Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[Seawytch]

Nothing stopping two men from living together or doing 'whatever' to each other. Nothing preventing them from owning property, getting a job, living where they want, travelling, etc.

Which of course, has nothing to do with the law discriminating against gays based on the gender of the person they wish to marry.

So you are looking for Civil Unions for homosexuals then?

Civil Unions for everyone would be perfectly fine. Civil unions for gays and legal marriage for hets is separate but equal...which is unconstitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.

Nonsense. Laws respecting the establishment of religion are in complete violation of the Constitution. You only undermine your self-proclaimed studies with such unaware observations.

It would be one thing to claim they are making those laws with respect to religion, which would still be a stretch since the state's legalities are not imposed on the religious tenets or visa-versa; but it is certainly ludicrous that they are respecting establishment of religion, which clearly violates, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Unlike you, I attempt to explore the Constitution, not merely 'interpret' it. Marriage is a religious rite wherever you turn. When you make a law regulating marriage, you are in essence making laws concerning religion, which is expressly forbade by the 1st Amendment. Hence the "Congress shall make no law" part.

You are confusing legal marriage with religious marriage. Religious marriage will remain the purview of the religious institution. You can't prevent someone from equal access to a law because your religion thinks that someone is icky.

 

[JoeB131]

Correct.

The Constitution places a very great burden of proof on the state when it seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties.

The restrictions must be rationally based, there must be a compelling governmental interest, there must be objective, documented evidence in support of the restrictions, and the restrictions must pursue a legitimate legislative end.

Measures designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria.

And though many Conservatives won't admit it, the real reason they're against gay marriage is because their bigotry against homosexuality his based on their religious beliefs. Which of course, has absolutely no place in the Constitution.

Although you won't admit it, calling people bigots does not qualify as a reason. If you read the First Amendment, religion has plenty a place in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

People like you should stop talking out of your backside. Seriously. In regards to who you quoted, determining who can and can't marry should be a states issue. Dictating marriage is not inferred on the government in any part of the Constitution, and is thereby relegated to the states.

In my personal opinion, there should be no governance over marriage. I see any laws regarding marriage as a violation of the First Amendment since in some cases they would qualify as laws respecting an establishment of religion. You don't need governments to sanction marriage.

In short... when they say you have to let the coloreds into the country club, you want to burn down the country club. Got it.

Okay, a whole problem with your argument.

If a church used the bible to rationalize racism, no one would stand for it. Even if they could find bible verses to rationalize thier racism (and there are plenty).

Same problem with homophobia... you guy can hide behind the bible, but the rest of us don't have to put up with it.

Practice Homophobia, lose your tax exemption. Sounds fair to me.

 

[mal]

You didn't think they would leave your Church alone, did you?...



peace...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Another fact ... The U.S. Constitution does not discriminate based on gender.

That is right it doesn't...except where it allows men to be drafted and women not.....

Or how it allows for segregation of public restrooms based on gender......

Or how it outlaws polygamy, (who are we to judge?)

Or how it discriminates on the basis of age and disability.

Meh, I'm gored with poking holes all through your stupid bullshit.

Actually, all you’ve done is exhibit your ignorance.

Demonstrate how I am ignorant, you bag of puss, or do the honest thing and shut the fuck up.

By Criminy, I find the libtard responses on these boards to be entirely circular and of little value because you provide no counter facts, no reason, no perspective other than you are wright because you say so.

Eat shit, you stupid ****.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your point is muted by the point that discrimination based on gender exists no matter how you frame the law. Even passing a law which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; still discriminates based on gender.

And again, the same cannot be said about polygamy unless only one gender is allowed to marry multiple partners. Otherwise, there is no discrimination of any particular group.

no matter how you frame it.....opposite gender is quite critical to the definition of marriage.....no children together without opposites....this is not a form of discrimination but just a fact of life and marriage...it is consistent with nature...

and please don't bring up the bogus adoption argument....

What a stagnant, stale world you live in. I'd suggest you go live with the Amish but even they're more hip to changing social norms than you are.

When the culture around you is degenerating into a moral pile of shit, being stagnant is quite the GOOD THING, dude.

Opposite gender is NOT critical to the definition of marriage and no one's having children these days anyway, gay or straight couples........ except for the illegals, remember?

Says you, but anyone with common sense knows that it does. Were it not for the Gay Mafia taking over most of our Big Lie Media and using it to degenerate the common perception of what marriage is, we would not be having this conversation.

