Is Anyone Else Getting Tired Of The Queer Agenda???

[P@triot]

Flaunting perversion. It's disgusting but it's what they are. They need to constant attention because they're freaks.

The bigots and homophobes? Yeah, I agree, but haters gonna hate.

Lol, No, the ones flaunting their sexual orientation. Its just that, no one cares but them but they feel the need to flaunt their sexuality. That's all they have. Its sad really.

You are referring to all those heteros flaunting their sexuality, of course.

You are such an immature liberal and a pathological liar. No heterosexual flaunts their sexuality. There are no "hetero pride" parades. It's the idiot homosexuals marching literally naked in the streets with their little stupid ass rainbows making offensive and indecent sexual gestures like this filth right here...

 

[mdk]

You are referring to all those heteros flaunting their sexuality, of course.

Post 1960s deviant sex movement, the heteros have been trained up nicely to slut it out in public. They're a feather in your Church's cap for sure. Makes what you do seem more legitimate. It all got its start in the media. And guess who controls that?

...

You even blame the gays when heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality. Classic Sil. lol

 

[P@triot]

Who do you imagine is being married by 'force'?

States are unconstitutionally forced to accept gay marriage. Bakers are forced to take part in gay marriages. Photographers are forced to take part in gay marriages. They even forced farms to take host gay weddings. Stop pretending and playing your juvenile games.

States are unconstitutionally forced to accept interracial marriage. Bakers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. Photographers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. They even forced farms to take host interracial weddings.

Public Accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage laws, Puppy.

And if only you understood that none of those are "public". Bakers, photographers, and farms are all private businesses run by private citizens.

And the 10th Amendment makes it very clear that it is up to each state to decide whether or not they want to recognize gay marriage.

Thanks for playing wytchy! Always enjoy a good laugh over your uneducated nonsense!

I understand quite well the difference between a private club, like the boy scouts, that can discriminate and a business open to the public that cannot.

The SCOTUS made it quite clear that racists and homophobes must recognize both interracial and gay marriages. Glad I could educate you , Puppy.

Thank God for the United States that the Supreme Court has no such power, uh wytchy? The 10th Amendment says so. Don't worry - I don't expect you to understand. How could a person know about something they are uneducated on?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cross dressers are not the same as transgendered.

Sure they are. They are all flakes.

 

[Seawytch]

Who do you imagine is being married by 'force'?

States are unconstitutionally forced to accept gay marriage. Bakers are forced to take part in gay marriages. Photographers are forced to take part in gay marriages. They even forced farms to take host gay weddings. Stop pretending and playing your juvenile games.

States are unconstitutionally forced to accept interracial marriage. Bakers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. Photographers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. They even forced farms to take host interracial weddings.

Public Accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage laws, Puppy.

And if only you understood that none of those are "public". Bakers, photographers, and farms are all private businesses run by private citizens.

And the 10th Amendment makes it very clear that it is up to each state to decide whether or not they want to recognize gay marriage.

Thanks for playing wytchy! Always enjoy a good laugh over your uneducated nonsense!

I understand quite well the difference between a private club, like the boy scouts, that can discriminate and a business open to the public that cannot.

The SCOTUS made it quite clear that racists and homophobes must recognize both interracial and gay marriages. Glad I could educate you , Puppy.

Thank God for the United States that the Supreme Court has no such power, uh wytchy? The 10th Amendment says so. Don't worry - I don't expect you to understand. How could a person know about something they are uneducated on?

So blacks haven't been legally marrying whites since the 1960s? Gays aren't' legally marrying each other now? What kind of delusion do you surround yourself with, Puppy?

 

[P@triot]

States are unconstitutionally forced to accept gay marriage. Bakers are forced to take part in gay marriages. Photographers are forced to take part in gay marriages. They even forced farms to take host gay weddings. Stop pretending and playing your juvenile games.

States are unconstitutionally forced to accept interracial marriage. Bakers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. Photographers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. They even forced farms to take host interracial weddings.

Public Accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage laws, Puppy.

And if only you understood that none of those are "public". Bakers, photographers, and farms are all private businesses run by private citizens.

And the 10th Amendment makes it very clear that it is up to each state to decide whether or not they want to recognize gay marriage.

Thanks for playing wytchy! Always enjoy a good laugh over your uneducated nonsense!

I understand quite well the difference between a private club, like the boy scouts, that can discriminate and a business open to the public that cannot.

