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

[Seawytch]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

A doctor does not have to ignore medical issues in order to call someone by their proper pronoun.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't get your hopes up- you aren't going to be able to marry your dog or your grandparents or your sister.

I know you feel like society has gone to hell ever since the Supreme Court told Virginia that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional, but that is just your sad psychosis on display.

I have been happily married for over 20 years. You would like to be able to reverse the marriages of everyone in the United States- you are the only one here who is actively working to take happiness away from others.

You- and your buddy Patty.

In an earlier post, you told me that queer marriages had nothing to do with happiness. Now you reverse that opinion?

And yes, it won't be long before others who are refused marriage based on who or what they wish to marry will be before the SC and based on the gay marriage ruling, they will have to rule those marriages constitutional as well.

You said it yourself: equal protection. So if your marriage is legit by equal protection, why won't a family member or pet marriage be protected?

Oh! But that will never happen! Oh yeah?

Well if you could go back in a time machine 50 years from today, go to a bar, and tell people that you were from the future, and in the future, gays would legally be married, they would have thrown you out of that bar.

It may not happen this year, next year, or even ten years, but it's going to happen unless we get real judges in the SC to overturn this ruling and preserve real marriage in the US.

Gays fought for decades for the right to marry. The Christian right fought to stop them. Eventually, the public sided with gays being allowed to marry over the fundamentalist objections. In the end, the courts sided with same sex marriage.

If polygamists, incestuous couples or those who want to marry their favorite teddy bear think they have a legitimate case, they can pursue the same remedy that gays did

But the slippery slope is not as slippery as you think

 

[toxicmedia]

Righties don't like college, so they haven't taken those first year intro to logic courses. As a result, don't know the difference between facts and opinion

As opposed to liberals who go to college (while making someone else pay for it because you're too lazy to pay for it yourself) where you promptly show up and smoke pot and snort coke up your noses (like Barry Serento) or did lots of acid (like Bill Ayers). No wonder you people are so stupid as adults. You fried what little brain cells you had in your early 20's.

My parents paid for my college, and I don't do drugs of any kind, including weed.

You're just full of "ASS"umptions

Plus I'm not even a liberal.

I'm an Eisenhower/Goldwater Republican...which is unrecognizable to Tea Party bible thumping prudish nut balls who need to get laid

 

[Syriusly]

Do you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on Loving?

I've said "yes" to this question about half a dozen times now. The federal government has no authority over marriage and the Supreme Court has no authority to make law as they are part of the judicial branch and laws can only be made by the legislative branch.

Clearly they do have that authority- since Virginia bowed to that authority and reversed the conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving- and every state in the United States from that point on allowed mixed race marriages.

Remember- the only one saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority is you. Citing you.

Meanwhile the courts, the legislature and the Executive branch all recognize that authority.

You are the lone contrarian.

 

[Syriusly]

Don't get your hopes up- you aren't going to be able to marry your dog or your grandparents or your sister.

I know you feel like society has gone to hell ever since the Supreme Court told Virginia that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional, but that is just your sad psychosis on display.

I have been happily married for over 20 years. You would like to be able to reverse the marriages of everyone in the United States- you are the only one here who is actively working to take happiness away from others.

You- and your buddy Patty.

In an earlier post, you told me that queer marriages had nothing to do with happiness. Now you reverse that opinion?
.

The legality of marriage has nothing to do with happiness.

You were the one who claimed that the "Gays" were trying to make people unhappy- I was just pointing out that my wife and I were happily married before Obergefell and we are happily married after Obergefell. And that you are the only one trying to take that happiness away.

 

[Syriusly]

[
And yes, it won't be long before others who are refused marriage based on who or what they wish to marry will be before the SC and based on the gay marriage ruling, they will have to rule those marriages constitutional as well..

There is absolutely nothing about Obergefell that affects any other marriage restrictions.

IF you have a right to marry your sister- you had that right before Obergefell and you have that right after Obergefell.

If you don't have that right- you didn't have that right before or after Obergefell.

Same gender couples have been legally marrying for over 10 years in Massachusetts- yet you still can't go to Massachusetts to pursue your dream of marrying your grandmother.

 

[P@triot]

Clearly they do have that authority- since Virginia bowed to that authority and reversed the conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving- and every state in the United States from that point on allowed mixed race marriages.

