Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[PaintMyHouse]

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Yeah.. but here's the problem with THAT.

95% of those 36 States, used subjective jurists to overturn THE LAW... .

So... you'll forgive us if we dismiss your 'loyalty' to 'The LAW!', and recognize it for what it is, which IS: Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Civil rights aren't up for a vote dummy, and never should have been.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Fuck it. Why not just put all the gays to death? Problem solved!

Good Christ but some of you people and the way you would treat your fellow man disgusts me.

When the fags quit demanding acceptance for being fags, I won't say anything about what they are. I don't care what one does as long as you a) don't expect me to pay for it when you can't, and/or b) demanding I be accepting of it when I think it's wrong.

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

Really? I'm not forced to accept anything?

So let's say at my job Joe decides he's really Jolene and even has an operation where his genitals are mutilated. He comes back to work and everyone starts calling him Jolene, referring to him as a woman, and using female pronouns to describe him. Let's say I decided not to go along with the charade and continued calling him by his real name, referring to him as a "he" and insisted he's a man. Let's say I'm not even pushy about it, but when it comes up in conversation, everyone notices that I won't acknowledge that he became a she.

And this isn't just hypothetical, it's becoming more than a rare occurrence in work places.

You see, I have rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, rights to practice what I believe religiously, that a man cannot turn into a woman. But in this crazy, Leftist world we live in, my constitutional rights will be trumped by somebody else's contrived "right" not to be offended by my beliefs. It would be me being hauled into HR for a lecture, it would be me with my job being threatened because I refuse to go along with somebody else's illusion.

So tell me again how people like me won't be forced to accept the homo-transgender culture?

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

He actually does have that right. And where "The Rules" are designed to strip him of that right, the Rules are illegitimate.

Ya see, his right comes from God... and 'The Rules' from those who possess the same rights as HE DOES... so those 'rule makers' do not possess A RIGHT to strip him of his rights.

See the Problem?

You're defending the formula for war... HE is trying to help you avoid war, be explaining to you why your rules are forcing him to prepare fo war, the loser of which, must be YOU!

Now why must you be the loser of that war?

You're evil... and evil never wins.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Fuck it. Why not just put all the gays to death? Problem solved!

Good Christ but some of you people and the way you would treat your fellow man disgusts me.

When the fags quit demanding acceptance for being fags, I won't say anything about what they are. I don't care what one does as long as you a) don't expect me to pay for it when you can't, and/or b) demanding I be accepting of it when I think it's wrong.

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

Really? I'm not forced to accept anything?

So let's say at my job Joe decides he's really Jolene and even has an operation where his genitals are mutilated. He comes back to work and everyone starts calling him Jolene, referring to him as a woman, and using female pronouns to describe him. Let's say I decided not to go along with the charade and continued calling him by his real name, referring to him as a "he" and insisted he's a man. Let's say I'm not even pushy about it, but when it comes up in conversation, everyone notices that I won't acknowledge that he became a she.

And this isn't just hypothetical, it's becoming more than a rare occurrence in work places.

You see, I have rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, rights to practice what I believe religiously, that a man cannot turn into a woman. But in this crazy, Leftist world we live in, my constitutional rights will be trumped by somebody else's contrived "right" not to be offended by my beliefs. It would be me being hauled into HR for a lecture, it would be me with my job being threatened because I refuse to go along with somebody else's illusion.

So tell me again how people like me won't be forced to accept the homo-transgender culture?

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

He actually does have that right. And where "The Rules" are designed to strip him of that right, the Rules are illegitimate.

Ya see, his right comes from God... and 'The Rules' from those who possess the same rights as HE DOES... so those 'rule makers' do not possess A RIGHT to strip him of his rights.

See the Problem?

You're defending the formula for war... HE is trying to help you avoid war, be explaining to you why your rules are forcing him to prepare fo war, the loser of which, must be YOU!

Now why must you be the loser of that war?

You're evil... and evil never wins.

God doesn't make workplace rules dummy. Complain to God.

And the actual evil one is you. Now what?

 

[Seawytch]

Fuck it. Why not just put all the gays to death? Problem solved!

Good Christ but some of you people and the way you would treat your fellow man disgusts me.

When the fags quit demanding acceptance for being fags, I won't say anything about what they are. I don't care what one does as long as you a) don't expect me to pay for it when you can't, and/or b) demanding I be accepting of it when I think it's wrong.

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

Really? I'm not forced to accept anything?