The SCOTUS made it quite clear that racists and homophobes must recognize both interracial and gay marriages. Glad I could educate you , Puppy.

Thank God for the United States that the Supreme Court has no such power, uh wytchy? The 10th Amendment says so. Don't worry - I don't expect you to understand. How could a person know about something they are uneducated on?

So blacks haven't been legally marrying whites since the 1960s? Gays aren't' legally marrying each other now? What kind of delusion do you surround yourself with, Puppy?

So the Green River Killer didn't rape and murder over 40 women? So Ted Bundy didn't rape and murder over 20 women? I guess rape and murder must be legal since it's happening - uh wytchy? Don't strain your tiny little pee-brain on this one. Ask an adult for help.

 

[Silhouette]

The SCOTUS made it quite clear that racists and homophobes must recognize both interracial and gay marriages. Glad I could educate you , Puppy.

Thank God for the United States that the Supreme Court has no such power, uh wytchy? The 10th Amendment says so. Don't worry - I don't expect you to understand. How could a person know about something they are uneducated on?

Yes. As far as I know, if a behavior has coverage under the Constitution, it must be specified exactly which behavior it is. And I know for a fact, so does Seawytch and all the other LGBT paid bloggers here, that just one sexual orientation (homosexuality) cannot enjoy a "right" (marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution), while other sexual orientations are denied (monosexuals/singles, polysexuals/polygamists). It defies the word "equality" to have those conditions in place. Which of course is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Which of course means Obergefell isn't worth the paper it's written on unless perhaps it also includes specific language covering singles and polygamists (they both have kids being "harmed" by not having the benefits of marriage and the stigma lifted from their lives...right Kennedy?).

Failing that, no state is under any obligation whatsoever to abide by Obergefell because at the very least, it is patently unfair to single parents and polylgamists; both also being chosen orientations that somehow missed being allowed "rights". That and a half dozen other glaring legal flaws in Obergefell, like kids being harmed by gay marriage because it divorces them via contract for life from either a mother or father.

Race has nothing to do with behaviors. Seawytch doesn't understand that legal distinction either.

 

[P@triot]

And I know for a fact, so does Seawytch and all the other LGBT paid bloggers here, that just one sexual orientation (homosexuality) cannot enjoy a "right" (marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution), while other sexual orientations are denied (monosexuals/singles, polysexuals/polygamists).

Well, I think there is a very important distinction that needs to be made here. Your rights are unlimited. The Bill of Rights doesn't outline your rights. It was put in to further protect what the founders felt were the most extremely critical rights.

Here's a quick synopsis of what transpired: as a nation we were operating under the Articles of Confederation. The first "liberals" such as Alexander Hamilton felt the federal government was too weak and needed to be stronger. True conservatives like Thomas Jefferson lost their mind and vehemently opposed a more powerful federal government (having lived under oppression and being exponentially smarter than Hamilton, Jefferson realized the dangers of this). A fierce battle ensued with both sides pleading their cases (which is what lead to the Federalist Papers - where both sides penned articles in newspapers stating the pros of their positions and cons of their oppositions positions). When the people ultimately settled on the U.S. Constitution to build a slightly more cohesive federal government, they insisted on a Bill of Rights for the items they felt were of the upmost critical of rights to protect.

Ironically enough, Alexander Hamilton failed to see the stupidity of his own position of expanding the power of the federal government when he warned against the dangers of the Bill of Rights. He accurately predicted in Federalist No. 84 that one day, libtards would distort the Bill of Rights to mean that was the full extent of the rights of the American people - not the bare minimum of rights to be extra protected against the federal government:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the[…]”

So basically, the issue is not that the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly outline the right to gay marriage. Quite the contrary, the issue is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government are not the legal responsibility of the federal government and hence they have no authority over it. Therefore the Supreme Court has zero authority over it as well and cannot force the states to comply with anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers. A basic legal reality that libtards like wytchy are completely unaware of.

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

 

[Silhouette]

So blacks haven't been legally marrying whites since the 1960s? Gays aren't' legally marrying each other now? What kind of delusion do you surround yourself with, Puppy?

