrisy at its finest.
> 
> They, members of this other sexuality, are supposed to live lives unhappy that they can’t marry because their sexuality is different than yours?
> 
> Give the compelling State interest to exclude this group?
> 
> Where have we heard that before Joe?
> 
> You crack me up.


Hey Normy!. No one here has taken a position on whether or not there is any compelling government or societal interest in banning plural marriage so why are you challenging people on that point? It just makes you sound like the whiney trill that you are

You are such a phony sack of shit it makes me want to puke. On one hand to repeatedly suggest that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex- their sexuality and happiness be damned.  NOW, you are admonishing someone for allegedly  wanting to  exclude bisexuals  and deprive them of “happiness”- because of their sexuality (WHICH ACTUALLY INVOLVES SAME SEX MARRIAGE THAT YOU OPPOSE) .

You don’t even realize how stupid and hypocritical that is do you?
Instead of continuing your sick and childish games, do this. Keeping in mind that there is a legal process to in order to determine if there is any compelling reasons to prohibit plural marriage, consider what it would actually look like and what issues would arise if implemented.  For instance consider:

1 .If we were to expand the number of people one can marry, are we talking  about one marrying several others, or a group marriage where everyone is married to everyone else. ?

1a. If we are just talking about on bisexual person(person A) who marries and male and a female (rather than a group marriage) what is the legal status/ arrangement between the two who marry person A .? Also, can they be brother and sister?

2. In each of those cases, how would income tax filings  be handled? How many people can  be part of a joint return?

3. How would social security and other government benefits be distributed and  can conflicts be avoided?

4. If a child is born to one participant of the marriage, what are the legal rights and responsibilities of the others? ( Currently, when a child in born in a marriage, the spouse is a presumptive legal parent even in same sex marriages) In the case of plural marriage, that might be a little murky and various participants may want different levels of participation and responsibility

5. If a participant becomes incapacitated, who among the spouses would make medical decisions and how would conflicts be resolved  in the absence of an advanced directive?

6. How would inheritance and inheritance handled in the absence of a will?

These are just some of the issues to be considered. I am not saying that any of them are insurmountable but they do demonstrate why we cannot plunge headlong into group marriage without considering how it would actually work, or not.

One thing is clear and that is that it would be a major upheaval to our legal a social systems necessitating  a consideration of whether or not there are compelling reasons to avoid going there

Now get to work!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> As long as your niche is protected, screw the rest, right?


That is what you are saying .See post 379


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey Normy!. No one here has taken a position on whether or not there is any compelling government or societal interest in banning plural marriage so why are you challenging people on that point? It just makes you sound like the whiney trill that you are
> 
> You are such a phony sack of shit it makes me want to puke. On one hand to repeatedly suggest that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex- their sexuality and happiness be damned.  NOW, you are admonishing someone for allegedly  wanting to  exclude bisexuals  and deprive them of “happiness”- because of their sexuality (WHICH ACTUALLY INVOLVES SAME SEX MARRIAGE THAT YOU OPPOSE) .
> 
> You don’t even realize how stupid and hypocritical that is do you?
> Instead of continuing your sick and childish games, do this. Keeping in mind that there is a legal process to in order to determine if there is any compelling reasons to prohibit plural marriage, consider what it would actually look like and what issues would arise if implemented.  For instance consider:
> 
> 1 .If we were to expand the number of people one can marry, are we talking  about one marrying several others, or a group marriage where everyone is married to everyone else. ?
> 
> 1a. If we are just talking about on bisexual person(person A) who marries and male and a female (rather than a group marriage) what is the legal status/ arrangement between the two who marry person A .? Also, can they be brother and sister?
> 
> 2. In each of those cases, how would income tax filings  be handled? How many people can  be part of a joint return?
> 
> 3. How would social security and other government benefits be distributed and  can conflicts be avoided?
> 
> 4. If a child is born to one participant of the marriage, what are the legal rights and responsibilities of the others? ( Currently, when a child in born in a marriage, the spouse is a presumptive legal parent even in same sex marriages) In the case of plural marriage, that might be a little murky and various participants may want different levels of participation and responsibility
> 
> 5. If a participant becomes incapacitated, who among the spouses would make medical decisions and how would conflicts be resolved  in the absence of an advanced directive?
> 
> 6. How would inheritance and inheritance handled in the absence of a will?
> 
> These are just some of the issues to be considered. I am not saying that any of them are insurmountable but they do demonstrate why we cannot plunge headlong into group marriage without considering how it would actually work, or not.
> 
> One thing is clear and that is that it would be a major upheaval to our legal a social systems necessitating  a consideration of whether or not there are compelling reasons to avoid going there
> 
> Now get to work!



What a completely bigoted response. The individuals within the plural marriage can determine much of the above on there own. 

And I love the portions where you make it the IRS business to determine the makeup of the participants. Are you really this desperate. 

A bisexual partnership would simply be seeking a fulling marriage based on their niche sexuality in no different way than a gay same sex unit. All they really want is the same protection that you have, right. 

And you still haven’t brought forward another civil contract that limits participants to only two, have you?  The IRS and the courts don’t seem to have the problem with them that you appear to have. 

Again, you opened this door, not me.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is what you are saying .See post 379


See post 381.

Amazing how you handed marriage over to the IRS and Social Security Administration.

What a bigot you are.

You opened the door, not me, deal with it.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is what you are saying .See post 379



I don’t belong to a niche, unless you have now lowered you’re argument to redefining that word as well.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Actually you are. Your entire argument is that, sexuality of the individuals that compose the group should not exclude that group from marriage whoever they want, regardless of the demographic makeup of that group.



They can marry whoever they want... they just can only marry one under current law.   



HeyNorm said:


> And I ask the same question I have asked you before, now that the law has been changed from marriage being compromised of simply two biological units required to create offspring, to one without that qualification, then what is the compelling state interest in excluding any number of individuals to qualify, based on sexuality? Obviously it excluded bisexuals, a sexuality, only because of an arbitrary number that exists nowhere else with civil contracts.



There isn't one.  I have no problem with plural marriage. But until you get the law changed, you are out of luck.  Not that you could get one woman to look at you, much less two.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> They can marry whoever they want... they just can only marry one under current law.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one.  I have no problem with plural marriage. But until you get the law changed, you are out of luck.  Not that you could get one woman to look at you, much less two.



Nice insult Joe, but I’ve had way more than my share of beautiful ladies in my time. If you need some lessons, let me know. You crack me up. 

And you affirmed that, indeed, obergfell will eventually lead to plural marriage, which your side argued was a slippery slope conspiracy theory.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> What a completely bigoted response. The individuals within the plural marriage can determine much of the above on there own.
> 
> And I love the portions where you make it the IRS business to determine the makeup of the participants. Are you really this desperate.
> 
> A bisexual partnership would simply be seeking a fulling marriage based on their niche sexuality in no different way than a gay same sex unit. All they really want is the same protection that you have, right.
> 
> And you still haven’t brought forward another civil contract that limits participants to only two, have you?  The IRS and the courts don’t seem to have the problem with them that you appear to have.
> 
> Again, you opened this door, not me.


Holy fucking shit Normy!! THIS is your response?. You get big time troll points for this. Just more charges of bigotry while in no way addressing the concerns that I raised. Clearly you are not even smart enough to understand what I trying to get accross or that I am not speaking against plural marriage but mearly injecting some reality into the idea. You need to calm the fuck down.

Whatever is left of you mind works in strange ways as evidenced in part by your turning my point that there are issues that would have tobe considered with the IRS to " you make it the IRS business to determine the makeup of the participants".

Interesting how you have NOTHING TO say about any of the other issues that I raised regarding plural marriage. Also interesting is the fact that seem to fail to see the hypocrissy in opposing same sex marriage with push plural marriage for bi sexuals that would of course involve people of the same sex  in a marriage . How fucking stupid is that!!?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> See post 381.
> 
> Amazing how you handed marriage over to the IRS and Social Security Administration.
> 
> What a bigot you are.
> 
> You opened the door, not me, deal with it.


See post 386 and call your psychiatrist


----------



## Wapasha

Seymour Flops said:


> No, it is not one-sided at all:
> 
> *Forty-nine percent of all Americans — including a majority of Republicans and half of all self-described independents — believe there will either be "a lot" or "some" fraud this fall, an indication of how pervasive disinformation about the 2020 election has spread and how much trust in democracy has eroded in just two years.*


I'm not sure about the "pervasive disinformation" about the 2020 election process. We did have states which violated their own state election laws, by making sudden changes to the ways ballots are cast, dropped off, counted and verified. So there does not seem to be anything preventing these sudden changes being made in the future. Which casts  a long shadow over the integrity of the voting process.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Wapasha said:


> I'm not sure about the "pervasive disinformation" about the 2020 election process. We did have states which violated their own state election laws, by making sudden changes to the ways ballots are cast, dropped off, counted and verified. So there does not seem to be anything preventing these sudden changes being made in the future. Which casts  a long shadow over the integrity of the voting process.


Yes, and the Democrats dismissal of that long shadow is the act of people who don't think things through.  They are happy to win the next election, and don't care whether the election is perceived as fair or not.  

