Poster Child for Legalization? Chattanooga Shooter had multiple addictions

[G.T.]

In other words.....take

Taxpayer money that would go towards feeding/housing criminals...


Or....

Tax slave labor


You really dpnt think these things through. At all.

Dear G.T. how much do you want to bet me that the campus plans
of microlending and paying for internships for people to work for their
education and living expense are SUSTAINABLE instead of this
welfare system of paying without any kind of training to become independent?

SEE
http www.houstonprogressive.org passed through federal laws and
signed by HUD secretary Cisneros and Congreswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The signed Principles with their names are linked to Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

I wrote out a proposal to apply this campus plan
to redevelop the border to provide sustainable
jobs, services and housing for immigrant workers to
invest their resources and labor into OWNING their
own community programs and city-states for legal dual citizenship

Earned Amnesty

G.T. I was going to challenge Donald Trump that this plan
would work better than just building a wall with no programs to
provide transition and training. If he loses the bet I was going to
ask him to PAY for the program or microlend and TRAIN govt
leaders and CANDIDATES for office I believe can make this plan
work for converting prisons and sweatshops into schools and work-study programs.

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

G.T. I am one of the FEW people who HAS thought this through
and worked it out where it ABOLISHES slave labor by
converting to work-study jobs for students earning their education!!!

Youre as phony and self deluded as a 2 dollar bill, and its disgusting.

My seeing right through it is the cause of your confusion.

You are either really really dumb, or really really evil. One of the two, there's no third.

Gay marriage becoming legal GIVES THE EQUAL VOICES YOU PRETEND TO CROW ABOUT.

People who don't believe in that rightfully argue these
values are faith based and don't belong in federal govt.

If you want to fund separate programs, that is fully protected as religious free exercise.

But NOT the right to impose any kind of faith-based belief through govt onto other people.
Sorry but that is going too far.

Sorry you cannot see that marriage itself does not need to be mixed with govt.
That is where the problem started, but people didn't see this until gay marriage was protested.

But it was always a violation of separation of church and state
to mix govt with marriage. Only the civil contracts should be managed as civil laws,
but not the "beliefs about marriage' which get into private beliefs where govt is supposed to remain neutral.

So if people have conflicting beliefs, then remove marriage from govt
so it is equal. Like only having domestic partnerships or civil contracts
but do not include any terms about marriage.

The same way Atheists reject the word God in public institutions,
we may have to remove marriage and just keep it in private if
it triggers too many conflicting beliefs and is no longer a neutral term!

Youre a bigot plain and simple, and just admitted as much.

Religious folks dont FUND gay marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution that promotes a stronger economy.

It is and should be civil for THAT reason, amongst other reaaons such as legal end of life reasons, etc.



Youre crowing really extra hard for BIGOTS to get their way.

Plain and simple.

I was right about you, thank for verifying dirtbag.

Dear G.T.
It is like the argument for public schools.
As long as it is going through the public institutions,
then it must reflect and represent the people.

So atheists who don't feel prayers, God and crosses represent the public
but are pushing a religious belief through the public institutions will sue to have that removed.

They don't want to be responsible for it through PUBLIC institutions.

Same with people protesting the death penalty or war.
and don't want that publicly endorsed where it violates their beliefs.

People who don't believe in recognizing same sex marriage
don't want benefits paid the same way traditional couples are recognized.

So I am saying to be fair and NOT be bigoted,
then REMOVE all marriage all benefits and manage health
care and prison programs etc under separate tracks.

Let people endorse and fund the programs of their choice
and quit fighting. So nobody is left out unequally.
Everyone has the right to set up their own programs
and deduct that from taxes. make it the same for everyone.

There is no bigotry and no fighting over who is endorsing
what, because people can form their own programs.

Gay marriage is civil.
It does not infringe on anyone's religion or religious views.

Religious marriage is private. It is not recpgnized by law.

Civil marriage is civil marriage, and you want religious views IMPOSED upon it because they dont think GAY should get benefits.

Hear yourself.

Hear ypur promotion of bigotry.