So let's say at my job Joe decides he's really Jolene and even has an operation where his genitals are mutilated. He comes back to work and everyone starts calling him Jolene, referring to him as a woman, and using female pronouns to describe him. Let's say I decided not to go along with the charade and continued calling him by his real name, referring to him as a "he" and insisted he's a man. Let's say I'm not even pushy about it, but when it comes up in conversation, everyone notices that I won't acknowledge that he became a she.

And this isn't just hypothetical, it's becoming more than a rare occurrence in work places.

You see, I have rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, rights to practice what I believe religiously, that a man cannot turn into a woman. But in this crazy, Leftist world we live in, my constitutional rights will be trumped by somebody else's contrived "right" not to be offended by my beliefs. It would be me being hauled into HR for a lecture, it would be me with my job being threatened because I refuse to go along with somebody else's illusion.

So tell me again how people like me won't be forced to accept the homo-transgender culture?

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When the fags quit demanding acceptance for being fags, I won't say anything about what they are. I don't care what one does as long as you a) don't expect me to pay for it when you can't, and/or b) demanding I be accepting of it when I think it's wrong.

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

I didn't say forced. I say they demand acceptance to the point that they expect those of us who don't agree with them to either change our opinion or shut up in expressing it. I know of no fag that could force me to do anything.

Quite the contrary in fact, we want you and your ilk to shout your anti-gay rhetoric from the roof tops. The more you folks scream, insult, and engage in dramatic hyperbole the more support you lose concerning this issue.

Yes... no doubt that you will simply advance unsound reasoning and the culture will progress along without any consequence for the poor decisions. Happens all the time.

Which is why the drug abusers and alcoholics are so happy, carefree and prosperous, why divorce provides well balanced families and happy children... why unemployment is encouraged as it provide for ample time to express the spirit... and why no war has ever come as a result of one party having long abused another driving from the equation one option after another until the only option remaining is the destruction of the offending party.

Clearly you've given this a lot of thought.

I hope you made it to the fainting couch after you posted this overly dramatic claptrap. All your hand wringing, fear mongering, and teeth gnashing is failing miserably not only in the court of law but in the court of public opinion as well.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Londoner]

Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

Neither do the homos you dumbass, but they would like their civil rights respected, those assholes eh?

The far right is told that homosexuality is either an immoral choice or disease. They can't see homosexuality a a simple genetic variations because this does not square with scripture. Rather than favoring a minimal and amoral government that dispenses contracts to consenting adults, the far right wants a big government that saves souls and enforces morality. They want to place a government bureaucrat at the foot of every bed. They care about the content of the moral lives of consenting adults, whereas those of us who favor a minimalist state want government to remain totally neutral with regard to the lifestyle choices of consenting adults. I don't want bureaucrats teaching my children morality or enforcing a normative conception of human behavior; rather, I want individual families to control this. (Conservatives always opt to give government this power)

History is filled with groups that were oppressed until society evolved. Look at how they treated women in the 1800s. The prevailing belief - supported by the medical and scientific communities - was that woman were too irrational to meet the rigorous demands of civic function - which is why they were excluded from holding leadership roles in politics. It's also why they were seen as property of men, who were the rightful leaders.

Same thing with blacks who the scientific community ranked closer to animals on the taxonomy of living things. They measured the thickness of their skulls and created an entire science that now looks closer to Nazi eugenics. They created a system of "facts" that was used as a justification to torture, murder and enslave them.

History is replete with examples of people who were excluded based on the doctrinal system. Tragically, the doctrinal system - which stands for what society takes to be normal at any given time - always changes. This means that the same relatively uneducated people (like PGreen) are always stuck inside the current dogma, which tells them who to exclude, hate, torture, save, etc. And then once the system changes, the next generation of PGreens will be given a different list of horribles to exclude, hate, torture, and save.

See Hannah Arendt and the "Banality of Evil". Evil is often practiced by average people who are literally stuck inside a normative web of beliefs that are fully rationalized.

They know not what they do.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry - They're harmless swine and canine . I grudgingly admit that homosexuals are are degenerate members of the Human Race that should be held to higher standards than the pig that wallows in shit - It does me or anyone else little harm for Pigs to have mock marriages - and it also does no harm to allow perverts to have faux marriages as well - just get out of sane peoples faces if that's how you insist on living your twisted little lives.

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When the fags quit demanding acceptance for being fags, I won't say anything about what they are. I don't care what one does as long as you a) don't expect me to pay for it when you can't, and/or b) demanding I be accepting of it when I think it's wrong.

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

Really? I'm not forced to accept anything?

