Black Republican: Don’t Equate Black Rights And Gay Rights

[G.T.]

You're an Emotionally Driven Idiot with a Limited Vocabulary who uses his Baby Girl to Illustrate his Arrogance in a MESSAGEBOARD discussion...

Give it some Thought, Vanilla Ice.



peace...

You've emoted over and over in posts where you call others emotional.

I sincerely think that you hate yourself, deep down.

You can keep skirting that you lied, too, but Mal - you lied.

You are open to googling until you're fucking blue in the face to prove that you're not a liar, but there's one problem: you did lie. Plain.

Simple.

Liar.


















mullet

^He'd put his Baby Daughter's Life on it...

The Internet is Serious Bittness, B-Boy.



peace...

My word is my bond.


G.T. doesn't lie.


Some people die keeping their word.


And here - - - - - you're exp0sed as................................<not> one of those people. Because, you lied. Get used to being called a liar from not on, which will always be a FACTUAL statement

 

[mal]

You've emoted over and over in posts where you call others emotional.

I sincerely think that you hate yourself, deep down.

You can keep skirting that you lied, too, but Mal - you lied.

You are open to googling until you're fucking blue in the face to prove that you're not a liar, but there's one problem: you did lie. Plain.

Simple.

Liar.


















mullet

^He'd put his Baby Daughter's Life on it...

The Internet is Serious Bittness, B-Boy.



peace...

My word is my bond.


G.T. doesn't lie.


Some people die keeping their word.


And here - - - - - you're exp0sed as................................<not> one of those people. Because, you lied. Get used to being called a liar from not on, which will always be a FACTUAL statement

Not on, Bro... NOT ON!...



peace..

 

[G.T.]

not on, bro. lurn too spel

 

[Gadawg73]

He's right. By no measure have gays suffered more than blacks have. It took a civil war, three constitutional amendments, and several landmark pieces of legislation and Supreme Court rulings to undo the legal underpinnings of black inequality. Gays have created A Movement around wanting to marry and act like every gay pride parade might as well be the March on Selma.

Brilliant post. Erudite as well. I agree 100%. The sad thing about this, is the masses without reason, tend to side with any and all "poor me" side of the program, since we as a nation tend to want to help another. there is little thought behind it at first knee jerk reaction.

Really good point you have made and so true.

Robert

Women never suffered as much as blacks did so why the fuck do we allow them out of the bed without their legs spread?
Why the hell did you side with them?
Was it another "knee jerk" moment?

 

[mal]

Oh really now - I'm lying so - you better set out to prove it mullet mike from mexistan.

Holy Shit... Your Anger is Agitating your Retardation, Gangsta...

You are going to tell me that since 2000 you have NEVER called Bush "Dubya", "W" "Baby Bush", "Junior" or any other thing aside from the President Bush?...

Pure shit, GT.



peace...

I will tell you on my baby's life I never called Bush "Dubya," "W," "Baby Bush," or "Junior." Anything but Bush.

On my baby's life.

Now, who's the liar again?

ypou don't want to bet board names, now do you?

fuggin mullet always takin the "L"

^Keep in Mind, this is what GT is Melting Down over...

I was Entertained that he was so Certain that not in 12 years... NOT ONCE, has he called President Bush anything like Dubya, W, Junior or whatever...

And he INSTANTLY went to his Baby Daughter's Life...

What a Fucking Tool.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Holy Shit... Your Anger is Agitating your Retardation, Gangsta...

You are going to tell me that since 2000 you have NEVER called Bush "Dubya", "W" "Baby Bush", "Junior" or any other thing aside from the President Bush?...

Pure shit, GT.



peace...

I will tell you on my baby's life I never called Bush "Dubya," "W," "Baby Bush," or "Junior." Anything but Bush.

On my baby's life.

Now, who's the liar again?

ypou don't want to bet board names, now do you?

fuggin mullet always takin the "L"

^Keep in Mind, this is what GT is Melting Down over...

I was Entertained that he was so Certain that not in 12 years... NOT ONCE, has he called President Bush anything like Dubya, W, Junior or whatever...

And he INSTANTLY went to his Baby Daughter's Life...

What a Fucking Tool.



peace...