Meanwhile they ridicule non-Democrats for "clinging to guns or religion."  Here is some advice for Democrats:  My dudes, you do NOT want to put people who cling to guns and religion in a position of thinking that elections are not fair and therefore the peaceful democratic process does not include them.  

If those heavily armed and religious people decide that enough is enough, and move to violently overthrow the government Democrats alone voted for with non-Democrat votes being meaningless due to the cheating, who do you think will stop them?  

You?  

The FBI?

The woke-led military?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

JoeB131 said:


> They can marry whoever they want... they just can only marry one under current law.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one.  I have no problem with plural marriage. But until you get the law changed, you are out of luck.  Not that you could get one woman to look at you, much less two.


INCEL Maybe?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

HeyNorm said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that you could get one woman to look at you, much less
> 
> 
> 
> Nice insult Joe, but I’ve had way more than my share of beautiful ladies in my time.
Click to expand...


  That lame attempt at an insult comes to you from a sixty-year-old incel that has never been married.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> See post 386 and call your psychiatrist



  See post 125.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

San Souci said:


> China is not concentrating on "Gender Identity". Yet they will soon overtake the USA. Also ,Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for faggin' off. AIDS was a warning shot from God. When a great civilization loses its Morals ,it FALLS. Consider Rome.


Tell us more about the morality of discrimination, exclusion and hate. Tell us more about traditional values. Preach on Brother Souci!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy fucking shit Normy!! THIS is your response?. You get big time troll points for this. Just more charges of bigotry while in no way addressing the concerns that I raised. Clearly you are not even smart enough to understand what I trying to get accross or that I am not speaking against plural marriage but mearly injecting some reality into the idea. You need to calm the fuck down.
> 
> Whatever is left of you mind works in strange ways as evidenced in part by your turning my point that there are issues that would have tobe considered with the IRS to " you make it the IRS business to determine the makeup of the participants".
> 
> Interesting how you have NOTHING TO say about any of the other issues that I raised regarding plural marriage. Also interesting is the fact that seem to fail to see the hypocrissy in opposing same sex marriage with push plural marriage for bi sexuals that would of course involve people of the same sex  in a marriage . How fucking stupid is that!!?



You opened the door. 

So your answer is, well, it too complicated to allow them to marry?

Whaaaa?

It was you that opened the damn door. You are a hypocrite bigot.


----------



## HeyNorm

Bob Blaylock said:


> That lame attempt at an insult comes to you from a sixty-year-old incel that has never been married.



lol, I am not surprised.


----------



## San Souci

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Tell us more about the morality of discrimination, exclusion and hate. Tell us more about traditional values. Preach on Brother Souci!


Why don't YOU tell us about the morality of fudge packing ,pillow biting ,and muff diving? Pontius Pilate to Jesus--"Is your truth MY truth"?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> You opened the door.
> 
> So your answer is, well, it too complicated to allow them to marry?
> 
> Whaaaa?
> 
> It was you that opened the damn door. You are a hypocrite bigot.


Normy, Normy, Normy! I am worried about you. Really 

Your mental health seems to be worsening. There is an hysterical quality to your attacks. You continue to baselessly accuse everyone else of being a bigot while   remaining blind to your own obvious bigotry. 

You grossly distort what others are saying, either out of a pathological need to manipulate, or worse, a distorted perception of reality 

You have considerable difficulty in focusing, organizing, and communicating your thoughts . On one hand you take bizarre pot shots where you think  you can score a point, while seemingly in denial, and ignore fact that you are unable to deal with 
I am concerned that you will further decompensate if we continue this. I suggest that we take a break to give you a chance to pull yourself together


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Normy, Normy, Normy! I am worried about you. Really
> 
> Your mental health seems to be worsening. There is an hysterical quality to your attacks. You continue to baselessly accuse everyone else of being a bigot while   remaining blind to your own obvious bigotry.
> 
> You grossly distort what others are saying, either out of a pathological need to manipulate, or worse, a distorted perception of reality
> 
> You have considerable difficulty in focusing, organizing, and communicating your thoughts . On one hand you take bizarre pot shots where you think  you can score a point, while seemingly in denial, and ignore fact that you are unable to deal with
> I am concerned that you will further decompensate if we continue this. I suggest that we take a break to give you a chance to pull yourself together



PP, I think you should take a break as well and assess why you feel your chosen sexuality is superior the other we were discussing


----------



## BS Filter

Of course democrats had to make it racist by adding interracial marriage.  Scum.


----------



## BS Filter

Catsnmeters said:


> Like nobody was going to take away abortion rights? Dems already fell for that once.


No one took away abortion rights. Lie.


----------



## initforme

As an traditionally m as tried white Christian male I have yet to see why it's my business if two consenting adults get married.   It simy is a non issue.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> PP, I think you should take a break as well and assess why you feel your chosen sexuality is superior the other we were discussing


Thank you for proving EXACTLY what I've been saying about you. You are delusional kid. YOU are the bigot!

PS You don't know what my sexuality is and I damned sure  did not choose it


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for proving EXACTLY what I've been saying about you. You are delusional kid. YOU are the bigot!
> 
> PS You don't know what my sexuality is and I damned sure  did not choose it



Of course, sexuality is only known by those who proclaim they are other than heterosexual. There are no physical traits to define it.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Nice insult Joe, but I’ve had way more than my share of beautiful ladies in my time. If you need some lessons, let me know. You crack me up.



Uh, yeah, frankly, if you were in a satisfying relationship, you wouldn't be worried about what other people are doing. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> That lame attempt at an insult comes to you from a sixty-year-old incel that has never been married.


Mormon Bob, still fantasizing about my sex life. 
My girlfriend says Nihao.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, frankly, if you were in a satisfying relationship, you wouldn't be worried about what other people are doing.



  What would you know about being in a satisfying relationship?

  You've never had a _“relationship”_ that you didn't consider disposable.  Most men, by the time they are our age, have been married for decades, and have some idea of what a satisfying relationship is like.  A sixty-year-old incel has no wisdom to offer on the subject.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> What would you know about being in a satisfying relationship?



More than you, apparently.  For someone who is supposedly happy, you are the most miserable son of a bitch on this board.  Heck, I can't even blame this on your cult, because most Mormons are outwardly nice.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> You've never had a _“relationship”_ that you didn't consider disposable. Most men, by the time they are our age, have been married for decades, and have some idea of what a satisfying relationship is like. A sixty-year-old incel has no wisdom to offer on the subject.



Actually, most men our age have had at least one divorce under their belt.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> More than you, apparently. For someone who is supposedly happy, you are the most miserable son of a bitch on this board. Heck, I can't even blame this on your cult, because most Mormons are outwardly nice.



  Married  almost twenty-eight years to the same woman, I think I know what it's like to be in a happy, satisfying relationship.

  How many disposable girlfriends have you had?  Have you ever had a girlfriend that you thought worthy of keeping for life?  I very much doubt you can even comprehend such a thing.  You haven't the faintest clue what you have cheated yourself out of.




JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most men our age have had at least one divorce under their belt.



  Not me.  Not most men that I have known.

  I guess it goes to the quality of people with which each of us respectively associates.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> Married almost twenty-eight years to the same woman, I think I know what it's like to be in a happy, satisfying relationship.


Yet, you are a miserable, angry human being, who wants to murder a whole lot of people. - women who have abortions, people who rip on your cult, people who commit petty crimes (if they aren't white), etc. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> How many disposable girlfriends have you had? Have you ever had a girlfriend that you thought worthy of keeping for life? I very much doubt you can even comprehend such a thing. You haven't the faintest clue what you have cheated yourself out of.



1) I lost count. I would say ten or so, that were more than a few dates. 
2) Yes, there were several I would have stayed with, but mostly due to conflicts of career or objectives, not so much. I lived with one woman for 13 years.  But she didn't want to settle down because HER first marriage was an absolute shit-show.   Recently, her daughter contacted me over Facebook and thanks me for being there for them when she was growing up.  
3) I have a very good idea what I've avoided.  I've seen so many of my friends going through bitter divorces when I was in the service.




Bob Blaylock said:


> Not me. Not most men that I have known.
> 
> I guess it goes to the quality of people with which each of us respectively associates.



I associated with fellow Non-commissioned officers in the United States Army. Men (and some women) who have more honor than you ever will.   Almost every last one of them had at least ONE divorce.  One poor fellow was on his third divorce.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> Yet, you are a miserable, angry human being, who wants to murder a whole lot of people. - women who have abortions, people who rip on your cult, people who commit petty crimes (if they aren't white), etc.



  You keep accusing me of wanting to murder a whole bunch of different categories of people, but you cannot link to a single post in which I express any such desire.

  You cannot link to any post 9in which I have called for anyone to be killed, who hasn't committed some serious act of evil that calls for it.

  Ironically, the closest you get to any truth is in accusing m of wanting to _“murder”_ the lowest of subhuman filth, those who murder innocent chidlren in cold blood.  You defend those murders, and condemn me for wishing that the murderers be brought to proper justice.




JoeB131 said:


> I associated with fellow Non-commissioned officers in the United States Army. Men (and some women) who have more honor than you ever will. Almost every last one of them had at least ONE divorce. One poor fellow was on his third divorce.



  So, you associate with people who cannot even make a marriage work.  Not exactly a sign of much honor on their part.

