Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SUPERMAN1929 SAID:

“It's a made up right. It's not even marriage and we need to get rid of every benefit received for being married after it has been turned into a joke.”

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and wrong.

The rights of due process and equal protection of the laws are in no way 'made up' rights, these rights are inalienable and fundamental to a free people and free society:

“...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.” US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in simply because of who they are violates their right to liberty, their right to due process, and their right to equal protection of (equal access to) the laws, in this case marriage law, because measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying lack a rational basis and pursue no proper legislative end – they exist solely to disadvantage gay Americans.

That you hate gay Americans is not 'justification' to deny them their civil rights.

 

[Skylar]

But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

Um, the reason these laws got tossed is because they were deemed unconstitutional. That's not going around around the Constitution, that's respecting it.

Right, pure legislation from the bench. Gays had exactly the same rights as straights, the courts had no legitimate say. That leaves it up to the legislature

Tell us, when the courts toss gun control laws, are they legislating from the bench, yes or no?

Paint....we know the schtick. If they agree with the ruling, its 'upholding the constitution'. If they disagree with the ruling, its 'legislating from the bench'.

Its just plain old confirmation bias. Where anything that doesn't match what they already believe is dismissed. Its an unremarkable argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

Um, the reason these laws got tossed is because they were deemed unconstitutional. That's not going around around the Constitution, that's respecting it.

Right, pure legislation from the bench. Gays had exactly the same rights as straights, the courts had no legitimate say. That leaves it up to the legislature

Tell us, when the courts toss gun control laws, are they legislating from the bench, yes or no?

That's a clown question, bro

No, it's a question you can't answer because it completely undermines your position. Finding a gun law unconstitutional is no different than finding a marriage law unconstitutional.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

Um, the reason these laws got tossed is because they were deemed unconstitutional. That's not going around around the Constitution, that's respecting it.

Right, pure legislation from the bench. Gays had exactly the same rights as straights, the courts had no legitimate say. That leaves it up to the legislature

Tell us, when the courts toss gun control laws, are they legislating from the bench, yes or no?

Paint....we know the schtick. If they agree with the ruling, its 'upholding the constitution'. If they disagree with the ruling, its 'legislating from the bench'.

Its just plain old confirmation bias. Where anything that doesn't match what they already believe is dismissed. Its an unremarkable argument.

I realize they are in a trap that they created, but I enjoy watching them chew off three of their legs, and still be connected to the chain...

 

[kaz]

The question was name another law that changes based on what someone wants, try reading it again

Someone wanted not to ride in the back of the bus, and the laws were changed when enough people agreed that requiring such a thing was wrong, meaning unequal.

LOL, you are not a bright guy. The bus laws were based on the color of your skin. The law wasn't changed based on that blacks wanted something different, that isn't an answer to the question. The law didn't changed based on what they wanted, it changed based on the color of their skin.

What law does change based on you want something different than someone else? Only gay marriage, and only because the courts changed it based on they wanted something different. Your turn, name a law that changes based on what you want

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

SUPERMAN1929 SAID:

“It's a made up right. It's not even marriage and we need to get rid of every benefit received for being married after it has been turned into a joke.”

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and wrong.

The rights of due process and equal protection of the laws are in no way 'made up' rights, these rights are inalienable and fundamental to a free people and free society:

“...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.” US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in simply because of who they are violates their right to liberty, their right to due process, and their right to equal protection of (equal access to) the laws, in this case marriage law, because measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying lack a rational basis and pursue no proper legislative end – they exist solely to disadvantage gay Americans.

That you hate gay Americans is not 'justification' to deny them their civil rights.

They're not a couple. They're fags. I'm saying that if gays can marry, they should just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married.

 

[kaz]

Paint....we know the schtick. If they agree with the ruling, its 'upholding the constitution'. If they disagree with the ruling, its 'legislating from the bench'.

Its just plain old confirmation bias. Where anything that doesn't match what they already believe is dismissed. Its an unremarkable argument.

So seriously, you don't grasp the difference between the courts just striking down laws that violate the constitution and the courts creating new law? Of course you don't, you can't see past your pompous ego...

 

[kaz]

SUPERMAN1929 SAID:

“It's a made up right. It's not even marriage and we need to get rid of every benefit received for being married after it has been turned into a joke.”

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and wrong.

The rights of due process and equal protection of the laws are in no way 'made up' rights, these rights are inalienable and fundamental to a free people and free society:

“...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.” US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in simply because of who they are violates their right to liberty, their right to due process, and their right to equal protection of (equal access to) the laws, in this case marriage law, because measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying lack a rational basis and pursue no proper legislative end – they exist solely to disadvantage gay Americans.

That you hate gay Americans is not 'justification' to deny them their civil rights.

They're not a couple. They're fags. I'm saying that if gays can marry, they should just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married.

Half agree, they should "just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married" period

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're threatened that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' they're going to be subject to attacks and violence ...

I'm not threatening anything. I am stating that you're foolishness is so profound as to believe that you can assault people, abuse and offend people through the color of law, with impunity.