It's refreshing that you're so comfortable in your lie.

I'll keep going:

I'll bet pink slips that you're lying.
I'll put the title of my house up on the line.
I'll be your slave for a year, no pay only food.

I've been here since 2009 - go fish for when I called Bush those names above. G'luck, liar! Don't be so flamboyant in your next anti gay thread, btw.

 

[mal]

I will tell you on my baby's life I never called Bush "Dubya," "W," "Baby Bush," or "Junior." Anything but Bush.

On my baby's life.

Now, who's the liar again?

ypou don't want to bet board names, now do you?

fuggin mullet always takin the "L"

^Keep in Mind, this is what GT is Melting Down over...

I was Entertained that he was so Certain that not in 12 years... NOT ONCE, has he called President Bush anything like Dubya, W, Junior or whatever...

And he INSTANTLY went to his Baby Daughter's Life...

What a Fucking Tool.



peace...

It's refreshing that you're so comfortable in your lie.

I'll keep going:

I'll bet pink slips that you're lying.
I'll put the title of my house up on the line.
I'll be your slave for a year, no pay only food.

I've been here since 2009 - go fish for when I called Bush those names above. G'luck, liar! Don't be so flamboyant in your next anti gay thread, btw.

peace...

 

[Seawytch]

There's nothing in the Constitution about Marriage being a Right Specifically...

There is only Loving v...

As for my Position... Same as Barry's... True Story.

I've made my case over and over again... I'm not repeating it.

Take issue with it where I posted it.



peace...

No, there isn't only Loving. There is:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

You have not case which is why your position keeps losing in court.

My Position hasn't Lost in THE Court yet...

Currently, "Fundamental to our Very Existence and Survival" does NOT Apply to Homosexuals according to the Court...

Truth.

And in Fact, unless the Species Evolves and Homosexuals begin ProCreating for the first time in Human History... It won't.



peace...

LOL..you think the procreation angle wasn't tried? The morons fighting for Prop 8 drug out George Rekers for goodness sake. They've tried the kitchen sink and still lost.

We do procreate...had five of the little wrigglers myself. My two kids are the result of a 100% gay union. The other three were 2/3rds gay union, 1/3 straight eggs.

 

[Cowman]

^Keep in Mind, this is what GT is Melting Down over...

I was Entertained that he was so Certain that not in 12 years... NOT ONCE, has he called President Bush anything like Dubya, W, Junior or whatever...

And he INSTANTLY went to his Baby Daughter's Life...

What a Fucking Tool.



peace...

It's refreshing that you're so comfortable in your lie.

I'll keep going:

I'll bet pink slips that you're lying.
I'll put the title of my house up on the line.
I'll be your slave for a year, no pay only food.

I've been here since 2009 - go fish for when I called Bush those names above. G'luck, liar! Don't be so flamboyant in your next anti gay thread, btw.

peace...

He has you there...

 

[mal]

No, there isn't only Loving. There is:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

You have not case which is why your position keeps losing in court.

My Position hasn't Lost in THE Court yet...

Currently, "Fundamental to our Very Existence and Survival" does NOT Apply to Homosexuals according to the Court...

Truth.

And in Fact, unless the Species Evolves and Homosexuals begin ProCreating for the first time in Human History... It won't.



peace...

LOL..you think the procreation angle wasn't tried? The morons fighting for Prop 8 drug out George Rekers for goodness sake. They've tried the kitchen sink and still lost.

We do procreate...had five of the little wrigglers myself. My two kids are the result of a 100% gay union. The other three were 2/3rds gay union, 1/3 straight eggs.

You have NEVER ProCreated with the same Sex... It has NEVER happened in Human History.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

procreation is not a prerequisit for marriage. Illogical.

 

[Seawytch]

My Position hasn't Lost in THE Court yet...

Currently, "Fundamental to our Very Existence and Survival" does NOT Apply to Homosexuals according to the Court...

Truth.

And in Fact, unless the Species Evolves and Homosexuals begin ProCreating for the first time in Human History... It won't.



peace...

LOL..you think the procreation angle wasn't tried? The morons fighting for Prop 8 drug out George Rekers for goodness sake. They've tried the kitchen sink and still lost.