That religious people cant seperate civil from religious in their daft skulls....civil marriage should be eliminated altogether is what youre saying. You are a bigot.

 

[G.T.]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...

So what freedom is it, exactly?

Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.

Do you even know what benefits youre referring to?

They are PAID FOR by the married couples.

Your argument is null and void.


Marriage is a civil contract because.it helps the economy to recognize marriage as the center building block for families.

Married.couples end up giviing MORE to the economy and to society through THEIR HIGHER TAXES(HIGHER BRACKETS).

The "benefits" are there to promote the behaviour of marriage because the "benefits" are paid for AND THEN SOME by the married couple.


This is the idea behind civil marriage.

Religious folks habe no business demanding a BAN of any sort of CIVIL marriage based on religious beliefs because CIVIL is SEPERATE from RELIGIOUS.

They also have no good standing to take dow. The institution of civil marriage as a whole because it PAYS FOR ITSELF AND THEN SOME and benefits society.




It is for these reasons that what youre saying eother makes you dimb, a bigot, or both.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear G.T. how much do you want to bet me that the campus plans
of microlending and paying for internships for people to work for their
education and living expense are SUSTAINABLE instead of this
welfare system of paying without any kind of training to become independent?

SEE
http www.houstonprogressive.org passed through federal laws and
signed by HUD secretary Cisneros and Congreswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
The signed Principles with their names are linked to Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

I wrote out a proposal to apply this campus plan
to redevelop the border to provide sustainable
jobs, services and housing for immigrant workers to
invest their resources and labor into OWNING their
own community programs and city-states for legal dual citizenship

Earned Amnesty

G.T. I was going to challenge Donald Trump that this plan
would work better than just building a wall with no programs to
provide transition and training. If he loses the bet I was going to
ask him to PAY for the program or microlend and TRAIN govt
leaders and CANDIDATES for office I believe can make this plan
work for converting prisons and sweatshops into schools and work-study programs.

music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs

G.T. I am one of the FEW people who HAS thought this through
and worked it out where it ABOLISHES slave labor by
converting to work-study jobs for students earning their education!!!

Youre as phony and self deluded as a 2 dollar bill, and its disgusting.

My seeing right through it is the cause of your confusion.

You are either really really dumb, or really really evil. One of the two, there's no third.

Gay marriage becoming legal GIVES THE EQUAL VOICES YOU PRETEND TO CROW ABOUT.

People who don't believe in that rightfully argue these
values are faith based and don't belong in federal govt.

If you want to fund separate programs, that is fully protected as religious free exercise.

But NOT the right to impose any kind of faith-based belief through govt onto other people.
Sorry but that is going too far.

Sorry you cannot see that marriage itself does not need to be mixed with govt.
That is where the problem started, but people didn't see this until gay marriage was protested.

But it was always a violation of separation of church and state
to mix govt with marriage. Only the civil contracts should be managed as civil laws,
but not the "beliefs about marriage' which get into private beliefs where govt is supposed to remain neutral.

So if people have conflicting beliefs, then remove marriage from govt
so it is equal. Like only having domestic partnerships or civil contracts
but do not include any terms about marriage.

The same way Atheists reject the word God in public institutions,
we may have to remove marriage and just keep it in private if
it triggers too many conflicting beliefs and is no longer a neutral term!

Youre a bigot plain and simple, and just admitted as much.

Religious folks dont FUND gay marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution that promotes a stronger economy.

It is and should be civil for THAT reason, amongst other reaaons such as legal end of life reasons, etc.



Youre crowing really extra hard for BIGOTS to get their way.

Plain and simple.

I was right about you, thank for verifying dirtbag.

Dear G.T.
It is like the argument for public schools.
As long as it is going through the public institutions,
then it must reflect and represent the people.

So atheists who don't feel prayers, God and crosses represent the public
but are pushing a religious belief through the public institutions will sue to have that removed.

They don't want to be responsible for it through PUBLIC institutions.

Same with people protesting the death penalty or war.
and don't want that publicly endorsed where it violates their beliefs.

