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.
Lots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Millions more from unprotected heterosexual sex.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
the act of gay sex is unhealthy regardless and "monogamy" because one is marries does not always mean monogomyLots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Marriage helps encourage monogomy. Thereby reducing the odds of such 'public health issues'. Meaning that gay marriage produces the exact opposite effect that you're describing.
So why would we strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry?
Lots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Millions more from unprotected heterosexual sex.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
who cares what they think Howey, if you're happy , mazel tov
Everything from straight sex ,and additional diseases from gay male sex. Sorry that's the way it is. those parts are not meant to be used in that manner. I would do that with a women either.Lots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Millions more from unprotected heterosexual sex.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
Lots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Millions more from unprotected heterosexual sex.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
I would do that with a women either.
Lots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Millions more from unprotected heterosexual sex.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
who cares what they think Howey, if you're happy , mazel tov
I don't care what they think, my mission is to take their way of thinking into the 21st century. Homophobia is archaic, uneducated, and ignorant. I'm here to educate the masses.
the act of gay sex is unhealthy regardless and "monogamy" because one is marries does not always mean monogomyLots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Marriage helps encourage monogomy. Thereby reducing the odds of such 'public health issues'. Meaning that gay marriage produces the exact opposite effect that you're describing.
So why would we strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry?
the act of gay sex is unhealthy regardless and "monogamy" because one is marries does not always mean monogomyLots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueTry to marry your sister
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Marriage helps encourage monogomy. Thereby reducing the odds of such 'public health issues'. Meaning that gay marriage produces the exact opposite effect that you're describing.
So why would we strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry?
Gay sex exists autonomously of marriage. If not another marriage was ever conducted for anyone, ever.......gay sex would continue. Since the latter doesn't cause the former or via versa, using one as an excuse to forbid the other makes no sense.
Worse for your argument, the diseases you spoke of aren't invented by individuals. They are transmitted between them. Fewer sexual partners means a lower probability of transmission. And marriage encourages monogamy. Meaning a likely reduction in the number of sexual partners and an accompanying reduction in the transmission of said diseases.
Providing us the exact opposite results that you posited. And robbing your argument of any reason to exist yet again.
So why would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry?
Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Incorrect.LISTENING SAID:
“If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.”
Incorrect.
Citizens are often compelled to seek relief in Federal court when the states violate their protected rights, in this case the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law.
For example, earlier this month a Federal appeals court reaffirmed as un-Constitutional Florida's public assistance drug test law:
'A Federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.
"By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy," Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. "If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that [the law] crosses the constitutional line."
The decision upheld a ruling last December by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa to permanently halt enforcement of the July 2011 law supported by Republican Gov. Rick Scott.'
Court strikes down drug testing for Florida welfare recipients - Orlando Sentinel
Obviously the 4th Amendment's right to privacy and right to be free from unwarranted searches was a protected right before the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure, where a court battle was necessary to indeed protect the right to privacy from the state's excess and overreach.
Incorrect.....
The right to privacy isn't under attack.....
The whole court battle was about whether or not the drug test violated a universally accepted right. There is no disputing that such a "right" exists...it is in the application.
This does not hold as there is no universal right to marry. Marriage is restricted in many instances and applications.
Can't help that.
The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.
Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.
Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.
Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.
As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.
Read your Constitution and you'll find out how horribly ignorant you are.Incorrect.LISTENING SAID:
“If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.”
Incorrect.
Citizens are often compelled to seek relief in Federal court when the states violate their protected rights, in this case the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law.
For example, earlier this month a Federal appeals court reaffirmed as un-Constitutional Florida's public assistance drug test law:
'A Federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.
"By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy," Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. "If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that [the law] crosses the constitutional line."
The decision upheld a ruling last December by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa to permanently halt enforcement of the July 2011 law supported by Republican Gov. Rick Scott.'
Court strikes down drug testing for Florida welfare recipients - Orlando Sentinel
Obviously the 4th Amendment's right to privacy and right to be free from unwarranted searches was a protected right before the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure, where a court battle was necessary to indeed protect the right to privacy from the state's excess and overreach.
Incorrect.....
The right to privacy isn't under attack.....
The whole court battle was about whether or not the drug test violated a universally accepted right. There is no disputing that such a "right" exists...it is in the application.
This does not hold as there is no universal right to marry. Marriage is restricted in many instances and applications.
Can't help that.
The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.
Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.
Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.
Poppycock....
If such a right existed, then so does the right of a woman to marry more than one man and vice versa.
Also, a grown woman would have the right to marry her father.
You don't get it both ways.
Such a right has never existed.
Read your Constitution and you'll find out how horribly ignorant you are.Incorrect.LISTENING SAID:
“If it were a constitutionaly protected right, there would be no court battles going on right now.”