Black men and white women or vice versa are still men and women. They did not defy marriage laws. Discrimination was solely on race. Gays do defy marriage laws, discrimination was based on ACTUAL LAW. Since behaviors don't have rights, they must abide by the law. Particularly when a gay "marriage" strips children involved, via contract, of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. Man and wife is as old as Moses and for a reason: to provide children with a father and mother. What "gay marriage" is, is the antithesis of why marriage was created and maintained for thousands of years.

"Gay marriage" is Anti-marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

The rights of children are going to come up in the near-future challenge of Obergefell.

 

[Silhouette]

So basically, the issue is not that the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly outline the right to gay marriage. Quite the contrary, the issue is that the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government are not the legal responsibility of the federal government and hence they have no authority over it. Therefore the Supreme Court has zero authority over it as well and cannot force the states to comply with anything outside of those 18 enumerated powers. A basic legal reality that libtards like wytchy are completely unaware of.

They will try to weasel it and say that they're covered under the 14th. But even if marriage was mentioned in the 14th...or even sexual orientation (neither of which are mentioned), you can't have just one sexual orientation covered while all the rest remain out in the cold without access also to marriage (monosexuals/singles, polysexuals/polygamists). For don't they too also have children that "will bear the stigma" of not having the benefits of being married? Aren't they too "in immediate harm" from their parents not having the benefits of marriage?

 

[mdk]

They will try to weasel it and say that they're covered under the 14th. But even if marriage was mentioned in the 14th...or even sexual orientation (neither of which are mentioned), you can't have just one sexual orientation covered while all the rest remain out in the cold without access also to marriage (monosexuals/singles, polysexuals/polygamists). For don't they too also have children that "will bear the stigma" of not having the benefits of being married? Aren't they too "in immediate harm" from their parents not having the benefits of marriage?

Using this silly logic all marriages would be banned. You can't have one sexual orientation covered while all the rest remain out in the cold, right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Using this silly logic all marriages would be banned. You can't have one sexual orientation covered while all the rest remain out in the cold, right?

The federal government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If marriage were a federal responsibility, then it would have been outlined in the Constitution.

Marriage is a religious rite--not a government right. Yes, government got involved later to help aid a one income family and so they can legally pass down the family name, but marriage is still a religious rite that should only be overseen by the state.

If marriage is not exclusive to normal couples, then it's open to any group of people. That's because according to the SC, you can't deny federal benefits or happiness outside of normal couples. So it's not exclusive to normal and same sex couples.

If you can't deny this happiness and benefits to gays, you cannot deny it to mother and daughter, sister and brother, grandfather and grandson. Everybody has to be under the umbrella.

 

[mdk]

Using this silly logic all marriages would be banned. You can't have one sexual orientation covered while all the rest remain out in the cold, right?

The federal government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If marriage were a federal responsibility, then it would have been outlined in the Constitution.

Marriage is a religious rite--not a government right. Yes, government got involved later to help aid a one income family and so they can legally pass down the family name, but marriage is still a religious rite that should only be overseen by the state.

If marriage is not exclusive to normal couples, then it's open to any group of people. That's because according to the SC, you can't deny federal benefits or happiness outside of normal couples. So it's not exclusive to normal and same sex couples.

If you can't deny this happiness and benefits to gays, you cannot deny it to mother and daughter, sister and brother, grandfather and grandson. Everybody has to be under the umbrella.

You want get any resistance from me when it comes to getting the government out of marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

The federal government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If marriage were a federal responsibility, then it would have been outlined in the Constitution.

Which is why it is defined by the states. What it "should" or "shouldn't" be is up to the states.

Using this silly logic all marriages would be banned. You can't have one sexual orientation covered while all the rest remain out in the cold, right?

Who can and cannot marry, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, man/woman, woman woman, single parent, is up to the separate states. We the People decide who gets the PRIVILEGE of marriage. That privilege cannot be denied based on race. So says the 14th. The 14th says nothing about sexual behaviors. That would require an Amendment by Congress; which hasn't happened.

 

[boilermaker55]

Most people are tired of the religious right trying to push their agenda on everyone else.
Keep it in your house of worship or shove it.

We have a tiny faction of genetic freaks that are attracted to those of the same gender....it's minute but yet this country seems to be obsessed with these freaks of nature and view them as some protected class. Do your thing in the privacy of your own abode....if you are a queer male that wants to suck dick? Knock yourself out but I don't need to know that you are "Queer, Loud And Proud" while waving your rainbow colored flag. Keep your business "YOUR business" and stop insisting that your flaunting of your queerness is some kind of God given right that everyone must embrace lest they be labeled. At one time I supported queers being able to enter into a civil agreement where they could share in the fruits (pun intended) of their joint labor....but I have seen how militant these fags have become and how they are pushing queerness in public schools using GLSEN that I no longer have any support left for these freaks.......anyone else feel the same way? I think it's time for a "pushback"......

