Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[bodecea]

Are you one of those that thinks you can't have civil rights unless you were beaten and tortured?

So if I think that government not validating gay marriage is the same as being beaten and tortured, I think that you can't have "civil rights" unless you are beaten and tortured. What's tortured is what you are doing to the English language and basic logic.

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

 

[kaz]

Are you one of those that thinks you can't have civil rights unless you were beaten and tortured?

So if I think that government not validating gay marriage is the same as being beaten and tortured, I think that you can't have "civil rights" unless you are beaten and tortured. What's tortured is what you are doing to the English language and basic logic.

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

Government marriage is a privilege, not a "right," so it can't be a "civil right." You have the "right" to keep government out of your business, you do not have the "right" to demand anything from government or anyone else.

As for gay marriage, I oppose all government marriage.

 

[bodecea]

So if I think that government not validating gay marriage is the same as being beaten and tortured, I think that you can't have "civil rights" unless you are beaten and tortured. What's tortured is what you are doing to the English language and basic logic.

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

Government marriage is a privilege, not a "right," so it can't be a "civil right." You have the "right" to keep government out of your business, you do not have the "right" to demand anything from government or anyone else.

As for gay marriage, I oppose all government marriage.

Simply not true. The Supreme Court decided that in several court cases. It's now precedence.


From one such case....I've bolded the pertinent part to put the lie to your comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race—and providing identical penalties to white and black violators—could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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. ”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”
Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

 

[kaz]

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

Government marriage is a privilege, not a "right," so it can't be a "civil right." You have the "right" to keep government out of your business, you do not have the "right" to demand anything from government or anyone else.

As for gay marriage, I oppose all government marriage.

Simply not true. The Supreme Court decided that in several court cases. It's now precedence.


From one such case....I've bolded the pertinent part to put the lie to your comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race—and providing identical penalties to white and black violators—could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:

“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... 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 discrimination. 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. ”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”
Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

The Supreme Court is full of shit. No one has the "right" to demand anything of others. We have the "right" to be left alone as long as we're not infringing on other people's "right" to be left alone.

 

[Seawytch]

So if I think that government not validating gay marriage is the same as being beaten and tortured, I think that you can't have "civil rights" unless you are beaten and tortured. What's tortured is what you are doing to the English language and basic logic.

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

Government marriage is a privilege, not a "right," so it can't be a "civil right." You have the "right" to keep government out of your business, you do not have the "right" to demand anything from government or anyone else.



As for gay marriage, I oppose all government marriage.

That's your opinion. The opinion of the SCOTUS, fortunately for interracial couples, divorced people and men in prison, differs from yours. Theirs is the one that counts.

(He forgot to mention the one government marriage he doesn't oppose very hard...his own)

 

[kaz]

That's your opinion. The opinion of the SCOTUS, fortunately for interracial couples, divorced people and men in prison, differs from yours. Theirs is the one that counts. (He forgot to mention the one government marriage he doesn't oppose very hard...his own)

There are also a lot of straights who like you think their own views should be more important to them than their partners feelings. I don't take it as a straight/gay thing, I take it as it's a you thing. At least you admit that you're completely self centered.

Also, you're referring to the SCOTUS who ruled that Dred Scott was property and should be returned to his owner?

 

[GreenBean]

Are you one of those that thinks you can't have civil rights unless you were beaten and tortured?

So if I think that government not validating gay marriage is the same as being beaten and tortured, I think that you can't have "civil rights" unless you are beaten and tortured. What's tortured is what you are doing to the English language and basic logic.

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

I beleive you are twisting the facts to suit your agenda, more correctly put -the Government didn't recognize Black People as People -PERIOD - they were property in the slave states and sub humans in the free states. In the case of Homosexuals , you are, allways have been and allways will be free to Marry whomever you choose - so long as it's a member of the opposite sex.

But in the words of some real smart Chinese guy from way back when "This too will Pass".
How's that for torturing the English Language ?

