"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," wrote Christopher Ciccone, who hi

[David_42]

Most responses to my post are by pro gay politicos. Scary, because it means most of you responding are incapable of independent critical thought are just mindlessly defending something because they are brainwashed pawns. It's sad. Don't defend gays or kid yourself. You are just a patsy.

What is wrong with gay people? Nothing, except your bigotry.

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

What government benefits? Marriage? Straight people get in, why shouldn't they? Any valid reason? Look up bigoted fuck.

Straight people get it because marriage exists to facilitate raising healthy well-adjusted children. There's no reason to provide such benefits to gay people.

According to yourself, that is what marriage is for. Then again, you're obviously a bigot, since gay couples can raise children..
Here's a video to piss your little bigoted ass off:

 

[bripat9643]

Decent folks don't have anal sex...

The hell they don't. Sodomy is mostly a heterosexual thing, and when the wife is going down on me and I on her that's normal now. You are the weird one. A prude and a homophobe. So ends Mary, who needs a blowjob...

Pleas spare us the details of your sex life. That's more information than I need to know.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

And what are married people who don't breed doing?

We have no way of knowing that until they fail to procreate. We know from the start that a couple of fuck buddies aren't going to procreate.

We've argued this point for years. When is it finally going to penetrate your skull?

Why don't we prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Or guys with vasectomies? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Why is there not a legally enforceable vow to have children attached to every marriage license?

 

[bripat9643]

Some of us in the vanguard, we see what a fraud the homosexual agenda is. Used to be old school, and what was old will be new again. Because, it's true. The tidal wave of pushback.

Decent folks don't have anal sex...

The hell they don't. Sodomy is mostly a heterosexual thing, and when the wife is going down on me and I on her that's normal now. You are the weird one. A prude and a homophobe. So ends Mary, who needs a blowjob...

Speaking of broken minds, here we are. I am the weird one? What was your argument FOR gay marriage? I got lost in that fog of pejorative nonsense of your last post.

The argument for gay marriage is simple. If heterosexual opposite sex marriage is going to be allowed, there is no good reason, in a democratic society based on equal treatment under the law,

to ban same sex marriage.

Yes there is. It's called procreation.

 

[mdk]

I don't fear your censure, dingbat. You're insignificant to my life. And nobody is silencing or imprisoning you, drama queen. This constant need of yours to feel victimized is comical to behold and I am shocked you can even type with that cross on your back.

Says the retard who falsely claims victimization at the hands of Christians lolol.

Where did I claim I was being victimized at the hands of Christians? Oh wait...I didn't. All the Christians I know in real life are great people. You on the other hand are just a bitter bitch with a whiny persecution complex.

When you claim the rights of homos are violated when Christians fail to endorse them. Whiny persecution complex indeed...did you see the screechy hysterics of the fags who want to be married by Davis, and Davis alone?

A claim I never made and one that you wholly made up. I don't give a shit if you or anyone else 'endorses' my marriage. Remember that whole thing I said about you being insignificant in my life? Still applies. lol.

You only said that after I said it about you. You're nothing if not unoriginal. And if we're insignificant, you wouldn't rush to throw us in jail for being Christian.

Who is us? One person is in jail b/c she refused to follow the orders of the court. She was thrown in jail by judge whom is also a Christian. I know that doesn't jive with your persecution complex but tough shit. Piss, moan, and, cry all you want but gays continue to marry and their isn't thing one you can do about it. Save crying and making veiled threats on the Internet.

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

And what are married people who don't breed doing?

We have no way of knowing that until they fail to procreate. We know from the start that a couple of fuck buddies aren't going to procreate.

We've argued this point for years. When is it finally going to penetrate your skull?

Why don't we prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Or guys with vasectomies? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Why is there not a legally enforceable vow to have children attached to every marriage license?

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

And what are married people who don't breed doing?

We have no way of knowing that until they fail to procreate. We know from the start that a couple of fuck buddies aren't going to procreate.

We've argued this point for years. When is it finally going to penetrate your skull?

Why don't we prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Or guys with vasectomies? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Why is there not a legally enforceable vow to have children attached to every marriage license?

You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license. Nevertheless the reason we issue driver's licenses is to keep people safe on the road. So that argument is obvious horseshit. I've dispensed it at least 1000 times by now, but turds like you keep repeating it over and over as if it was never exploded.

We also don't bother worrying about men who have vasectomies or women who have hystectomies because when the marriage laws were made such things didn't exist. We also never know the precise age when women are no longer capable of conceiving a child. And when the marriage laws were made women seldom lived past child bearing age.

If you want to change the law to make allowances for those things, go right ahead, but the first people to object will be liberals.

 

[bripat9643]

Most responses to my post are by pro gay politicos. Scary, because it means most of you responding are incapable of independent critical thought are just mindlessly defending something because they are brainwashed pawns. It's sad. Don't defend gays or kid yourself. You are just a patsy.

What is wrong with gay people? Nothing, except your bigotry.

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

What government benefits? Marriage? Straight people get in, why shouldn't they? Any valid reason? Look up bigoted fuck.