We do procreate...had five of the little wrigglers myself. My two kids are the result of a 100% gay union. The other three were 2/3rds gay union, 1/3 straight eggs.

You have NEVER ProCreated with the same Sex... It has NEVER happened in Human History.



peace...

So? Where is that a requirement? Many straight couples, no matter how much they have sex, simply can't procreate. My husband and his wife are one of those couples. They can keep trying and trying, just like my partner and I do, but never a pregnancy will occur. When they got married, there wasn't the possibility of procreation and still they were allowed to get married.

The procreation angle was tried and it failed...

Prop. 8: Lawyer argues that marriage exists in society's interest so that men and women can procreate

See...they tried it and still LOST.

 

[mal]

LOL..you think the procreation angle wasn't tried? The morons fighting for Prop 8 drug out George Rekers for goodness sake. They've tried the kitchen sink and still lost.

We do procreate...had five of the little wrigglers myself. My two kids are the result of a 100% gay union. The other three were 2/3rds gay union, 1/3 straight eggs.

You have NEVER ProCreated with the same Sex... It has NEVER happened in Human History.



peace...

So? Where is that a requirement? Many straight couples, no matter how much they have sex, simply can't procreate. My husband and his wife are one of those couples. They can keep trying and trying, just like my partner and I do, but never a pregnancy will occur. When they got married, there wasn't the possibility of procreation and still they were allowed to get married.

The procreation angle was tried and it failed...

Prop. 8: Lawyer argues that marriage exists in society's interest so that men and women can procreate

See...they tried it and still LOST.

The Possibilty ONLY Exists with Man and Woman Naturally...

MANY People have been told they can't, and then do...

It's not a Requirement of Marriage, it's the Possibility of Reflecting what Marriage is and the Responsiblity and Burden on Society that comes with it.

Heterosexual Couping is Naturally Different and Inherently UnEqual to Homosexual Coupling...

Doesn't make Homosexuals Worse people, it's a simple Observation of what IS.

And Civil Unions Solve ALL of the Issues...

Save one.

Validation.

And that is REALLY what this is about and it's why Chimps like GT get so Fucking Emotional about the Issue...



peace...

 

[G.T.]

You have NEVER ProCreated with the same Sex... It has NEVER happened in Human History.



peace...

So? Where is that a requirement? Many straight couples, no matter how much they have sex, simply can't procreate. My husband and his wife are one of those couples. They can keep trying and trying, just like my partner and I do, but never a pregnancy will occur. When they got married, there wasn't the possibility of procreation and still they were allowed to get married.

The procreation angle was tried and it failed...

Prop. 8: Lawyer argues that marriage exists in society's interest so that men and women can procreate

See...they tried it and still LOST.

The Possibilty ONLY Exists with Man and Woman Naturally...

MANY People have been told they can't, and then do...

It's not a Requirement of Marriage, it's the Possibility of Reflecting what Marriage is and the Responsiblity and Burden on Society that comes with it.

Heterosexual Couping is Naturally Different and Inherently UnEqual to Homosexual Coupling...

Doesn't make Homosexuals Worse people, it's a simple Observation of what IS.

And Civil Unions Solve ALL of the Issues...

Save one.

Validation.

And that is REALLY what this is about and it's why Chimps like GT get so Fucking Emotional about the Issue...



peace...

Actually, the issue is your self hatred.

But beyond that - thisw statement is made up out of whole cloth and not grounded in reality: "it's the Possibility of Reflecting what Marriage is and the Responsiblity and Burden on Society that comes with it."

Now, why is it illogical?

Because it assumes that the reflection of who can "procreate" needs to be legally reflected for the good of society, i.e. so that society "procreates," but the statement made up out of whole cloth is illogical because: procreation will happen whether or not it's reflected in some law. Fact. Therefore, de facto, it has no leg to stand on as a law.

And once you address the illogic of your asinine comments, you'll see beyond the mullet.

 

[Seawytch]

I meant brother and his wife...husband? Freudian?

 

[mal]

I meant brother and his wife...husband? Freudian?

Freud was a Queen...



peace...

