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

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Dale, you're probably a bigger bore than DK. And THAT is saying lots

I was in Pakistan for nine months in 1978 and I seem to remember an insult. Went like this...

calling you on your bullshit -- again

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Why is this thread posing as a political argument>? who is the op?

 

[paulitician]

Yes.

 

[Martin Eden Mercury]

Maybe USMB needs a Closet Case Board -- just call it The Closet .. and gay threads can go to die there .. or live on with Obviously Gay duo of DK and Dale moderating

 

[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.

Well yeah - you dispute indisputable facts all the time..

By definition- if I dispute what you say- the opinions you pose as facts- your claims are clearly not 'indisputable'.

Remember your 'proof' is your opinion- repeated by you often. Nothing more.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You don't want to get married- don't get married.

Most Americans want to get married. Which is why mixed race couples fought for their right to marry. And gay couples fought for their right to marry.

So do you want to eliminate legal marriage for all Americans?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

LOL- how very ironic coming from the poster who keeps claiming that he was horribly injured because the Supreme Court supported the rights of Americans who are gay.

Look at the amount of whining and victimhood you have spouted in this thread.

Of course you have yet to establish any actual harm.

 

[g5000]

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.

There are a thousand government cash and prizes awarded by law to married couples.

"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[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..

By definition- if I dispute what you say- the opinions you pose as facts- your claims are clearly not 'indisputable'.

Remember your 'proof' is your opinion- repeated by you often. Nothing more.

So you don't even know what the word "indisputable" means? No wonder you're a helpless liberal. Just because you lie about it, or ignore facts, doesn't make it indisputable. Indisputable means that the facts show it cannot be disputed with actual facts. It doesn't mean that an internet troll - desperate for attention - denies reality.

You forget - we've already established you are ignorant and you refuse to accept facts, so we established that your opinion is completely irrelevant. It would be much like a farm animal "disputing" something. Nobody would even pay attention to their "objection" because - well - they are just an irrelevant farm animal.

Now quick - go Google some more amendments...

 

[g5000]

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

LOL- how very ironic coming from the poster who keeps claiming that he was horribly injured because the Supreme Court supported the rights of Americans who are gay.

Look at the amount of whining and victimhood you have spouted in this thread.

Bingo.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No boy, the Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution- which is never ursurping the Constitution- and never has. I may not agree with their decisions- such as Citizen's United- but the Supreme Court is the institution to decide on the Constitutionality of laws.

You are not qualified to read a dictionary. Your lack of comprehension is amusing but in the end irrelevant.

Americans are able to legally marry because their rights were protected. Frankly I don't care how much that pisses you off.

 

[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?

LOL- how very ironic coming from the poster who keeps claiming that he was horribly injured because the Supreme Court supported the rights of Americans who are gay.

Look at the amount of whining and victimhood you have spouted in this thread.

Of course you have yet to establish any actual harm.

As I've stated (and you're far too stupid to comprehend) - we are all harmed when the law is violated. Especially the highest law in the land.

Point out how all of society is irreparably harmed by breaking the law is a far cry from the individual victimization you and your libtard pals like to proclaim.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

By definition- if I dispute what you say- the opinions you pose as facts- your claims are clearly not 'indisputable'.

Remember your 'proof' is your opinion- repeated by you often. Nothing more.

So you don't even know what the word "indisputable"

Boy, I do know the definition- because unlike you I have a good vocabulary and know how to use a dictionary- and I am not delusional- which gives me an advantage over you.

Indisputable
impossible to question or doubt <indisputable proof>
indisputably
\-blē\ adverb
Since your position is contrary to the ruling of the majority of the Supreme Court- clearly your position is not impossible to question or doubt.

 

[P@triot]

Frankly I don't care how much that pisses you off.

Clearly you do because you are losing your mind over the facts I am posting. You're afraid of losing your homosexual privileges of bilking the American people out of perks. You care so much you spend all of your time just on my posts.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

LOL- how very ironic coming from the poster who keeps claiming that he was horribly injured because the Supreme Court supported the rights of Americans who are gay.

Look at the amount of whining and victimhood you have spouted in this thread.

Of course you have yet to establish any actual harm.

As I've stated (and you're far too stupid to comprehend) - we are all harmed when the law is violated. Especially the highest law in the land.
.

You keep saying that.

Yet you still can't point to any actual harm.

That is as relevant as me saying we are all harmed when you post your usual idiotic claims at USMB.

 

[Syriusly]

Frankly I don't care how much that pisses you off.

Clearly you do because you are losing your mind over the facts I am posting. You're afraid of losing your homosexual privileges of bilking the American people out of perks. You care so much you spend all of your time just on my posts.

LOL....'my homosexual priveleges"?

What are those- tell me? I mean the ones you imagine that I am getting that I fear losing?

LOL

 

[P@triot]

but the Supreme Court is the institution to decide on the Constitutionality of laws.

Exactly! And that is not what they did with Obergefell, junior. They implemented a new law forcing all 50 states to accept gay marriage. They do not have that authority. Never have. Never will. Only the legislative branch can create legislation. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch.

I known that confuses. But as I mentioned to you yesterday - ask an adult for help.

 

[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.

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)

Oh- so you are completely delusional.

 

[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?

LOL- how very ironic coming from the poster who keeps claiming that he was horribly injured because the Supreme Court supported the rights of Americans who are gay.

Look at the amount of whining and victimhood you have spouted in this thread.

Of course you have yet to establish any actual harm.

As I've stated (and you're far too stupid to comprehend) - we are all harmed when the law is violated. Especially the highest law in the land.
.

You keep saying that.

Yet you still can't point to any actual harm.

That is as relevant as me saying we are all harmed when you post your usual idiotic claims at USMB.

I've pointed it out over a dozen times now. You keep pretending not to see it because you've had your ass thoroughly and completely kicked in this discussion. No shame in that though junior. You've clearly illustrated a very limited education and intellect. Expecting to win would like like a 9 year old girl expecting to beat Michael Jordan in basketball in his prime. You never had a prayer because you're ignorant. You've never read the U.S. Constitution, you don't understand how your government functions, and you support all things queer at all costs - whether they are legal or not. It makes for an impossible position to defend.

 

[Syriusly]

but the Supreme Court is the institution to decide on the Constitutionality of laws.

Exactly! And that is not what they did with Obergefell, junior. They implemented a new law forcing all 50 states to accept gay marriage. They do not have that authority. Never have. Never will. Only the legislative branch can create legislation. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch.
.

Nope- just as in Loving V. Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional State laws- specifically the laws in question.

It applies to other states by precedent- but technically the Supreme Court ruled on the 4 or 5 states that were part of the Obergefell appeal- just as they did when they ruled on Virginia's appeal.