Straight people get it because marriage exists to facilitate raising healthy well-adjusted children. There's no reason to provide such benefits to gay people.

No it doesn't. There is not a marriage law in America that includes a child bearing requirement. If you were, there would be.

There's not, thus proving you wrong.

Only a moron believes that proves me wrong. Every 8-year-old child understands the reason for marriage. Hence the nursery rhyme "First comes love. Then comes marriage. Then comes a baby in a baby carriage."

 

[MaryL]

Common sense says marriage is about protecting and encouraging two people that can procreate with one another. At least, in theory. We are encouraging the best hopes and our future. Broken sexuality, of whatever ilk, they can love all they want. There may or may not be a law against it..But don't think for a minute, that people that people that LOVE and COUPLE and biologically have children are the same as fill in the blank broken sexuality.

 

[David_42]

What is wrong with gay people? Nothing, except your bigotry.

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

What government benefits? Marriage? Straight people get in, why shouldn't they? Any valid reason? Look up bigoted fuck.

Straight people get it because marriage exists to facilitate raising healthy well-adjusted children. There's no reason to provide such benefits to gay people.

No it doesn't. There is not a marriage law in America that includes a child bearing requirement. If you were, there would be.

There's not, thus proving you wrong.

Only a moron believes that proves me wrong. Every 8-year-old child understands the reason for marriage. Hence the nursery rhyme "First comes love. Then comes marriage. Then comes a baby in a baby carriage."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

And what are married people who don't breed doing?

We have no way of knowing that until they fail to procreate. We know from the start that a couple of fuck buddies aren't going to procreate.

We've argued this point for years. When is it finally going to penetrate your skull?

Why don't we prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Or guys with vasectomies? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Why is there not a legally enforceable vow to have children attached to every marriage license?

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

And what are married people who don't breed doing?

We have no way of knowing that until they fail to procreate. We know from the start that a couple of fuck buddies aren't going to procreate.

We've argued this point for years. When is it finally going to penetrate your skull?

Why don't we prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Or guys with vasectomies? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Why is there not a legally enforceable vow to have children attached to every marriage license?

You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license. Nevertheless the reason we issue driver's licenses is to keep people safe on the road. So that argument is obvious horseshit. I've dispensed it at least 1000 times by now, but turds like you keep repeating it over and over as if it was never exploded.

We also don't bother worrying about men who have vasectomies or women who have hystectomies because when the marriage laws were made such things didn't exist. We also never know the precise age when women are no longer capable of conceiving a child. And when the marriage laws were made women seldom lived past child bearing age.

If you want to change the law to make allowances for those things, go right ahead, but the first people to object will be liberals.

Name any marriage law in the country that has a child requirement in it.

ONE

 

[NYcarbineer]

Common sense says marriage is about protecting and encouraging two people that can procreate with one another. At least, in theory. We are encouraging the best hopes and our future. Broken sexuality, of whatever ilk, they can love all they want. There may or may not be a law against it..But don't think for a minute, that people that people that LOVE and COUPLE and biologically have children are the same as fill in the blank broken sexuality.

What about marriage as a way of encouraging monogamy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If marriage and child rearing were significantly coupled than we wouldn't give child related tax benefits to single parents or unmarried couples.

Do we?

 

[Freewill]

In the early 90's, Colorado voters tried to vote against the gay agenda, and the majority, those lawful votes were thrown out because...the result was "unconstitutional". Why bother voting for ANYTHING if a minority people with $ can manipulate the system and over throw the electoral system? There was more to it than that, but that was my take of that mess. So disillusioned with the voting process.

All that the minority has to do is convince 5 old men and women to take their side. The COTUS doesn't matter, case law doesn't matter and the will of the people be damned. 5 old men and women with at least 2 being gay and the outcome is a surprise?

 

[Preacher]

Finally logic is introduced by an openly gay man.

Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."



Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples


"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

"Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law..."

Your post ended right there.

Except for the fact what the SC did was declare a law saying marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman unconstitutional. They NEVER passed a law because they aren't allowed to. That would be up to Congress. So there is no law she is breaking.

Supreme Court decisions are case law. 'Case law'. Can you find the secret word in there?

Nope. They decide if the law in question is constitutional or unconstitutional.That is ALL they do.

 

[Freewill]

And that federal law is???????????

42 USC 1983


>>>>

Please show me where: http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

 

[Freewill]

Finally logic is introduced by an openly gay man.

Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law before he added: "But why should she when DOJ and other civil authorities don't follow federal law when they choose not to, i.e. Washington State and Colorado (POT) come to mind...or the abstract notion of 'sanctuary cities.' I always thought that sanctuary was the province of churches."



Madonna's Brother Defends Jailed Clerk Who Refused Marriage Licenses for Gay Couples


"Once again, the gay community feels the need to be sore winners," he continued. "Is it so difficult to allow this women her religion? Or must we destroy her in order for her to betray her faith. No matter how we judge, it's truth. The rights we have all fought for, mean nothing, if we deny her hers."