People who don't believe in recognizing same sex marriage
don't want benefits paid the same way traditional couples are recognized.

So I am saying to be fair and NOT be bigoted,
then REMOVE all marriage all benefits and manage health
care and prison programs etc under separate tracks.

Let people endorse and fund the programs of their choice
and quit fighting. So nobody is left out unequally.
Everyone has the right to set up their own programs
and deduct that from taxes. make it the same for everyone.

There is no bigotry and no fighting over who is endorsing
what, because people can form their own programs.

Gay marriage is civil.
It does not infringe on anyone's religion or religious views.

Religious marriage is private. It is not recpgnized by law.

Civil marriage is civil marriage, and you want religious views IMPOSED upon it because they dont think GAY should get benefits.

Hear yourself.

Hear ypur promotion of bigotry.




That religious people cant seperate civil from religious in their daft skulls....civil marriage should be eliminated altogether is what youre saying. You are a bigot.

Dear G.T.

The language for marriage laws should be NEUTRAL so it can be public policy
and not impose or deny anyone's beliefs.

The same way the language in the transgender policy was poorly written
and caused an uproar and ongoing legal action in Houston,
the language in marriage laws also has to be carefully written
by agreement so it represents ALL people of that state.

Then I agree you can have civil laws that are constitutitional
and don't impose beliefs if they are written and implemented with full consent of the people.

If both sides are fighting to exclude the language or terms of the other,
of course, that process is going to fail. Like this business of banning
gay marriage that was clearly unconstitutional. This seems to be the backlash to that.
Both sides need to include each other equally if you are going to have truly constitutional civil laws.

 

[G.T.]

Youre as phony and self deluded as a 2 dollar bill, and its disgusting.

My seeing right through it is the cause of your confusion.

You are either really really dumb, or really really evil. One of the two, there's no third.

Gay marriage becoming legal GIVES THE EQUAL VOICES YOU PRETEND TO CROW ABOUT.

People who don't believe in that rightfully argue these
values are faith based and don't belong in federal govt.

If you want to fund separate programs, that is fully protected as religious free exercise.

But NOT the right to impose any kind of faith-based belief through govt onto other people.
Sorry but that is going too far.

Sorry you cannot see that marriage itself does not need to be mixed with govt.
That is where the problem started, but people didn't see this until gay marriage was protested.

But it was always a violation of separation of church and state
to mix govt with marriage. Only the civil contracts should be managed as civil laws,
but not the "beliefs about marriage' which get into private beliefs where govt is supposed to remain neutral.

So if people have conflicting beliefs, then remove marriage from govt
so it is equal. Like only having domestic partnerships or civil contracts
but do not include any terms about marriage.

The same way Atheists reject the word God in public institutions,
we may have to remove marriage and just keep it in private if
it triggers too many conflicting beliefs and is no longer a neutral term!

Youre a bigot plain and simple, and just admitted as much.

Religious folks dont FUND gay marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution that promotes a stronger economy.

It is and should be civil for THAT reason, amongst other reaaons such as legal end of life reasons, etc.



Youre crowing really extra hard for BIGOTS to get their way.

Plain and simple.

I was right about you, thank for verifying dirtbag.

Dear G.T.
It is like the argument for public schools.
As long as it is going through the public institutions,
then it must reflect and represent the people.

So atheists who don't feel prayers, God and crosses represent the public
but are pushing a religious belief through the public institutions will sue to have that removed.

They don't want to be responsible for it through PUBLIC institutions.

Same with people protesting the death penalty or war.
and don't want that publicly endorsed where it violates their beliefs.

People who don't believe in recognizing same sex marriage
don't want benefits paid the same way traditional couples are recognized.

So I am saying to be fair and NOT be bigoted,
then REMOVE all marriage all benefits and manage health
care and prison programs etc under separate tracks.

Let people endorse and fund the programs of their choice
and quit fighting. So nobody is left out unequally.
Everyone has the right to set up their own programs
and deduct that from taxes. make it the same for everyone.

