Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dude, you are bigot!
Are you Bass's wife?
What, exactly, is wrong with what he said?
You wanna go fuck another woman, go for it. Just don't expect any special treatment for it, and don't think you're entitled to the same benefits as husbands and wives (not husbands, and husbands, or wives and wives - HUSBANDS AND WIVES).
So you are alright with denying a group of people a right due to their beliefs? The supreme court has already established marriage is a right, not a privilage.
They are not allowed to marry who they want, so no they don't. Like I said before, the Supreme Court already established marriage is a right, denying a group of people that right is unconstitutional.I'll add that his method of delivery could have been a bit better, but the last line of his post sums everything up clearly, and concisely.
Except they're not asking for rewards. They're asking for their rights to be protected and given to them per the Constitution. Just the same as everybody else.
And you seem to miss in his last line where Homosexual is not okay according to him. And he clearly believes the bullshit myth that they're all trying to snag teenagers.
Homosexual isn't ok to him - so what? It's not ok to me, either. It's perfectly fine for you? Yippee skippee. Knock yourself out.
They have the same rights as every other person on the planet - the fact that they choose to throw them away by hooking up with someone of the same sex is on THEM - not anyone else.
No, it's you who's the idiot. Mega idiot. Comparing people to murderers and thieves and suggesting they are a danger to children goes "way beyond" a "simple disagreement" fool.
And look at what he says, "I cannot watch TV for a half hour without seeing SEVERAL gay people/Gay promoting material on my screen."
So do YOU see gay people every 20 minutes? So is he going to "avoid" watching TV?
And then bringing up straight marriage? What is that about? Gays are like 3 to 5% of the entire population. What does that have to do with straight marriage? This is someone who is "ranting" from fear and terror. What could they be working themselves up for? What might they do? What are they trying to get others to do?
You can have a mental illness and not be completely dysfunctional. Gawd, do I have to explain everything?
===================================
Mental Health America: Phobias
These disorders cause you to feel anxious most of the time, making some everyday situations so uncomfortable that you may avoid them entirely. (maybe TV?)
Uh, quote me where I said that. Personally I could careless about gay people. They don't impact me in any way shape or form.
BTW Everyone has phobias and everyone avoids their phobias, that's a natural response to phobias.
I don't like deep water and heights, so I avoid them. Doesn't mean I have an anxiety disorder. Just means I don't care for either one and have a phobia about them.
Oh I see. So that means your marriage is in trouble, you probably murder people and you obviously are a threat to children.
Do you see how ludicrous that is? Doesn't make any sense. It's delusion fueled by fear. If that isn't "mental illness", then I don't know what is.
That's a very good question. This is one of those topics that will just about always be hotly debated, with people on both sides digging in their heels. Ultimately though, the gay marriage issue will go down in history as being another milestone among many for those who strive successfully for equality.Where has all the common sense gone?
That's a very good question. This is one of those topics that will just about always be hotly debated, with people on both sides digging in their heels. Ultimately though, the gay marriage issue will go down in history as being another milestone among many for those who strive successfully for equality.Where has all the common sense gone?
What, exactly, is wrong with what he said?
You wanna go fuck another woman, go for it. Just don't expect any special treatment for it, and don't think you're entitled to the same benefits as husbands and wives (not husbands, and husbands, or wives and wives - HUSBANDS AND WIVES).
So you are alright with denying a group of people a right due to their beliefs? The supreme court has already established marriage is a right, not a privilage.
If pedophiles believe screwing children due to their beliefs is it denial of equal rights to make it law that they cannot? The Supreme Court has *NOT* said marriage is a right. Amendments 1-10 are known as the Bill of Rights, care to point which one says marriage is a right?
So how many gays aren't allowed to get a drivers license?
Fool.
When you got your driver's licence[I'm assuming you have one already] did the DMV change the rules for based on something personal in your life? Did you not have the pass the driver's test like everyone else and meet the same requirements?
So driver's license requirement was "ordained by Casper the Friendly Gawd"?
Everything you say makes your look more stupid.
Getting a drivers licenes is not protected by the Constitution, the right to marry is.When you got your driver's licence[I'm assuming you have one already] did the DMV change the rules for based on something personal in your life? Did you not have the pass the driver's test like everyone else and meet the same requirements?
So driver's license requirement was "ordained by Casper the Friendly Gawd"?
Everything you say makes your look more stupid.