So let's say at my job Joe decides he's really Jolene and even has an operation where his genitals are mutilated. He comes back to work and everyone starts calling him Jolene, referring to him as a woman, and using female pronouns to describe him. Let's say I decided not to go along with the charade and continued calling him by his real name, referring to him as a "he" and insisted he's a man. Let's say I'm not even pushy about it, but when it comes up in conversation, everyone notices that I won't acknowledge that he became a she.

And this isn't just hypothetical, it's becoming more than a rare occurrence in work places.

You see, I have rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, rights to practice what I believe religiously, that a man cannot turn into a woman. But in this crazy, Leftist world we live in, my constitutional rights will be trumped by somebody else's contrived "right" not to be offended by my beliefs. It would be me being hauled into HR for a lecture, it would be me with my job being threatened because I refuse to go along with somebody else's illusion.

So tell me again how people like me won't be forced to accept the homo-transgender culture?

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm so glad you little faggot-haters have this forum, and others like it, because the rest of society has grown up and turned their backs on you. Guess who is headed for the closet now my little homophobes? It ain't the fags...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

Wrong again. Those laws violated the constitution because it was applied unequally, by means of race, which is illegal. Today's marriage laws don't do that. You're distracting by trying to make this an interracial marriage issue when it's not. You cannot demonstrate that today's marriage laws are being applied in a way that doesn't render to everyone equal protection under the law.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

I didn't say forced. I say they demand acceptance to the point that they expect those of us who don't agree with them to either change our opinion or shut up in expressing it. I know of no fag that could force me to do anything.

Quite the contrary in fact, we want you and your ilk to shout your anti-gay rhetoric from the roof tops. The more you folks scream, insult, and engage in dramatic hyperbole the more support you lose concerning this issue.

Yes... no doubt that you will simply advance unsound reasoning and the culture will progress along without any consequence for the poor decisions. Happens all the time.

Which is why the drug abusers and alcoholics are so happy, carefree and prosperous, why divorce provides well balanced families and happy children... why unemployment is encouraged as it provide for ample time to express the spirit... and why no war has ever come as a result of one party having long abused another driving from the equation one option after another until the only option remaining is the destruction of the offending party.

Clearly you've given this a lot of thought.

I hope you made it to the fainting couch after you posted this overly dramatic claptrap. All your hand wringing, fear mongering, and teeth gnashing is failing miserably not only in the court of law but in the court of public opinion as well.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

PLEASE spare us, Keys.........

 

[Seawytch]

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

Really? I'm not forced to accept anything?

So let's say at my job Joe decides he's really Jolene and even has an operation where his genitals are mutilated. He comes back to work and everyone starts calling him Jolene, referring to him as a woman, and using female pronouns to describe him. Let's say I decided not to go along with the charade and continued calling him by his real name, referring to him as a "he" and insisted he's a man. Let's say I'm not even pushy about it, but when it comes up in conversation, everyone notices that I won't acknowledge that he became a she.

And this isn't just hypothetical, it's becoming more than a rare occurrence in work places.

You see, I have rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, rights to practice what I believe religiously, that a man cannot turn into a woman. But in this crazy, Leftist world we live in, my constitutional rights will be trumped by somebody else's contrived "right" not to be offended by my beliefs. It would be me being hauled into HR for a lecture, it would be me with my job being threatened because I refuse to go along with somebody else's illusion.

So tell me again how people like me won't be forced to accept the homo-transgender culture?

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, that's called reality so suck it up and be a man for once. And answer the question, how do we tell the real gender of a human being?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When the fags quit demanding acceptance for being fags, I won't say anything about what they are. I don't care what one does as long as you a) don't expect me to pay for it when you can't, and/or b) demanding I be accepting of it when I think it's wrong.

It doesn't seem you are being forced to accept anything.

Really? I'm not forced to accept anything?

So let's say at my job Joe decides he's really Jolene and even has an operation where his genitals are mutilated. He comes back to work and everyone starts calling him Jolene, referring to him as a woman, and using female pronouns to describe him. Let's say I decided not to go along with the charade and continued calling him by his real name, referring to him as a "he" and insisted he's a man. Let's say I'm not even pushy about it, but when it comes up in conversation, everyone notices that I won't acknowledge that he became a she.

And this isn't just hypothetical, it's becoming more than a rare occurrence in work places.

You see, I have rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, rights to practice what I believe religiously, that a man cannot turn into a woman. But in this crazy, Leftist world we live in, my constitutional rights will be trumped by somebody else's contrived "right" not to be offended by my beliefs. It would be me being hauled into HR for a lecture, it would be me with my job being threatened because I refuse to go along with somebody else's illusion.