And IN REALITY... THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED ANYTIME, ANYWHERE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY.

Meaning that EVERY SINGLE TIME, THROUGHOUT THE SCOPE OF HUMAN HISTORY, THAT YOUR BEHAVIOR HAS COME INTO SOME DEGREE OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE... THAT ACCEPTANCE HAS TURNED YOUR INNATE SELF DESTRUCTION TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CULTURE AT LARGE. Which has resulted in the destruction of the culture and with it, the destruction of the social acceptance of your behavior.

If I dropped dead this instance... and as a result was removed from the equation, that would not alter that reality, one iota.

YOUR SELF DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR WILL CONTINUE TO GROW AND FESTER UNTIL THE POPULATION ON THE WHOLE CAN NO LONGER TOLERATE YOU AND LIKE THE RECENT ECONOMIC BUBBLE, THE QUEER BUBBLE WILL POP AND YOU IDIOTS WILL BE ERASED.

It's not even a debatable point.

Read the book: The Population Bomb.

Don't like that, read any book which recites the history of the Greek City States, or the Roman Republic, which devolved into the Empire, which devolved into a tiny little irrelevant town toward the middle of economic disaster, with lots of cool old shit.

Don't like that... Read the history of the Japanese Samurai. (SPOILER ALERT: It doesn't end well...)

Pick any one. And note that as time marches on, the period from 'deviant acceptance' to cultural destruction comes ever so much faster.

The FACT remains that homosexuals have ALWAYS been a part of humanity and Homosexuals have ALWAYS been forbidden, except for tiny little pockets of acceptance, following periods of prosperity, just before the cultural BUBBLE BURSTS!

So, that tells us that something was working in the culture, which was rinsed from the culture, which ended up resulting in the release of a profound evil, that destroyed the culture.

Hmm... now if the homosexuals aren't that evil... they're sure as FUCK a manifestation of it.

But... Skylar, you tell me, why is it, that as you claim, Homosexuals have ALWAYS been with humanity, that Homosexuals have virtually NO HISTORY living peaceful co-existence with humanity?

 

[kaz]

But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

Um, the reason these laws got tossed is because they were deemed unconstitutional. That's not going around around the Constitution, that's respecting it.

Right, pure legislation from the bench. Gays had exactly the same rights as straights, the courts had no legitimate say. That leaves it up to the legislature

Tell us, when the courts toss gun control laws, are they legislating from the bench, yes or no?

That's a clown question, bro

No, it's a question you can't answer because it completely undermines your position. Finding a gun law unconstitutional is no different than finding a marriage law unconstitutional.

You don't understand the difference between positive and negative rights. That's a major chasm, your analogy is pathetically terrible. That's why I said it was a clown question, it's a clown question. Learn the English language and stop asking clown questions, bro. Get it now? See how it works?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The question was name another law that changes based on what someone wants, try reading it again

Someone wanted not to ride in the back of the bus, and the laws were changed when enough people agreed that requiring such a thing was wrong, meaning unequal.

LOL, you are not a bright guy. The bus laws were based on the color of your skin. The law wasn't changed based on that blacks wanted something different, that isn't an answer to the question. The law didn't changed based on what they wanted, it changed based on the color of their skin.

What law does change based on you want something different than someone else? Only gay marriage, and only because the courts changed it based on they wanted something different. Your turn, name a law that changes based on what you want

Race was only the criteria. The basis of the laws, and why they were bounced, was because of unequal treatment. It does not matter why one is unequal to the courts, only that one is and if no compelling government reason can be found then the law gets tossed. That is why you have lost on this issue, there's no valid reason for said laws.

 

[kaz]

But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

Um, the reason these laws got tossed is because they were deemed unconstitutional. That's not going around around the Constitution, that's respecting it.

Right, pure legislation from the bench. Gays had exactly the same rights as straights, the courts had no legitimate say. That leaves it up to the legislature

Tell us, when the courts toss gun control laws, are they legislating from the bench, yes or no?

Paint....we know the schtick. If they agree with the ruling, its 'upholding the constitution'. If they disagree with the ruling, its 'legislating from the bench'.

Its just plain old confirmation bias. Where anything that doesn't match what they already believe is dismissed. Its an unremarkable argument.

I realize they are in a trap that they created, but I enjoy watching them chew off three of their legs, and still be connected to the chain...

Yes, we went into the trap of not being liberal, there is no escape from that. Get it now? See how it works?

 

[kaz]

The question was name another law that changes based on what someone wants, try reading it again

Someone wanted not to ride in the back of the bus, and the laws were changed when enough people agreed that requiring such a thing was wrong, meaning unequal.

LOL, you are not a bright guy. The bus laws were based on the color of your skin. The law wasn't changed based on that blacks wanted something different, that isn't an answer to the question. The law didn't changed based on what they wanted, it changed based on the color of their skin.

