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

[Redfish]

The slave owners and segregationists used the bible. A judge even tried to use the bible and his religion in his ruling in favor of interracial marriage laws.

the issue here is not gayness, racism, segregation, or prejudice. The issue is a government that is trying to FORCE people to change their basic beliefs of what is right and wrong to what the government has decreed to be politically correct.

no matter how you try to spin it, it is taking away the very basics for freedom---freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss, will we fall in or will we wake up and return to the vision of the founders?---------i.e. true individual freedom.

Recognising gay marriage is taking rights away from you?

if a business is punished for not dealing with gays, then the government is punishing him for his beliefs.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

"Were they bigots when they used the bible to justify slavery and segregation?"

Times change. Mores change. Values change.

Your question, referring to someone who lived 200 years ago prompts one to ask you:

Were they stupid and ignorant, because they had no clue how to drive a car, use a telephone or operate a computer?

Yes, they do change and yet it is the changing values regarding the rights of gays and lesbians to legally marry that has the right in such disarray.

It's still bigotry whether you claim ignorance or even by knowing their "culture" at the time. Enough people knew it was wrong or they wouldn't have tried to use the bible to justify it.

but the thing is that I can accept your lifestyle as your choice, but I cannot be compelled to believe that it is a normal human condition.

the government can FORCE me to deal with you and your partner, but it cannot FORCE me to change what I believe.

You already have equality, but what you really want is for the government to mandate that every other citizen change his or her basic beliefs about human sexuality.

Sorry, wytchey, but your lifestyle is an aberation of the human condition. I understand that you have no control over it, but neither do I have any control over my farsightedness. But I don't demand that the government force all businesses to put their menus in large print for me.

not a great analogy, but maybe you get it------probably not.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

the issue here is not gayness, racism, segregation, or prejudice. The issue is a government that is trying to FORCE people to change their basic beliefs of what is right and wrong to what the government has decreed to be politically correct.

no matter how you try to spin it, it is taking away the very basics for freedom---freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss, will we fall in or will we wake up and return to the vision of the founders?---------i.e. true individual freedom.

Recognising gay marriage is taking rights away from you?

if a business is punished for not dealing with gays, then the government is punishing him for his beliefs.

Exactly correct. Private business owners have a right to serve or not serve whomever they choose. If you don't like it, go to the next fucking bakery.. there are hundreds. If someone doesn't like people of Russian decent and refuse to serve me, fuck it.. I'm leaving.. they won't get my business.. but I'm not going to whine like a biatch and DEMAND the government force them to do so. Grow the fuck up already.

 

[idb]

the issue here is not gayness, racism, segregation, or prejudice. The issue is a government that is trying to FORCE people to change their basic beliefs of what is right and wrong to what the government has decreed to be politically correct.

no matter how you try to spin it, it is taking away the very basics for freedom---freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss, will we fall in or will we wake up and return to the vision of the founders?---------i.e. true individual freedom.

Recognising gay marriage is taking rights away from you?

Marriage isn't a right.

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

 

[FJO]

Oh, I forgot you don't like it when people compare discrimination to discrimination. Makes it all uncomfortable for you.

Were they bigots when they used the bible to justify slavery and segregation? It's a simple yes or no question...but I do understand why you would want to duck it.

"Were they bigots when they used the bible to justify slavery and segregation?"

Times change. Mores change. Values change.

Your question, referring to someone who lived 200 years ago prompts one to ask you:

Were they stupid and ignorant, because they had no clue how to drive a car, use a telephone or operate a computer?

Yes, they do change and yet it is the changing values regarding the rights of gays and lesbians to legally marry that has the right in such disarray.

It's still bigotry whether you claim ignorance or even by knowing their "culture" at the time. Enough people knew it was wrong or they wouldn't have tried to use the bible to justify it.

As times change, people realize that what they are/were doing is wrong. People who at one time might have considered slavery OK, came to realize that it was wrong. If they were resurrected and declare that they admit they were wrong, free-loading shakedown artists and racist bigots like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and any and all members of the despicable Black Congressional Caucus would still demand their death and their worldly possessions.

 

[Redfish]

Democrats win elections because they do not let Republicans win on arguments about paragraph 1. They drawn them into arguments about items in paragraph 2 and wait for them to say something stupid. Republicans never fail to deliver

your generalizations always make you look stupid, RW----every single time.

actually he does have a point here - if every time the R candidate to anything when asked questions on "war on women" or "gay marriage" would apply Newt's tactics of the reply "it's the economy, stupid and you can go f yourself with your stupid questions" - the results would be much better for them.