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did. What kind of super ignorant tool are you to believe that just because something happens, it must be ok or legal? The federal government breaks the law every single day in this country. Do you know how many times Barry Sorento has violated the U.S. Constitution during his reign of terror? Oh wait, that's right, you wouldn't know since you're too damn lazy to actually read the short little document (and clearly too stupid to understand it anyway).

Remember- the only one saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority is you. Citing you.

Remember - the only one making up that nonsense is you. Just you. Which is why everyone is laughing at your right now. Which they do every day since you have astoundingly ignorant posts. Literally every person in the United States who has read the U.S. Constitution has said the exact same thing. Hell, stupid, even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I mean, seriously, do you have any idea how astoundingly stupid you sound when you claim I am the "only" one stating this is unconstitutional when several Supreme Court Justices said the exact same thing. But of course, you didn't read their dissent on the case either because you're a blind, ignorant, partisan hack minion who swallows whatever load your libtard minions will shove down your throat. You're a joke. You're humiliating yourself on this site by illustrating how stupid you are too the world. That you're too lazy to do some basic homework and know what you're talking about before commenting is why you have zero credibility and why people consider you an asshole. Here is one of the finest Supreme Court Justices in U.S. history clearly citing the unconstitutionality of the ruling:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. . . .

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. . . . The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. . . .

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures, and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” can be exercised as the States or the People desire. . . .

Wow! That is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia bending you over and showing the world what a tool you are. It clearly cites over and over how unconstitutional that ruling was. "Constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine". If it were Constitutional junior, it would be a "revision". Damn are you dumb.

Meanwhile the courts, the legislature and the Executive branch all recognize that authority.

Well, I just proved that myth with cited facts above. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito all stated that the Supreme Court had no such authority. Forget about each thread. And forget about each post for that matter. Literally, with each sentence you illustrate more deeply your profound ignorance. You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about - but it doesn't stop you from opening your mouth anyway.

You are the lone contrarian.

Well, that's already been disproven. Tell me something junior, how does it feel to be my personal bitch on USMB? I'm literally humiliated for you. I've never seen anyone post something so ignorant and so easily provable. If you had an ounce of common sense, you'd refrain from responding. Of course, it appears you don't mind exposing your ignorance so....

 

[P@triot]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

A doctor does not have to ignore medical issues in order to call someone by their proper pronoun.

Wytchy....it helps if you read before commenting. Here is the text again word-for-word. I've highlighted the most critical word in hopes that you might comprehend.

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The key word is TREATING wytch. Not calling. TREATING. Incidentally, their "proper pronoun" is their biological gender. Convincing someone with a severe mental disorder that their distorted views are correct is extremely harmful to the person suffering from the disorder and to society. Only sick libtard homosexuals with a disturbing agenda deny that reality.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly they do have that authority- since Virginia bowed to that authority and reversed the conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving- and every state in the United States from that point on allowed mixed race marriages.

So clearly Ted Bundy

So clearly you kick puppies.

 

[P@triot]

Righties don't like college, so they haven't taken those first year intro to logic courses. As a result, don't know the difference between facts and opinion

As opposed to liberals who go to college (while making someone else pay for it because you're too lazy to pay for it yourself) where you promptly show up and smoke pot and snort coke up your noses (like Barry Serento) or did lots of acid (like Bill Ayers). No wonder you people are so stupid as adults. You fried what little brain cells you had in your early 20's.

My parents paid for my college, and I don't do drugs of any kind, including weed.

You're just full of "ASS"umptions

Plus I'm not even a liberal.

I'm an Eisenhower/Goldwater Republican...which is unrecognizable to Tea Party bible thumping prudish nut balls who need to get laid

Bwahahaha! You think Eisenhower and the Republican's of the 1950's were preaching promiscuity, idiot? Hell, even the libtards weren't doing that until the 1960's. You're a fuck'n liberal. You know it. I know it. And the 6 year old on your street that has to put up with your insanity knows it.

The fact that your so obsessed with people getting laid kind of shows that you're the desperate one. The rest of us aren't old assholes. We don't get rejected by women. Maybe if you weren't such a dick, you wouldn't have to go without. Just say'n....