There is no bigotry and no fighting over who is endorsing
what, because people can form their own programs.

Gay marriage is civil.
It does not infringe on anyone's religion or religious views.

Religious marriage is private. It is not recpgnized by law.

Civil marriage is civil marriage, and you want religious views IMPOSED upon it because they dont think GAY should get benefits.

Hear yourself.

Hear ypur promotion of bigotry.




That religious people cant seperate civil from religious in their daft skulls....civil marriage should be eliminated altogether is what youre saying. You are a bigot.

Dear G.T.

The language for marriage laws should be NEUTRAL so it can be public policy
and not impose or deny anyone's beliefs.

The same way the language in the transgender policy was poorly written
and caused an uproar and ongoing legal action in Houston,
the language in marriage laws also has to be carefully written
by agreement so it represents ALL people of that state.

Then I agree you can have civil laws that are constitutitional
and don't impose beliefs if they are written and implemented with full consent of the people.

If both sides are fighting to exclude the language or terms of the other,
of course, that process is going to fail. Like this business of banning
gay marriage that was clearly unconstitutional. This seems to be the backlash to that.
Both sides need to include each other equally if you are going to have truly constitutional civil laws.

Youre a moron.

Straight marriage is already included equally under the law.

Now read your last sentence.

 

[emilynghiem]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...

So what freedom is it, exactly?

Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.

Do you even know what benefits youre referring to?

They are PAID FOR by the married couples.

Your argument is null and void.


Marriage is a civil contract because.it helps the economy to recognize marriage as the center building block for families.

Married.couples end up giviing MORE to the economy and to society through THEIR HIGHER TAXES(HIGHER BRACKETS).

The "benefits" are there to promote the behaviour of marriage because the "benefits" are paid for AND THEN SOME by the married couple.

This is the idea behind civil marriage.

Religious folks habe no business demanding a BAN of any sort of CIVIL marriage based on religious beliefs because CIVIL is SEPERATE from RELIGIOUS.

They also have no good standing to take dow. The institution of civil marriage as a whole because it PAYS FOR ITSELF AND THEN SOME and benefits society.

It is for these reasons that what youre saying eother makes you dimb, a bigot, or both.

Dear G.T.
If the couples are paying for their own benefits then why not separate it completely by party?
So there is no doubt they are funding it themselves. It is clearly not the responsibility of people
who don't recognize either same sex marriage or who believe ALL social legislation is unconstitutional
and NO such programs should be run through govt. All beliefs would be satisfied by separating the tracks.

And only keeping the AGREED programs through federal govt.
That would clearly be public policy and authority if all people CONSENT to that.

The health care issue and now the prison reform and immigration
issues may also require separating by party to allow direct accountability where people
don't trust each other's means of management.

Might as well fix everything if you are going to put the whole car in the shop
for a major overhaul!

 

[emilynghiem]

People who don't believe in that rightfully argue these
values are faith based and don't belong in federal govt.

If you want to fund separate programs, that is fully protected as religious free exercise.

But NOT the right to impose any kind of faith-based belief through govt onto other people.
Sorry but that is going too far.

Sorry you cannot see that marriage itself does not need to be mixed with govt.
That is where the problem started, but people didn't see this until gay marriage was protested.

But it was always a violation of separation of church and state
to mix govt with marriage. Only the civil contracts should be managed as civil laws,
but not the "beliefs about marriage' which get into private beliefs where govt is supposed to remain neutral.

So if people have conflicting beliefs, then remove marriage from govt
so it is equal. Like only having domestic partnerships or civil contracts
but do not include any terms about marriage.

The same way Atheists reject the word God in public institutions,
we may have to remove marriage and just keep it in private if
it triggers too many conflicting beliefs and is no longer a neutral term!

Youre a bigot plain and simple, and just admitted as much.

Religious folks dont FUND gay marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution that promotes a stronger economy.

It is and should be civil for THAT reason, amongst other reaaons such as legal end of life reasons, etc.



Youre crowing really extra hard for BIGOTS to get their way.

