Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.
So it you were in a fox hole and the enemy has you pinned down, you are out of ammo and they are headed to kill you and a tank was maneuvering to assist you. The tank commander is a homosexual.
You would radio back instructing you want no help from faggots.
A Marriage License is society celebrating me enjoying fucking my wife? How odd, I thought it was a contract approved by society that made it easy for two people to live together, even raise children together, but that's optional? What does society do when I get a blowjob? I know I tend to celebrate it by taking her to dinner.Your claim that not granting people special privilege to celebrate their sexual behavior amounts to "hate" is absurd.
I am neither a Republican or a Reaganist. Reagan was an opportunist, con artist, and traitor to America, and far removed from being a Conservative. His opposition to the Briggs Initiative was proof of that, as well as other non-conservative attributes about him, which I already mentioned previously.
Reagan Neocon? Why do so many people use that term without knowing what it meant. Reagan was a fiscal conservative, he wasn't a big government spender.
What was even his military use that justifies the label? Grenada? OK, he toppled the government, but clearly nation building was not his primary objective in selecting an Island in the Caribbean to topple a Communist government. He didn't topple Lebanon even though he was involved in it. He didn't topple Libya, he just retaliated against them for terrorism like the German disco attack. He wrecked the USSR financially.
You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition. How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?
Who are you talking to ???????????
Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.
I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.
You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."
So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.
Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.
In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>
So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>
The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.
Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.
You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.
You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."
So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.
Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.
In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>
So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>
The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.
Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.
You're using the very same philosophy of government that statist liberals do.
Incorrect.
Liberals advocate for a consistent, Constitutional application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where the state must meet the burden of proving that its desire to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues a proper legislative end and failing that, as is the case with states seeking to deny gay Americans their equal protection rights with regard to marriage law, any such measures would be invalidated by the Federal courts.
This is one of many examples of liberal advocacy of limiting the power and authority of the state, and protecting and enhancing the liberty of the people.
That is not the case with the conservative poster you quoted, however, who advocates for expanding the power and authority of the state at the expense of the liberty of the people, where the state may capriciously and un-Constitutionally deny gay Americans their civil liberties, in violation of the rule of law.
Actually, Loving was about equal treatment under the law. The VA SCOTUS said interracial marriage was unnatural, the US SCOTUS said that didn't matter and you had to treat people equally under the law.
I never claimed the US SCOTUS said anything about naturalness or un.
You said >> "The SCOTUS decided that it really didn't fucking matter who thought something was "unnatural" when it came to ruling on LAW."
So on the one hand you first say they "decided" it. Now you say you didn't claim they said it ("unnatural"). But you claimed they decided it. How can one decide, without saying ? Did they use sign language maybe ? Did they hand each other written notes ? Sounds like you DID claim they said something about something being "unnatural", and now you're trying to wiggle out of it.
Lesson to be learned - if you can't back up what you say, don't say it.
In the final analysis, the SCOTUS didn't say a word about homosexuals or the naturalness or unnaturalness of their condition. The only thing I see them having said
that pertains to queers is what is stipulated earlier about compelling interest >>>
So once again, for those who seem to want to avoid the truth >>>
The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest.
Interesting phrase that "compelling interest" is. Does a state have a compelling interest, for instance, to keep queers out of classrooms ? Of course it does. It has a interest to prevent queers from spreading their sick perversions to kids with young impressionable minds. Few better and stronger examples of compelling interest have ever existed in American society.
I'm sorry you're having such a hard time following the thread. I'll help you out.
So then I proceeded to point out where the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti miscegenation laws and used the "unnaturalness" of the interracial marriage as justification. Following so far?protectionist: God or no God, abnormal, unnatural behavior is just that, whether by humans, dogs, or turtles.
C Clayton Jones: Fortunately we have a Constitution that prohibits you and other hateful, ignorant individuals from deciding what is unnatural or abnormal.
Quantum Windbag: It does? Where?
The Supreme Court of the United States rejected that argument and struck down anti miscegenation laws basing their decision on the 14th Amendment. Are you clear now?
And, no, there is no "compelling state interest" in keeping "queers" out of anywhere.
The Court, in a 8-1 decision by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, held that the language of the 14th Amendment, which prohibited denial of equal protection by a state, did not give Congress power to regulate these private acts, because it was the result of conduct by private individuals, not state law or action, that blacks were suffering.[1] Section five empowers Congress only to enforce the prohibition on state action. Legislation by Congress on subjects which are within the domain of the state are not authorized by the 14th Amendment. Private acts of racial discrimination were simply private wrongs that the national government was powerless to correct.[3] Bradley commented that individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.[4]
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.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed. Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh? I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet. Ah, the Good Old Days."And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.
Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?
EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.
So it you were in a fox hole and the enemy has you pinned down, you are out of ammo and they are headed to kill you and a tank was maneuvering to assist you. The tank commander is a homosexual.
You would radio back instructing you want no help from faggots.
And he knows the tank commander is a homosexual, because he pulls the tank over to suck someone's cock in the middle of the battle?
You're really posting stuid shit today.
It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.
And not only a right to be left alone, but a basic assurance. Homosexuality is not apparent. It isn't a trait or an attribute, it is not visible to the eye nor audible. It is a behavior. Unless someone engages in the behavior in front of you, you have no way of knowing that they engage in it.
Dawg is arguing from a position of stupidity - but this level of stupidity has successfully bullied people, so he figures he can get away with it.
We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".
Bogus claim as NOT ONE person was found in the entire state of AZ that was denied their religious freedom.
They are bull shitting us. They do not like homosexuals out of the closet, can not have that and must fight that yet put a HAPPY FACE on that argument and package it as what it isn't because there is NO evidence to support it.
The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed. Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh? I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet. Ah, the Good Old Days."And 34 US states have declared that to be so with bans on queer marriage."
SCOTUS will rule that the states', while having the power to regulate marriage, cannot deny civil rights per the 14th.
Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?
EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.
We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".
Bogus claim as NOT ONE person was found in the entire state of AZ that was denied their religious freedom.
They are bull shitting us. They do not like homosexuals out of the closet, can not have that and must fight that yet put a HAPPY FACE on that argument and package it as what it isn't because there is NO evidence to support it.
It was 100% not long ago. I am unconcerned but I'm betting you don't feel the same?The Courts are finding no Compelling State Interest, which means, you and your kind are screwed. Damn shame, those fags getting rights eh? I know, it was more fun when you used to be able to shove their heads in a toilet. Ah, the Good Old Days.Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?
EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.
Ah the Good Old 2014 > 68% of the states ban SAM.
It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.
And not only a right to be left alone, but a basic assurance. Homosexuality is not apparent. It isn't a trait or an attribute, it is not visible to the eye nor audible. It is a behavior. Unless someone engages in the behavior in front of you, you have no way of knowing that they engage in it.
Dawg is arguing from a position of stupidity - but this level of stupidity has successfully bullied people, so he figures he can get away with it.
Hey, call me stupid. I admit I am far educated beyond my intelligence.
I have been beat up, shot at and left for dead. Played a lot of ball against the best.
So I am stupid.
No, but even if I was at least I have common sense to treat fellow humans with decency and respect.
You are a fake, a fraud on this issue. You hide behind your ignorance and bigotry attempting to portray yourself as something other than what you are.
The AMA, APA, and the majority of the American people disagree with you. Now what? Will you die upon your soapbox General? So be it...We have people here that "want to be left alone" as if gays here and there have somehow infringed on their rights and "religious freedom".
Bogus claim as NOT ONE person was found in the entire state of AZ that was denied their religious freedom.
They are bull shitting us. They do not like homosexuals out of the closet, can not have that and must fight that yet put a HAPPY FACE on that argument and package it as what it isn't because there is NO evidence to support it.
I package my fight against homosexuality as just what you said. I don't like homosexuals out of the closet. No HAPPY FACE. Just simple stop homosexuality, because it's a mental disorder, it is a major disturbance, a sexually, perverted subversion of normal American culture, and a great danger to children.
I've met many, with more dignity than you General.And not only a right to be left alone, but a basic assurance. Homosexuality is not apparent. It isn't a trait or an attribute, it is not visible to the eye nor audible. It is a behavior. Unless someone engages in the behavior in front of you, you have no way of knowing that they engage in it.
Dawg is arguing from a position of stupidity - but this level of stupidity has successfully bullied people, so he figures he can get away with it.
Hey, call me stupid. I admit I am far educated beyond my intelligence.
I have been beat up, shot at and left for dead. Played a lot of ball against the best.
So I am stupid.
No, but even if I was at least I have common sense to treat fellow humans with decency and respect.
You are a fake, a fraud on this issue. You hide behind your ignorance and bigotry attempting to portray yourself as something other than what you are.
When you advocate homosexuality and lend dignity to it, you are treating fellow humans with INdecency and DISrespect.