  You have no clue what true honor is.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> You keep accusing me of wanting to murder a whole bunch of different categories of people, but you cannot link to a single post in which I express any such desire.
> 
> You cannot link to any post 9in which I have called for anyone to be killed, who hasn't committed some serious act of evil that calls for it.
> 
> Ironically, the closest you get to any truth is in accusing m of wanting to _“murder”_ the lowest of subhuman filth, those who murder innocent chidlren in cold blood. You defend those murders, and condemn me for wishing that the murderers be brought to proper justice.



You want to murder women who have had abortions, school officials who promote pro-LGBTQ policies, politicians who raise your taxes, people of color who commit petty property crimes (but not white collar criminals, of course), and the list goes on and on.   You are a very angry guy.  Not sure why.  Maybe your magic underwear is cutting off circulation to certain parts of your body. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> So, you associate with people who cannot even make a marriage work. Not exactly a sign of much honor on their part.
> 
> You have no clue what true honor is.



Um, no, guy.  Here's why a lot of those marriages didn't work.  You get sent off for months at a time on some deployment, the old lady is going to have needs.  That's why the NCO's wives often traded up.   Not really their faults, they were serving their country, bringing home a good paycheck (well, adequate, anyway), and their wives were pretty much screwing whatever while they were gone.  And the sad thing was, when they got into divorce court, the court usually sided with the wives.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> You want to murder women who have had abortions, school officials who promote pro-LGBTQ…



  Thso0e who murder innocent children deserve to die.  So do those who sexually abuse children.  That you take the side of such filth against the side of children, against the side of human beings, only goes to show what a amorally fucked-up piece of shit you truly are.




JoeB131 said:


> …policies, politicians who raise your taxes, people of color who commit petty property crimes (but not white collar criminals, of course), and the list goes on and on.



  The rest are just lies, and you know damn well that they are lies.  You've repeatedly been challenged to link to any post in which I have said any such things.  You know that you cannot, because you know that you are flat-out lying about what you claim I've ever said.


----------



## elektra

LuckyDuck said:


> The SCOTUS decision, is its decision.  He should just move on to other topics.  The heart wants who the heart wants.  For all I care some woman can marry her favorite horse.  I just don't want to witness what goes on behind the stable doors.


But, if you are photographer you will be forced to photograph what is happening behind the stable doors


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> There was no problem.. no lawsuit until the baker went on Facebook to brag and mock the gay couple.



No, there was just an "equality" commission threatening hundreds and thousands in fines.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> Thso0e who murder innocent children deserve to die. So do those who sexually abuse children. That you take the side of such filth against the side of children, against the side of human beings, only goes to show what a amorally fucked-up piece of shit you truly are.



Fetuses aren't children and helping a gay kid to understand himself isn't sexual abuse.  

But you have a murdering mind, like most religious fanatics.   Nothing more dangerous than a guy who thinks he's "right". 



Bob Blaylock said:


> The rest are just lies, and you know damn well that they are lies. You've repeatedly been challenged to link to any post in which I have said any such things. You know that you cannot, because you know that you are flat-out lying about what you claim I've ever said.


Yes, except you say this shit all the time.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't children and helping a gay kid to understand himself isn't sexual abuse.
> 
> But you have a murdering mind, like most religious fanatics.   Nothing more dangerous than a guy who thinks he's "right".
> 
> 
> Yes, except you say this shit all the time.



A fetus is similarly situated to an infant Joe. 

And no child can know they are gay until well after puberty.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't children…



  That lie will never take on any truth, no matter how often or how loudly you keep repeating it.

  The hard truth is that they are human,. and you only defend the murder thereof.  Ironically, while trying to accuse me of being murderous for wishing that the true murderers be brought to justice.

  All you are proving is what a morally-fucked-up sociopathic piece of shit you are.  That really is not necessary, as everyone here already knows.




JoeB131 said:


> …and helping a gay kid to understand himself isn't sexual abuse.



  Children don't become _“gay”_, nor any other sort of fucked-up sexual perverts, unless some sick pedophile is filling their heads with that shit.  And that is what you are openly defending.

  All you are proving is what a morally-fucked-up sociopathic piece of shit you are.  That really is not necessary, as everyone here already knows.




JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rest are just lies, and you know damn well that they are lies. You've repeatedly been challenged to link to any post in which I have said any such things.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, except you say this shit all the time.
Click to expand...


  If I really say that shit all the time, as you claim, then surely you can link to some specific examples of me doing so.

  You cannot, because I have never held nor expressed the positions that you are falsely attributing to me.

  All you accomplish, here, is to show what a lying piece of shit you are.  That really is not necessary, as everyone here already knows.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> A fetus is similarly situated to an infant Joe.
> 
> And no child can know they are gay until well after puberty.



Fetuses aren't viable separated from the womb... so not a person. 
Most gay kids know they are gay before they hit puberty. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> That lie will never take on any truth, no matter how often or how loudly you keep repeating it.
> 
> The hard truth is that they are human,. and you only defend the murder thereof. Ironically, while trying to accuse me of being murderous for wishing that the true murderers be brought to justice.
> 
> All you are proving is what a morally-fucked-up sociopathic piece of shit you are. That really is not necessary, as everyone here already knows.



Not at all.   If you guys wanted less abortions, there are ways to get there- universal health care, paid family leave, comprehensive sex education, etc.  Those, nasty, nasty liberal policies you hate so much. 

But here's the reality- if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant, and the first time you try to punish a woman for having an abortion, the fucking world of hurt is going to come down on your side.  if you guys thought 2022 was bad for you, wait until 2024 when the XX Chromosome crowd realizes what you are up to. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Children don't become _“gay”_, nor any other sort of fucked-up sexual perverts, unless some sick pedophile is filling their heads with that shit. And that is what you are openly defending.
> 
> All you are proving is what a morally-fucked-up sociopathic piece of shit you are. That really is not necessary, as everyone here already knows.



Do you actually know any gay people, Bob?  (Well, you probably do, but they are in the closet.)  If you actually talked to a gay person without screaming bible verses at them, every last one of them would tell you no one made them gay, they knew they were gay at a pretty early age.


----------



## HeyNorm

Wait, what?  Define viable. It can’t live outside the womb on its own? Neither can an infant. They are similarly situated Joe. 

The extent of your bloodlust is incredible.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Wait, what? Define viable. It can’t live outside the womb on its own? Neither can an infant. They are similarly situated Joe.
> 
> The extent of your bloodlust is incredible.



An infant can continue for hours or days without being fed.  (Not that anyone would do such a thing.) 

A fetus will die within minutes of being separated from it's mother. 

The fact is, the notion of personhood for zygotes/embryos/fetuses would have implications far beyond abortion, which is why the law will never do it. 

For instance, all 400,000 embryos in frozen storage are being held illegally in violation of their rights.  

Every last one of the 500,000 miscarriages in this country should be investigated as a potential homicide to make sure the woman didn't do anything to cause the miscarriage. 

Women could be prohibited from holding down certain jobs that might pose a risk to even a potential fetus. 

Having a sip of wine or a smoke while pregnant could be treated as assault.   

Giving a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside makes women second class citizens. Women vote, fetuses don't.  You lose.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> An infant can continue for hours or days without being fed.  (Not that anyone would do such a thing.)
> 
> A fetus will die within minutes of being separated from it's mother.
> 
> The fact is, the notion of personhood for zygotes/embryos/fetuses would have implications far beyond abortion, which is why the law will never do it.
> 
> For instance, all 400,000 embryos in frozen storage are being held illegally in violation of their rights.
> 
> Every last one of the 500,000 miscarriages in this country should be investigated as a potential homicide to make sure the woman didn't do anything to cause the miscarriage.
> 
> Women could be prohibited from holding down certain jobs that might pose a risk to even a potential fetus.
> 
> Having a sip of wine or a smoke while pregnant could be treated as assault.
> 
> Giving a fetus more rights than the woman it is inside makes women second class citizens. Women vote, fetuses don't.  You lose.



Hey Joe. A fetus separated from its mother is, by definition, a newborn infant. 

You want to give that another try?


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Hey Joe. A fetus separated from its mother is, by definition, a newborn infant.
> 
> You want to give that another try?



Nope.  A fetus separated from it's mother before it is viable is medical waste.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Nope.  A fetus separated from it's mother before it is viable is medical waste.



We were talking post viability Joe. Try to keep up.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

JoeB131 said:


> The fact is, the notion of personhood for zygotes/embryos/fetuses would have implications far beyond abortion, which is why the law will never do it.



  Recognizing full personhood for black people had some significant implications.

  So what?  It was wrong to deny their personhood, and to deny them what, even then, we recognized as basic human rights, no matter what benefits we had to gain by treating them as less than human, no matter the cost of recognizing them as fully human..

  The same is exactly true of the unborn.


----------



## surada

martybegan said:


> No, there was just an "equality" commission threatening hundreds and thousands in fines.



Get the facts .. the baker thought laughing about what he did on Facebook would be good for business.

You have a Fascist bent. Is that typical of Mormons?


----------



## surada

Bob Blaylock said:


> Recognizing full personhood for black people had some significant implications.
> 
> So what?  It was wrong to deny their personhood, and to deny them what, even then, we recognized as basic human rights, no matter what benefits we had to gain by treating them as less than human, no matter the cost of recognizing them as fully human..
> 
> The same is exactly true of the unborn.