But thank God the third world is not so deluded and immigrate here on a large scale annually. If we sane people can hold off you pervs long enough, the balance will tip back into our favor as the new ethnic groups, especially Hispanics, assert their own identity and leave the Dimbocrap Party in the dust.

And what do you care about nature? When it's convenient? How about we worry about chopping down all the rainforests while pumping massive tons of CO2 into the air before we give a shit about who wants to spend the rest of their lives with whom?

More bullshit and deflection.

Good.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, it is not hypocritical. You just simply don't understand it.

My argument for gay marriage is rooted in the equal protection clause of the Constitution which demands everyone be guaranteed the same protection under the laws. The Constitution also forbids discrimination based on several factors, one of which being gender.

So gay marriage, in my opinion, is protected by the Constitution since the only legal argument against it relies on gender.

There is no such discrimination inherent in polygamy. Therefore, there is no violation (that I'm aware of) of the Constitution for banning polygamy. When banning polygamy, no one is discriminated against because of their race or gender.

I hope this clarifies my position for you.



At least you attempted to answer, that's a start. But just saying, "it couldn't hurt," is rather vague and doesn't really answer the question asked ...

Do you believe they should be illegal. I'll drop alcoholism since your point on that is valid. But do you think infidelity and divorce should be illegal?

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

Yeah? So?

It's called: Consenting Adults Harming No One.

Get over it, buttinsky.

No, it isn't merely consenting adults.

It is also killing Anglo ethnicities demographic growth rates, which I am actually pleased with as the Anglo ethnic group is no longer worthy of continued demographic growth and were it not for civilization propping it up would have collapsed years ago. Lets accelerate that trend and leave the Main Stream Protestant churches totally empty by 2040, that's a good target.

The rise of Queerdom also spreads STDs like a disease superhighway, and I am fine with that as well, though many innocents will suffer, which is a shame. But I guess militant queers cant have their dick and eat it too. How m any millions of homosexual men have died because they cant keep their pants zipped up? and the same goes for philandering heteros; I couldn't care less for the most of them.

I have known some otherwise good people that were fully aware of the risks they took over the years, hanging out at public restrooms and parks, going to gay clubs and bathhouses and still they went. They are all dead now, unable to practice any self-control despite the danger. Perhaps if the militant homosexual leadership had not turned being queer into some kind of political minority group and fought to keep homosexuals freely buggering each other for the sake of political identity not nearly so many would have died?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Okay folks, we know now, even better than before, homos are some twisted sick immoral people, I use *people* loosely, *animalistic people* better describes them.
2. We also realize these *people* want to destroy our societal glue that keeps us bound together in society and keeps us who we are, decent human beings.
3. There is a clear difference in people, one gay couple and one straight, the two are based on totally different values, different reasons for being, one against everything good and against God, the other with the blessing from God.
4. Homos want to flaunt their deviant sex acts in Gods face and get laws on the books to shut God up, to try and clear the deck of God, using normal humans to do it, which can not work anyway.
5. This we know, *end thread*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

And though many Conservatives won't admit it, the real reason they're against gay marriage is because their bigotry against homosexuality his based on their religious beliefs. Which of course, has absolutely no place in the Constitution.

Although you won't admit it, calling people bigots does not qualify as a reason. If you read the First Amendment, religion has plenty a place in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

People like you should stop talking out of your backside. Seriously. In regards to who you quoted, determining who can and can't marry should be a states issue. Dictating marriage is not inferred on the government in any part of the Constitution, and is thereby relegated to the states.

In my personal opinion, there should be no governance over marriage. I see any laws regarding marriage as a violation of the First Amendment since in some cases they would qualify as laws respecting an establishment of religion. You don't need governments to sanction marriage.

In short... when they say you have to let the coloreds into the country club, you want to burn down the country club. Got it.

Okay, a whole problem with your argument.

If a church used the bible to rationalize racism, no one would stand for it. Even if they could find bible verses to rationalize thier racism (and there are plenty).

Same problem with homophobia... you guy can hide behind the bible, but the rest of us don't have to put up with it.

Practice Homophobia, lose your tax exemption. Sounds fair to me.

1. Its always about refusing to be moral and turning ones back on God.
2. We know that, and homos will never escape God, or Gods judgment, humans do not *final judge* that's Gods place, but we should be repelled from homos, and never welcome in the heretic.
3. We must stand on good and sound principles, on truth and the love of God, which God provided humans to marry.
4. Its instituted by God to marry, its not humans who instituted marriage, its Gods place.
5. Us humans have no right to institute homo marriage, its not possible, and we should be very careful in trying.
6. Liberals should be eradicated from the political stage, but no, they are stronger than ever, and whats wrong with America.
7. The church should fight hard against this, and stuff these homos back into the closet where they belong.




Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[bodecea]

Although you won't admit it, calling people bigots does not qualify as a reason. If you read the First Amendment, religion has plenty a place in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

People like you should stop talking out of your backside. Seriously. In regards to who you quoted, determining who can and can't marry should be a states issue. Dictating marriage is not inferred on the government in any part of the Constitution, and is thereby relegated to the states.

In my personal opinion, there should be no governance over marriage. I see any laws regarding marriage as a violation of the First Amendment since in some cases they would qualify as laws respecting an establishment of religion. You don't need governments to sanction marriage.

That's a pretty impulsive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution protects the inalienable right for people to worship as they choose for themselves, not to allow the government to establish any religion or impose any religious beliefs on the people.

Meaning the Constitution does not consider religion where law is violated. That's the reason the husband seeking evasion from U.S. law due to his observance of Sharia law, who ScreamingEagle referred to earlier, was denied that protection.

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.

Wait....what? Marriage does not require a religion. Not at all.

 

[mal]

That's a pretty impulsive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution protects the inalienable right for people to worship as they choose for themselves, not to allow the government to establish any religion or impose any religious beliefs on the people.

Meaning the Constitution does not consider religion where law is violated. That's the reason the husband seeking evasion from U.S. law due to his observance of Sharia law, who ScreamingEagle referred to earlier, was denied that protection.

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.

Wait....what? Marriage does not require a religion. Not at all.

Marriage does not Require Religion but what it does Naturally Require (2) Women or (2) Men are Incapable of 100% of the time.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

Nope, sure the hell ain't...

The guys on the Left are cute. Why are you comparing consenting adults on the left with children on the right? And why are they praying to the American Flag?

The guys on the left are suffering from a very disgusting, sexually perverted, mental illness and need psychiatric help.

The little kids are simply praying with the American flag as a back drop. Two things you leftards hate, God and patriotism.

I knew you being a libtard faggot wouldn't get any of it. You're sick in the fucking head too.[/QUOTE ]

You want forced religion, Pole Rider?

 

[Faun]

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.

Nonsense. Laws respecting the establishment of religion are in complete violation of the Constitution. You only undermine your self-proclaimed studies with such unaware observations.

It would be one thing to claim they are making those laws with respect to religion, which would still be a stretch since the state's legalities are not imposed on the religious tenets or visa-versa; but it is certainly ludicrous that they are respecting establishment of religion, which clearly violates, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Unlike you, I attempt to explore the Constitution, not merely 'interpret' it. Marriage is a religious rite wherever you turn. When you make a law regulating marriage, you are in essence making laws concerning religion, which is expressly forbade by the 1st Amendment. Hence the "Congress shall make no law" part.

First you say our laws regarding marriage are "respecting establishment of religion," now you change your opinion to that such laws are merely "concerning religion." Your position on this is so inept, you can't even maintain consistency from one post to the next. And rather than make the point you think you're making, all you accomplish is exposing your own ignorance of the Constitution and belie your self serving claim of studying it.

That you can't even comprehend how wide the chasm is between "respecting the establishment of religion" and "concerning religion" speaks volumes towards your comprehenshion difficulties in matters regarding our very own Constitution. A priceless document like that which helped formed the basis of this nation's guiding principles and divorced us from our theocratic roots is sadly wasted on you.

Your comprehension problems aside, there are many laws in the U.S. which could be said "concern religion." These do not violate the Constitution because they do not breach upon "establishing religion." Laws regarding murder "concern religion" since the first known written law forbidding murder comes from the Ten Commandments and most religions contain laws regarding it. That doesn't mean the 1st Amendment prevents our laws from prohibiting murder since such laws concerning religion do not "establish religion."

Suffice it to say, your Constitutional studies are a waste of time. If that is your interest, I highly recommend you seek guidance from someone more knowledgeable on these matters to help you better understand the "nuances" embedded in the Constitution. In your case, it would be money well spent.

 

[bodecea]

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

It is gender discrimination...not gay discrimination.

what part of the marriage definition don't you get...? or is it you just don't believe in definitions when they contradict what you want....?

A gay man can legally marry a gay women in all 50 states...but he cannot marry another man REGARDLESS whether that man is gay or not....it is about gender, not homosexuality. Gender discrimination is illegal DESPITE what sexist people want.

 

[mal]

It is gender discrimination...not gay discrimination.

what part of the marriage definition don't you get...? or is it you just don't believe in definitions when they contradict what you want....?