 

[Seawytch]

That's your opinion. The opinion of the SCOTUS, fortunately for interracial couples, divorced people and men in prison, differs from yours. Theirs is the one that counts. (He forgot to mention the one government marriage he doesn't oppose very hard...his own)

There are also a lot of straights who like you think their own views should be more important to them than their partners feelings. I don't take it as a straight/gay thing, I take it as it's a you thing. At least you admit that you're completely self centered.

Also, you're referring to the SCOTUS who ruled that Dred Scott was property and should be returned to his owner?

Yeah, us gays too. That's why we are marrying...because our partners want us to.

So every decision by the SCOTUS is invalid because of a ruling made in the 1800s?!?

 

[ABikerSailor]

So if I think that government not validating gay marriage is the same as being beaten and tortured, I think that you can't have "civil rights" unless you are beaten and tortured. What's tortured is what you are doing to the English language and basic logic.

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

I beleive you are twisting the facts to suit your agenda, more correctly put -the Government didn't recognize Black People as People -PERIOD - they were property in the slave states and sub humans in the free states. In the case of Homosexuals , you are, allways have been and allways will be free to Marry whomever you choose - so long as it's a member of the opposite sex.

But in the words of some real smart Chinese guy from way back when "This too will Pass".
How's that for torturing the English Language ?

Free to marry whom you choose, as long as it's a member of the opposite sex?

So........................they're "free" as long as they choose from a pre approved pool that you deem appropriate.

Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

 

[kaz]

That's your opinion. The opinion of the SCOTUS, fortunately for interracial couples, divorced people and men in prison, differs from yours. Theirs is the one that counts. (He forgot to mention the one government marriage he doesn't oppose very hard...his own)

There are also a lot of straights who like you think their own views should be more important to them than their partners feelings. I don't take it as a straight/gay thing, I take it as it's a you thing. At least you admit that you're completely self centered.

Also, you're referring to the SCOTUS who ruled that Dred Scott was property and should be returned to his owner?

Yeah, us gays too. That's why we are marrying...because our partners want us to.

This is why I banter with you, you really have no ability to follow any logical flow in a discussion at all, you're a hoot. Your point was about me, it wasn't about straights in general, your statement about "gays" is completely irrelevant to that.

So every decision by the SCOTUS is invalid because of a ruling made in the 1800s?!?

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct. At what point exactly do you feel that their opinion became such a great standard that merely stating one doesn't agree with the SCOTUS make them wrong? Was is 1920? 1950? I just want to be clear here when they stopped being unreliable and became The Standard. Were they The Standard in 2000? Remember how they installed W as President? At what point can we stop questioning their views and just take it as fact?

 

[Paperman299]

It isn't a "thought" you Dishonest Twat... Two Men nor Two Woman can make a Baby... Ever.

YOU and EVERY other Human on Earth is in one way or another the Product of a Man and a Woman... Race doesn't matter, a Black Man and a White Woman have always and will always be able to Reflect our Natural Existence.

It is no other way Naturally.

Man/Woman is NOT Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman... Ever.

All Men are Designed and Equipped by Nature to continue the Process that made their "very Existence"... and Women are the same.

That you Choose to Defy this Natural Design is your Right, but Burdening Society with your Choice is something that I will always speak Against.

And Demanding that Society give your Chosen Defiance Special Rights in Law to the Exclusion of others is simply Disgusting... If you had any Shame.



peace...

 

[kaz]

There was a time when the government did not recognize marriages between black people. Was that TOO not a civil rights matter?

I beleive you are twisting the facts to suit your agenda, more correctly put -the Government didn't recognize Black People as People -PERIOD - they were property in the slave states and sub humans in the free states. In the case of Homosexuals , you are, allways have been and allways will be free to Marry whomever you choose - so long as it's a member of the opposite sex.

But in the words of some real smart Chinese guy from way back when "This too will Pass".
How's that for torturing the English Language ?

Free to marry whom you choose, as long as it's a member of the opposite sex?

So........................they're "free" as long as they choose from a pre approved pool that you deem appropriate.

Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

That's because you fundamentally don't understand "freedom." Freedom is the right to be free from government tyranny, it's not the right to demand that government give you what you demand. We are talking about "government" marriage here. Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me. As is that you believe someone isn't free because they can't go bang on government's door and demand shit.