Poor women whatever their color suffer more miscarriages, pregnancies and maternal mortality. You sure are self righteous.


----------



## HeyNorm

surada said:


> Poor women whatever their color suffer more miscarriages, pregnancies and maternal mortality. You sure are self righteous.


Yes, decision’s absolutely have consequences. Your point is?


----------



## initforme

surada said:


> Poor women whatever their color suffer more miscarriages, pregnancies and maternal mortality. You sure are self righteous.


Miscarriages happen it's part of being a species.   The number of babies born is way more than the nation needs so it's all good.


----------



## surada

HeyNorm said:


> Yes, decision’s absolutely have consequences. Your point is?



In general black women get less healthcare even if their physician is black.


----------



## surada

initforme said:


> Miscarriages happen it's part of being a species.   The number of babies born is way more than the nation needs so it's all good.



Why not prevent these pregnancies?


----------



## initforme

surada said:


> Why not prevent these pregnancies?



Yes contraception is an excellent way to help control the birth rate.  It is something that greatly helps the nation.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> An infant can continue for hours or days without being fed.  (Not that anyone would do such a thing.)
> .....


If _you_ knew that human (just like the HUMAN it was minutes before in the womb) would grow up to vote Republican, you'd be first in line with a meat cleaver. Be honest, ghoul.


----------



## Unkotare

initforme said:


> s....   The number of babies born is way more than the nation needs .....


Absolutely wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

initforme said:


> .....y to help control the birth rate.  It is something that greatly helps the nation.


Quite the opposite.


----------



## HeyNorm

surada said:


> In general black women get less healthcare even if their physician is black.



Maybe I needed to make my point more clearly. 

Decisions have consequences. 

Glad I could clear that up. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## martybegan

surada said:


> Get the facts .. the baker thought laughing about what he did on Facebook would be good for business.
> 
> You have a Fascist bent. Is that typical of Mormons?



You think I'm a mormon?

Are you a JoeB clone or stooge?


----------



## Calypso Jones

JoeB131 said:


> Except when you try to prevent them from getting married.
> 
> Give me a good reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
> 
> Otherwise we're done.


They've been getting married for at least 10 years...but now...incrementalism..and they want more.....they want to shut up christians who say....'this isn't right'...and it isn't.

But in actuality...IT is only a distraction...a distraction to keep you occupied and away from the twitter exposes, the ukraine money laundering deal, the fact that your grocery prices are going up,  and inflation is getting worse...and more.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> Recognizing full personhood for black people had some significant implications.



Which is probably why we still haven't done it (Sarcasm). 








Bob Blaylock said:


> So what? It was wrong to deny their personhood, and to deny them what, even then, we recognized as basic human rights, no matter what benefits we had to gain by treating them as less than human, no matter the cost of recognizing them as fully human..



Recognizing them as human didn't take away rights from any other group of Americans.

At the end of the day, you are going to force women to carry pregnancies they don't want.  It's simply not as practical as going down to the plantation and telling all the slaves they are free now.   

Such a law would be unenforceable.


----------



## JoeB131

Calypso Jones said:


> They've been getting married for at least 10 years...but now...incrementalism..and they want more.....they want to shut up christians who say....'this isn't right'...and it isn't.



Quite the contrary, you can say whatever you want. You just can't break the law.  



Calypso Jones said:


> But in actuality...IT is only a distraction...a distraction to keep you occupied and away from the twitter exposes, the ukraine money laundering deal, the fact that your grocery prices are going up, and inflation is getting worse...and more.



Twitter is a big nothingburger, and inflation is finally coming down after Trump fucked up supply chains.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> If _you_ knew that human (just like the HUMAN it was minutes before in the womb) would grow up to vote Republican, you'd be first in line with a meat cleaver. Be honest, ghoul.



Well, no, the great thing is you Republicans abort your own kids and ask Jesus for forgiveness. 

Liberals are smart enough to use contraception.


----------



## AsherN

Ringo said:


> Biden promised to sign the law on same-sex marriage. He explained this by caring about future generations of LGBT youth.
> Has something new appeared in biology? What are the "future generations" of LGBT people? Budding?
> Or is everything much more prosaic, forcible removal of children from normal families and transfer to degenerates?


You do understand that a hetero couple can have gay children, right?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringo said:


> The Canadian Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian ambassador because of the embassy's tweet that the family is a man + a woman + children
> "Russian homophobic propaganda is not welcome here!" — the Federal Minister of Canada, an open lesbian Pascal Saint-Onge, indignantly declared.
> In response, the Russian Embassy invited the Minister to think and answer how she herself was born.


You should think about how children are born

Children are conceived or otherwise come to be in the care of parents in a variety of ways

Gay and Lesbian couples have children and they are parents to those children



> Homophobic propaganda is not welcome here!"


----------



## Ringo

AsherN said:


> You do understand that a hetero couple can have gay children, right?


A hetero couple can also have an extremely ugly girl, but this does not mean that she can be nominated for the Miss Universe beauty pageant. Usually such girls understand, that they have no place in such contests. But some political faggots don't realize, that their habits can't be considered normal. Probably something with their brains...


----------



## HeyNorm

AsherN said:


> You do understand that a hetero couple can have gay children, right?


Male to female union is required for the existence of every human being. Even those who live a fetish lifestyle.


----------



## BackAgain

I think Cruz is wrong. On this one. Smart guy. But off the mark here.

I cannot come up with a good answer to the question of why any person’s private, consensual (and non assaultive) behavior is or should be any of the government’s business.


----------



## HeyNorm

BackAgain said:


> I think Cruz is wrong. On this own. Smart guy. But off the mark here.
> 
> I cannot come up with a good answer to the question of why any person’s private, consensual (and non assaultive) behavior is or should be any of the government’s business.



And the government has never forced anyone to reveal the same.


----------



## BackAgain

HeyNorm said:


> And the government has never forced anyone to reveal the same.


Some states have gone as far as doing authorized peeping Tom surveillance to capture homosexual relations in the act. 
It is not the business of any State government, either. Imho.


----------



## HeyNorm

BackAgain said:


> Some states have gone as far as doing authorized peeping Tom surveillance to capture homosexual relations in the act.
> It is not the business of any State government, either. Imho.


I’ll need a citation on that one.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BackAgain said:


> Some states have gone as far as doing authorized peeping Tom surveillance to capture homosexual relations in the act.
> It is not the business of any State government, either. Imho.


When ? In the 60's Prior to Lawrence V  Texas?


----------



## BackAgain

HeyNorm said:


> I’ll need a citation on that one.


I vaguely recalled that it was in Georgia. I thought it might be this case:

*Bowers v. Hardwick*, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

But I now don’t think so. The Hardwick case eventually held that States could outlaw sodomy.

This SCOTUS decision was later itself overruled by *Lawrence v. Texas*,  539 U.S. 558 (2003).

The facts of one of the cases (I don’t recall which one at the moment, but I think it was Lawrence (?)) was as follows:

Apparently the cops were called about a “gun” being drawn in a fight (argument) between three gay men. It was a false report, but how would the cops know that?  The cop in question walked into the room and saw two guys engaged in anal sex. (The other cop saw them engaged in oral sex?)

So the cases don’t appear to be the one I’m thinking of.


----------



## BackAgain

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> When ? In the 60's Prior to Lawrence V  Texas?


Yes. I am indeed talking about history.


----------



## HeyNorm

BackAgain said:


> Yes. I am indeed talking about history.



Gay sex should have never been illegal in the first place. I think it’s important to let people enjoy their fetishes, as long as it hurts no one else, and with competent adults.


----------



## BackAgain

HeyNorm said:


> Gay sex should have never been illegal in the first place. I think it’s important to let people enjoy their fetishes, as long as it hurts no one else, and with competent adults.


We can’t change the past.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Gay sex should have never been illegal in the first place. I think it’s important to let people enjoy their fetishes, as long as it hurts no one else, and with competent adults.


But gay marriage, now that is another story. Right? Oh pardon me....same sex marriage


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But gay marriage, now that is another story. Right? Oh pardon me....same sex marriage



Correct. We should not make an accommodation for this fetish anymore than we should allow a truck driver to fly a commercial passenger airliner.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Correct. We should not make an accommodation for this fetish anymore than we should allow a truck driver to fly a commercial passenger airliner.


HA, HA, HA!  I just had to poke you to see what kind  of stupidity you would come up with this time. So gay marriage is a “fetish”, but gay sex is not? Do you understand what a fetish actually is?
fet·ish
[ˈfediSH]
NOUN

a form of sexual desire in which gratification is strongly linked to a particular object or activity or a part of the body other than the sexual organs:
"a man with a fetish for surgical masks" · "a foot fetish"

You get more stupid with each passing day, Fetish has nothing to do with  gay marriage or even  gay sex and to support a right to have gay sex but not a right to gay marriage makes NO FUCING SENSE at all. Allowing gay marriage is like  allowing  a truck driver to fly a commercial passenger airliner? Are you fucing srious?!!

