Kansas lawmakers pass adoption bill against gay couples

[boedicca]

Then you should support withdrawing public funds from virtually all educational institutions...especially those that discriminate against Asians and White People.

Would you please explain what it is that you're talking about?

Colleges discriminate against Asian and White students by requiring higher GPAs and SAT scores. There is an entire curriculum in place now that foments racism against white via "white privilege" indoctrination.

Many people who find these things offensive are forced to support them with their tax dollars.

Oh I see, your comparing affirmative action which- whether you agree with it or not- has a noble purpose of leveling the playing field for certain minorities with blatant discrimination born of ignorance and animus towards gays.

That you for that thinly veiled logical fallacy - two actually. It is a false equivalency fallacy for the reason that I stated, and it is an red herring intended to divert attention away from the actual topic......also known as trolling.
But as far as requiring higher scores is concerned, I don't know that for a fact- but please don't even bother to respond to the. Its is off topic.

No, I'm supporting our natural rights as individuals to be treated equally under the law.

Good for you. But university admission policies are not the law. They are...University policies. I believe that there have been court cases on that with respect to equal protection etc. but I am not getting in that here. It is not the topic. Start a thread on AA if you want to.

Now, the first amendment is the law and it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....." Funding a religious institutions discriminatory practices is doing just that .

B'loney. Tax dollars enable these discriminatory programs - and the Feds have put very heavy fingers on the scales of Justice.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.

The only laws passed in this country regarding homosexuals marrying say they cant. unelected judges overturned the law.

Those unelected judges are provided for in the Constitution, and judicial review is a well established principal of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and requires state law comply with the constitution.

If you can't respect our Constitutional Republic and our system of law and justice, I'm sure that you can find a home in some failed state, or a theocracy where the concepts of equal protection under the law, due process and privacy are just a stale joke without a punch line.

You might be more at home there.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Would you please explain what it is that you're talking about?

Colleges discriminate against Asian and White students by requiring higher GPAs and SAT scores. There is an entire curriculum in place now that foments racism against white via "white privilege" indoctrination.

Many people who find these things offensive are forced to support them with their tax dollars.

Oh I see, your comparing affirmative action which- whether you agree with it or not- has a noble purpose of leveling the playing field for certain minorities with blatant discrimination born of ignorance and animus towards gays.

That you for that thinly veiled logical fallacy - two actually. It is a false equivalency fallacy for the reason that I stated, and it is an red herring intended to divert attention away from the actual topic......also known as trolling.
But as far as requiring higher scores is concerned, I don't know that for a fact- but please don't even bother to respond to the. Its is off topic.

No, I'm supporting our natural rights as individuals to be treated equally under the law.

Good for you. But university admission policies are not the law. They are...University policies. I believe that there have been court cases on that with respect to equal protection etc. but I am not getting in that here. It is not the topic. Start a thread on AA if you want to.

Now, the first amendment is the law and it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....." Funding a religious institutions discriminatory practices is doing just that .

B'loney. Tax dollars enable these discriminatory programs - and the Feds have put very heavy fingers on the scales of Justice.

Still trolling I see . Start a new thread if that is what you want to discuss.

 

[boedicca]

Colleges discriminate against Asian and White students by requiring higher GPAs and SAT scores. There is an entire curriculum in place now that foments racism against white via "white privilege" indoctrination.

Many people who find these things offensive are forced to support them with their tax dollars.

Oh I see, your comparing affirmative action which- whether you agree with it or not- has a noble purpose of leveling the playing field for certain minorities with blatant discrimination born of ignorance and animus towards gays.

That you for that thinly veiled logical fallacy - two actually. It is a false equivalency fallacy for the reason that I stated, and it is an red herring intended to divert attention away from the actual topic......also known as trolling.
But as far as requiring higher scores is concerned, I don't know that for a fact- but please don't even bother to respond to the. Its is off topic.

No, I'm supporting our natural rights as individuals to be treated equally under the law.

Good for you. But university admission policies are not the law. They are...University policies. I believe that there have been court cases on that with respect to equal protection etc. but I am not getting in that here. It is not the topic. Start a thread on AA if you want to.

Now, the first amendment is the law and it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....." Funding a religious institutions discriminatory practices is doing just that .

B'loney. Tax dollars enable these discriminatory programs - and the Feds have put very heavy fingers on the scales of Justice.

Still trolling I see . Start a new thread if that is what you want to discuss.