 

[Paperman299]

Government marriage is a privilege, not a "right," so it can't be a "civil right." You have the "right" to keep government out of your business, you do not have the "right" to demand anything from government or anyone else.

As for gay marriage, I oppose all government marriage.

The Supreme Court is full of shit. No one has the "right" to demand anything of others. We have the "right" to be left alone as long as we're not infringing on other people's "right" to be left alone.

I like how you've moved seamlessly here form talking about legal rights to natural rights.

 

[kaz]

Government marriage is a privilege, not a "right," so it can't be a "civil right." You have the "right" to keep government out of your business, you do not have the "right" to demand anything from government or anyone else.

As for gay marriage, I oppose all government marriage.

The Supreme Court is full of shit. No one has the "right" to demand anything of others. We have the "right" to be left alone as long as we're not infringing on other people's "right" to be left alone.

I like how you've moved seamlessly here form talking about legal rights to natural rights.

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

 

[Paperman299]

I like how you've moved seamlessly here form talking about legal rights to natural rights.

No one has a reasonable right by either definition to demand anything of others, including government. Ultimately everything government gives to one person, it took from another.

It's a fair point. But what is government "demanding" from people in this case? I would say this is a case where the people are more than entitled to demand something from the government, that being equal treatment under the law.

 

[Seawytch]

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct.

In this, they are. It's not like they only declared marriage a fundamental right once in the1800s. They did it in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They're about to do it again.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just like queers in the military did not harm "unit cohesion" and the other BS folk claimed gay marriage will have no affect on anyone else's marriage.
As to date no proof exists it will or would.
Certainly not here.

 

[Seawytch]

so here's some copy and paste for your reading pleasure - remember they'll be a quiz later . [DRIVEL REMOVED]

It's shocking that the defenders of anti-gay marriage laws don't call Sill and Beanie to testify isn't it?

 

[bodecea]

There are also a lot of straights who like you think their own views should be more important to them than their partners feelings. I don't take it as a straight/gay thing, I take it as it's a you thing. At least you admit that you're completely self centered.

Also, you're referring to the SCOTUS who ruled that Dred Scott was property and should be returned to his owner?

Yeah, us gays too. That's why we are marrying...because our partners want us to.

This is why I banter with you, you really have no ability to follow any logical flow in a discussion at all, you're a hoot. Your point was about me, it wasn't about straights in general, your statement about "gays" is completely irrelevant to that.

So every decision by the SCOTUS is invalid because of a ruling made in the 1800s?!?

You endlessly make references to what the SCOTUS thinks as if they are some sort of great authority proving you correct. At what point exactly do you feel that their opinion became such a great standard that merely stating one doesn't agree with the SCOTUS make them wrong? Was is 1920? 1950? I just want to be clear here when they stopped being unreliable and became The Standard. Were they The Standard in 2000? Remember how they installed W as President? At what point can we stop questioning their views and just take it as fact?

Um...when it comes to interpretation of our Constitutional RIGHTS, they are....if a case comes before them.

Welcome to the United States.

 

[bodecea]

I beleive you are twisting the facts to suit your agenda, more correctly put -the Government didn't recognize Black People as People -PERIOD - they were property in the slave states and sub humans in the free states. In the case of Homosexuals , you are, allways have been and allways will be free to Marry whomever you choose - so long as it's a member of the opposite sex.

But in the words of some real smart Chinese guy from way back when "This too will Pass".
How's that for torturing the English Language ?

Free to marry whom you choose, as long as it's a member of the opposite sex?

So........................they're "free" as long as they choose from a pre approved pool that you deem appropriate.

Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

That's because you fundamentally don't understand "freedom." Freedom is the right to be free from government tyranny, it's not the right to demand that government give you what you demand. We are talking about "government" marriage here. Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me. As is that you believe someone isn't free because they can't go bang on government's door and demand shit.

Then, don't have a legal marriage. Why would anyone feel the NEED to keep others from getting a legal marriage if they wish to do so?