You have no credibility. You continue to prove that you are a fraud, a bigot and a liar and a troll. To recap:

You had at one point stated that you oppose gay marriage because two people of the same gender could not have children on their own.( as though that were a requirement for marriage)  Then you admitted that you have no problem with marriage for a heterosexual couple who could not have children getting married, proving your bigotry

Then you tried to squirm out of being called a bigot on that point by claiming that you also  oppose the marriage of same sex  heterosexuals- a phenomena that does not appear to exist

You then invented the red herring fallacy that you oppose gay marriage because bisexuals are left out –since they cannot marry more than one person-a male and a female- even though you really do not support plural marriage

You called me a bigot for not supporting plural marriage when I never opposed it but merely pointed out some legal and social issues that need to be considered.

As further proof of how full of shit you are on your supposed support of plural marriage to accommodate bisexuals- you overlooked that fact that such an arrangement would have to –by definition –include same sex marriage, which you vehemently oppose.

I could go on but this is enough of an indictment for now . My work is done here . But I will be watching


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> HA, HA, HA!  I just had to poke you to see what kind  of stupidity you would come up with this time. So gay marriage is a “fetish”, but gay sex is not? Do you understand what a fetish actually is?
> fet·ish
> [ˈfediSH]
> NOUN
> 
> a form of sexual desire in which gratification is strongly linked to a particular object or activity or a part of the body other than the sexual organs:
> "a man with a fetish for surgical masks" · "a foot fetish"
> 
> You get more stupid with each passing day, Fetish has nothing to do with  gay marriage or even  gay sex and to support a right to have gay sex but not a right to gay marriage makes NO FUCING SENSE at all. Allowing gay marriage is like  allowing  a truck driver to fly a commercial passenger airliner? Are you fucing srious?!!
> 
> You have no credibility. You continue to prove that you are a fraud, a bigot and a liar and a troll. To recap:
> 
> You had at one point stated that you oppose gay marriage because two people of the same gender could not have children on their own. Then you admitted that you have no problem with marriage for a heterosexual couple who could not have children getting married, proving your bigotry
> 
> Then you tried to squirm out of being called a bigot on that point by claiming that you also  oppose the marriage of same sex  heterosexuals- a phenomena that does not appear to exist
> 
> You then invented the red herring fallacy that you oppose gay marriage because bisexuals are left out –since they cannot marry more than one person-a male and a female- even though you really do not support plural marriage
> 
> You called me a bigot for not supporting plural marriage when I never opposed it but merely pointed out some legal and social issues that need to be considered.
> 
> As further proof of how full of shit you are on your supposed support of plural marriage to accommodate bisexuals- you overlooked that fact that such an arrangement would have to –by definition –include same sex marriage, which you vehemently oppose.
> 
> I could go on but this is enough of an indictment for now . My work is done here . But I will be watching



Oh gay sex is the fetish, gay marriage is how we’ve been enabling the fetish.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh gay sex is the fetish, gay marriage is how we’ve been enabling the fetish.


Is marrige a requirement for sex? People are entittled to their "fetish" of gay sex but we should not enable it with marriage? WHAT THE FUCK??!!  Did you not understand the definition of fetish? Thank you for again confirming how stupid you actually are.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Is marrige a requirement for sex? People are entittled to their "fetish" of gay sex but we should not enable it with marriage? WHAT THE FUCK??!!  Did you not understand the definition of fetish? Thank you for again confirming how stupid you actually are.


A fetish is commonly considered to be sexual desire outside what is considered the norm. 

Defend the fetish all you want, consider it alluring, I don’t really care. It being a reason to redefine marriage is enabling bad behavior.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Male to female union is required for the existence of every human being. Even those who live a fetish lifestyle.


Surrogacy doesn't require a union.
In Vitro fertilization doesn't require a union. 
We might get a point where all babies are grown in vats and pregnancy is considered quaint.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Surrogacy doesn't require a union.
> In Vitro fertilization doesn't require a union.
> We might get a point where all babies are grown in vats and pregnancy is considered quaint.


The Union in these cases require the basic parts, one part male, one part female. Always essential.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> The Union in these cases require the basic parts, one part male, one part female. Always essential.



Except at a certain point, that probably won't be necessary.   We are fairly close to perfecting human cloning.   We could have a society of lesbians cloning themselves.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Except at a certain point, that probably won't be necessary.   We are fairly close to perfecting human cloning.   We could have a society of lesbians cloning themselves.



And when that happens, the cells that are used are the product of a male/female Union. But we’ll talk when that actually happens. Which they claimed would happen 10 years ago.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> And when that happens, the cells that are used are the product of a male/female Union. But we’ll talk when that actually happens. Which they claimed would happen 10 years ago.



Well, no, the clone would be of a female... so there's that.  

Of course, there's no practical reason to clone a human, and cloning a human is actually illegal for the moment.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> A fetish is commonly considered to be sexual desire outside what is considered the norm.
> 
> Defend the fetish all you want, consider it alluring, I don’t really care. It being a reason to redefine marriage is enabling bad behavior.


I see. So without marriage there is no sex??


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I see. So without marriage there is no sex??


I never said that. Are you redefining my words? You’re  not very good at much, but are great at the redefining game.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I never said that. Are you redefining my words? You’re  not very good at much, but are great at the redefining game.


I am interpreting what you said. You are claiming that gay sex is a fetish and therefore a reason to ban gay marriage- because gay marriage allows  gay sex. It is pretty obvious what you meant.  This fettish thing is just the latest example of how you are a bottomless pit of  inane equine excrement . I can't wait to see what your next moronic reason to ban gay marriage is after this one is played out


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, the clone would be of a female... so there's that.
> 
> Of course, there's no practical reason to clone a human, and cloning a human is actually illegal for the moment.



Wouldn’t it be interesting, if this clone actually ever exists, if it grows up to be straight, we would know that gays were not born that way.  

Interesting.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am interpreting what you said. You are claiming that gay sex is a fetish and therefore a reason to ban gay marriage- because gay marriage allows  gay sex. It is pretty obvious what you meant.  This fettish thing is just the latest example of how you are a bottomless pit of  inane equine excrement . I can't wait to see what your next moronic reason to ban gay marriage is after this one is played out



Gay sex is a fetish. And I might remind you, gays have been allowed to marry since the beginning of the institution.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Gay sex is a fetish. And I might remind you, gays have been allowed to marry since the beginning of the institution.


Cut the stupid, bigoted bullshit already. Move on to yur next red herring,


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cut the stupid, bigoted bullshit already. Move on to yur next red herring,



Now your redefining red herring? What next?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Now your redefining red herring? What next?


Every thing that you post is  a red herring- a distraction intended to derail the topic and to deflect away from your bigotry


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Every thing that you post is  a red herring- a distraction intended to derail the topic and to deflect away from your bigotry


I’ve only posted facts. Because you have trouble disputing facts, in no way makes me a bigot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve only posted facts. Because you have trouble disputing facts, in no way makes me a bigot.


You have posted NO FACTS that constitute a rational or compelling argument for not allowing gay people to marry their own gender. 

Therefore the FACT is that you are indeed a bigot. That FACT is irrefutable


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have posted NO FACTS that constitute a rational or compelling argument for not allowing gay people to marry their own gender.
> 
> Therefore the FACT is that you are indeed a bigot. That FACT is irrefutable



Oh, I oppose non gays marriage of their own sex as well. 

So still no proof of my bigotry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, I oppose non gays marriage of their own sex as well.
> 
> So still no proof of my bigotry


That is asinine and in no way absolves you of being a bigot. Even if those mythical straight people who want to marry their own gender existed-and you have offered no proof that they do- they still have a choice. Then can marry the opposite sex for romantic love. Gay people, before they were able to marry their own gender did not have that option and you would still deny it to them.  

And I don’t want to hear any stupid shit about love and romance are not required for marriage. It is something that people want and need-something that gay people were denied. 
You sir are a bigot! Plain and simple


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is asinine and in no way absolves you of being a bigot. Even if those mythical straight people who want to marry their own gender existed-and you have offered no proof that they do- they still have a choice. Then can marry the opposite sex for romantic love. Gay people, before they were able to marry their own gender did not have that option and you would still deny it to them.
> 
> And I don’t want to hear any stupid shit about love and romance are not required for marriage. It is something that people want and need-something that gay people were denied.
> You sir are a bigot! Plain and simple



First, prove they do not exist. Then let us know the medical test you performed to determined their sexuality.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You have posted NO FACTS that constitute a rational or compelling argument for not allowing gay people to marry their own gender.
> 
> Therefore the FACT is that you are indeed a bigot. That FACT is irrefutable


----------



## HeyNorm

Bob Blaylock said:


>


 
I know, right?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

HeyNorm said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, right?
Click to expand...


  Probably much more than you've yet seen.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> First, prove they do not exist. Then let us know the medical test you performed to determined their sexuality.


Listen Troll First of all the burden of proof is on you. I cannot be expected to prove a negative. But that is not even the point. I said EVEN IF THEY DO EXIST you are still a bigot because ant way you cut it, you would deny the chance for gay people to marry for love and romance. I don't think that you are quite so stupid as to not understand that


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> First, prove they do not exist. Then let us know the medical test you performed to determined their sexuality.