Plain and simple.

I was right about you, thank for verifying dirtbag.

Dear G.T.
It is like the argument for public schools.
As long as it is going through the public institutions,
then it must reflect and represent the people.

So atheists who don't feel prayers, God and crosses represent the public
but are pushing a religious belief through the public institutions will sue to have that removed.

They don't want to be responsible for it through PUBLIC institutions.

Same with people protesting the death penalty or war.
and don't want that publicly endorsed where it violates their beliefs.

People who don't believe in recognizing same sex marriage
don't want benefits paid the same way traditional couples are recognized.

So I am saying to be fair and NOT be bigoted,
then REMOVE all marriage all benefits and manage health
care and prison programs etc under separate tracks.

Let people endorse and fund the programs of their choice
and quit fighting. So nobody is left out unequally.
Everyone has the right to set up their own programs
and deduct that from taxes. make it the same for everyone.

There is no bigotry and no fighting over who is endorsing
what, because people can form their own programs.

Gay marriage is civil.
It does not infringe on anyone's religion or religious views.

Religious marriage is private. It is not recpgnized by law.

Civil marriage is civil marriage, and you want religious views IMPOSED upon it because they dont think GAY should get benefits.

Hear yourself.

Hear ypur promotion of bigotry.




That religious people cant seperate civil from religious in their daft skulls....civil marriage should be eliminated altogether is what youre saying. You are a bigot.

Dear G.T.

The language for marriage laws should be NEUTRAL so it can be public policy
and not impose or deny anyone's beliefs.

The same way the language in the transgender policy was poorly written
and caused an uproar and ongoing legal action in Houston,
the language in marriage laws also has to be carefully written
by agreement so it represents ALL people of that state.

Then I agree you can have civil laws that are constitutitional
and don't impose beliefs if they are written and implemented with full consent of the people.

If both sides are fighting to exclude the language or terms of the other,
of course, that process is going to fail. Like this business of banning
gay marriage that was clearly unconstitutional. This seems to be the backlash to that.
Both sides need to include each other equally if you are going to have truly constitutional civil laws.

Youre a moron.

Straight marriage is already included equally under the law.

Now read your last sentence.

Straight marriage is equally in violation of separation of church and state.
I am saying to remove both if people cannot agree to treat them the same.

 

[G.T.]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...

So what freedom is it, exactly?

Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.

Do you even know what benefits youre referring to?

They are PAID FOR by the married couples.

Your argument is null and void.


Marriage is a civil contract because.it helps the economy to recognize marriage as the center building block for families.

Married.couples end up giviing MORE to the economy and to society through THEIR HIGHER TAXES(HIGHER BRACKETS).

The "benefits" are there to promote the behaviour of marriage because the "benefits" are paid for AND THEN SOME by the married couple.

This is the idea behind civil marriage.

Religious folks habe no business demanding a BAN of any sort of CIVIL marriage based on religious beliefs because CIVIL is SEPERATE from RELIGIOUS.

They also have no good standing to take dow. The institution of civil marriage as a whole because it PAYS FOR ITSELF AND THEN SOME and benefits society.

It is for these reasons that what youre saying eother makes you dimb, a bigot, or both.

Dear G.T.
If the couples are paying for their own benefits then why not separate it completely by party?
So there is no doubt they are funding it themselves. It is clearly not the responsibility of people
who don't recognize either same sex marriage or who believe ALL social legislation is unconstitutional
and NO such programs should be run through govt. All beliefs would be satisfied by separating the tracks.

And only keeping the AGREED programs through federal govt.
That would clearly be public policy and authority if all people CONSENT to that.

The health care issue and now the prison reform and immigration
issues may also require separating by party to allow direct accountability where people
don't trust each other's means of management.

Might as well fix everything if you are going to put the whole car in the shop
for a major overhaul!

You just stumped for "seperate but equal," something ruled constitutionally invalid.

Youre literally arguing for jim crow laws "seperated by party and according to sexual orientation."


You make me sick, vile thing.

 

[G.T.]