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly they do have that authority- since Virginia bowed to that authority and reversed the conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving- and every state in the United States from that point on allowed mixed race marriages.

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did. What kind of super ignorant tool are you to believe that just because something happens, it must be ok or legal? The federal government breaks the law every single day in this country. Do you know how many times Barry Sorento has violated the U.S. Constitution during his reign of terror? Oh wait, that's right, you wouldn't know since you're too damn lazy to actually read the short little document (and clearly too stupid to understand it anyway).

Remember- the only one saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority is you. Citing you.

Remember - the only one making up that nonsense is you. Just you. Which is why everyone is laughing at your right now. Which they do every day since you have astoundingly ignorant posts. Literally every person in the United States who has read the U.S. Constitution has said the exact same thing. Hell, stupid, even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

I don't see anyone laughing at me.
You imagining what everyone in the United States is doing is as delusional as your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- and in all 4 cases the States went along with the Supreme Court decision.

In the Obergefell cases over a dozen federal judges and every Appellate Court except one agreed that such State laws were unconstitutional- and that the Federal Court had the authority to overturn the laws.

Let us know when you find an example of State courts rejecting the authority of the Supreme Court and refusing to comply with a decision.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q? I'm literally humiliated for you

Well you sure have been humiliated in this thread.

 

[P@triot]

Clearly they do have that authority- since Virginia bowed to that authority and reversed the conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving- and every state in the United States from that point on allowed mixed race marriages.

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did. What kind of super ignorant tool are you to believe that just because something happens, it must be ok or legal? The federal government breaks the law every single day in this country. Do you know how many times Barry Sorento has violated the U.S. Constitution during his reign of terror? Oh wait, that's right, you wouldn't know since you're too damn lazy to actually read the short little document (and clearly too stupid to understand it anyway).

Remember- the only one saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority is you. Citing you.

Remember - the only one making up that nonsense is you. Just you. Which is why everyone is laughing at your right now. Which they do every day since you have astoundingly ignorant posts. Literally every person in the United States who has read the U.S. Constitution has said the exact same thing. Hell, stupid, even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

I don't see anyone laughing at me.
You imagining what everyone in the United States is doing is as delusional as your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- and in all 4 cases the States went along with the Supreme Court decision.

In the Obergefell cases over a dozen federal judges and every Appellate Court except one agreed that such State laws were unconstitutional- and that the Federal Court had the authority to overturn the laws.

Let us know when you find an example of State courts rejecting the authority of the Supreme Court and refusing to comply with a decision.

Dude....you claimed that nobody said it was "unconstitutional". I just provided PROOF of FOUR Supreme Court Justices citing exactly that.

That's how stupid you are. Bet you're wishing you had actually read the facts of the case now, uh junior?

 

[P@triot]

I don't see anyone laughing at me.

Everybody is laughing at you junior....

Now tell us again how I am the "only" one who understands that the ruling was unconstitutional. That's my favorite part. It's the easiest to disprove considering Supreme Court Justices cited the unconstitutionality in their dissent.

 

[Seawytch]

A very large portion of America is getting tired of the Queer Agenda because of nonsense just like this...

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

If a medical doctor, based on biological evidence, sees a male patient, but the patient claims to be a female, the doctor must treat the patient as a female. Failure to do so could leave the doctor vulnerable to lawsuits, lost federal funding, and federal investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, the HHS arm implementing this policy.

Ok...well ignoring a male problem (say - prostrate cancer) and treating the man as a woman for PMS will end with the patient dying. Which will also end with a lawsuit for the physician. So either way they end up with a law suit.

Rule Requires Doctors To Treat Trans Patients As Pretend Sex

A doctor does not have to ignore medical issues in order to call someone by their proper pronoun.

Wytchy....it helps if you read before commenting. Here is the text again word-for-word. I've highlighted the most critical word in hopes that you might comprehend.

Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies may soon face lawsuits for treating male and female patients according to their biological sex, thanks to a health care rule finalized in May as part of the Affordable Care Act.

The key word is TREATING wytch. Not calling. TREATING. Incidentally, their "proper pronoun" is their biological gender. Convincing someone with a severe mental disorder that their distorted views are correct is extremely harmful to the person suffering from the disorder and to society. Only sick libtard homosexuals with a disturbing agenda deny that reality.