This medical test crap is just more of you troling. I never suggested that there was such a test. If they exist, there would be some information/ studies or surveys from the psychological or sociaological community


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Listen Troll First of all the burden of proof is on you. I cannot be expected to prove a negative. But that is not even the point. I said EVEN IF THEY DO EXIST you are still a bigot because ant way you cut it, you would deny the chance for gay people to marry for love and romance. I don't think that you are quite so stupid as to not understand that



BORRRRIIIINNNNGGGG

I have posted links to gays marring opposite sex individuals many times. 

And it is you who asks me to prove a negative. Neither marriage licenses nor applications require sexuality identification. 

😜


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This medical test crap is just more of you troling. I never suggested that there was such a test. If they exist, there would be some information/ studies or surveys from the psychological or sociaological community



And, regardless, gays have and will continue to marry opposite sex individuals. And there ain’t a damn thing you or your cult bigots can do about it. 

I think your buddy JoeB131 brought up something interesting though, that being the lesbians that want to clone themselves, using no male components. 

I’m curious, if theses offspring made up of purely lesbian pieces/parts, grew up heterosexual, would that not prove homosexuality is simply a fetish?

🤷‍♂️


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> BORRRRIIIINNNNGGGG
> 
> I have posted links to gays marring opposite sex individuals many times.
> 
> And it is you who asks me to prove a negative. Neither marriage licenses nor applications require sexuality identification.
> 
> 😜


How does any of that make you not a bigot?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How does any of that make you not a bigot?



Treating everyone equally does the trick sparky.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> And, regardless, gays have and will continue to marry opposite sex individuals. And there ain’t a damn thing you or your cult bigots can do about it.


Why the hell would we want to "do anything about it" Unlike you bigots, I am all for people marrying who the wish to marryI am sure that there were alot more instances of gays marrying the oppoite gender when they were forced to be in the closet. I doubt if there is much of that any more, but if there is , it changes nothing. YOU are still a bigot


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Treating everyone equally does the trick sparky.


But you don't!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I think your buddy @JoeB131 brought up something interesting though, that being the lesbians that want to clone themselves, using no male components.
> 
> I’m curious, if theses offspring made up of purely lesbian pieces/parts, grew up heterosexual, would that not prove homosexuality is simply a fetish?


Please explain Dr  Normy. Why?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Why the hell would we want to "do anything about it" Unlike you bigots, I am all for people marrying who the wish to marryI am sure that there were alot more instances of gays marrying the oppoite gender when they were forced to be in the closet. I doubt if there is much of that any more, but if there is , it changes nothing. YOU are still a bigot



I’m not bigoted you big goofball.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But you don't!


Yes I do, I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Yes I do, I oppose same sex marriage regardless of sexuality.


Do you or do you not believe that gay people should have the same opportunity as straight people to marry for love and romance? Never mind. I know the answer. YOU are a BIGOT


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do you or do you not believe that gay people should have the same opportunity as straight people to marry for love and romance? Never mind. I know the answer. YOU are a BIGOT



We’ve tried that, and since then we’ve now had a freak who said “children just want to suck D**k” invited as an honored guest, to the White House, and dudes dressed up as girls watching teens undress in locker rooms. And 100s of other bizarre happenings 

The experiment failed. Now back to treating people equally.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> We’ve tried that, and since then we’ve now had a freak who said “children just want to suck D**k” invited as an honored guest, to the White House, and dudes dressed up as girls watching teens undress in locker rooms. And 100s of other bizarre happenings
> 
> The experiment failed. Now back to treating people equally.


Holy shit! WHAT!??? Now I know that you have lost your  fucking mind.!! But I will take that as a "no" You do not believe that gays people have that same right? YOU are a bigotby your own  admission!

Now back to.....what?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Holy shit! WHAT!??? Now I know that you have lost your  fucking mind.!! But I will take that as a "no" You do not believe that gays people have that same right? YOU are a bigotby your own  admission!
> 
> Now back to.....what?



What same right? I offer the same right to everyone. 

It don’t get more fair than that!

What a swell guy I am.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> What same right? I offer the same right to everyone.
> 
> It don’t get more fair than that!
> 
> What a swell guy I am.


You are a full of shit bigot and that last post confirms exactly where you  are coming from. All of that shit about conceiving children and how gays were always able to marry and all of the other bogus bullshit that you put out there was just a smoke screen. Now, in a burst of  unhinged  anger, the true depth of you disdain for gay people has been exposed. The plain truth is that you just hate gay people and think that they are perverted pedophiles.  You are exposed for what you are. You are a BIGOT to the core. My work is done here


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You are a full of shit bigot and that last post confirms exactly where you  are coming from. All of that shit about conceiving children and how gays were always able to marry and all of the other bogus bullshit that you put out there was just a smoke screen. Now, in a burst of  unhinged  anger, the true depth of you disdain for gay people has been exposed. The plain truth is that you just hate gay people and think that they are perverted pedophiles.  You are exposed for what you are. You are a BIGOT to the core. My work is done here



Nope, and I didn’t get angry either. I explained, in quite an effective manner, how giving an inch to a niche fetish group resulted in the freak show that Biden just threw and the loss of actual rights by many females (the real ones), in this country. 

Clear now?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Nope, and I didn’t get angry either. I explained, in quite an effective manner, how giving an inch to a niche fetish group resulted in the freak show that Biden just threw and the loss of actual rights by many females (the real ones), in this country.
> 
> Clear now?


I am clear about what you are.  A bigot to the core! You snaped and revealed your true self. You are dismissed


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Nope, and I didn’t get angry either. I explained, in quite an effective manner, how giving an inch to a niche fetish group resulted in the freak show that Biden just threw and the loss of actual rights by many females (the real ones), in this country.
> 
> Clear now?











						Biden signs gay marriage law, calls it 'a blow against hate'
					

President Joe Biden has signed gay marriage legislation into law. A celebratory crowd of thousands bundled up on a chilly Tuesday afternoon on the South Lawn of the White House




					omaha.com
				






> “This law and the love it defends strike a blow against hate in all its forms,” Biden said on the South Lawn of the White House. “And that’s why this law matters to every single American.”





> Lawmakers from both parties attended Tuesday's ceremony, reflecting the growing acceptance of same-sex unions, once among the country's most contentious issues.





> Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wore the same purple tie to the ceremony that he wore to his daughter Alison's wedding. She and her wife are expecting their first child in the spring.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Biden signs gay marriage law, calls it 'a blow against hate'
> 
> 
> President Joe Biden has signed gay marriage legislation into law. A celebratory crowd of thousands bundled up on a chilly Tuesday afternoon on the South Lawn of the White House
> 
> 
> 
> 
> omaha.com



Here’s a quote you missed made by one of Bidens honored guests “children just want to suck d**k”

Am I a bigot for disagreeing with that statement? And, do you agree with that statement?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Here’s a quote you missed made by one of Bidens honored guests “children just want to suck d**k”
> 
> Am I a bigot for disagreeing with that statement? And, do you agree with that statement?


I do not see where anyone said any such thing. If it was said , I would be appalled as well but it would not change my argument one bit.You do not punish all gay people and make sweeping generalizations about them for that sort of thing.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I do not see where anyone said any such thing. If it was said , I would be appalled as well but it would not change my argument one bit.You do not punish all gay people and make sweeping generalizations about them for that sort of thing.



I’ve not seen condemnation of it, or of those pretending to be girls being in females locker rooms, by the LBGTQ community. You would stick together regardless. 

Now shoo kid, your bothering me.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I’ve not seen condemnation of it, or of those pretending to be girls being in females locker rooms, by the LBGTQ community. You would stick together regardless.
> 
> Now shoo kid, your bothering me.


You do not shoo me! Trannsgender  and locker rooms are a different subject. Stop deflecting and defend your anti gay bigotry if you can. Still waiting for you do document that dick sucking comment.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You do not shoo me! Trannsgender  and locker rooms are a different subject. Stop deflecting and defend your anti gay bigotry if you can. Still waiting for you do document that dick sucking comment.











						Drag queens invited to White House have interesting pasts
					

Among those who attended the ceremony for the signing of the legislation codifying same-sex marriage were two drag queens, one of whom once tweeted: 'The kids are out to sing and suck d!'



					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




A disgusting human being. 

Now shoo kid.


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> Wouldn’t it be interesting, if this clone actually ever exists, if it grows up to be straight, we would know that gays were not born that way.
> 
> Interesting.



I guess.   Let's find out.  



HeyNorm said:


> Gay sex is a fetish. And I might remind you, gays have been allowed to marry since the beginning of the institution.


Dating outside your race is a fetish, and was illegal until 1967.


----------



## HeyNorm

JoeB131 said:


> I guess.   Let's find out.
> 
> 
> Dating outside your race is a fetish, and was illegal until 1967.


No Joe, male to female breeding works the same regardless of race.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

HeyNorm said:


> Male to female union is required for the existence of every human being. Even those who live a fetish lifestyle.


That is sex, not marriage. Do we need to have the birds and the bees talk?


----------



## HeyNorm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is sex, not marriage. Do we need to have the birds and the bees talk?



I guess, you obviously need it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

HeyNorm said:


> Treating everyone equally does the trick sparky.



  Why are you conflating TheOppressiveFaggot with Sparky?  They are nothing alike.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Drag queens invited to White House have interesting pasts
> 
> 
> Among those who attended the ceremony for the signing of the legislation codifying same-sex marriage were two drag queens, one of whom once tweeted: 'The kids are out to sing and suck d!'
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A disgusting human being.
> 
> Now shoo kid.











