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

[P@triot]

LOL....patty does have his panties in a wad.

Do you realize you've spent almost all day on this site and have added literally nothing of value. Just misinformation and personal insults. Nothing of value - kind of like your contribution to society. Just one more thing we've come to expect from liberals.

 

[Syriusly]

You know what's funny - I thought perhaps I missed something, so I just went back and read the initial post. There wasn't a single implication in any capacity about "tough guys" or "US Navy Seals", or anything even remotely like that.

So basically you're just whining like a little bitch that people have no desire to see you marching naked in the street with a dog collar leash around your neck and a rainbow painted on your back. The American people are simply tired of that shit junior. We're tired of the sexual deviance. As the initial post said - nobody gives a shit what you disturbed people (who desperately need therapy) do. All we're asking is that you keep it in your fucking bedroom where it belongs. You don't see heterosexuals hosting parades about how "proud" we are to be straight. You know why? Because nobody gives a shit. You people are the only idiot obsessed with sexuality. The rest of us are too busy with our lives to give a shit what kind of deviant behaviors you people engage in. We just don't care. You want us to care. But we don't. You get off on the idea of "shocking" the public with it (much like a flasher does). You need to find a more constructive outlet. Maybe have a queer club where you "shock" each other with your nonsense?

You are on to something. This is what caused all this gay marriage stuff.

There is no real advantage of a couple being married. Legally? Just about anything a married couple has, any couple can get with a good lawyer. You can set up who you leave all your stuff to if you die. You can give Power of Attorney anytime you like. You can have your name changed whether in a relationship or not. Just about everything can be worked out legally except government benefits.

How do I know this? Because when I lived with women years ago, we looked into it. Women I had deep relationships with didn't want to get government involved as much as I didn't want government involved.

So this really isn't about any kind of legal benefits. That's a red herring. After all, some states like California had Civil Unions, and those were the people who complained the most about not being able to marry.

No- this really isn't about any kind of legal benefits. Legal benefits only establish a measurable harm. You know- measurable unlike the 'harm' Patty keeps claiming he is suffering because gays can legally marry.

My wife and I got married over 20 years ago- and we didn't do it for 'legal benefits'- any more than most people get married for legal benefits. Why did we get married?

Because we decided we wanted all of the responsibilities and benefits of a life long partnership- apparently something you aren't familiar with.

Mildred and Richard Loving fought for their right to be treated equally 50 years ago- not because they were looking for the 'bennies' of marriage- but because they thought they should be treated equally with same race couples- and they were right.

And so did Jim Obergefell and his spouse- John Arthur- together 21 years- until John died. Jim stuck by him- Jim showed how a spouse should stand by his partner- till death did they part.

You folks oppose that- for you its nothing more than social security benefits that you don't want to share with gay couples.

 

[Syriusly]

[, it's not called a straw man. It's called an analogy sweetie. What that completely obliterates your absurd position (which is why you hate it so much).

LOL- isn't it cute when Patty declares victory even though he hasn't been able to make a single point?

I've made dozens of points. All of them indisputable..

LOL......'all of them indisputable'- and yet I have disputed them.

You are hilarious.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....patty does have his panties in a wad.

Do you realize you've spent almost all day on this site and have added literally nothing of value. Just misinformation and personal insults. Nothing of value - kind of like your contribution to society. Just one more thing we've come to expect from liberals.

I think you are projecting your lack of content to me.

Unlike yourself, I have cited Supreme Court rulings that make it plain that marriage is indeed a right for Americans. I have provided real content- not just your bizarre opinions.

You have cited you- with the authority being- once again you.

 

[Syriusly]

So gays claim they were not happy because they couldn't marry. Okay, what if there was no such thing as marriage for anybody in this country? Would they still be miserable?

LOL Ray- do you actually believe that crap?

No gays claimed that they were not happy because they couldn't marry- they claimed that they had the constitutional right to marry- just like my wife and I have the right to marry.

 

[P@triot]

[, it's not called a straw man. It's called an analogy sweetie. What that completely obliterates your absurd position (which is why you hate it so much).

LOL- isn't it cute when Patty declares victory even though he hasn't been able to make a single point?

I've made dozens of points. All of them indisputable..

LOL......'all of them indisputable'- and yet I have disputed them.

You are hilarious.