Youre a bigot plain and simple, and just admitted as much.

Religious folks dont FUND gay marriage.

Marriage is a civil institution that promotes a stronger economy.

It is and should be civil for THAT reason, amongst other reaaons such as legal end of life reasons, etc.



Youre crowing really extra hard for BIGOTS to get their way.

Plain and simple.

I was right about you, thank for verifying dirtbag.

Dear G.T.
It is like the argument for public schools.
As long as it is going through the public institutions,
then it must reflect and represent the people.

So atheists who don't feel prayers, God and crosses represent the public
but are pushing a religious belief through the public institutions will sue to have that removed.

They don't want to be responsible for it through PUBLIC institutions.

Same with people protesting the death penalty or war.
and don't want that publicly endorsed where it violates their beliefs.

People who don't believe in recognizing same sex marriage
don't want benefits paid the same way traditional couples are recognized.

So I am saying to be fair and NOT be bigoted,
then REMOVE all marriage all benefits and manage health
care and prison programs etc under separate tracks.

Let people endorse and fund the programs of their choice
and quit fighting. So nobody is left out unequally.
Everyone has the right to set up their own programs
and deduct that from taxes. make it the same for everyone.

There is no bigotry and no fighting over who is endorsing
what, because people can form their own programs.

Gay marriage is civil.
It does not infringe on anyone's religion or religious views.

Religious marriage is private. It is not recpgnized by law.

Civil marriage is civil marriage, and you want religious views IMPOSED upon it because they dont think GAY should get benefits.

Hear yourself.

Hear ypur promotion of bigotry.




That religious people cant seperate civil from religious in their daft skulls....civil marriage should be eliminated altogether is what youre saying. You are a bigot.

Dear G.T.

The language for marriage laws should be NEUTRAL so it can be public policy
and not impose or deny anyone's beliefs.

The same way the language in the transgender policy was poorly written
and caused an uproar and ongoing legal action in Houston,
the language in marriage laws also has to be carefully written
by agreement so it represents ALL people of that state.

Then I agree you can have civil laws that are constitutitional
and don't impose beliefs if they are written and implemented with full consent of the people.

If both sides are fighting to exclude the language or terms of the other,
of course, that process is going to fail. Like this business of banning
gay marriage that was clearly unconstitutional. This seems to be the backlash to that.
Both sides need to include each other equally if you are going to have truly constitutional civil laws.

Youre a moron.

Straight marriage is already included equally under the law.

Now read your last sentence.

Straight marriage is equally in violation of separation of church and state.
I am saying to remove both if people cannot agree to treat them the same.

No its not.

Civil marriage is not recognized as a religious marriage by the state and so they remain seperate.

You are wrong with what you just said.

Doesnt matter to you, youre attempting to say we should have seperate laws by party so bigots can be bigots. By law. Youre a sick scummer

 

[G.T.]

Emily should muslims have a seperate "party" where theyre equally represented and allowed to stone gays?

Equally as ridiculous.

You want the LAW to recognize a RELIGIOUS grievance with CIVIL (not religious) marriage, due to BIGOTRY against gays.

This is the USA.

We dont do that here, bigot

 

[G.T.]

Hey Valerie - try not to think less of me for my apparent cruelty to emily.

She has been hiding behind her bigotry and malformed views for a long time now and theres a history there.

I dont condone bigots, and I have an even greater distaste for bigots who try and hide it with excuses. She really disgusts me, and has also solicited me in the past for some spiritual healing cult, and claims there are peer reviewed studies "proving" spiritual healing works but she has no clue what "peer review" means.

 

[Harry Dresden]

 

[G.T.]

Bogart only shares with the yellow people

 

[Harry Dresden]

Bogart only shares with the yellow people

just for you GT......

 

[Harry Dresden]

 

[BlindBoo]

 

[Harry Dresden]

here is the original version as done in Easy Rider.....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

 

[Bobby1250]

CHATTANOOGA HOAX 100% CONFIRMED! "Victims" already died in 2004, 2009, etc!!!!!
This is mind-blowing.....they aren't even covering their tracks anymore!!