Here's a little story about that: No.

If you are going to base people's ability to exercise their individual rights on the condition that they give up taking any money from the government, then you're going to have to apply that standard to Progs as well as Christians, bub.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.

The only laws passed in this country regarding homosexuals marrying say they cant. unelected judges overturned the law.

Those unelected judges are provided for in the Constitution, and judicial review is a well established principal of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and requires state law comply with the constitution. If you can't respect our Constitutional Republic and our system of law and justice, I'm sure that you can find a home in some failed state, or a theocracy where you would be more at home.

Don't believe that the 14th extended any such thing.

The FDR court picked up the concept of incorporation (a really fucked up concept) and wrote a load of shit saying "it was so".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh I see, your comparing affirmative action which- whether you agree with it or not- has a noble purpose of leveling the playing field for certain minorities with blatant discrimination born of ignorance and animus towards gays.

That you for that thinly veiled logical fallacy - two actually. It is a false equivalency fallacy for the reason that I stated, and it is an red herring intended to divert attention away from the actual topic......also known as trolling.
But as far as requiring higher scores is concerned, I don't know that for a fact- but please don't even bother to respond to the. Its is off topic.

No, I'm supporting our natural rights as individuals to be treated equally under the law.

Good for you. But university admission policies are not the law. They are...University policies. I believe that there have been court cases on that with respect to equal protection etc. but I am not getting in that here. It is not the topic. Start a thread on AA if you want to.

Now, the first amendment is the law and it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....." Funding a religious institutions discriminatory practices is doing just that .

B'loney. Tax dollars enable these discriminatory programs - and the Feds have put very heavy fingers on the scales of Justice.

Still trolling I see . Start a new thread if that is what you want to discuss.

Here's a little story about that: No.

If you are going to base people's ability to exercise their individual rights on the condition that they give up taking any money from the government, then you're going to have to apply that standard to Progs as well as Christians, bub.

You still don't get it. The issue is government funding of a religious organization that discriminates. You are just muddying the waters with all of this other stuff.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.

The only laws passed in this country regarding homosexuals marrying say they cant. unelected judges overturned the law.

Those unelected judges are provided for in the Constitution, and judicial review is a well established principal of constitutional law. The 14th Amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and requires state law comply with the constitution. If you can't respect our Constitutional Republic and our system of law and justice, I'm sure that you can find a home in some failed state, or a theocracy where you would be more at home.

Don't believe that the 14th extended any such thing.

The FDR court picked up the concept of incorporation (a really fucked up concept) and wrote a load of shit saying "it was so".

Than don't believe it. I really don't give a rats hind parts. I'll take that as an acknowledgement that you disagree with Obergefell. Do your imaginary gay friends know.?

 

[boedicca]

No, I'm supporting our natural rights as individuals to be treated equally under the law.

Good for you. But university admission policies are not the law. They are...University policies. I believe that there have been court cases on that with respect to equal protection etc. but I am not getting in that here. It is not the topic. Start a thread on AA if you want to.

Now, the first amendment is the law and it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....." Funding a religious institutions discriminatory practices is doing just that .

B'loney. Tax dollars enable these discriminatory programs - and the Feds have put very heavy fingers on the scales of Justice.

Still trolling I see . Start a new thread if that is what you want to discuss.

Here's a little story about that: No.

If you are going to base people's ability to exercise their individual rights on the condition that they give up taking any money from the government, then you're going to have to apply that standard to Progs as well as Christians, bub.

You still don't get it. The issue is government funding of a religious organization that discriminates. You are just muddying the waters with all of this other stuff.

No, you still don't get it. The government funds many organizations that discriminate against individuals. You just want it to support the ones that discriminate against people you don't like.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Good for you. But university admission policies are not the law. They are...University policies. I believe that there have been court cases on that with respect to equal protection etc. but I am not getting in that here. It is not the topic. Start a thread on AA if you want to.

Now, the first amendment is the law and it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion....." Funding a religious institutions discriminatory practices is doing just that .

B'loney. Tax dollars enable these discriminatory programs - and the Feds have put very heavy fingers on the scales of Justice.

Still trolling I see . Start a new thread if that is what you want to discuss.

Here's a little story about that: No.

If you are going to base people's ability to exercise their individual rights on the condition that they give up taking any money from the government, then you're going to have to apply that standard to Progs as well as Christians, bub.

You still don't get it. The issue is government funding of a religious organization that discriminates. You are just muddying the waters with all of this other stuff.