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

[DISCLAIMER: In any discussion of “rights” it is always understood that rights can be restricted when there is a compelling government interest in doing so because of the harm that the exercising of those rights may/shall cause another. For example each citizen has the right to freedom to exercise religion, but does not have the right to harm another through human sacrifice. On the other hand there is no government compelling reason which would allow government to dictate religious ceremonies (which harm no one) because of the protections embodied in the 1st Amendment.]

With that said…

"fundamental to our very existence and survival"​

Let’s take a look at the use of this phase from the Loving decision. Some would have us believe that this phrase centers on the ability of a couple to procreate together as a necessity to being able to enter into Civil Marriage.

But is that what it’s really saying, to determine that lets take a closer look at the application of the phrase but instead of snipping it out of the decision, lets place it into context as to how it was actually used.

II​

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.​

Homosexuals have been around since time immemorial, yet the human race has never depended on them as a core element of breeding stock. With over 7-BILLION humans on this Earth, the idea that we heterosexuals will stop breeding because homosexuals are extended equal treatment under the law is not a logical position to take.

So as we examine the phrase "fundamental to our very existence and survival" it becomes oblivious that “what” is fundamental to our existence and survival applies to us as a free society and not to the question of procreation.

The principles and rights that the SCOTUS did enumerate in the decision as being basic civil rights that are fundamental to our existence apply to what values do we hold dear and guarantee to each and every citizen. So what concepts was the SCOTUS referring to when they used the phrase? These are the things they were talking about as they apply to society and not the idea that procreation was a condition of Civil Marriage:

Liberty
Due Process of Law
Freedom
Personal Rights
Pursuit of Happiness
Fundamental Freedom
Subversive of the principle of equality
Deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law
Freedom to marry​

“Liberty” of course being one of the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence. “Due Process”, “Equality” and “Equal Protection” being rights listed in and embodied in the 14th Amendment. “Pursuit of happiness” (not to be confused with attainment of happiness) again, one of the unalienable rights listed in the DOI. Along with the fundamental concept that rights are held by the citizens even if not enumerated in the Constitution (9th Amendment) with it then being understood that all citizens inherently have rights and that it is the governments responsibility to provide why rights should be denied as a basis for establishing that compelling interest previously mentioned.

When read in context those items that the court was referring to as being fundamental to the very existence and survival were not a couple having a functioning male sex organ and a functioning female sex organ. What the court was talking about as fundamental to our survival was holding close the concepts a liberty, equality, justice, and freedom. That if we allow the government too capriciously and invidiously establish laws barring equal treatment under the law for a select group (without a compelling government reason), then we as a society will have lost some of those core values and the courage to defend those values even against an unpopular (by some) sub-section of society.

The court found that denying such a fundamental right based on a biological condition such as race could not be supported based on a compelling government interest. The question that the SCOTUS will some day have to address is whether denying such a fundamental right can be denied based on gender, another biological condition.


When I taught my children the Pledge of Allegiance so they would know it before their first day of Kindergarten, I taught them that the ending was “With liberty and justice for all”, not that it was “With liberty and justice for some.”


>>>>

 

[mal]

"fundamental to our very existence and survival"​

In a Ruling about Blacks and Whites ProCreating, because that was what the Case was Ultimately about aside from Marriage being Denied, the above ONLY Applies to Opposite Sex Coupling...

As a matter of Fact, it only Applies to Opposite Sex Coupling PERIOD.

Homosexual Marriage or Coupline was NOT Discussed by the Court then, and has yet to be to this day.

You can't Apply that Ruling to your Agenda.

Good Luck when your Day comes.



peace...

 

[mal]

And again... Obama and I have the same Opinion on Marriage.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

"fundamental to our very existence and survival"​

In a Ruling about Blacks and Whites ProCreating, because that was what the Case was Ultimately about aside from Marriage being Denied, the above ONLY Applies to Opposite Sex Coupling...

As a matter of Fact, it only Applies to Opposite Sex Coupling PERIOD.

Homosexual Marriage or Coupline was NOT Discussed by the Court then, and has yet to be to this day.

You can't Apply that Ruling to your Agenda.

Good Luck when your Day comes.



peace...

you didnt address any of the underlined phrases in the court decision that you're so quick to pull out. why? the rest of it doesn't fit your agenda.