CHATTANOOGA HOAX: MIND BLOWER!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Clearly the difference between the peaceful practice of Islam that focuses on God as bringing peace
vs. the Jihadist terrorist worship of Jihad as War

I'll stop you right there....What the terrorists do are commanded of them in the Quran. They're not radicals. They're living their beliefs. And frankly, this is why millions of Muslims privately (or publicly) support them. No...you don't get to subscribe the label of peace to Islam. It's completely undeserved and unwarranted. Millions in the world are now being oppressed in the name of Allah (which is not God); So, no. Fuck that.

Dear TheGreatGatsby
Sorry but there are plenty of Muslims who don't take Islam out of context with the
rest of Scripture that INCLUDES the Jewish Torah and Christian Scriptures.
True Islam INCLUDES Christianity, so the followers are called to respect civil institutions
and laws; unlike the Jihadists who take law into their own hands and bypass civil law and order.

True believers obey civil authority as the Christians are called to do by Scripture,
and do not break laws as the Jihadists do who subvert due process to commit murder for political power. This is clearly following Mammon or material influence, and not following God's will and laws as given in the Jewish Torah, Christian Scriptures, and Muslim Quran to love all people of the book, receive "all sent by God," and to live in peace and let others live in peace despite any differences (see SURA 109 on peaceful coexistence, one of the very last scriptures given in the entire Quran where the later verses take precedent over anything given previously).

The Jihadists take Mohammad's political history and war strategies out of context,
where that is imposed on civilians in peacetime. That is as criminal as taking US military
policy and commands "out of context during war" and applying it illegally to attacking civilian
citizens as in war, instead of following due process of laws and other laws of civil society.

The same Constitution and govt that protects law and order in society
authorizes Military commanders to send troops into battle and "shoot to kill" "without due process." But that is ILLEGAL to do outside the wartime context. The same US govt
authorizes BOTH military laws and civilian laws, but they cannot be taken out of context
and applied in the wrong way or it is illegal!

Same with the battles that Mohammad fought as a military leader.
Just because he led troops in war to conquer and set up an empire
does not mean the entire religion teaches that as the policy!

That is as erroneous as saying that because of atrocities, killings, and other damages during
wartime by US soldiers authorized by American govt and endorsed and paid for by American taxpayers,
then "all US citizens are following some cult" that endorses killing civilians as collateral damage in war.

Some people actually believe that about US citizens, and call our ENTIRE nation the "Great Satan"
claiming to be following God but really following Greed and committing genocide around the world
in the name of political freedom.

If you are going to accuse ALL Muslims of following the political religion of Jihadists who take teachings
out of context to commit crimes against humanity, then you are making a very similar "unfair generalization"
like the people who accuse ALL Americans as ENABLING sick abusive behavior because we allow
"too much freedom" and aren't doing enough to check against abuses of American laws and resources.

This is very similar to accusing Muslims of not doing enough to check against abuses of Islam,
and thus holding all Muslims responsible "by association" -- The same is argued about Americans and holding "All Americans" in contempt and responsible for abuses and atrocities in war by US troops and military actions!

 

[emilynghiem]

What freedom has the anti gay marriage crowd lost emily?

Cuz they dont fund marriage with their tax dollars...

So what freedom is it, exactly?

Noone lost a freedom when gay marriage was.legalized.

Freedom was gained.

Youre FIGHTING literally for BIGOTRY.

this is why you deserve to be DESPISED.

Dear G.T.
That's like saying what if slavery were still endorsed by govt.
I'm saying remove ALL involuntary servitude and don't endorse any of it.

The side that won in court got their benefits recognized but by allowing
the slave relations to still be *managed by govt* but now
the field slaves are getting access to the same benefits as the house slaves.

Well, they are still both depending on govt to manage their benefits!
(and every time another issue comes up with what conditions
to meet and the regs, etc, these same two groups have to fight
through govt to get the terms they want
as long as they keep going through that third party.)

