Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What perverse thinking it is to think that expanding liberties is somehow a threat to the very notion.

You can call it whatever you want, it's unconstitutional. Marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore it belongs to the states to regulate. Period.

Stupid Leftist Statists in this country....tyranny will usher in on the red carpet of "civil liberties". And when it takes complete control, nobody will be free.

So......homosexuals threaten your liberty by getting legally married.

What a nutty point of view.

More nutty than making up "civil rights" and thinking that won't someday backfire on you?

Heck, I can read Supreme Court decisions, and the Supreme Court long ago declared that marriage is a right.

Not my problem you can't accept that.

We've been over this before. The Supreme Court is not the U.S. Constitution and is, in fact, subject to the Constitution. To claim that the Supreme Court is the constitution is to claim that slavery and the denial of black and woman's suffrage is in the Constitution. If you're going to claim the Supreme Court is the Constitution, then you can't pick and choose which decisions you like and which ones you don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tighty Whities like everyone else. Only old men wore boxers then. And Cary Grant wore women's briefs but he wasn't gay. Gay men usually don't cross-dress, not even in their underwear, that's a heterosexual thing.

It's fine with me whatever panties you and Cary Grant prefer. Or anyone else for that matter.

Gay men don't cross-dress? I know quite a few who do.

I work with the numbers. Your subjective view is not interesting to me.

As for underwear, it's underwear, wear what you like. As long as you do I don't give a damn but I will always hate thongs, always.

Yeah, the numbers say black Americans are Democrats, yet are against gay marriage in the same numbers they voted for Obama.

Sometimes numbers don't tell the full tale, thong hater.

Sometimes they don't but the numbers are what they are, if they are presented fairly. Learn to keep more than one thought, even contradictory thoughts, in your head at the very same time. It's an adult skill, learn it.

Why do you hate black people and try to force your views on them?

This is what I'm talking about, you need to learn to think. The civil rights of others aren't up for a vote.

 

[Carib Gyal]

It's fine with me whatever panties you and Cary Grant prefer. Or anyone else for that matter.

Gay men don't cross-dress? I know quite a few who do.

I work with the numbers. Your subjective view is not interesting to me.

As for underwear, it's underwear, wear what you like. As long as you do I don't give a damn but I will always hate thongs, always.

Yeah, the numbers say black Americans are Democrats, yet are against gay marriage in the same numbers they voted for Obama.

Sometimes numbers don't tell the full tale, thong hater.

Sometimes they don't but the numbers are what they are, if they are presented fairly. Learn to keep more than one thought, even contradictory thoughts, in your head at the very same time. It's an adult skill, learn it.

Why do you hate black people and try to force your views on them?

This is what I'm talking about, you need to learn to think. The civil rights of others aren't up for a vote.

The oppression of the black man continues.

 

[g5000]

You can call it whatever you want, it's unconstitutional. Marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore it belongs to the states to regulate. Period.

Stupid Leftist Statists in this country....tyranny will usher in on the red carpet of "civil liberties". And when it takes complete control, nobody will be free.

So......homosexuals threaten your liberty by getting legally married.

What a nutty point of view.

More nutty than making up "civil rights" and thinking that won't someday backfire on you?

What's the backlash you see coming? Are we going to start burning the faggots on stakes? Do tell, we are very interested.

Maybe he will want to imprison gays to protect liberty?

Are those the only two choices, allow homo marriage or throw them in prison? Can you be any more of a simpleton?

Without the right to marry, gays have not yet traveled the entire road from oppression to full equality and liberty. Can you be any more of a simpleton?

 

[Syriusly]

You can call it whatever you want, it's unconstitutional. Marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore it belongs to the states to regulate. Period.

Stupid Leftist Statists in this country....tyranny will usher in on the red carpet of "civil liberties". And when it takes complete control, nobody will be free.

So......homosexuals threaten your liberty by getting legally married.

What a nutty point of view.

More nutty than making up "civil rights" and thinking that won't someday backfire on you?

What's the backlash you see coming? Are we going to start burning the faggots on stakes? Do tell, we are very interested.

Maybe he will want to imprison gays to protect liberty?

Are those the only two choices, allow homo marriage or throw them in prison? Can you be any more of a simpleton?

Well explain how you think allowing two people to marry who happen to be the same gender will backfire on me- or them?

 

[g5000]

No, it's a flowered cotton panties thing that meant you were nearly at the promised land where life becomes very interesting, and it's best not to get caught.

Whatever the gays wore in the 1940s. I wouldn't know.

Tighty Whities like everyone else. Only old men wore boxers then. And Cary Grant wore women's briefs but he wasn't gay. Gay men usually don't cross-dress, not even in their underwear, that's a heterosexual thing.