						Daily Mail
					

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no




					mediabiasfactcheck.com
				






> *A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. *Fake News is the _deliberate attempt_ to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category _may_ be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list _are not_ considered _fake news_ unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.





> *Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing.*


----------



## HeyNorm

Bob Blaylock said:


> Why are you conflating TheOppressiveFaggot with sparky?  They are nothing alike.



I would never want to imply that our esteemed member by that name has anything in common with PP, so allow me to amend the last word of the sentence from sparky to……..

Dork.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Daily Mail
> 
> 
> QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mediabiasfactcheck.com



Lol, it admits it said it. 

And this is exactly why we can’t have nice things


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

HeyNorm said:


> I guess, you obviously need it.


That didn't make sense. Low-grade trolling. Do better.


----------



## HeyNorm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That didn't make sense. Low-grade trolling. Do better.



The birds and the bees make no sense?

I wouldn’t doubt they wouldn’t to you


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Lol, it admits it said it.
> 
> And this is exactly why we can’t have nice things


You really are that stupid, arent you? Do you understand what "questionable source " means?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

HeyNorm said:


> The birds and the bees make no sense?
> 
> I wouldn’t doubt they wouldn’t to you


Nope, still not cutting it. You're going to have to work on those troll chops. You would get eaten alive by a 9 year old.


----------



## HeyNorm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nope, still not cutting it. You're going to have to work on those troll chops. You would get eaten alive by a 9 year old.



Which knows more about the birds and bees than you?


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You really are that stupid, arent you? Do you understand what "questionable source " means?


Google is your friend.









						Who is Marti G. Cummings? Drag artist invited by Joe Biden to White House
					

The drag artist's visit to the White House was criticized by some who accused Cummings of being anti-police and making controversial remarks about kids.



					www.newsweek.com


----------



## JoeB131

HeyNorm said:


> No Joe, male to female breeding works the same regardless of race.



Except it doesn't, really, which is why you see all these old white women getting IVF when they let their biological clocks run down.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Google is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Marti G. Cummings? Drag artist invited by Joe Biden to White House
> 
> 
> The drag artist's visit to the White House was criticized by some who accused Cummings of being anti-police and making controversial remarks about kids.
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com


Yes , I saw this before. So what? It is a message of inclusiveness, diversity  and tolerance. The idea is to provide a counter balanced to the dominant binary –cisgender culture. Deal with  it. Still nothing about dick sucking or any sort of sex. Your Daily Mail source provided a hightly biased and pejorative version of what took place 

Newsweek has an entirely different take on it and Cummings is a highly respected community activist, who, unlike you and your ilk, are trying to make things better for LGBT youth. 

From your link :



> Cummings is also on the board of directors for the Ali Forney Center for Homeless LGBTQ Youth and the Advisory Board of Equality NY, on top of being a national co-chair of Drag Out the Vote—a non-partisan nonprofit working with drag performers to promote their participation in politics.





> Cummings also serves on the NYC Nightlife Advisory Council, as well as Community Board 9. In 2021, they ran for city council in New York City's 7th district but ultimately lost the election. If they won, they would have been the first non-binary person elected to New York City Council.


 
. This is just your latest attempt to deflect and derail the issue so as to avoid accountability for your BIGOTRY. To try to use this as some sort of slippery slope fallacy to justify the denial of the right to marry for gay people is beyond ignorant. Your latest Red Herring intended to avoid an honest discussion of your shameless bigotry . Whay will be next now that the hatred that you harbor is on full display


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes , I saw this before. So what? It is a message of inclusiveness, diversity  and tolerance. The idea is to provide a counter balanced to the dominant binary –cisgender culture. Deal with  it. Still nothing about dick sucking or any sort of sex. Your Daily Mail source provided a hightly biased and pejorative version of what took place
> 
> Newsweek has an entirely different take on it and Cummings is a highly respected community activist, who, unlike you and your ilk, are trying to make things better for LGBT youth.
> 
> From your link :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . This is just your latest attempt to deflect and derail the issue so as to avoid accountability for your BIGOTRY. To try to use this as some sort of slippery slope fallacy to justify the denial of the right to marry for gay people is beyond ignorant. Your latest Red Herring intended to avoid an honest discussion of your shameless bigotry . Whay will be next now that the hatred that you harbor is on full display



So you agree with it “ children just want to suck D”

You are beyond help.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> So you agree with it “ children just want to suck D”
> 
> You are beyond help.


Fucking liar. ! I agree with no such thing. Fucking bigot! You are a dangerous combination or stupid and crazy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Fucking liar. ! I agree with no such thing. Ghat is something that some asshole said on twitter and you're stupid enough to believe it. Fucking bigot! You are a dangerous combination or stupid and crazy


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Fucking liar. ! I agree with no such thing. Fucking bigot! You are a dangerous combination or stupid and crazy



Hey, you are the one praising the thing that said the words. And I’m dangerous?

Time for a life assessment on your part, I think.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Hey, you are the one praising the thing that said the words. And I’m dangerous?
> 
> Time for a life assessment on your part, I think.


NOT praising the words if in fact they were said by Commings and in what context. Let me know when you are ready to discuss the real source your hatred of gays that makes you want to punish them and their children. Nevermind. I know. You area heartless bigot who is not all that bright.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> NOT praising the words if in fact they said by Commings and in what context. Let me know when you are ready to discuss the real source your hatred of gays that makes you want to punish them and their children. Nevermind. I know. You area heartless bigot who is not all that bright.



Oh, taken out of context, right? And if a white conservative said this, you’d defend him, right. 

And in context or not, using the word “kid” and suck dick, in a public tweet, is disgusting. And it does not deny it did.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Oh, taken out of context, right? And if a white conservative said this, you’d defend him, right.
> 
> And in context or not, using the word “kid” and suck dick, in a public tweet, is disgusting. And it does not deny it did.


Still too much of a coward to have an honest discussion about why you really hate gays and want to punish them and their children? Have you run out of red herrings. ? This drag queen thing has run its course..


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Still too much of a coward to have an honest discussion about why you really hate gays and want to punish them and their children? Have you run out of red herrings. ? This drag queen thing has run its course..


Who hates gays? You keep barking up the wrong tree. 

I love everyone equally and treat everyone the same. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This drag queen thing has run its course..



  As long as you degenerates continue to go after children with your disgusting perversions, it will not have _“run its course”_.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Who hates gays? You keep barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> I love everyone equally and treat everyone the same. 🤷‍♂️


Not only are you a coward but a liar as well. It is all very well documented right here. Now take a fucking hike


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Bob Blaylock said:


> As long as you degenerates continue to go after children with your disgusting perversions, it will not have _“run its course”_.


A stupid white wing fantasy fed to you by paid liars.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Not only are you a coward but a liar as well. It is all very well documented right here. Now take a fucking hike



Where exactly? Please be thorough, you tend to disappoint


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> Where exactly? Please be thorough, you tend to disappoint


I have many ties in many ways
You are either so fucked in the head that you do not know that what you say is bigoted and hurtful.....or,

You know exactly what you're doing  and playing a sick game, in which case ypu are still fucked in the head

Not wasting any more time on you.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have many ties in many ways
> You are either so fucked in the head that you do not know that what you say is bigoted and hurtful.....or,
> 
> You know exactly what you're doing  and playing a sick game, in which case ypu are still fucked in the head
> 
> Not wasting any more time on you.



I see, yet another disappointment. 

Well, I’ll just go on trying to be a uniter and not a divider like you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> I see, yet another disappointment.
> 
> Well, I’ll just go on trying to be a uniter and not a divider like you.


"Unite the Right"


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> "Unite the Right"



Did you want to “Unite the Wrong”. I see you trying, just not working out?


----------



## Ringo

LGBT idiocy has reached a new level. Psychopathic minorities began to eat each other, arranging interspecies wars.

The subject of the showdown was the issue of transferring convicted murderer Dana Rivers - a biological man who considers himself a woman - to a women's prison.
Women, mostly "feminists" and lovers of same-sex indecency, oppose the California law that allows such imprisoned men to serve time in women's prisons.

Protesters of both minorities gathered outside the Alameda County Superior Court building in Oakland, California.
The action began with mutual reproaches, and then it came to throwing eggs at each other.
Then the "trans" hit one feminist with an umbrella, and another attacker in all black with red armbands crashed a bicycle into the "femin" protesters.
"Feminists" with posters with the words: “Men cannot be in women's prisons” and “Dana Rivers is a man”, as well as others of similar content.

The subject of the dispute Rivers, born David Warfield, was convicted last month of murdering a same-sex couple in 2016 and their teenage son, as well as setting fire to their home.
Rivers first shot at the "same-sex", and then crushed them with a knife and a baton.

Now the issue of recognizing Rivers as “insane" is being resolved. If the court finds him sane, the criminal will be sent to prison. But in the female or male - the question.
Now he is already "resting" in the women's department of the Santa Rita prison in Dublin (California).

"Feminists" strongly oppose the detention of any men in women's prisons. “All men are men, regardless of hormone injections and/or surgeries, and we believe that women's prisons should be for female prisoners only, which is in line with the principles of international law,” they say.