Simple question, does DMV not have the same standards and requirements for everyone to get a licence? Do they give special accommodation to people to those who fail to and or do not meet the standards? Point blank, one must be able to safely operate a vehicle and know the driving rules and signs, if they don't no licence. those who can't do this will be taking public transportation or hitching a ride, biking or walking.
So you are alright with denying a group of people a right due to their beliefs? The supreme court has already established marriage is a right, not a privilage.
If pedophiles believe screwing children due to their beliefs is it denial of equal rights to make it law that they cannot? The Supreme Court has *NOT* said marriage is a right. Amendments 1-10 are known as the Bill of Rights, care to point which one says marriage is a right?
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
If pedophiles believe screwing children due to their beliefs is it denial of equal rights to make it law that they cannot? The Supreme Court has *NOT* said marriage is a right. Amendments 1-10 are known as the Bill of Rights, care to point which one says marriage is a right?
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Did you miss the key words in your own post? "very existence, and SURVIVAL".. How do you expect two guys, or two women to carry on humanity?
So you are alright with denying a group of people a right due to their beliefs? The supreme court has already established marriage is a right, not a privilage.
If pedophiles believe screwing children due to their beliefs is it denial of equal rights to make it law that they cannot? The Supreme Court has *NOT* said marriage is a right. Amendments 1-10 are known as the Bill of Rights, care to point which one says marriage is a right?
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Did you miss the key words in your own post? "very existence, and SURVIVAL".. How do you expect two guys, or two women to carry on humanity?
Adoption!
The part that matter is " basic civil right". So I guess you are for denying a group of people a basic right?
If pedophiles believe screwing children due to their beliefs is it denial of equal rights to make it law that they cannot? The Supreme Court has *NOT* said marriage is a right. Amendments 1-10 are known as the Bill of Rights, care to point which one says marriage is a right?
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Nothing in that case stated that marriage is a right, you need to really about that case. From your own link:
Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovingsa white man and a black womanhad married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendmentto combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation[/b]. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Damn you're so thick in the brain Luissa.
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Nothing in that case stated that marriage is a right, you need to really about that case. From your own link:
Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovingsa white man and a black womanhad married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendmentto combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation[/b]. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Damn you're so thick in the brain Luissa.
And you are a even bigger idiot! When the supreme court defines something a basic right, what do you think is going to happen when they hear a gay marriage case in the next year?
You cannot define something as a right, and then clasify that it only applies to a certain group of people. Even with the Pro Conservative court, I will bet you that when they hear the first case to legalize marriage someone will bring up this case and they will have no choice but to make it legal.
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Did you miss the key words in your own post? "very existence, and SURVIVAL".. How do you expect two guys, or two women to carry on humanity?
Adoption!
The part that matter is " basic civil right". So I guess you are for denying a group of people a basic right?
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Nothing in that case stated that marriage is a right, you need to really about that case. From your own link:
Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovingsa white man and a black womanhad married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendmentto combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation[/b]. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Damn you're so thick in the brain Luissa.
And you are a even bigger idiot! When the supreme court defines something a basic right, what do you think is going to happen when they hear a gay marriage case in the next year?
You cannot define something as a right, and then clasify that it only applies to a certain group of people. Even with the Pro Conservative court, I will bet you that when they hear the first case to legalize marriage someone will bring up this case and they will have no choice but to make it legal.
So if I felt you shouldn't marry someone because I thought it was irregular or abnormal because they have bad taste in shoes or something, it is alright for me to deny you that right?Did you miss the key words in your own post? "very existence, and SURVIVAL".. How do you expect two guys, or two women to carry on humanity?
Adoption!
The part that matter is " basic civil right". So I guess you are for denying a group of people a basic right?
You, as a person, have the basic civil right to marry the man of your choosing.
How much more simple do you need it?
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival
Nothing in that case stated that marriage is a right, you need to really about that case. From your own link:
Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian" (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovingsa white man and a black womanhad married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendmentto combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation[/b]. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Damn you're so thick in the brain Luissa.
And you are a even bigger idiot! When the supreme court defines something a basic right, what do you think is going to happen when they hear a gay marriage case in the next year?
You cannot define something as a right, and then clasify that it only applies to a certain group of people. Even with the Pro Conservative court, I will bet you that when they hear the first case to legalize marriage someone will bring up this case and they will have no choice but to make it legal.