It's fine with me whatever panties you and Cary Grant prefer. Or anyone else for that matter.

Gay men don't cross-dress? I know quite a few who do.

I work with the numbers. Your subjective view is not interesting to me.

As for underwear, it's underwear, wear what you like. As long as you do I don't give a damn but I will always hate thongs, always.

Yeah, the numbers say black Americans are Democrats, yet are against gay marriage in the same numbers they voted for Obama.

Sometimes numbers don't tell the full tale, thong hater.

Blacks are not immune to prejudices any more than anyone else.

It is a shame they do not see the hypocrisy of their anti-gay civil rights position.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So......homosexuals threaten your liberty by getting legally married.

What a nutty point of view.

More nutty than making up "civil rights" and thinking that won't someday backfire on you?

What's the backlash you see coming? Are we going to start burning the faggots on stakes? Do tell, we are very interested.

Maybe he will want to imprison gays to protect liberty?

Are those the only two choices, allow homo marriage or throw them in prison? Can you be any more of a simpleton?

Well explain how you think allowing two people to marry who happen to be the same gender will backfire on me- or them?

When states are disarmed in their constitutional ability to protect you from unbridled federal power, you'll understand what real oppression is.

 

[Syriusly]

What perverse thinking it is to think that expanding liberties is somehow a threat to the very notion.

You can call it whatever you want, it's unconstitutional. Marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore it belongs to the states to regulate. Period.

Stupid Leftist Statists in this country....tyranny will usher in on the red carpet of "civil liberties". And when it takes complete control, nobody will be free.

So......homosexuals threaten your liberty by getting legally married.

What a nutty point of view.

More nutty than making up "civil rights" and thinking that won't someday backfire on you?

Heck, I can read Supreme Court decisions, and the Supreme Court long ago declared that marriage is a right.

Not my problem you can't accept that.

We've been over this before. The Supreme Court is not the U.S. Constitution and is, in fact, subject to the Constitution. To claim that the Supreme Court is the constitution is to claim that slavery and the denial of black and woman's suffrage is in the Constitution. If you're going to claim the Supreme Court is the Constitution, then you can't pick and choose which decisions you like and which ones you don't.


QUOTE]

I can always pick and choose which decisions I like and which I don't- Citizen's United in my opinion is a stiniker.

But I never confuse that with the legality of the decision. Citizen's United decision is legally valid and secret money can flow into secret political campaigns.

If I want to change the decision it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Likewise if I didn't want marriage to be a right all Americans have, it would take a Constitutional amendment to explicitly overturn the Supreme Court's many decisions- starting with Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Whatever the gays wore in the 1940s. I wouldn't know.

Tighty Whities like everyone else. Only old men wore boxers then. And Cary Grant wore women's briefs but he wasn't gay. Gay men usually don't cross-dress, not even in their underwear, that's a heterosexual thing.

It's fine with me whatever panties you and Cary Grant prefer. Or anyone else for that matter.

Gay men don't cross-dress? I know quite a few who do.

I work with the numbers. Your subjective view is not interesting to me.

As for underwear, it's underwear, wear what you like. As long as you do I don't give a damn but I will always hate thongs, always.

Yeah, the numbers say black Americans are Democrats, yet are against gay marriage in the same numbers they voted for Obama.

Sometimes numbers don't tell the full tale, thong hater.

Blacks are not immune to prejudices any more than anyone else.

It is a shame they do not see the hypocrisy of their anti-gay civil rights position.

Agree, but let's be more accurate and say American blacks.

 

[Syriusly]

Whatever the gays wore in the 1940s. I wouldn't know.

Tighty Whities like everyone else. Only old men wore boxers then. And Cary Grant wore women's briefs but he wasn't gay. Gay men usually don't cross-dress, not even in their underwear, that's a heterosexual thing.

It's fine with me whatever panties you and Cary Grant prefer. Or anyone else for that matter.

Gay men don't cross-dress? I know quite a few who do.

I work with the numbers. Your subjective view is not interesting to me.

As for underwear, it's underwear, wear what you like. As long as you do I don't give a damn but I will always hate thongs, always.

Yeah, the numbers say black Americans are Democrats, yet are against gay marriage in the same numbers they voted for Obama.

Sometimes numbers don't tell the full tale, thong hater.

Blacks are not immune to prejudices any more than anyone else.

It is a shame they do not see the hypocrisy of their anti-gay civil rights position.

An overly broad statement

Mildred Loving:
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court
case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so
many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the
freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

.

That's not the way it works. If marrying whoever one wants is a "civil right" which has never been true in all of human history, then it needs to be explicitly included in the Constitution vis a vis constitutional amendment. You don't get to assume it's there when it's not and then demand the rest of us come up with a constitutional amendment to overturn your phantom "right".