What law does change based on you want something different than someone else? Only gay marriage, and only because the courts changed it based on they wanted something different. Your turn, name a law that changes based on what you want

Race was only the criteria. The basis of the laws, and why they were bounced, was because of unequal treatment. It does not matter why one is unequal to the courts, only that one is and if no compelling government reason can be found then the law gets tossed. That is why you have lost on this issue, there's no valid reason for said laws.

Exactly, and with gays there is no unequal treatment, they can marry exactly the same people and do the exact same things, no right is different than for straights. They just want something different, a job for the legislature to address

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Half agree, they should "just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married" period

Not gonna happen. Marriage is something most adults should, and will, take part in. It's hard to really grow up if you don't. We want people to marry, it's good for society.

 

[kaz]

But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

Um, the reason these laws got tossed is because they were deemed unconstitutional. That's not going around around the Constitution, that's respecting it.

Right, pure legislation from the bench. Gays had exactly the same rights as straights, the courts had no legitimate say. That leaves it up to the legislature

Tell us, when the courts toss gun control laws, are they legislating from the bench, yes or no?

Paint....we know the schtick. If they agree with the ruling, its 'upholding the constitution'. If they disagree with the ruling, its 'legislating from the bench'.

Its just plain old confirmation bias. Where anything that doesn't match what they already believe is dismissed. Its an unremarkable argument.

It's hilarious that an ego as big as yours would highlight that you don't know the difference between positive and negative rights. They are fundamentally different things

 

[kaz]

Half agree, they should "just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married" period

Not gonna happen. Marriage is something most adults should, and will, take part in. It's hard to really grow up if you don't. We want people to marry, it's good for society.

So are you not married or did it just not do the job?

BTW, your argument is fundamentally flawed in that you equate marriage and government marriage, they have nothing in common

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Exactly, and with gays there is no unequal treatment, they can marry exactly the same people and do the exact same things, no right is different than for straights. They just want something different, a job for the legislature to address

Your argument has died, in the courts, time and again. That dog doesn't hunt so why are you still trying to force it to?

 

[kaz]

The question was name another law that changes based on what someone wants, try reading it again

Someone wanted not to ride in the back of the bus, and the laws were changed when enough people agreed that requiring such a thing was wrong, meaning unequal.

LOL, you are not a bright guy. The bus laws were based on the color of your skin. The law wasn't changed based on that blacks wanted something different, that isn't an answer to the question. The law didn't changed based on what they wanted, it changed based on the color of their skin.

What law does change based on you want something different than someone else? Only gay marriage, and only because the courts changed it based on they wanted something different. Your turn, name a law that changes based on what you want

Race was only the criteria. The basis of the laws, and why they were bounced, was because of unequal treatment. It does not matter why one is unequal to the courts, only that one is and if no compelling government reason can be found then the law gets tossed. That is why you have lost on this issue, there's no valid reason for said laws.

Exactly, and with gays there is no unequal treatment, they can marry exactly the same people and do the exact same things, no right is different than for straights. They just want something different, a job for the legislature to address

Your argument has died, in the courts, time and again. That dog doesn't hunt so why are you still trying to force it to?

Interesting, so you admit the courts tell you what you think? Sad, but at least honest. I don't fall into that ridiculous paradigm, so your point is lost on me. Get it now? See how that works?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Half agree, they should "just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married" period

Not gonna happen. Marriage is something most adults should, and will, take part in. It's hard to really grow up if you don't. We want people to marry, it's good for society.

So are you not married or did it just not do the job?

BTW, your argument is fundamentally flawed in that you equate marriage and government marriage, they have nothing in common

Married means only one thing here, that you have a valid license from the state, or a common law marriage recognized by the state. There is no other form that matters. If the state does not recognize it, it's not marriage.

And, I've been married since dirt was new.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Someone wanted not to ride in the back of the bus, and the laws were changed when enough people agreed that requiring such a thing was wrong, meaning unequal.

LOL, you are not a bright guy. The bus laws were based on the color of your skin. The law wasn't changed based on that blacks wanted something different, that isn't an answer to the question. The law didn't changed based on what they wanted, it changed based on the color of their skin.

What law does change based on you want something different than someone else? Only gay marriage, and only because the courts changed it based on they wanted something different. Your turn, name a law that changes based on what you want

Race was only the criteria. The basis of the laws, and why they were bounced, was because of unequal treatment. It does not matter why one is unequal to the courts, only that one is and if no compelling government reason can be found then the law gets tossed. That is why you have lost on this issue, there's no valid reason for said laws.

Exactly, and with gays there is no unequal treatment, they can marry exactly the same people and do the exact same things, no right is different than for straights. They just want something different, a job for the legislature to address

Your argument has died, in the courts, time and again. That dog doesn't hunt so why are you still trying to force it to?

Interesting, so you admit the courts tell you what you think? Sad, but at least honest. I don't fall into that ridiculous paradigm, so your point is lost on me. Get it now? See how that works?

The courts don't tell me what to think but I follow their rulings, all adults do unless they have a profound reason not to and are willing to go against the laws of the nation, and suffer the consequences for their civil or criminal disobedience.