Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Syriusly]

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

There are no "rights" involved in the discussion. You have the right to be left alone, not to demand validation and free shit

Well you are really going to be sad when the Supreme Court issues its decisions- since what the Supreme Court is deciding is whether or not the rights of same gender couples are being violated or not.

No, I'm expecting them to rule for the butt fuckers. So there is no way for me to be "sad." I would be very surprised if they follow the law and rule against the gay disease. It's a disease you know, the CDC says so

Hmmmm no butt fuckers listed in the case before the Supreme Court.

There are gay and lesbian couples- but no 'butt fuckers'- you once again are very confused.

 

[Syriusly]

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

I'm sorry I made you cry, guy. Here's a hanky. Take deep breaths and try to calm down. Maybe you should play in the yard a while until you calm down

LOL......

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

 

[kaz]

LOL....what a whiney liar you are.

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.

Seriously, calm down and stop screaming. It's embarrassing to see. Maybe if you put a bag over your mouth that will help you calm down. It's your mommy wondering why you're shrieking like that, Shirley?

 

[RKMBrown]

Demanding anything from others has only been done in the context of public free speeches. You don't like what the gays are demanding in public, you don't have to listen to them. Thus what you said is the equivalent of "Liberty is not the right to" make public demands. Making public demands is the cornerstone of free speech. Thus, what you said is the equivalent of the right to free speech is not liberty. You are arguing that free speech, if done by gays, should be prohibited

Demanding things from others is "the equivalent of" making public demands? That's just stupid. You are as mentally retarded as any leftist

ROFL Which part do you think is stupid the part about others being the public or the part about demanding things being the equivalent of making demands? ROFL If it wasn't for dumb ass statement's you'd have nothing at all it seems.

 

[Syriusly]

You seem even more indifferent to the facts than usual this morning.

Here was your claim:
Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

And my response pointed out- that homosexual marriages are indeed banned

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

And again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation

I guess that is as close as you can come to admitting that your claim:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Was flat out wrong

You're a terrible word parser, you suck at it

Maybe- but I am not the one continuing to post crap claims like you did when you said:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Stop making crap claims- and you won't have to worry about how I parse words.

Again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation. Try to keep up, sparky, you're lagging way behind the discussion

I am not the one continuing to post crap claims like you did when you said:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Stop making crap claims- and you won't have to worry about how I parse words.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....what a whiney liar you are.

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.

Seriously, calm down and stop screaming. It's embarrassing to see. Maybe if you put a bag over your mouth that will help you calm down. It's your mommy wondering why you're shrieking like that, Shirley?

LOL....what a whiney liar you are.

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.

 

[kaz]

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

 

[jillian]

Wow. You really ARE ignorant.

The middle class is dying out. Its being killed by very stupid voters who insist on voting against their own best interests, the best interests of their children and of their country.

Republicans DO hate you. You are nothing more than a beast of burden and your job is to work for the 1%.

You're an ignorant democrat who is going to destroy the country and wants to go butt fuck monkeys.

it's always funny when morons like you call their betters ignorant.

Been hearing a lot of laughter at your expense lately?

no moron.

Yeah, sure you haven't:

only in your rightwingnut, uneducated, low IQ world.

 

[Syriusly]

Demanding anything from others has only been done in the context of public free speeches. You don't like what the gays are demanding in public, you don't have to listen to them. Thus what you said is the equivalent of "Liberty is not the right to" make public demands. Making public demands is the cornerstone of free speech. Thus, what you said is the equivalent of the right to free speech is not liberty. You are arguing that free speech, if done by gays, should be prohibited

Demanding things from others is "the equivalent of" making public demands? That's just stupid. You are as mentally retarded as any leftist

ROFL Which part do you think is stupid the part about others being the public or the part about demanding things being the equivalent of making demands? ROFL If it wasn't for dumb ass statement's you'd have nothing at all it seems.

You know when Kaz starts talking about 'sucking cock' and 'butt fuck' he knows he has lost the argument and is just flailing.

 

[kaz]

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

There are no "rights" involved in the discussion. You have the right to be left alone, not to demand validation and free shit

Well you are really going to be sad when the Supreme Court issues its decisions- since what the Supreme Court is deciding is whether or not the rights of same gender couples are being violated or not.

No, I'm expecting them to rule for the butt fuckers. So there is no way for me to be "sad." I would be very surprised if they follow the law and rule against the gay disease. It's a disease you know, the CDC says so

Hmmmm no butt fuckers listed in the case before the Supreme Court.

There are gay and lesbian couples- but no 'butt fuckers'- you once again are very confused.

LOL, you don't know what gays are? You thought it meant happy people? That's hysterical.

 

[RKMBrown]

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

Just to be clear, so the rich and corporations not paying their "fair share" of taxes doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?

Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?

Swish, you completely whiffed on the discussion.

What part of my question went over the dumb shit's haid?

 

[kaz]

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

I'm sorry I made you cry, guy. Here's a hanky. Take deep breaths and try to calm down. Maybe you should play in the yard a while until you calm down

LOL......

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

Stop crying, Nancy. This is a message board, you will hear views you disagree with. Hysterical sobbing and gulping for air isn't how you deal with that. Why don't you play with your dolls for a while?

 

[Syriusly]

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

You clearly are confused again. There is no such case before the court.

The Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that States can't tell adults they can't have consensual butt sex.

But nothing about tax breaks for butt sex- though I am sure that if there was, there would be more claims by straight men than by gay men.

 

[Syriusly]

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

I'm sorry I made you cry, guy. Here's a hanky. Take deep breaths and try to calm down. Maybe you should play in the yard a while until you calm down

LOL......

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

Stop crying, Nancy. This is a message board, you will hear views you disagree with. Hysterical sobbing and gulping for air isn't how you deal with that. Why don't you play with your dolls for a while?

LOL......

You have completely lost it.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.

 

[kaz]

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

Just to be clear, so the rich and corporations not paying their "fair share" of taxes doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?

Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?

Swish, you completely whiffed on the discussion.

What part of my question went over the dumb shit's haid?

OK, it's simple, but you'll never figure it out so I'll explain it to you. Then you still won't get it.

Leftists think:

1) The rich and corporations don't pay their "fair share" of taxes, which means other people have to make up for it

2) Gay government marriage and tax breaks doesn't affect anyone.

3) So, does paying taxes affect other people or not? Yes or no? Don't get to change the answer to that based on whether you want the tax break for someone or not

 

[kaz]

LOL....what a whiney liar you are.

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.

Seriously, calm down and stop screaming. It's embarrassing to see. Maybe if you put a bag over your mouth that will help you calm down. It's your mommy wondering why you're shrieking like that, Shirley?

LOL....what a whiney liar you are.

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.

Jesus, more tears? Look Darlene, go play a while when you can come back and talk without that incessant moaning and wailing. Have a tea party with your dolls, then come back when you calm down

 

[RKMBrown]

What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?

Just to be clear, so the rich and corporations not paying their "fair share" of taxes doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?

Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?

Swish, you completely whiffed on the discussion.

What part of my question went over the dumb shit's haid?

OK, it's simple, but you'll never figure it out so I'll explain it to you. Then you still won't get it.

Leftists think:

1) The rich and corporations don't pay their "fair share" of taxes, which means other people have to make up for it

2) Gay government marriage and tax breaks doesn't affect anyone.

3) So, does paying taxes affect other people or not? Yes or no? Don't get to change the answer to that based on whether you want the tax break for someone or not

1) Fail: Some leftists know that (1) is a lie, a campaign slogan if you will. The rest can barely get through a bowl of cereal without government assistance.
2) Fail: There is no such thing as gay government marriage. Fail: Everyone knows that tax breaks reduce taxes for the lucky few who get them.
3) Fail. Your number three is a series of questions not a statement of what leftists believe. But to answer your questions: Paying taxes reduces the assets of the person paying said taxes. Depending on how that money is then used, the money will either help or hurt others. Sort of depends how it's used. I would think that's obvious. Either way the person that paid the taxes is harmed.

I'll ask my question again. How did my question "Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?" Make you make the statement "Swish, you completely whiffed on the discussion." You appear to be loosing all touch with reality.

 

[danielpalos]

Women being big chickens when it comes to simply being honest with us; instead of lying to us and letting us miss our turn is the most important issue today.

 

[bodecea]

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, Eureka-ed by them; A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

Such laws by a legislature are Bills of Attainder.

Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. Well, until now. Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree

how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?

Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?

It always is so interesting to hear that "straights" look at gay couples and default immediately in their minds to sex. Do you do that to straight couples too. Do you sit at a wedding and picture them naked in bed doing it? Like you do with gay couples?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Now to what responsibilities are you adhering here, in claiming what right?

The right is to be treated equally by the state. Since the treatment of gays is unequal, the courts are tossing said laws. Your rights aren't up for a vote of the people, and neither are theirs.

Imagine a law that said only married people could own houses or raise children? Since unmarried couples and singles would then be treated unequally the court would be perfectly justified to toss said laws. Same thing in this case, unequal is invalid here, in most cases.

So any responsibility which might be associated tot the right you're claiming... Is purely that of the STATE.

Anyone need anything else?

Here is the Ideological Left 'advising' you hat they can't even get their head around the concept where the rights THEY CLAIM... Is sudsy aimed by any responsibility on their part.

And in that... You find the entirety of that thing OKA: THE PROBLEM.