 

[Dragonlady]

This thread gets my vote for the dumbest thread ever.

In Canada, gays have had equal rights years, and our liberties have not been infringed upon in any way. But the wedding industry has prospered, having a whole segment of society to service which was not open to them previously.

When gays were given the right to add their same sex partners to their group health insurance at work, the gloom and doom bunch said that this would cause premiums to go up to the point that employers wouldn't be able to afford coverage for their straight employees. It didn't happen. In fact, none of the scenarios which were predicted by those opposed to gay rights have happened. Society has actually benefitted from the increased freedoms given to gays.

 

[g5000]

This thread gets my vote for the dumbest thread ever.

In Canada, gays have had equal rights years, and our liberties have not been infringed upon in any way. But the wedding industry has prospered, having a whole segment of society to service which was not open to them previously.

When gays were given the right to add their same sex partners to their group health insurance at work, the gloom and doom bunch said that this would cause premiums to go up to the point that employers wouldn't be able to afford coverage for their straight employees. It didn't happen. In fact, none of the scenarios which were predicted by those opposed to gay rights have happened. Society has actually benefitted from the increased freedoms given to gays.

You mean people aren't marrying their goats?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This thread gets my vote for the dumbest thread ever.

In Canada, gays have had equal rights years, and our liberties have not been infringed upon in any way. But the wedding industry has prospered, having a whole segment of society to service which was not open to them previously.

When gays were given the right to add their same sex partners to their group health insurance at work, the gloom and doom bunch said that this would cause premiums to go up to the point that employers wouldn't be able to afford coverage for their straight employees. It didn't happen. In fact, none of the scenarios which were predicted by those opposed to gay rights have happened. Society has actually benefitted from the increased freedoms given to gays.

You mean people aren't marrying their goats?

I'm guessing you feel left out of the march for civil rights?

 

[WorldWatcher]

.

That's not the way it works. If marrying whoever one wants is a "civil right" which has never been true in all of human history, then it needs to be explicitly included in the Constitution vis a vis constitutional amendment. You don't get to assume it's there when it's not and then demand the rest of us come up with a constitutional amendment to overturn your phantom "right".

I'm sorry, but rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people.


>>>>

 

[hjmick]

Whatever the gays wore in the 1940s. I wouldn't know.

Government issue prison garb.

Yes, let's pretend that homosexuals were doing hard time. It was never more than a misdemeanor and mostly ignored. This is just more Leftwat historical revisionism.

You couldn't be more wrong; but when were you ever right?

That there is some interesting stuff. Only in D.C. and New Hampshire was sodomy not a crime. Howey, do you know what years that list covers?

 

[Borillar]

All they care about is sucking cocks anyway

Conservatives are fascinated with gay men. Notice they never mention anything about lesbians.

That a bunch of bs.

Why do you always lie?

Why do homophobes talk about sucking dick and butt sex more than they do lesbians? Go click on any silhouette thread. Fallaces and dudes everywhere. No lesbians.

Probably because lesbian sex isn't as taboo.

Says who? Homophobes?

Ah, what red blooded man doesn't think a little lezzie action isn't hawt? He can imagine himself right there in the middle of all the action.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

.

That's not the way it works. If marrying whoever one wants is a "civil right" which has never been true in all of human history, then it needs to be explicitly included in the Constitution vis a vis constitutional amendment. You don't get to assume it's there when it's not and then demand the rest of us come up with a constitutional amendment to overturn your phantom "right".

I'm sorry, but rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people.


>>>>

They do need to be enumerated in the Constitution in order to be protected by federal law or federal courts.

 

[Syriusly]

.

That's not the way it works. If marrying whoever one wants is a "civil right" which has never been true in all of human history, then it needs to be explicitly included in the Constitution vis a vis constitutional amendment. You don't get to assume it's there when it's not and then demand the rest of us come up with a constitutional amendment to overturn your phantom "right".

I'm sorry, but rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by the people.


>>>>

They do need to be enumerated in the Constitution in order to be protected by federal law or federal courts.

Loving v. Virginia proves you wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

.

That's not the way it works. If marrying whoever one wants is a "civil right" which has never been true in all of human history, then it needs to be explicitly included in the Constitution vis a vis constitutional amendment. You don't get to assume it's there when it's not and then demand the rest of us come up with a constitutional amendment to overturn your phantom "right".

Marriage is a right- the Supreme Court recognizes that it is a fundamental right- and has for over 50 years.

I am not assuming anything- i can read the courts decisions.

The Supreme Court has confirmed decisions overturning State's marriage laws three times that I am aware of- laws against mixed race marriages, laws which prohibited a man with past due child support from marrying and regulations against prisoners marrying.

You don't have to like the decisions, or even agree with them- but pretending that they don't exist and that they are not legally binding is just stupid.