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

[Syriusly]

No that is because the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn unconstitutional state laws.

Yes they do, if there is something in the Constitution that's in violation.

The Supreme Court did find something in violation- the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Now - how are you being harmed by same gender couples being able to get legally married?

1.) I'm harmed by the fact that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. I'm harmed by the fact that liberals have turned this into a lawless nation..

Except of course the Supreme Court didn't violate the U.S. Constitution.

"lawless" nation?

If I go out and rob a bank tomorrow and get caught, I will suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

A whole lot of whining just because you can't discriminate against gay couples anymore.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Supreme Court did find something in violation- the 14th Amendment.

And that something was??????

 

[Syriusly]

Now - how are you being harmed by same gender couples being able to get legally married?

2.) I'm harmed by the fact that gay marriage has redefined marriage. And in turn, has opened Pandora's Box. There was no discrimination before. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That's simply what it was. But by illegally and unconstitutionally permitting gay marriage, we now may not prevent any form of marriage. Which means a muslim man can now legally marry 18 women (if we don't permit it - that is the purest form of discrimination as the Supreme Court illegally redefined marriage). So now you have to pay high insurance premiums for your company to cover 18 wives with health insurance. Is that fair to you? And oh yeah genius - the ICU must allow all 18 wives in to see that muslim husband. Do you have any idea how disruptive that is to an ICU? That's why they limit visitors genius. And get this - what happens when 9 of those wives say to pull the plug and the other 9 say to keep that muslim husband on life support? Then what genius? Who gets to decide? Some fucking court?!?!

Marriage hasn't been redefined. Nor has any Pandora's box been opened.

Before Obergefell- two consenting adults of the opposite gender(who were not too closely related) could marry in all 50 states, and in some states- any two consenting adults of either gender could marry. After Obergefell the same rules apply to couples of either gender.

Nothing has changed regarding polygamy- if you think polygamy should be illegal before, it still is as illegal.
If you want to marry 18 wives- you can however go to court and try to make that argument. Unfortunately it won't work to argue that you should be allowed to marry 18 women because you are Muslim, because Islam only allows up to 5 wives.

 

[Syriusly]

[
3.) I'm harmed by the fact that liberals are so astoundingly ignorant and stupid, that they think every action occurs in a vacuum. .

Hell then I am so damned harmed by Conservatives all of the time for being so astoundingly ignorant and stupid that I am surprised I can even function.

 

[Syriusly]

See I don't see any of those being about 'moral and social decay'- by that standard the majority could claim virtually anything it wanted in the name of preventing 'moral and social decary'- like outlawing birth control(which by the way was outlawed because of claims about 'moral decay'.

We don't allow a daughter to marry her mother or father or a brother marrying his sister because of the potential for abuse. We don't allow a man to marry a dog because the institution is only for humans and we have laws against animal abuse.

But I was asking how you are being harmed. Or anyone else is being harmed.

And I answered.

Now how is it animal abuse if a man marries his dog? Or sister marrying brother? Or mom marrying son? There is no abuse there because in all cases, it's consensual.

Dogs can't give consent- I know that is news to you- and marriage laws only covers humans.

The bans on marriage between to close of family members is based upon the potential for abuse- just as their is the potential for abuse between a doctor and his patient, or a therapist and his patient.

But- good news for you- if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can go to court and claim it is your constitutional right- you have the right to make that argument in court.

Let us know how it goes.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court did find something in violation- the 14th Amendment.

And that something was??????

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

Except of course the Supreme Court didn't violate the U.S. Constitution.

Except of course - they did. The federal government (which includes the Supreme Court) has no authority of marriage. None. Zip. Zero. It's just a fact and your wish for it to be otherwise doesn't change that fact.

"lawless" nation? If I go out and rob a bank tomorrow and get caught, I will suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

Well there is some liberal "logic" at its finest. Just because we still hold a bank robber accountable, then we have not become a lawless nation. Even if we allow rape. Murder. Assault.