So tell me again how people like me won't be forced to accept the homo-transgender culture?

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate.

Tolerance is acceptance... yet, you just said he doesn't have to accept it.

Circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works.

We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially.

Yet, by tolerating the employment, we agree that the issue is tolerable... do we not?

And in tolerating it, we lend 'it' a our tacit acceptance.

Now, we should return to historical examples of where this reasoning failed SPECTACULARLY!

Nuremberg... "I did not agree with the final solution, but I was just doin' my job'.

"GUILTY!"

STREeetch... KICK KICK... POP! And life went on, minus that preceding proponent and simultaneous victim of YOUR REASONING.

If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Yes... because working with someone who talks too much or whose hygiene is sub-par or who fails to ask for permission to use your stapler, is the same as the establishing of public policy which you recognize as destructive to you, your family and your future.

BRILLIANT example of a disordered mind... a perversion of human reasoning, not at all unlike that which causes one to justify sexual gratification with those of their own gender, which is identical to the sociopathy which requires others to celebrate behavior which they recognize as abhorrent.

 

[Seawytch]

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

Wrong again. Those laws violated the constitution because it was applied unequally, by means of race, which is illegal. Today's marriage laws don't do that. You're distracting by trying to make this an interracial marriage issue when it's not. You cannot demonstrate that today's marriage laws are being applied in a way that doesn't render to everyone equal protection under the law.

Actually, you're the one who is wrong. The argument that lasted 85 years was that the law was applied equally. It punished both blacks and whites equally, just as YOU are arguing.

You wish to discriminate based on gender. The racist bigots wanted to discriminate based on race. Please help me understand the difference in your world?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

Wrong again. Those laws violated the constitution because it was applied unequally, by means of race, which is illegal. Today's marriage laws don't do that. You're distracting by trying to make this an interracial marriage issue when it's not. You cannot demonstrate that today's marriage laws are being applied in a way that doesn't render to everyone equal protection under the law.

The courts disagree, so are they just wrong? How terrible for you eh.

At what point are you going to concede that you are fucked and society is no longer going your way, never?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Really? I'm not forced to accept anything?

So let's say at my job Joe decides he's really Jolene and even has an operation where his genitals are mutilated. He comes back to work and everyone starts calling him Jolene, referring to him as a woman, and using female pronouns to describe him. Let's say I decided not to go along with the charade and continued calling him by his real name, referring to him as a "he" and insisted he's a man. Let's say I'm not even pushy about it, but when it comes up in conversation, everyone notices that I won't acknowledge that he became a she.

And this isn't just hypothetical, it's becoming more than a rare occurrence in work places.

You see, I have rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution, rights to practice what I believe religiously, that a man cannot turn into a woman. But in this crazy, Leftist world we live in, my constitutional rights will be trumped by somebody else's contrived "right" not to be offended by my beliefs. It would be me being hauled into HR for a lecture, it would be me with my job being threatened because I refuse to go along with somebody else's illusion.

So tell me again how people like me won't be forced to accept the homo-transgender culture?

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

 

[GreenBean]

I'm so glad you little faggot-haters have this forum, and others like it, because the rest of society has grown up and turned their backs on you. Guess who is headed for the closet now my little homophobes? It ain't the fags...

Obviously most of this board has turned its back on you little fella - you are irrelevant and have had nothing useful to add, other than canned rhetoric which you continuously rephrase and repost. Do yourself a favor phallic fella - stop embarrassing yourself and STFU - this is a grownup conversation.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

Wrong again. Those laws violated the constitution because it was applied unequally, by means of race, which is illegal. Today's marriage laws don't do that. You're distracting by trying to make this an interracial marriage issue when it's not. You cannot demonstrate that today's marriage laws are being applied in a way that doesn't render to everyone equal protection under the law.

Actually, you're the one who is wrong. The argument that lasted 85 years was that the law was applied equally. It punished both blacks and whites equally, just as YOU are arguing.

You wish to discriminate based on gender. The racist bigots wanted to discriminate based on race. Please help me understand the difference in your world?

Wrong yet again. Today's state marriage laws do not discriminate based on gender. They give the right to marry, not the right to marry whoever you want. Please show me where the gender discrimination is...unless you really do think you have the right to marry whoever you want...then we can conclude that what you're pushing for has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

Force, what force dummy?

Do you think you somehow have a right to a job, and that you can do whatever you like there? Are you a child still, apparently?