"Ciccone acknowledged that Davis is required to follow federal law..."

Your post ended right there.

Except for the fact what the SC did was declare a law saying marriage was between 1 man and 1 woman unconstitutional. They NEVER passed a law because they aren't allowed to. That would be up to Congress. So there is no law she is breaking.

Supreme Court decisions are case law. 'Case law'. Can you find the secret word in there?

Nope. They decide if the law in question is constitutional or unconstitutional.That is ALL they do.

That is all they are suppose to do, obviously they are in the business of writing law and revising dictionaries.

 

[koshergrl]

Most responses to my post are by pro gay politicos. Scary, because it means most of you responding are incapable of independent critical thought are just mindlessly defending something because they are brainwashed pawns. It's sad. Don't defend gays or kid yourself. You are just a patsy.

What is wrong with gay people? Nothing, except your bigotry.

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

What government benefits? Marriage? Straight people get in, why shouldn't they? Any valid reason? Look up bigoted fuck.

Straight people get it because marriage exists to facilitate raising healthy well-adjusted children. There's no reason to provide such benefits to gay people.

Also to provide protection to women who are vulnerable during pregnancy, and preoccupied while engaged in child rearing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of us in the vanguard, we see what a fraud the homosexual agenda is. Used to be old school, and what was old will be new again. Because, it's true. The tidal wave of pushback.

Decent folks don't have anal sex...

The hell they don't. Sodomy is mostly a heterosexual thing, and when the wife is going down on me and I on her that's normal now. You are the weird one. A prude and a homophobe. So ends Mary, who needs a blowjob...

Speaking of broken minds, here we are. I am the weird one? What was your argument FOR gay marriage? I got lost in that fog of pejorative nonsense of your last post.

The argument for gay marriage is simple. If heterosexual opposite sex marriage is going to be allowed, there is no good reason, in a democratic society based on equal treatment under the law,

to ban same sex marriage.

As long as the judgement was decided by, 'political should be' and not by the law there will be opposition.
-------------------------
A day after Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sided squarely with the Obama administration on the health care overhaul, the same jurist came out swinging against the court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

In his dissenting opinion -- which he read from the bench for the first time in his nearly 10 years as chief justice -- Roberts charged Friday that the court had no right to intervene in what should be a democratic debate by the people, at the state level, over same-sex marriage.

"This court is not a legislature," he wrote. "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

As for the state's role, he said: "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."


‘Court is not a legislature’: Roberts rips gay marriage ruling, day after he backed ObamaCare

The dissenting opinion is the losing opinion. Memorize that sentence.

 

[bripat9643]

Most responses to my post are by pro gay politicos. Scary, because it means most of you responding are incapable of independent critical thought are just mindlessly defending something because they are brainwashed pawns. It's sad. Don't defend gays or kid yourself. You are just a patsy.

What is wrong with gay people? Nothing, except your bigotry.

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

What government benefits? Marriage? Straight people get in, why shouldn't they? Any valid reason? Look up bigoted fuck.

Straight people get it because marriage exists to facilitate raising healthy well-adjusted children. There's no reason to provide such benefits to gay people.

According to yourself, that is what marriage is for. Then again, you're obviously a bigot, since gay couples can raise children..
Here's a video to piss your little bigoted ass off:

Yeah, they can raise children, but they can't have children. Gays should be a last choice for adoption because that's not a normal environment for a child.

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

And what are married people who don't breed doing?

We have no way of knowing that until they fail to procreate. We know from the start that a couple of fuck buddies aren't going to procreate.

We've argued this point for years. When is it finally going to penetrate your skull?

Why don't we prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Or guys with vasectomies? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Why is there not a legally enforceable vow to have children attached to every marriage license?

Nothing, until they start trying to get government benefits just because they are shacking up with a fuck buddy.

And what are married people who don't breed doing?

We have no way of knowing that until they fail to procreate. We know from the start that a couple of fuck buddies aren't going to procreate.

We've argued this point for years. When is it finally going to penetrate your skull?

Why don't we prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying? Or guys with vasectomies? Or women who have had hysterectomies? Why is there not a legally enforceable vow to have children attached to every marriage license?

You don't have to own a car to get a driver's license. Nevertheless the reason we issue driver's licenses is to keep people safe on the road. So that argument is obvious horseshit. I've dispensed it at least 1000 times by now, but turds like you keep repeating it over and over as if it was never exploded.

We also don't bother worrying about men who have vasectomies or women who have hystectomies because when the marriage laws were made such things didn't exist. We also never know the precise age when women are no longer capable of conceiving a child. And when the marriage laws were made women seldom lived past child bearing age.

If you want to change the law to make allowances for those things, go right ahead, but the first people to object will be liberals.

Name any marriage law in the country that has a child requirement in it.

ONE

You're really just too fucking stupid to get the point. I never said having a child was a requirement for marriage, just as owning a car isn't a requirement for getting a driver's license, but procreation is the reason we have marriage, and safety on the highways is the reason we issue driver's licenses.

Get the through your head before you ask your imbecile question again.