No, you still don't get it. The government funds many organizations that discriminate against individuals. You just want it to support the ones that discriminate against people you don't like.

The only example that you gave was college admissions policies which arguably are not discriminator, and may or may not accept public funds. I believe that most private schools do not. That does not preclude a civil action alleging discrimination but it is still very different than what we are talking about here. You seem to be desperate to avoid an honest discussion of adoption and religious discrimination .

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes, so do women's rights. Equal application of the law.

Let us know when you graduate high school. We'll talk grown up talk.

LOL as if you will ever understand what grown ups talk about while you sit in your mom's basement.

Gay Rights are just human rights- in other words no longer having special laws against gays.

But that is the argument. Saying gays can't get married isn't any different that telling a man or woman they can't get married more than once.

I really don't care if gays get married. What pisses me off is this indignant bullshit they pull on others in the name of being discriminated against. Most of us discriminate every day of our lives in one way or another which many of us are discriminated against (for a whole variety of reasons) every day.

We deal with it.

You don't really care if they get married, but will you stand up for their right to? I don't think so. Instead, you just whine about their militancy. Do your gay friends know? How have you been discriminated against today?

Still making shit up.

Who gives a flying fuck what you think.

I am sure I'll be discussing this thread with them and they will be thrilled to hear your attack on them because you don't agree with their positions. But since they are three times the man you are (and I use the term man loosely in your direction), they'll chuckle and we'll talk sports.

I simply stated that I consider it hateful, stupid and callous to claim that gays already had equal rights before Obergefell, because they could marry someone of the opposite sex. That is not attacking anyone. It is attacking a bizarre idea. That is the way this goes. You put something like that out there are you get blowback . Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Save you whining about being attacked for when you get called names like you have been doing to me. I hope that you and your imaginary friends have a god time.

You, you're such a twat, I wouldn't mind you being put out of your misery. People like you make me think Jefferson was wrong for not hanging homosexuals. There's others that don't, but you sir, are grade A douche.

 

[Syriusly]

Newsflash: Sodomy was a hangable offense in all 48 US states in the US for well over a century. Back when America was great.

Poor Gomorrah....no respect.

Poor Gomorrah, dead before they had to be because they were asshole faggots and tried to rape angels.

Too bad, so sad, IMO.

They deserved everything they got.

Wow- so you think all of those children deserved to die.

So sad.

But no surprise.

 

[Syriusly]

The law applies to religious adoption agencies. They should not be forced to place children in homes that are counter to the beliefs of their religion. There are other agencies which will continue to place children with gay parents. Hence, the rights of all are respected.

And if a religious adoption agency says it will not let black parents adopt because that would be counter to their beliefs?

 

[Syriusly]

The law applies to religious adoption agencies. They should not be forced to place children in homes that are counter to the beliefs of their religion. There are other agencies which will continue to place children with gay parents. Hence, the rights of all are respected.

Which, I believe, we all agree with...AS LONG AS they get no government funds.

Nope. Government funds are used for a great many things that people of a variety of beliefs oppose. Nobody should be forced to violate their religious beliefs under this circumstance.

That's fine...just don't accept any government money for your religious beliefs. Easy rule of thumb....would you feel the same way if we were talking a muslim religious adoption agency receiving government money while basing adoptions on THEIR version of sharia law?

Sharia law is a competing political system, so it is not the same as religious doctrine. .

Rather convenient rationalization eh?

Any religious beliefs you don't believe in you, you declare isn't a religious belief but a political system.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

The law applies to religious adoption agencies. They should not be forced to place children in homes that are counter to the beliefs of their religion. There are other agencies which will continue to place children with gay parents. Hence, the rights of all are respected.

I could live with allowing them that religious exemption, although I think they are wrong. What I can't tolerate is their receiving public funds while discriminating against people.

Then you should support withdrawing public funds from virtually all educational institutions...especially those that discriminate against Asians and White People.

Would you please explain what it is that you're talking about?

There is an entire curriculum in place now that foments racism against whites via "white privilege" indoctrination..

Yeah- the white supremacists keep saying that.........

 

[Syriusly]

I thought you cared !!

Seems like you have gone off the deep end bud. It matters to the conversation because you brought it up and revealed your insensitivity and bigotry. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so fucking callous to suggest that gay people already had equality before they had the right to marry someone of the same sex, AND claim that you have gay friends!!