When you violate the U.S. Constitution (as the Dumbocrats have done thousands of times during the past decade or so), you have become a lawless nation. The damage done by violating the U.S. Constitution is a 1,000x's worse than allowing people to rob banks. Too bad you don't understand that. Too bad you have a 4th grade mentality about lawlessness.

A whole lot of whining just because you can't discriminate against gay couples anymore.

Nice straw man. When did I ever say that I wanted to discriminate against homosexuals? If my state voted to permit gay marriage, I would 100% respect that decision. I wouldn't like it for the reasons I've already outlined (notably that it would destroy society as it exist now with regards to health insurance for 18 spouses and granting access to ICU's for 18 spouses), but I'd respect that the people have spoken and that the decision was made under Constitutional rule of law.

Any other false narratives you'd like to create?

 

[Syriusly]

[
I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. .

Sounds tough.

You should get some therapy to help you get over your psychosis about this.

 

[Syriusly]

Except of course the Supreme Court didn't violate the U.S. Constitution.

Except of course - they did. The federal government (which includes the Supreme Court) has no authority of marriage. None. Zip. Zero. It's just a fact and your wish for it to be otherwise doesn't change that fact.

LOL- you are the one claiming something as fact when it is observable that the Supreme Court does have authority to rule a State marriage law unconstitutional- the Supreme Court has done so 4 times now

That is why mixed race couples could get married.

That is why dad's who owed child support in Wisconsin could get married.

That is why inmates who wanted to marry could marry.

The evidence shows quite clearly that the Supreme Court does have the authority to overturn unconstitutional state marriage laws- we have known this for over 50 years.

 

[P@triot]

No that is because the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn unconstitutional state laws.

Yes they do, if there is something in the Constitution that's in violation.

The Supreme Court did find something in violation- the 14th Amendment.

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Syriusly]

[Q

"lawless" nation? If I go out and rob a bank tomorrow and get caught, I will suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

Well there is some liberal "logic" at its finest. Just because we still hold a bank robber accountable, then we have not become a lawless nation. Even if we allow rape. Murder. Assault. ?

Well I can't help you with your twisted 'Conservative logic' which appears to have an entirely different definition of 'lawless' than the rest of the world.

The law is being enforced in the United States.
Lawless does not mean "what triot is pissed off about.

 

[Syriusly]

No that is because the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn unconstitutional state laws.

Yes they do, if there is something in the Constitution that's in violation.

The Supreme Court did find something in violation- the 14th Amendment.

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling was no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than was Loving v. Virginia. You are about 50 years late to be so outraged.

 

[Seawytch]

No that is because the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn unconstitutional state laws.

Yes they do, if there is something in the Constitution that's in violation.

The Supreme Court did find something in violation- the 14th Amendment.

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling was no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than was Loving v. Virginia. You are about 50 years late to be so outraged.

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

No that is because the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn unconstitutional state laws.

Yes they do, if there is something in the Constitution that's in violation.

The Supreme Court did find something in violation- the 14th Amendment.

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling was no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than was Loving v. Virginia. You are about 50 years late to be so outraged.

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

See I don't see any of those being about 'moral and social decay'- by that standard the majority could claim virtually anything it wanted in the name of preventing 'moral and social decary'- like outlawing birth control(which by the way was outlawed because of claims about 'moral decay'.

We don't allow a daughter to marry her mother or father or a brother marrying his sister because of the potential for abuse. We don't allow a man to marry a dog because the institution is only for humans and we have laws against animal abuse.

But I was asking how you are being harmed. Or anyone else is being harmed.

And I answered.

Now how is it animal abuse if a man marries his dog? Or sister marrying brother? Or mom marrying son? There is no abuse there because in all cases, it's consensual.

Dogs can't give consent- I know that is news to you- and marriage laws only covers humans.

The bans on marriage between to close of family members is based upon the potential for abuse- just as their is the potential for abuse between a doctor and his patient, or a therapist and his patient.

But- good news for you- if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can go to court and claim it is your constitutional right- you have the right to make that argument in court.

Let us know how it goes.