Incorrect.
Citizens are often compelled to seek relief in Federal court when the states violate their protected rights, in this case the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law.
For example, earlier this month a Federal appeals court reaffirmed as un-Constitutional Florida's public assistance drug test law:
'A Federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.
"By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy," Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. "If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on blanket government searches, we must — and we do — hold that [the law] crosses the constitutional line."
The decision upheld a ruling last December by U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Tampa to permanently halt enforcement of the July 2011 law supported by Republican Gov. Rick Scott.'
Court strikes down drug testing for Florida welfare recipients - Orlando Sentinel
Obviously the 4th Amendment's right to privacy and right to be free from unwarranted searches was a protected right before the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure, where a court battle was necessary to indeed protect the right to privacy from the state's excess and overreach.
Incorrect.....
The right to privacy isn't under attack.....
The whole court battle was about whether or not the drug test violated a universally accepted right. There is no disputing that such a "right" exists...it is in the application.
This does not hold as there is no universal right to marry. Marriage is restricted in many instances and applications.
Can't help that.
The court determined that indeed the right to privacy was violated, a right that existed prior to the enactment of the un-Constitutional Florida measure.
Our rights have existed long before the advent of the Constitution or the founding of the Republic, rights acknowledged by the Constitution and protected by its case law. When government attempts to violate those rights, citizens are at liberty to seek relief in Federal court, where measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, such as laws requiring drug tests for those applying for public assistance.
Consequently your statement is wrong, rights do in fact exist – such as the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law – whether a law that violates citizens' rights is subject to litigation or not.
Poppycock....
If such a right existed, then so does the right of a woman to marry more than one man and vice versa.
Also, a grown woman would have the right to marry her father.
You don't get it both ways.
Such a right has never existed.
And did you really name your cock "Poppy"?
That's GHEY!
Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.
As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.
Where is the protection for polygamists ?
Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.
As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.
there is no inequality there, and if you can show me were the discussion and ratification of the 14th amendment they spoke about gay "marriage" I'd like you to point that out to me, ok? These judges have no authority to overturn the state constitutions. There inequality there.
Gay Americans cannot marry someone of the same sex, however, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where same-sex couples are indeed eligible to enter into marriage contracts.Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.
As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.
Gays and lesbians can of course marry a person of the opposite sex
Gay Americans cannot marry someone of the same sex, however, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where same-sex couples are indeed eligible to enter into marriage contracts.Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.
As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.
If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.
Gays and lesbians can of course marry a person of the opposite sex
As for the Framers of the 14th Amendment:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
And Federal courts may in fact invalidate state measures repugnant to the Founding Document, as authorized by Article VI of the Constitution.
LBGT community ..What does that stand for again? Man or women? I say psychological help is neededMen are men women are women get it through your head.So it's also not racist to be opposed to interracial marriage then?
no, its not. is it anti dog to be opposed to sex with dogs?
Are you implying that interracial marriage is like sex with a dog?
So opposition to interracial marriage isn't racism? What is it then?
Well thanks captain obvious. That has what to do with what I said?
Lots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueIf you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Millions more from unprotected heterosexual sex.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/sti-estimates-fact-sheet-feb-2013.pdf
who cares what they think Howey, if you're happy , mazel tov
I don't care what they think, my mission is to take their way of thinking into the 21st century. Homophobia is archaic, uneducated, and ignorant. I'm here to educate the masses.
Not homophobic at all really. Gay people tend to be more financially secure, they keep their homes clean, most are polite, but the sex act is not healthy, and transgenders need psychological help.The militant gay movement is a cancer on our society.
the act of gay sex is unhealthy regardless and "monogamy" because one is marries does not always mean monogomyLots of diseases stem from unprotected, gay male sex public health issueIf you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....you'll need a good reason. And you don't have one.
Marriage helps encourage monogomy. Thereby reducing the odds of such 'public health issues'. Meaning that gay marriage produces the exact opposite effect that you're describing.
So why would we strip gays and lesbians of the right to marry?
Gay sex exists autonomously of marriage. If not another marriage was ever conducted for anyone, ever.......gay sex would continue. Since the latter doesn't cause the former or via versa, using one as an excuse to forbid the other makes no sense.
Worse for your argument, the diseases you spoke of aren't invented by individuals. They are transmitted between them. Fewer sexual partners means a lower probability of transmission. And marriage encourages monogamy. Meaning a likely reduction in the number of sexual partners and an accompanying reduction in the transmission of said diseases.
Providing us the exact opposite results that you posited. And robbing your argument of any reason to exist yet again.
So why would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry?
Actually my biggest problem with it is, marriage is a state issue There is no "inequality" as is stated in my earlier post. if certain states want same sex marriage let them have it . but not forced on them by same Judge or the federal government. Is that clear enough for you?