Arrogance sometimes is VERY helpful, especially when dealing with biased arrogant media.

But one has to have balls for that[/QUOTE]



I agree completely, Newt would have destroyed obama in the debates. Romney made a very bad decision not to go on the atttack.

 

[idb]

the issue here is not gayness, racism, segregation, or prejudice. The issue is a government that is trying to FORCE people to change their basic beliefs of what is right and wrong to what the government has decreed to be politically correct.

no matter how you try to spin it, it is taking away the very basics for freedom---freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss, will we fall in or will we wake up and return to the vision of the founders?---------i.e. true individual freedom.

How are you being forced? How is a single right of yours being taken way by my right to legally marry the consenting adult of my choice?

Where your right of marriage defined? How can that right, if it did exist, be limited to adults? Or one adult?

Admit it...you reeeaaally want to add "...or animals...", don't you?

 

[Freewill]

1. Republicans need to preach jobs and sensible spending with a strong foreign policy

2.They need to stop beating up those on welfare and food stamps until jobs increase, gay marriage will happen......give it up. Sensible and fair immigration reform. Lay off the Obamaphones. Fix Obamacare and stop the repeal nonsense
Stop trying to ban abortion and work your asses off to reduce it. Be sensible about gun control, keeping guns away from crazy people is not a bad idea.

Democrats beat the hell out of Republicans on paragraph 2 and keep them from emphasizing paragraph 1

1. They do, the two are not mutually exclusive.

2. The beating of those on welfare is actually from the left. The right points out that the economic policies of this administration has cause a HUGE increase of those in need. But to the left just pointing out the situation is the same as being against helping people. That is leftist BS designed to hide the failures of their policies. What is sensible and fair immigration reform? Have you been to Ellis Island and did you see what immigrates used to have to go through? Again this is a situation where the left is completely hypocritical. The impact of making 11 million ILLEGALS legal will most effect the poor and the blacks. The left they don't care because they know they have the black vote tied up and the 11 million will be voting for them regardless of the impact on society as a whole. Fair would be a guest worker program as Bush tried, what isn't fair is making 11 million Mexicans legal only because they had the ability to swim the Rio Grande.

We have gun control but none of them stopped the crazies.

The democrat won the Presidency as is the way the system has been working for quite some time. The storyline of the democrats is that the Republicans can't win elections. Yet Republicans hold the House and most of the state governments and the way the Presidents popularity is dropping there is a chance that the American people will come to the sense and the Republicans will, as history has shown, will take the Senate in 2014. The same thing being said about Republicans was said about Democrats during the latter part of Clinton and up to 2006. The worm will turn as it always does and the disasters that the democrats have put onto America should mean a Republican majority for many many years.

Democrats win elections because they do not let Republicans win on arguments about paragraph 1. They drawn them into arguments about items in paragraph 2 and wait for them to say something stupid. Republicans never fail to deliver

Again, you just keep repeating liberal storylines.

The elections democrats win have only been because they hold the majority not because anything is going right in the country. And Obama? We know what is the only reason he won.

 

[Freewill]

How are you being forced? How is a single right of yours being taken way by my right to legally marry the consenting adult of my choice?

Where your right of marriage defined? How can that right, if it did exist, be limited to adults? Or one adult?

Admit it...you reeeaaally want to add "...or animals...", don't you?

Admit it...you have zero discussion ability.

 

[Redfish]

Recognising gay marriage is taking rights away from you?

Marriage isn't a right.

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Marriage isn't a right.

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

You are making some excellent points this morning Red.

 

[Freewill]

The slave owners and segregationists used the bible. A judge even tried to use the bible and his religion in his ruling in favor of interracial marriage laws.

the issue here is not gayness, racism, segregation, or prejudice. The issue is a government that is trying to FORCE people to change their basic beliefs of what is right and wrong to what the government has decreed to be politically correct.

no matter how you try to spin it, it is taking away the very basics for freedom---freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

this country is teetering on the edge of the abyss, will we fall in or will we wake up and return to the vision of the founders?---------i.e. true individual freedom.

How are you being forced? How is a single right of yours being taken way by my right to legally marry the consenting adult of my choice?

How about the discussion on GW? Oops I mean Climate Change.

 

[idb]

So marriage doesn't matter to you. You do understand it isn't just a matter of changing the traditional definition of marriage the change does have an economic impact.

You make the same dumb ass argument as everyone else. NO ONE CARES WHAT you do in you bedroom and those who do should be ignored. But this is not just about you having sex with your boyfriend this is a change in the norms of society. THAT is a big deal, just not to you.