Dogs can't give consent- I know that is news to you- and marriage laws only covers humans.

Really? Can you show me where those laws are and how they can be applied today?

Dog's can't give consent. Did the dog give consent to being owned? Did a dog give consent to being put on a leash? Did a dog give consent to spending nights in a dog house? Did a dog give consent to medical treatment or professional grooming?

Dogs don't have the same rights as humans--especially when it comes to the Constitution. If we could give animals constitutional rights, then slavery was abolished many years ago. That means no human can own an animal.

The bans on marriage between to close of family members is based upon the potential for abuse- just as their is the potential for abuse between a doctor and his patient, or a therapist and his patient.

There is no law that doctor and patient can't marry. Their license might be challenged by their profession, but it's not against the law.

And how much abuse do we see between normal married couples? It goes on all the time. That's besides the fact that when we were able to contain marriage to two consenting adults of opposite sex, yes, states were allowed to restrict marriages. Those restrictions are gone because (as you pointed out) it goes against their equal protections under the law now. Thanks liberals.

But- good news for you- if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can go to court and claim it is your constitutional right- you have the right to make that argument in court.

And somebody will thanks to this can of worms liberals opened.

Yes, it is likely down the road, somebody will make that case. After all, the court can't restrict marriage between two anybody anymore. That's because the Constitution didn't outline marriage or gay anything. If any two people can marry, then why not brother and sister? It's constitutionally protected now.

 

[g5000]

2.) I'm harmed by the fact that gay marriage has redefined marriage.

It's not the first time marriage has been redefined in my lifetime. See below.

And in turn, has opened Pandora's Box. There was no discrimination before. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That's simply what it was.

The Supreme Court opened Pandora's box. There was no discrimination before. Marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race. That's simply what it was.

But by illegally and unconstitutionally permitting gay marriage, we now may not prevent any form of marriage.

Bullshit slippery slope fallacy.

You cannot provide a rational reason for banning gay or interracial marriage. All you bigots have ever had in the way of argument was, "We have always oppressed these people" and pretended it was all about tradition.

 

[g5000]

I notice the pseudo cons don't want to "redefine" marriage, but don't hesitate to go along with redefining citizenship.

 

[Syriusly]

See I don't see any of those being about 'moral and social decay'- by that standard the majority could claim virtually anything it wanted in the name of preventing 'moral and social decary'- like outlawing birth control(which by the way was outlawed because of claims about 'moral decay'.

We don't allow a daughter to marry her mother or father or a brother marrying his sister because of the potential for abuse. We don't allow a man to marry a dog because the institution is only for humans and we have laws against animal abuse.

But I was asking how you are being harmed. Or anyone else is being harmed.

And I answered.

Now how is it animal abuse if a man marries his dog? Or sister marrying brother? Or mom marrying son? There is no abuse there because in all cases, it's consensual.

Dogs can't give consent- I know that is news to you- and marriage laws only covers humans.

The bans on marriage between to close of family members is based upon the potential for abuse- just as their is the potential for abuse between a doctor and his patient, or a therapist and his patient.

But- good news for you- if you think you should be able to marry your sister- you can go to court and claim it is your constitutional right- you have the right to make that argument in court.

Let us know how it goes.

Dogs can't give consent- I know that is news to you- and marriage laws only covers humans.

Really? Can you show me where those laws are and how they can be applied today?

Dog's can't give consent. Did the dog give consent to being owned? Did a dog give consent to being put on a leash? Did a dog give consent to spending nights in a dog house? Did a dog give consent to medical treatment or professional grooming?

Dogs don't have the same rights as humans--especially when it comes to the Constitution. If we could give animals constitutional rights, then slavery was abolished many years ago. That means no human can own an animal.

Feel free to take your case to court.

LOL- you are an absolutely amazing example of why the bans on same gender marriage failed in court.

 

[g5000]

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry.

No, you aren't. At all. Two guys filing a joint tax return just like every other married couple harms you in no way at all. A man being able to visit his spouse in the ICU harms you in no way at all.

You're full of shit.