Well yeah - you dispute indisputable facts all the time. Mind you, you're incapable of making a rational, logical case backed up with facts. The extent of your disputing them is usually the highly intellectual "nah-uh" or "not true". But your senseless opinions mean nothing. You've yet to dispute anything with a single fact. The closest you came was looking up an amendment and desperately trying to apply it where it doesn't even remotely apply.

 

[P@triot]

I think you are projecting your lack of content to me. Unlike yourself, I have cited Supreme Court rulings that make it plain that marriage is indeed a right for Americans. I have provided real content- not just your bizarre opinions. You have cited you- with the authority being- once again you.

Boom! Exactly. Thank you for admitting your nonsensical arguments. And you just proved you are wrong. The Supreme Court does not create rights. Nor do they create laws. They are part of the Judicial branch junior (I know that's a big word that you're not familiar with, but ask an adult for help). Laws can only be made by the Legislative branch. And the Supreme Court has zero authority to usurp the U.S. Constitution, alter it, or over ride it.

 

[Syriusly]

I think you are projecting your lack of content to me. Unlike yourself, I have cited Supreme Court rulings that make it plain that marriage is indeed a right for Americans. I have provided real content- not just your bizarre opinions. You have cited you- with the authority being- once again you.

Boom! Exactly. Thank you for admitting your nonsensical arguments. And you just proved you are wrong. The Supreme Court does not create rights. Nor do they create laws. They are part of the Judicial branch junior (I know that's a big word that you're not familiar with, but ask an adult for help). Laws can only be made by the Legislative branch. And the Supreme Court has zero authority to usurp the U.S. Constitution, alter it, or over ride it.

The Supreme Court does not create rights- the Supreme Court protects the Constitution- and the Constitutional rights of Americans.
The Supreme Court can't make laws- it can overturn unconstitutional laws.
The Supreme Court can't ursurp the U.S. Constitution- and never has.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL Ray- do you actually believe that crap?

No gays claimed that they were not happy because they couldn't marry- they claimed that they had the constitutional right to marry- just like my wife and I have the right to marry.

That's not what I understand, especially from other gays on the internet.

So here you come along and say it had nothing to do with happiness. Well if had nothing to do with happiness, why fight so hard against the majority of normal people that don't want that in our society?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No- this really isn't about any kind of legal benefits. Legal benefits only establish a measurable harm. You know- measurable unlike the 'harm' Patty keeps claiming he is suffering because gays can legally marry.

My wife and I got married over 20 years ago- and we didn't do it for 'legal benefits'- any more than most people get married for legal benefits. Why did we get married?

Because we decided we wanted all of the responsibilities and benefits of a life long partnership- apparently something you aren't familiar with.

Mildred and Richard Loving fought for their right to be treated equally 50 years ago- not because they were looking for the 'bennies' of marriage- but because they thought they should be treated equally with same race couples- and they were right.

And so did Jim Obergefell and his spouse- John Arthur- together 21 years- until John died. Jim stuck by him- Jim showed how a spouse should stand by his partner- till death did they part.

You folks oppose that- for you its nothing more than social security benefits that you don't want to share with gay couples.

What social benefits--just to say that you are married?

Again, it's my philosophy of the kid and the cookie jar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh yeah....I've said that for decades. A few legal documents (a will, a Power of Attorney, etc.) and they have every "perk" that a married couple has.

And here's the thing - contrary to their false narrative - most people could give a shit either way. I know I don't care. My issue is their egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution. This is unquestionably the right of the states (and thus the people) to decide. If a state legalizes it (much like Vermont did many years ago), great. That's the will of the people. If a state rejects it (much like California did just a few short years ago), great as well. Once again, that's the will of the people. That's the entire point of the U.S.A. Fifty individual states, with it's residents deciding for themselves the direction they want their lives to go. Anyone unhappy with that direction has the freedom and ability to move to another state. Everybody wins. Everybody gets want they want. Except when oppressive liberals get involved. Then everybody loses.

Agreed, but it's like I said, it has to do with social rejection.

If the court ruled that the government would get totally out of the marriage business, the gays would still be complaining about it because most only say it's because of benefits. It's not about anything but being separated from normal people in a social setting.

I had a tenant who turned lesbian. She was a friend of my sisters. They all hung around together and go to bars, dinner, shows, things like that. After she married her other, she wanted everybody to treat her just like a normal married woman. She wanted to talk about her relationship all the time, wanted to show pictures of her and her other doing things together, sending out letters of what's going on in their marriage (as if normal people ever did that) and it just got to the point they cut off ties with her.