In the meantime, the people working for themselves,
managing their own resources without going through govt
are arguing why are the field slaves and house slaves
still arguing who is getting more benefits from the master?

Be your own master and you don't have to argue back and forth at all.

Do you even know what benefits youre referring to?

They are PAID FOR by the married couples.

Your argument is null and void.


Marriage is a civil contract because.it helps the economy to recognize marriage as the center building block for families.

Married.couples end up giviing MORE to the economy and to society through THEIR HIGHER TAXES(HIGHER BRACKETS).

The "benefits" are there to promote the behaviour of marriage because the "benefits" are paid for AND THEN SOME by the married couple.

This is the idea behind civil marriage.

Religious folks habe no business demanding a BAN of any sort of CIVIL marriage based on religious beliefs because CIVIL is SEPERATE from RELIGIOUS.

They also have no good standing to take dow. The institution of civil marriage as a whole because it PAYS FOR ITSELF AND THEN SOME and benefits society.

It is for these reasons that what youre saying eother makes you dimb, a bigot, or both.

Dear G.T.
If the couples are paying for their own benefits then why not separate it completely by party?
So there is no doubt they are funding it themselves. It is clearly not the responsibility of people
who don't recognize either same sex marriage or who believe ALL social legislation is unconstitutional
and NO such programs should be run through govt. All beliefs would be satisfied by separating the tracks.

And only keeping the AGREED programs through federal govt.
That would clearly be public policy and authority if all people CONSENT to that.

The health care issue and now the prison reform and immigration
issues may also require separating by party to allow direct accountability where people
don't trust each other's means of management.

Might as well fix everything if you are going to put the whole car in the shop
for a major overhaul!

You just stumped for "seperate but equal," something ruled constitutionally invalid.

Youre literally arguing for jim crow laws "seperated by party and according to sexual orientation."


You make me sick, vile thing.

Dear G.T.
I understand that there ARE people who push for marriage for traditional couples only,
and then exclude people who believe in gay marriage, right to marriage and marriage equality.

That bigotry that is making you sick applies to people who ARE biased and pushing for
EXCLUSION.

I am saying to AVOID that, then keep ALL marriage out of the state. Treat them all the same.

So no, I am NOT saying for the state to endorse only one side's marriage beliefs
and then keep the "other separate but equal." That IS discrimination and clearly
unconstitutional to exclude people based on differences in beliefs.

I am saying to keep BOTH out of the state so they remain private and fully up to the freedom of individuals regardless of beliefs and views.

I am NOT saying to "endorse one and reject the other" which I agree is discriminatory and so I oppose that as unlawful!

I am saying to respect "separation of church and state" and keep conflicting BELIEFS out of govt.

I support Buddhism, Christianity, and all other beliefs as equally free to practice,
but I would say the SAME THING when it comes to mixing ANY of these with Govt:

If people cannot agree, then leave it out of Govt policy. I am NOT saying to endorse one belief
and keep the others separate. I am saying to treat ALL beliefs the same and keep ALL of them out of govt. (unless there is agreement, like if all people AGREE to keep references to God on public money, or agree to keep references to "Justice" in our laws which is equally a FAITH based concept and not proven to exist either. if people AGREE on a faith-based policy,
then if the public passes a law and nobody objects on religious grounds, that is still a law by consensus and not violating anyone's beliefs if everyone CONSENTS to it)

G.T. just because I support Catholics running their own churches and deciding their own policies on communions, on priesthood qualification, on marriage and divorce,
and I support Baptists running their own churches, and Mormons and Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims, etc.

Does that mean I am pushing for "separate but equal" as a form of "religious segregation"?

I am merely RECOGNIZING that people already CHOOSE to segregate by their different cultural beliefs and traditions, and already have equal freedom,
rights and responsibilities in governing their own institutions by the rules and beliefs they share.

People do this naturally! So I am saying do the same thing with marriage,
and organize with the people who believe in the same policies and standards.
If it is all organized by free choice and freedom of association, then NOBODY is being
excluded or treated as less than equal. All groups should be equally respected in practicing their own beliefs.