Treating has more than one meaning. It doesn't mean that a doctor must ignore the testicular cancer of a pre-op male to female transgendered person because they want to be identified as she. Only an idiot would think otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toxicmedia]

Righties don't like college, so they haven't taken those first year intro to logic courses. As a result, don't know the difference between facts and opinion

As opposed to liberals who go to college (while making someone else pay for it because you're too lazy to pay for it yourself) where you promptly show up and smoke pot and snort coke up your noses (like Barry Serento) or did lots of acid (like Bill Ayers). No wonder you people are so stupid as adults. You fried what little brain cells you had in your early 20's.

My parents paid for my college, and I don't do drugs of any kind, including weed.

You're just full of "ASS"umptions

Plus I'm not even a liberal.

I'm an Eisenhower/Goldwater Republican...which is unrecognizable to Tea Party bible thumping prudish nut balls who need to get laid

Bwahahaha! You think Eisenhower and the Republican's of the 1950's were preaching promiscuity, idiot? Hell, even the libtards weren't doing that until the 1960's. You're a fuck'n liberal. You know it. I know it. And the 6 year old on your street that has to put up with your insanity knows it.

The fact that your so obsessed with people getting laid kind of shows that you're the desperate one. The rest of us aren't old assholes. We don't get rejected by women. Maybe if you weren't such a dick, you wouldn't have to go without. Just say'n....

Sorry, I didn't mean to hit a nerve, or get under your skin so badly.

I never meant to cause you so much distress, and I apologize.

 

[Seawytch]

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did.

When did the SCOTUS rule that Ted Bundy had a right to rape and murder?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seawytch]

I don't see anyone laughing at me.

Everybody is laughing at you junior....

Now tell us again how I am the "only" one who understands that the ruling was unconstitutional. That's my favorite part. It's the easiest to disprove considering Supreme Court Justices cited the unconstitutionality in their dissent.

"Everybody" being the voices in Puppy's head that says he's the authority and not the SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see anyone laughing at me.

Everybody is laughing at you junior...

I think you might want to seek professional help.

Since you clearly think you can hear the laughter of posters on USMB, you are showing signs of a psychosis.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly they do have that authority- since Virginia bowed to that authority and reversed the conviction of Mildred and Richard Loving- and every state in the United States from that point on allowed mixed race marriages.

So clearly Ted Bundy had the right to rape and murder women since he did, uh? And Omar Mateen had the right to shoot and kill 49 people and shoot and injury 53 other, since he did. What kind of super ignorant tool are you to believe that just because something happens, it must be ok or legal? The federal government breaks the law every single day in this country. Do you know how many times Barry Sorento has violated the U.S. Constitution during his reign of terror? Oh wait, that's right, you wouldn't know since you're too damn lazy to actually read the short little document (and clearly too stupid to understand it anyway).

Remember- the only one saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have that authority is you. Citing you.

Remember - the only one making up that nonsense is you. Just you. Which is why everyone is laughing at your right now. Which they do every day since you have astoundingly ignorant posts. Literally every person in the United States who has read the U.S. Constitution has said the exact same thing. Hell, stupid, even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

I don't see anyone laughing at me.
You imagining what everyone in the United States is doing is as delusional as your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- and in all 4 cases the States went along with the Supreme Court decision.

In the Obergefell cases over a dozen federal judges and every Appellate Court except one agreed that such State laws were unconstitutional- and that the Federal Court had the authority to overturn the laws.

Let us know when you find an example of State courts rejecting the authority of the Supreme Court and refusing to comply with a decision.

Dude....you claimed that nobody said it was "unconstitutional". I just provided PROOF of FOUR Supreme Court Justices citing exactly that.

You have provided evidence that 4 Supreme Court justices didn't agree with the decision in Obergefell. Not one of those justices ever claimed that the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional State law.

How many Supreme Court justices have voted to overturn State's marriage laws?

5 in Obergefell
8 in Zablocki
9 in Loving
9 in Turner

4 cases in which the Supreme Court overturned state laws and regulations on marriage- with a total of 31 Supreme Court Justices all voting to overturn marriage laws as unconsitutional.

Meanwhile you still haven't shown us a single Justice who says that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state marriage law.