As my cousins husband put it "Okay, she turned lesbian, we get that. We can almost accept that. But I don't want to hear about it is all. Their marriage is not normal and never will be. None of us ever shove our relationships down her throat, WTF does she always have to try and convince us hers is normal?"

And this is their mindset. There is nothing normal about gay anything. Many people don't accept it, they simply tolerate it up to a point.

 

[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.

LOL 'admiralty law'?

No- 'we' are not under admiralty law except if 'we' are on the water

Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Did I stutter? "Law of the Flag" pertains to the gold fringe around the American flag that you see in court and in "gubermint" offices....they didn't put the gold fringe on there just so they could "pimp the flag". It is symbolic. You see, I know more than you. District courts are admiralty courts and that is a fact.


"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." - Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.


The committee also alluded to "the great force" of "the great constitutional question as to the power of Congress to extend maritime jurisdiction beyond the ground occupied by it at the adoption of the Constitution...." - Ibid. H.R. Rep. No. 72 31st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1850)

"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So are you saying that no gays have been discriminated against in housing or for a job in the last year?

Yep, and you know why? Because it's against the law. Anybody discriminating based on that alone can get sued into the next century. Nobody is going to accept that liability no matter how much they hate gay people.

 

[P@triot]

The Supreme Court can't ursurp the U.S. Constitution- and never has.

It just did junior - with the Obergefell decision. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers only and marriage is not one of them.

You are clearly not qualified to discuss the U.S. Constitution or American government so it would be prudent on your behalf to stop trying.

 

[P@triot]

So are you saying that no gays have been discriminated against in housing or for a job in the last year?

Yep, and you know why? Because it's against the law. Anybody discriminating based on that alone can get sued into the next century. Nobody is going to accept that liability no matter how much they hate gay people.

Liberals love to play the victim - don't they?

 

[Dale Smith]

So are you saying that no gays have been discriminated against in housing or for a job in the last year?

Yep, and you know why? Because it's against the law. Anybody discriminating based on that alone can get sued into the next century. Nobody is going to accept that liability no matter how much they hate gay people.

Liberals love to play the victim - don't they?

These fabian socilaists that try to pass themselves off as "progressives" are a blight on this country.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals love to play the victim - don't they?

And if they are a victim, fine, give me some evidence.

But to throw out this blanket statement that gays are still being discriminated against in employment and housing is just plain ridiculous. I know, I'm a landlord, I know what can happen to me in any discrimination suit. I can't even discriminate against people with children. In my state of Ohio, the state actually sent people out to answer rental ads that had pet restrictions. When the landlord refused to rent to these agents, they sent the landlords a $5,000 fine because the applicant claimed it had something to do with a medical disability such as depression.

 

[jasonnfree]

Liberals love to play the victim - don't they?

And if they are a victim, fine, give me some evidence.

But to throw out this blanket statement that gays are still being discriminated against in employment and housing is just plain ridiculous. I know, I'm a landlord, I know what can happen to me in any discrimination suit. I can't even discriminate against people with children. In my state of Ohio, the state actually sent people out to answer rental ads that had pet restrictions. When the landlord refused to rent to these agents, they sent the landlords a $5,000 fine because the applicant claimed it had something to do with a medical disability such as depression.

Whereabouts around Cleveland is this? I used to live in Euclid, but that was in the 50's and early 60's. I know its changed for the worst there since then.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Whereabouts around Cleveland is this? I used to live in Euclid, but that was in the 50's and early 60's. I know its changed for the worst there since then.

All I know is that this took place somewhere in Cleveland because a landlord called in with the story during a discussion of property discrimination with a local host. He checked into the story and found that it was genuine.

The landlord called his lawyer and the lawyers advice was to just pay the fine. The lawyer assured him that if challenged, he would likely win the case. However, because the case would have to be heard in Columbus (about 100 miles from Cleveland) the legal fees would surpass the $5,000 fine, and the state could still file for an appeal which again, would have to be heard in Columbus.

 

[Peaceful-libertarian]

I think everyone has the right to be who they are. They aren't hurting anyone by showing their love to those who they want to share it with. I think spreading hate towards others like this is no worse then democrats spreading fear on guns.