But the "trances"  have their own understanding of reality. Moreover, the law is on their side.
In 2020, the California State Legislature passed the "Transgender Respect, Free Will and Dignity Act."
This law allows trans prisoners and others to ask for their placement in women's institutions and search in accordance with their gender identity.

That's where it started. Men in prisons and on the way to them began to urgently consider themselves women.
Currently, there are 1,657 prisoners in California prisons who consider themselves "trans" and others.
Since the end of November, 342 men have requested to be transferred to women's prisons. 47 candidates were approved for transfer, 19 were refused, and 31 changed their minds. The remaining requests are under consideration.

"Feminists" claim that this happens in many US states. It 's just that the media don 't like to talk about it . At the same time, female prisoners "live in fear" of violent male prisoners who end up in women's institutions.
Many of the "feminists" believe that "trannies" should be abolished as a class altogether, since they harm women and girls.
Like, as if they themselves bring good and happiness to the female half...

“Now in California, any man can simply declare that he is a woman, and he will be transferred to a women's prison - even if he killed two women, even if he stabbed a woman 28 times in the face,” activists say.

Yes, that's the way it is. What the feminists fought for, they ran into. They wanted to get exclusive rights for themselves, got them and actively used them.

Then other similar groups of perverts appeared on the horizon and demanded the same exclusive treatment.
And they got it too, which wildly enraged Feminists. Competitors turned out to be in some ways even more lively than Fems and moved fems from the Olympus of "happiness and well-being".


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ringo said:


> LGBT idiocy has reached a new level. Psychopathic minorities began to eat each other, arranging interspecies wars.
> 
> The subject of the showdown was the issue of transferring convicted murderer Dana Rivers - a biological man who considers himself a woman - to a women's prison.
> Women, mostly "feminists" and lovers of same-sex indecency, oppose the California law that allows such imprisoned men to serve time in women's prisons.
> 
> Protesters of both minorities gathered outside the Alameda County Superior Court building in Oakland, California.
> The action began with mutual reproaches, and then it came to throwing eggs at each other.
> Then the "trans" hit one feminist with an umbrella, and another attacker in all black with red armbands crashed a bicycle into the "femin" protesters.
> "Feminists" with posters with the words: “Men cannot be in women's prisons” and “Dana Rivers is a man”, as well as others of similar content.
> 
> The subject of the dispute Rivers, born David Warfield, was convicted last month of murdering a same-sex couple in 2016 and their teenage son, as well as setting fire to their home.
> Rivers first shot at the "same-sex", and then crushed them with a knife and a baton.
> 
> Now the issue of recognizing Rivers as “insane" is being resolved. If the court finds him sane, the criminal will be sent to prison. But in the female or male - the question.
> Now he is already "resting" in the women's department of the Santa Rita prison in Dublin (California).
> 
> "Feminists" strongly oppose the detention of any men in women's prisons. “All men are men, regardless of hormone injections and/or surgeries, and we believe that women's prisons should be for female prisoners only, which is in line with the principles of international law,” they say.
> 
> But the "trances"  have their own understanding of reality. Moreover, the law is on their side.
> In 2020, the California State Legislature passed the "Transgender Respect, Free Will and Dignity Act."
> This law allows trans prisoners and others to ask for their placement in women's institutions and search in accordance with their gender identity.
> 
> That's where it started. Men in prisons and on the way to them began to urgently consider themselves women.
> Currently, there are 1,657 prisoners in California prisons who consider themselves "trans" and others.
> Since the end of November, 342 men have requested to be transferred to women's prisons. 47 candidates were approved for transfer, 19 were refused, and 31 changed their minds. The remaining requests are under consideration.
> 
> "Feminists" claim that this happens in many US states. It 's just that the media don 't like to talk about it . At the same time, female prisoners "live in fear" of violent male prisoners who end up in women's institutions.
> Many of the "feminists" believe that "trannies" should be abolished as a class altogether, since they harm women and girls.
> Like, as if they themselves bring good and happiness to the female half...
> 
> “Now in California, any man can simply declare that he is a woman, and he will be transferred to a women's prison - even if he killed two women, even if he stabbed a woman 28 times in the face,” activists say.
> 
> Yes, that's the way it is. What the feminists fought for, they ran into. They wanted to get exclusive rights for themselves, got them and actively used them.
> 
> Then other similar groups of perverts appeared on the horizon and demanded the same exclusive treatment.
> And they got it too, which wildly enraged Feminists. Competitors turned out to be in some ways even more lively than Fems and moved fems from the Olympus of "happiness and well-being".


Did you notice that the subject of this thread is legaized same sex marriage? You did? So why do you think that this screed id appropriate here ?


----------



## HeyNorm

Ringo said:


> LGBT idiocy has reached a new level. Psychopathic minorities began to eat each other, arranging interspecies wars.
> 
> The subject of the showdown was the issue of transferring convicted murderer Dana Rivers - a biological man who considers himself a woman - to a women's prison.
> Women, mostly "feminists" and lovers of same-sex indecency, oppose the California law that allows such imprisoned men to serve time in women's prisons.
> 
> Protesters of both minorities gathered outside the Alameda County Superior Court building in Oakland, California.
> The action began with mutual reproaches, and then it came to throwing eggs at each other.
> Then the "trans" hit one feminist with an umbrella, and another attacker in all black with red armbands crashed a bicycle into the "femin" protesters.
> "Feminists" with posters with the words: “Men cannot be in women's prisons” and “Dana Rivers is a man”, as well as others of similar content.
> 
> The subject of the dispute Rivers, born David Warfield, was convicted last month of murdering a same-sex couple in 2016 and their teenage son, as well as setting fire to their home.
> Rivers first shot at the "same-sex", and then crushed them with a knife and a baton.
> 
> Now the issue of recognizing Rivers as “insane" is being resolved. If the court finds him sane, the criminal will be sent to prison. But in the female or male - the question.
> Now he is already "resting" in the women's department of the Santa Rita prison in Dublin (California).
> 
> "Feminists" strongly oppose the detention of any men in women's prisons. “All men are men, regardless of hormone injections and/or surgeries, and we believe that women's prisons should be for female prisoners only, which is in line with the principles of international law,” they say.
> 
> But the "trances"  have their own understanding of reality. Moreover, the law is on their side.
> In 2020, the California State Legislature passed the "Transgender Respect, Free Will and Dignity Act."
> This law allows trans prisoners and others to ask for their placement in women's institutions and search in accordance with their gender identity.
> 
> That's where it started. Men in prisons and on the way to them began to urgently consider themselves women.
> Currently, there are 1,657 prisoners in California prisons who consider themselves "trans" and others.
> Since the end of November, 342 men have requested to be transferred to women's prisons. 47 candidates were approved for transfer, 19 were refused, and 31 changed their minds. The remaining requests are under consideration.
> 
> "Feminists" claim that this happens in many US states. It 's just that the media don 't like to talk about it . At the same time, female prisoners "live in fear" of violent male prisoners who end up in women's institutions.
> Many of the "feminists" believe that "trannies" should be abolished as a class altogether, since they harm women and girls.
> Like, as if they themselves bring good and happiness to the female half...
> 
> “Now in California, any man can simply declare that he is a woman, and he will be transferred to a women's prison - even if he killed two women, even if he stabbed a woman 28 times in the face,” activists say.
> 
> Yes, that's the way it is. What the feminists fought for, they ran into. They wanted to get exclusive rights for themselves, got them and actively used them.
> 
> Then other similar groups of perverts appeared on the horizon and demanded the same exclusive treatment.
> And they got it too, which wildly enraged Feminists. Competitors turned out to be in some ways even more lively than Fems and moved fems from the Olympus of "happiness and well-being".



Just to be clear, I oppose biological males being housed with females in our prison system. Regardless of their sexuality.


----------



## JoeB131

Bob Blaylock said:


> As long as you degenerates continue to go after children with your disgusting perversions, it will not have _“run its course”_.



No kid is going to go gay because they saw a drag queen once. 

Just ask Bugs Bunny.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bob Blaylock said:


> As long as you degenerates continue to go after children with your disgusting perversions, it will not have _“run its course”_.


This is a lie.

No one is ‘going after children.’

What’s disgusting are the lies and hate propagated by you and other rightwing bigots.


----------



## Ringo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> No one is ‘going after children.’


I think you can find photos on the Web yourself, how perverts, painted like ugly devils, read something to children in kindergartens.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> No one is ‘going after children.’
> 
> What’s disgusting are the lies and hate propagated by you and other rightwing bigots.


Bob the Bigot never lets up. Best to ignore it


----------



## HeyNorm

Ringo said:


> I think you can find photos on the Web yourself, how perverts, painted like ugly devils, read something to children in kindergartens.



So completely disrespect of real women.


----------



## San Souci

Bob Blaylock said:


> Thso0e who murder innocent children deserve to die.  So do those who sexually abuse children.  That you take the side of such filth against the side of children, against the side of human beings, only goes to show what a amorally fucked-up piece of shit you truly are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest are just lies, and you know damn well that they are lies.  You've repeatedly been challenged to link to any post in which I have said any such things.  You know that you cannot, because you know that you are flat-out lying about what you claim I've ever said.


I still agree with Sheiite Muslims on this "Gay" and "Tranny" issue.


----------