 

[Seawytch]

States are unconstitutionally forced to accept interracial marriage. Bakers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. Photographers are forced to take part in interracial marriages. They even forced farms to take host interracial weddings.

Public Accommodation laws have nothing to do with marriage laws, Puppy.

And if only you understood that none of those are "public". Bakers, photographers, and farms are all private businesses run by private citizens.

And the 10th Amendment makes it very clear that it is up to each state to decide whether or not they want to recognize gay marriage.

Thanks for playing wytchy! Always enjoy a good laugh over your uneducated nonsense!

I understand quite well the difference between a private club, like the boy scouts, that can discriminate and a business open to the public that cannot.

The SCOTUS made it quite clear that racists and homophobes must recognize both interracial and gay marriages. Glad I could educate you , Puppy.

Thank God for the United States that the Supreme Court has no such power, uh wytchy? The 10th Amendment says so. Don't worry - I don't expect you to understand. How could a person know about something they are uneducated on?

So blacks haven't been legally marrying whites since the 1960s? Gays aren't' legally marrying each other now? What kind of delusion do you surround yourself with, Puppy?

So the Green River Killer didn't rape and murder over 40 women? So Ted Bundy didn't rape and murder over 20 women? I guess rape and murder must be legal since it's happening - uh wytchy? Don't strain your tiny little pee-brain on this one. Ask an adult for help.

There was no SCOTUS ruling on those, Puppy. Go back to strawman school. That one crashed and burned.

 

[Seawytch]

Using this silly logic all marriages would be banned. You can't have one sexual orientation covered while all the rest remain out in the cold, right?

The federal government shouldn't be involved in any marriage. If marriage were a federal responsibility, then it would have been outlined in the Constitution.

Marriage is a religious rite--not a government right. Yes, government got involved later to help aid a one income family and so they can legally pass down the family name, but marriage is still a religious rite that should only be overseen by the state.

If marriage is not exclusive to normal couples, then it's open to any group of people. That's because according to the SC, you can't deny federal benefits or happiness outside of normal couples. So it's not exclusive to normal and same sex couples.

If you can't deny this happiness and benefits to gays, you cannot deny it to mother and daughter, sister and brother, grandfather and grandson. Everybody has to be under the umbrella.

 

[mdk]

Who can and cannot marry, man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, man/woman, woman woman, single parent, is up to the separate states. We the People decide who gets the PRIVILEGE of marriage. That privilege cannot be denied based on race. So says the 14th. The 14th says nothing about sexual behaviors. That would require an Amendment by Congress; which hasn't happened

And the courts ruled that state marriage laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Marriage is a right. You can claim it is a privilege until the cows come home, but nobody is bound by your imagination.

 

[P@triot]

And if only you understood that none of those are "public". Bakers, photographers, and farms are all private businesses run by private citizens.

And the 10th Amendment makes it very clear that it is up to each state to decide whether or not they want to recognize gay marriage.

Thanks for playing wytchy! Always enjoy a good laugh over your uneducated nonsense!

I understand quite well the difference between a private club, like the boy scouts, that can discriminate and a business open to the public that cannot.

The SCOTUS made it quite clear that racists and homophobes must recognize both interracial and gay marriages. Glad I could educate you , Puppy.

Thank God for the United States that the Supreme Court has no such power, uh wytchy? The 10th Amendment says so. Don't worry - I don't expect you to understand. How could a person know about something they are uneducated on?

So blacks haven't been legally marrying whites since the 1960s? Gays aren't' legally marrying each other now? What kind of delusion do you surround yourself with, Puppy?

So the Green River Killer didn't rape and murder over 40 women? So Ted Bundy didn't rape and murder over 20 women? I guess rape and murder must be legal since it's happening - uh wytchy? Don't strain your tiny little pee-brain on this one. Ask an adult for help.

There was no SCOTUS ruling on those, Puppy. Go back to strawman school. That one crashed and burned.

Nice straw man sweety.... We weren't talking about "those". We were talking about gay marriage and you know it. Does it ever get tiresome being wrong all of the time?