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

[Bush92]

I recommend the Hank Williams Jr. song "The Coalition Against Coalitions"

 

[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.

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.
.

The potential for abuse is much the same.

But hey no one says you have to be concerned about the potential for abuse.

You have every right to go to court to argue for your right to marry your mother.

Doesn't mean you will win- but you have the right to make that argument.

Let us know how it turns out.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I've been legally married since 2008...I hope that pains him every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, it is likely down the road, somebody will make that case. After all, the court can't restrict marriage between two anybody anymore..

Yeah I keep hearing that from bigots who hate the idea of two people of the same gender getting married.

But the thing is- that just isn't true.

Same gender couples have been able to get married for over 10 years in Massachusetts- and it is still just as illegal as it has always been for a mother to marry her son, or for you to have 8 wives.

States can and do have marriage restrictions.

Obergefell didn't change the legal status of siblings marrying or polygamous marriages at all- not a single argument that can be made now, couldn't be made before Obergefell.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah I keep hearing that from bigots who hate the idea of two people of the same gender getting married.

But the thing is- that just isn't true.

Same gender couples have been able to get married for over 10 years in Massachusetts- and it is still just as illegal as it has always been for a mother to marry her son, or for you to have 8 wives.

States can and do have marriage restrictions.

Obergefell didn't change the legal status of siblings marrying or polygamous marriages at all- not a single argument that can be made now, couldn't be made before Obergefell.

States used to have restrictions, but no longer because any restriction they have is now unconstitutional. All it takes is for somebody to take a case to the Supreme Court about any restriction, and based on the last ruling, the state cannot restrict anybody to anything under equal rights. Because equal rights are not limited to normal and gay people. If marriage has to be equal in rights, those rights are granted to every American.

As for marriage, no state in the union forbade marriage. If you and your other found a religion that would marry you, then you got married under that religion and no state would stop you. The issue isn't as much about restriction than it is about forced acceptance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The potential for abuse is much the same.

But hey no one says you have to be concerned about the potential for abuse.

You have every right to go to court to argue for your right to marry your mother.

Doesn't mean you will win- but you have the right to make that argument.

Let us know how it turns out.

Oh, but you will win. That's the point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

That's why the court should have ruled that the federal government totally get out of marriage. As for visiting somebody in the ICU, that's not a federal restriction, that's a hospital restriction.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Redefining citizenship? Elaborate please, what is that supposed to even mean?

 

[Syriusly]

The potential for abuse is much the same.

But hey no one says you have to be concerned about the potential for abuse.

You have every right to go to court to argue for your right to marry your mother.

Doesn't mean you will win- but you have the right to make that argument.

Let us know how it turns out.

Oh, but you will win. That's the point.

I already have won- I have been married to my wonderful wife for over 20 years- and I am thrilled that my gay friends are no longer legally prevented from being treated exactly equally with my wife and I.

We are all winners.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I keep hearing that from bigots who hate the idea of two people of the same gender getting married.

But the thing is- that just isn't true.

Same gender couples have been able to get married for over 10 years in Massachusetts- and it is still just as illegal as it has always been for a mother to marry her son, or for you to have 8 wives.

States can and do have marriage restrictions.

Obergefell didn't change the legal status of siblings marrying or polygamous marriages at all- not a single argument that can be made now, couldn't be made before Obergefell.

States used to have restrictions, but no longer because any restriction they have is now unconstitutional. All it takes is for somebody to take a case to the Supreme Court about any restriction, and based on the last ruling, the state cannot restrict anybody to anything under equal rights.

You clearly have not read Obergefell.

Prior to 1967 States regulated marriage in many ways, including preventing mixed race couples from marrying, preventing siblings from marrying, preventing cousins from marrying, preventing persons already married from marrying, preventing people who were too young from marrying, preventing inmates from marrying, and other restrictions- there were no states that actually had laws in place to prevent same gender couples from marrying at that time.

In 1967- the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, the ban on mixed race marriages- zero effect on any other marriage restrictions
In 1973- the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, a ban on the marriage of a parent who owed child support- zero effect on any other marriage restrictions.
In 1987- the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, state prison regulations which restricted the right of inmates to marry. zero effect on any other marriage restrictions.
in 2015- the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional state bans on same gender marriage- which once again- has zero effect on any other marriage restrictions.

The State can and does restrict marriage.

If you don't believe it- go try to marry your sister.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That's why the court should have ruled that the federal government totally get out of marriage..

Why would the Supreme Court suddenly decide that Americans have no constitutional right to marry?

 

[Syriusly]

[
As for marriage, no state in the union forbade marriage. If you and your other found a religion that would marry you, then you got married under that religion and no state would stop you. The issue isn't as much about restriction than it is about forced acceptance.

The only marriage in question is legal marriage.

You know- the type of marriage you want to deny gay couples and are peeved that you can't.

 

[Dale Smith]

[
As for marriage, no state in the union forbade marriage. If you and your other found a religion that would marry you, then you got married under that religion and no state would stop you. The issue isn't as much about restriction than it is about forced acceptance.

The only marriage in question is legal marriage.

You know- the type of marriage you want to deny gay couples and are peeved that you can't.

Under admiralty law (which we are under) marriage is simply the merging of two corporate entities with the state being a third party to it thus subjecting this "union" to the acts, statutes and codes of the Universal Commercial Code. With that being said, what is pissing mne off about the queer agenda is the fact that they are infiltrating schools with groups like GLSEN pushing "Queer Pride" and other querr narratives off on even elementary school aged children. I have a REAL problem with that and I will say as much and if it pisses off the leftard clown posse? Well, it's a "win.win" for me because I find them as equally disgusting as I do the queers that leftyards suck up to.....are we clear?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only marriage in question is legal marriage.

You know- the type of marriage you want to deny gay couples and are peeved that you can't.

Yes, I and most do want to deny them legal marriage. That's because since the founding of this country, marriage has always been a religious union of one man and one woman. Nothing more--nothing less.

But along come the liberal gays and start to destroy the institution. Eventually, marriage will be nothing more than a joke down the road when people do start marrying their dogs and children. The value of marriage has been weakened and will be weakened even more down the road.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would the Supreme Court suddenly decide that Americans have no constitutional right to marry?

Probably because marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

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.

So you admit you are a bigot and that you discriminate people. Who are you to tell me that I cannot have 18 wives? Hypocrite.

 

[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.

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.

Dude...your "logic" is absurd. The Green River Killer raped and murdered over 40 women. I guess doing it that often made it "legal" since in your mind it only take the Supreme Court breaking the law four times to make something "legal".

 

[P@triot]

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

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

 

[P@triot]

[
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.

We are also surprised you can even function...

 

[P@triot]

[
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.

No - what I should get is constitutional government restored. That's all we need to fix America. Therapy is for irrational liberals who are born men and think they are women.