Where are the gays that are so fucking accommodating that they would stand for that? I am straight and I find it offensive. Any gay person who does not must be fucking brain dead.

They did have equality...sorry you don't like it..

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

No blacks marched in parades forced on cities that didn't want them while they wore outlandish costumes.

From what I recall, the laws quietly died off just like adultery laws (many are still on the books) have not been enforced...because the culture learned to accept things.

BTW: You got proof it was conservatives. The south was held by democrats who ran up the bigotry flag like nobody's business. But you won't claim them...it's not convenient.

So what is your point ? Or are you making my point ?

My point- and I will type slower for you this time- is that Obergefell was not the first Supreme Court Decision to overturn unconstitutional marriage laws- Loving v. Virginia was.

Your claim that a gay couple had equal rights to marry- because they could always just marry someone else of the 'correct' gender- was exactly the same as the argument made by the States that a biracial couple had equal rights because they could always choose to marry someone of the same race.

No- those are not equal rights.

The court recognized that in Loving and recognized that in Obergefell.

 

[Syriusly]

I thought you cared !!

Seems like you have gone off the deep end bud. It matters to the conversation because you brought it up and revealed your insensitivity and bigotry. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so fucking callous to suggest that gay people already had equality before they had the right to marry someone of the same sex, AND claim that you have gay friends!!

Where are the gays that are so fucking accommodating that they would stand for that? I am straight and I find it offensive. Any gay person who does not must be fucking brain dead.

They did have equality...sorry you don't like it..

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

No blacks marched in parades forced on cities that didn't want them while they wore outlandish costumes.

What do parades have to do with anything?

The forbade blacks to marry whites and whites to marry blacks.

Nothing to do with parades at all.

 

[Syriusly]

I thought you cared !!

Seems like you have gone off the deep end bud. It matters to the conversation because you brought it up and revealed your insensitivity and bigotry. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so fucking callous to suggest that gay people already had equality before they had the right to marry someone of the same sex, AND claim that you have gay friends!!

Where are the gays that are so fucking accommodating that they would stand for that? I am straight and I find it offensive. Any gay person who does not must be fucking brain dead.

They did have equality...sorry you don't like it..

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

From what I recall, the laws quietly died off just like adultery laws (many are still on the books) have not been enforced...because the culture learned to accept things.

Nope- the laws died because the Supreme Court declared them to be unconstitutional.

The people of Alabama still thought mixed race marriage should be illegal until about 1990 and didn't overturn the laws until 2000.

 

[Syriusly]

I thought you cared !!

Seems like you have gone off the deep end bud. It matters to the conversation because you brought it up and revealed your insensitivity and bigotry. I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so fucking callous to suggest that gay people already had equality before they had the right to marry someone of the same sex, AND claim that you have gay friends!!

Where are the gays that are so fucking accommodating that they would stand for that? I am straight and I find it offensive. Any gay person who does not must be fucking brain dead.

They did have equality...sorry you don't like it..

No- they didn't. Sorry you can't handle the facts.

Gays were not allowed to marry other.
Gays were legally discriminated in employment in many places.
Gays could be arrested for having sex in private.
Gays could be arrested for simply being in a gay nightclub.

Please try to keep up....the topic was marriage.

Gay men were allowed to marry women and gay women were allowed to marry men.

Next.

And black men were allowed to marry black women and white men were allowed to marry white women.

How exactly were the laws discriminatory? When Conservatives realized that the law didn't actually forbid a man from marrying a man- they started passing laws to specifically forbid it- just as Conservatives passed laws to forbid a black man from marrying a black woman.

BTW: You got proof it was conservatives. The south was held by democrats who ran up the bigotry flag like nobody's business. But you won't claim them...it's not convenient.

The South was conservative- almost all Conservative Democrats.

You won't claim those Conservatives because it's not convenient.

 

[Syriusly]

Since the law says gay can legally marry, they should be treated like all married couples. Even single people can adopt.

Except uniquely, a gay marriage contract strips orphans from either a mother or father for life. Obergefell declared that kids are parties to the marriage contract. ..

Both of course are absolutely false.

Silhouette knows this but just lies in order to attack gays- and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals have no rights because they are regular men and women who already have rights. What one does in one's bedroom cannot be used as a legal identity to wedge special consideration (among a throng of repugnant minority behaviors) above others. So says the 14th..

'homosexuals have no rights'- that pretty much sums up Silhouette's beliefs.