A gay man can legally marry a gay women in all 50 states...but he cannot marry another man REGARDLESS whether that man is gay or not....it is about gender, not homosexuality. Gender discrimination is illegal DESPITE what sexist people want.

Marriage isn't what you want it to be it's what it is... You had a Mom and a Dad.

Every Human being does regardless of whether or not they ever Know them.

You Sexual Choices should not be Society's Burden but because you are Invalid and in Need of Validation you will not stop.

Your Mental Illness is what drives you... Functionally Mentally Ill, but Mentally Ill all the same.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

as i pointed out before there is no discrimination based on gender unless you change the definition of marriage.....and if you change the definition of marriage to accomodate gays you can certainly change it for polygamists too...

Your point is muted by the point that discrimination based on gender exists no matter how you frame the law. Even passing a law which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; still discriminates based on gender.

And again, the same cannot be said about polygamy unless only one gender is allowed to marry multiple partners. Otherwise, there is no discrimination of any particular group.

no matter how you frame it.....opposite gender is quite critical to the definition of marriage.....no children together without opposites....this is not a form of discrimination but just a fact of life and marriage...it is consistent with nature...

and please don't bring up the bogus adoption argument....

The definition of marriage has changed for millenium...it is not a static term. And why bring children into the equation. Marriage does not require children and children do not require marriage. Straights have children and gays have children...straights don't have children and gays don't have children.

 

[Faun]

That is right it doesn't...except where it allows men to be drafted and women not.....

Or how it allows for segregation of public restrooms based on gender......

Or how it outlaws polygamy, (who are we to judge?)

Or how it discriminates on the basis of age and disability.

Meh, I'm gored with poking holes all through your stupid bullshit.

Actually, all you’ve done is exhibit your ignorance.

Demonstrate how I am ignorant, you bag of puss, or do the honest thing and shut the fuck up.

By Criminy, I find the libtard responses on these boards to be entirely circular and of little value because you provide no counter facts, no reason, no perspective other than you are wright because you say so.

Eat shit, you stupid ****.

I enumerated the flaw in each of your examples, which you thought were valid based on your limited understanding of the Constitution. Hence, your ignorance on display for all to witness.

You're welcome.

 

[bodecea]

It's not impulsive. I study the Constitution, and various other "interpretations" of it. When the government is making laws concerning marriage, they are making laws respecting establishment of religion. Marriage is more times than not a religious exercise in many faiths and cultures. So by its own actions, it is violating the constitution by acting as the arbiter and regulator of marriage. It can also be said that it is regulating the free exercise of religion by doing such.

The Constitution has more nuances in it than you'd care to realize.

Nonsense. Laws respecting the establishment of religion are in complete violation of the Constitution. You only undermine your self-proclaimed studies with such unaware observations.

It would be one thing to claim they are making those laws with respect to religion, which would still be a stretch since the state's legalities are not imposed on the religious tenets or visa-versa; but it is certainly ludicrous that they are respecting establishment of religion, which clearly violates, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Unlike you, I attempt to explore the Constitution, not merely 'interpret' it. Marriage is a religious rite wherever you turn. When you make a law regulating marriage, you are in essence making laws concerning religion, which is expressly forbade by the 1st Amendment. Hence the "Congress shall make no law" part.

So, those who choose to simply get married secularly are not really married? You want to go there?

 

[bodecea]

That is right it doesn't...except where it allows men to be drafted and women not.....

Or how it allows for segregation of public restrooms based on gender......

Or how it outlaws polygamy, (who are we to judge?)

Or how it discriminates on the basis of age and disability.

Meh, I'm gored with poking holes all through your stupid bullshit.

Actually, all you’ve done is exhibit your ignorance.

Demonstrate how I am ignorant, you bag of puss, or do the honest thing and shut the fuck up.

By Criminy, I find the libtard responses on these boards to be entirely circular and of little value because you provide no counter facts, no reason, no perspective other than you are wright because you say so.

Eat shit, you stupid ****.

How ironic.

 

[mal]

You want forced religion, Pole Rider?

You want Sodomy exposed to 5 year olds... Fact not Fiction.



peace...

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality as many, if not most, pedophiles are heterosexual.

You are absolutely incorrect on that note.

Almost EXCLUSIVELY the Catholic Church Abuse was Man on Boy.

If you are going to be so Dishonest as to say those Priests were Heterosexual then you are simply not Honest enough to talk to.

As for Homosexuals exposing 5 year olds to Sodomy... It's a Fact.



peace...