Giving women the right to vote was also a change in the norms of society.

Of course and it too was a big deal. It was done through a change in the constitution that was voted on by the people. This fundamental change is being shoved down our throat by the courts not the people. If the people, of the states, decide that they want to change the definition of marriage then so be it but when the people decide the courts should not be allowed to overthrow their will. That said, slavery and women's suffrage was addressed in the Constitution by amendment, as far as I know marriage is not so the federal government, in my opinion, does not have a say in the definition of marriage it is up to the states. So if the federal government wants to be involved then it would take a Constitutional amendment or should but since we are no longer a republic I don't see that happening.

There is more to it then just changing the definition of marriage, there is a way is should be done and we aint't doing it. I know this is hyperbole to some but if this goes through the way it has then what stops first cousins from marrying? Or polygamy? Or the enforcement of any age limit for marriage?

There's no need to change the constitution....gay marriage has already been ruled constitutional

 

[Freewill]

Marriage isn't a right.

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

I part company a little with you here. In my opinion the people decide how there society is structured. In other words the institution of slavery was first stopped through much work and war by the people. Then totally abolished and defined through CONSITUTIONAL amendments. Thus the will of the people was served, that is NOT what is happening today.

I certainly do not care what one does in their bedroom. I am not sure the effect on me if people marry others of the same sex, although there is an economic impact. What bothers me is that it is not the process of change that is and has been used since the beginning of the Republic it is the courts deciding the will of the people.

 

[idb]

Marriage isn't a right.

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

Don't the majority have to respect the constitution...or only the bits they agree with?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Ah, the old retreat to semantics trick.

So, how is recognising gay marriage impinging on Redfish's rights or freedoms?

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

Don't the majority have to respect the constitution...or only the bits they agree with?

STFU already.. wow, you show how pathetically dumb you are with each post.. That is precisely why we have appellate courts.. Someone disagreed with what was expressly written or alluded to in the Constitution. Just because 9 fucksticks make a bad decision, doesn't mean we all have to now bend over and smooch their ass you moron.

 

[Freewill]

Giving women the right to vote was also a change in the norms of society.

Of course and it too was a big deal. It was done through a change in the constitution that was voted on by the people. This fundamental change is being shoved down our throat by the courts not the people. If the people, of the states, decide that they want to change the definition of marriage then so be it but when the people decide the courts should not be allowed to overthrow their will. That said, slavery and women's suffrage was addressed in the Constitution by amendment, as far as I know marriage is not so the federal government, in my opinion, does not have a say in the definition of marriage it is up to the states. So if the federal government wants to be involved then it would take a Constitutional amendment or should but since we are no longer a republic I don't see that happening.

There is more to it than just changing the definition of marriage, there is a way is should be done and we aint't doing it. I know this is hyperbole to some but if this goes through the way it has then what stops first cousins from marrying? Or polygamy? Or the enforcement of any age limit for marriage?

There's no need to change the constitution....gay marriage has already been ruled constitutional

Only, through the back door. Marriage does not appear in the Constitution so I am not sure what the judges could be ruling on. As I recall the lame limp wristed ruling said that those opposing the 9th circuit ruling had no standing, that is hardly saying gay marriage is constitutional.

 

[idb]

when the will of the people is overruled by 9 arrogant lifetime judges (as it was twice in california) then the freedom of the majority to decide how they choose to live has been taken away.

Don't the majority have to respect the constitution...or only the bits they agree with?

STFU already.. wow, you show how pathetically dumb you are with each post.. That is precisely why we have appellate courts.. Someone disagreed with what was expressly written or alluded to in the Constitution. Just because 9 fucksticks make a bad decision, doesn't mean we all have to now bend over and smooch their ass you moron.

So, the correct answer is "only the bits you agree with".
Check

 

[Katzndogz]

Same sex marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to marry anyone. Now that same sex marriage as an alternative lifestyle has been legitimized, every kind and type of "marriage" has been legitimized. Marriage equality is marriage elasticity with a goal of marriage extinction.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Don't the majority have to respect the constitution...or only the bits they agree with?

STFU already.. wow, you show how pathetically dumb you are with each post.. That is precisely why we have appellate courts.. Someone disagreed with what was expressly written or alluded to in the Constitution. Just because 9 fucksticks make a bad decision, doesn't mean we all have to now bend over and smooch their ass you moron.

So, the correct answer is "only the bits you agree with".
Check

How the hell do you think Separate but Equal was OVERTURNED, Plessy V/s Ferguson??? Wow.. just wow.

Gubmint edumucashon