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.
Gay people arent denied anythign because they are gay. Please quote one thing that gay people cannot do.If you were a gay farmer and were denied subsidies because you were gay, you would have a case.Thanks.The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.
You know all those government cash and prizes you get for being married? How do you think those were established?
By law.
That's why "equal protection of the laws" is relevant to marriage LAWS.
Same argument can be made for farm subsidies. WHere are my subsidies, yo? It's discirmination, I tell ya.
Gay people arent denied anythign because they are gay. Please quote one thing that gay people cannot do.
But farmers get subsidies. It is unequal treatment under the Constitution to give farmers subsidies but not non farmers. I want my subsidies, dammit.
Bullshit.Gay people arent denied anythign because they are gay. Please quote one thing that gay people cannot do.
They cannot file a joint federal income tax statement. They cannot collect Social Security spousal survivor benefits.
So there you go. That's TWO things they cannot do.
But farmers get subsidies. It is unequal treatment under the Constitution to give farmers subsidies but not non farmers. I want my subsidies, dammit.
I can't help someone this kind of dumb. Sorry. You're on your own.
Translation: I can't a refute an argument as logical as this.[
I can't help someone this kind of dumb. Sorry. You're on your own.
Bullshit.
Gay people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the opposite sex.
Huh? That wasnt even logical. Not remotely. Gays are not Negroes. Keep saying it and maybe its meaning will be clear.Bullshit.
Gay people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the opposite sex.
TA-DAAAAAAAA!
Black people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the same race.
Same bullshit, different decade.
Your reasoning was just as flawed as that of the racists. Exactly, identically, analogously, equally flawed.Huh? That wasnt even logical. Not remotely. Gays are not Negroes. Keep saying it and maybe its meaning will be clear.Bullshit.
Gay people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the opposite sex.
TA-DAAAAAAAA!
Black people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the same race.
Same bullshit, different decade.
The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.This evening Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros with respect to “gay” [homosexual] marriages, suggested the 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of the law. What the 14th Amendment actually requires is, whatever law a state adopts with regard to a state issued marriage license, "no person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of that law. But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.
My point is wrong? What I have stated is factually correct, contrary to you absurd response.
JWK
Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end
agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.
Straight marriage isn't a right then either.It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage
What were they thinking?
I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more
That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.
everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)
true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.
if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.
if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?
That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.
I said they can be pretend married to their little heart's content...and that's ALL it is. Pretend, they think they will appear "normal".
You now what is ironic?
it is your hatred that is not considered normal anymore
Hate is a norm...two dudes buggering each other not so much
Nobody seems obsessed about it other than you
Which sex practices do you engage in if any?
LOL, then explain why the gay threads are always started by gays and liberals.
Doesn't seem to work for you anymore.....society just ignores youSad isn't it?
There was a time when Government actually paid attention to your fag hating rants
Grow up already. Do you think screaming "fag" makes anyone take you serious? It doesn't
Homosexual marriage is all but a done deal. No amount of hatred on your part is going to change that
Gays will marry, have families and live happy and productive lives
Just like any other couple
should little boys and girls be taught that they can go either way when the reach puberty? Should they be taught in school that being homosexual is just as normal as being biologically normal?
Gay marriage is an oxymoron.
I want gays to be able to make a legal and binding committment to each other, but its not, and never will be, a marriage.
Yes and yes
Two people who love each other are now allowed to marry ....regardless of sexual orientation
It is no big deal.....you will learn to live with it
and the next logical step in the process is multiple marriage. Those 4 people love each other and should be allowed to marry. To deny them marriage is against the constitution.
once gay marriage is allowed, then there is absolutely no legal argument that can be brought against all forms of multiple marriage, sibling marriage, parent/child marriage et. al.
Thats where this will lead. Are you ready for that, RW/Jake?
Straight marriage isn't a right then either.It will all be over in a few months and then people will forget that there was a time people actually opposed gay marriage
What were they thinking?
I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more
That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.
everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)
true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.
if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.
if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?
Its not even worth rehashing that tired old discredited argument. Just give it up, okay? gays arent Negroes. They just arent.The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.This evening Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros with respect to “gay” [homosexual] marriages, suggested the 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of the law. What the 14th Amendment actually requires is, whatever law a state adopts with regard to a state issued marriage license, "no person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of that law. But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.
All men were once free to marry any woman of the same race, and vice versa. Doesn't that mean the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in declaring miscegenation laws unconstitutional?
We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?
Yeah theres that tired old racist nonsense canard. You'll need to do better than rehash refuted talking points here. Some originality would be nice.Your reasoning was just as flawed as that of the racists. Exactly, identically, analogously, equally flawed.Huh? That wasnt even logical. Not remotely. Gays are not Negroes. Keep saying it and maybe its meaning will be clear.Bullshit.
Gay people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the opposite sex.
TA-DAAAAAAAA!
Black people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the same race.
Same bullshit, different decade.
Your erroneous reasoning and rhetoric is amazingly parallel to that of the racists of 50, 60 years ago.
And just like them, you have no rational basis for banning same sex marriage any more than they had for banning interracial marriage. At all.
Same bullshit, different decade.
Huh? That wasnt even logical. Not remotely. Gays are not Negroes. Keep saying it and maybe its meaning will be clear.Bullshit.
Gay people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the opposite sex.
TA-DAAAAAAAA!
Black people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the same race.
Same bullshit, different decade.
Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.This evening Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros with respect to “gay” [homosexual] marriages, suggested the 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of the law. What the 14th Amendment actually requires is, whatever law a state adopts with regard to a state issued marriage license, "no person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of that law. But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.
My point is wrong? What I have stated is factually correct, contrary to you absurd response.
JWK
Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end
agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.Straight marriage isn't a right then either.I'll never accept they are "married", with that said let them pretend, just keep it away from our children, life is hard enough without a bunch of confused misfits mucking it up even more
That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.
everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)
true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.
if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.
if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?
You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.
We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?
No they wouldnt. It would discriminate on the basis of religious belief. That is no analagous to today where no one is discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Show me the place where a person declares his sexual orientation on any form, state or federal.Huh? That wasnt even logical. Not remotely. Gays are not Negroes. Keep saying it and maybe its meaning will be clear.Bullshit.
Gay people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the opposite sex.
TA-DAAAAAAAA!
Black people can file joint federal income tax statements if they are legally married to someone of the same race.
Same bullshit, different decade.
What if the law said everyone can marry anyone of their own Religion, but cannot marry anyone who wasn't of their religion. And people of no religion could only marry someon of no religion.
Everyone would have equal rights, eh?
Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.
My point is wrong? What I have stated is factually correct, contrary to you absurd response.
JWK
Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end
agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.Straight marriage isn't a right then either.That's OK. Nobody says you have to like it, You just have to do it. Give everybody the same rights.
everybody has the same rights. gay marriage is NOT a right.
BTW. Andrea is HOT. (just trying to stir up the lesbians)
true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.
if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.
if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?
You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.
