What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[PredFan]

So, you are telling me that my right to marriage is restricted. If it wasn't restricted by the government then I would be able to get married when I wanted to? Is that what you are trying to say?

All of our rights to marriage are restricted. Regardless of whatever state you live in, you cannot legally marry a 5 year old of any gender.
You probably cannot legally marry your mother or someone who is not mentally competent.

You have the right to marry- the States can restrict your rights, but in order for that to be Constitutional, the state must be able to demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so- like imprisoning a person convicted of murder can be justified as both necessary for justice and for safety.

Not much of a right then is it?

I think it is.

I can own a gun- but if I commit a violent felony, I lose my right to possess gun.
I have the right to marry a consenting adult- I can't marry a child who cannot consent.

Sorry you can't appreciate those rights.

I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.

You say marriage isn't a right.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.

Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....

No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.

 

[Seawytch]

All of our rights to marriage are restricted. Regardless of whatever state you live in, you cannot legally marry a 5 year old of any gender.
You probably cannot legally marry your mother or someone who is not mentally competent.

You have the right to marry- the States can restrict your rights, but in order for that to be Constitutional, the state must be able to demonstrate a compelling state interest in doing so- like imprisoning a person convicted of murder can be justified as both necessary for justice and for safety.

Not much of a right then is it?

I think it is.

I can own a gun- but if I commit a violent felony, I lose my right to possess gun.
I have the right to marry a consenting adult- I can't marry a child who cannot consent.

Sorry you can't appreciate those rights.

I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.

You say marriage isn't a right.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.

Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....

No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.

So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?

The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...

 

[haissem123]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

i don't know but what makes them want to ride or carry ten foot peni down main street with kids and everybody else being offended? why do they have to worship the almighty dick like it's their God? what is wrong with them exactly?

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

And Vivid Video...

sanfran gay parade carries them all the time.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Mama June comes out as bisexual, so does Pumpkin: …Here Comes Honey Boo Boo

 

[Seawytch]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

i don't know but what makes them want to ride or carry ten foot peni down main street with kids and everybody else being offended? why do they have to worship the almighty dick like it's their God? what is wrong with them exactly?

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

And Vivid Video...

sanfran gay parade carries them all the time.

Yeah? You go a lot do you? I've been a time or two...never saw a single penis, 10 foot or not.

 

[haissem123]

Many righties don't care, I'm not saying this is all of them. And I don't care about giving gays perks straights don't get. But there are a lot of comments personally about gays in those discussions I don't understand. So my question is this:

If two people:

- are gay
- are both consenting adults
- aren't in any other way harming anyone

Why do you care? Why would God care? There is no victim, why should they be unhappily with someone of the opposite sex instead of happily with someone who loves them and wants to be with them?

Makes no sense to me. Particularly explain why God would be against that. He made them that way, was he just screwing with them?

i don't know but what makes them want to ride or carry ten foot peni down main street with kids and everybody else being offended? why do they have to worship the almighty dick like it's their God? what is wrong with them exactly?

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

And Vivid Video...

sanfran gay parade carries them all the time.

Yeah? You go a lot do you? I've been a time or two...never saw a single penis, 10 foot or not.

it's all over fox. guess they banned giant rubber boners the times you went. if you don't want to be treated differently for your sexual orientation, why make it such a big deal you have to parade it around? yeah we know you are gay. why do you feel so ashamed of it you have to stick it in others faces?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Not much of a right then is it?

I think it is.

I can own a gun- but if I commit a violent felony, I lose my right to possess gun.
I have the right to marry a consenting adult- I can't marry a child who cannot consent.

Sorry you can't appreciate those rights.

I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.

You say marriage isn't a right.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.

Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....

No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.

So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?

The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...

You're speaking of those cases which decided on Marriage as the Joining of One man and One Woman?

Oh Yes... they happened.

But there's no potential for Marriage to be a Right, except where there is a fundamental responsibility that must be met to sustain that would-be Right to marry.

Now, in terms of debating what such rights would be, it would be impossible for such a right to exist, where the responsibility to comport one's self within the standards of Marriage, to claim a right to BE such.

What you're advocating for is the RIGHT to reject the responsibility to comport one's self within the standards that define marriage... simultaneously demanding the RIGHT to BE such.

No potential for a right to exist under those terms.

But then the Ideological Left has no sense of what rights are... thus the reason they're chronically rinsing themselves of all sense of such.

 

[kaz]

Yeah? You go a lot do you? I've been a time or two...never saw a single penis, 10 foot or not.

it's all over fox. guess they banned giant rubber boners the times you went. if you don't want to be treated differently for your sexual orientation, why make it such a big deal you have to parade it around? yeah we know you are gay. why do you feel so ashamed of it you have to stick it in others faces?

It's about unfettered access to cake

 

[Seawytch]

i don't know but what makes them want to ride or carry ten foot peni down main street with kids and everybody else being offended? why do they have to worship the almighty dick like it's their God? what is wrong with them exactly?

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

And Vivid Video...

sanfran gay parade carries them all the time.

Yeah? You go a lot do you? I've been a time or two...never saw a single penis, 10 foot or not.

it's all over fox. guess they banned giant rubber boners the times you went. if you don't want to be treated differently for your sexual orientation, why make it such a big deal you have to parade it around? yeah we know you are gay. why do you feel so ashamed of it you have to stick it in others faces?

Then you should be able to post evidence, right?

Why do the Irish have to have a parade every year? Mardi Gras? What's the "big deal" that you straights have to flaunt your sexuality during Mardi Gras and"stick it others faces?"

 

[haissem123]

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

And Vivid Video...

sanfran gay parade carries them all the time.

Yeah? You go a lot do you? I've been a time or two...never saw a single penis, 10 foot or not.

it's all over fox. guess they banned giant rubber boners the times you went. if you don't want to be treated differently for your sexual orientation, why make it such a big deal you have to parade it around? yeah we know you are gay. why do you feel so ashamed of it you have to stick it in others faces?

Then you should be able to post evidence, right?

Why do the Irish have to have a parade every year? Mardi Gras? What's the "big deal" that you straights have to flaunt your sexuality during Mardi Gras and"stick it others faces?"

hey you can go to mardi gras but you can't show your weener. tits are

 

[haissem123]

tits are fair game cause they are all over and almost legal now in some states. look at them on the red carpet as if we've never seen them before and they need attention so they strip for it. how silly and immature. that stuff really should be left for the casting couch

 

[Seawytch]

tits are fair game cause they are all over and almost legal now in some states. look at them on the red carpet as if we've never seen them before and they need attention so they strip for it. how silly and immature. that stuff really should be left for the casting couch

Way to not address my point, phobe. Gay Pride parades, like St Patty's or Mardi Gras, celebrate an event.

Where's your evidence of 10 foot dicks?

 

[haissem123]

tits are fair game cause they are all over and almost legal now in some states. look at them on the red carpet as if we've never seen them before and they need attention so they strip for it. how silly and immature. that stuff really should be left for the casting couch

Way to not address my point, phobe. Gay Pride parades, like St Patty's or Mardi Gras, celebrate an event.

Where's your evidence of 10 foot dicks?

i'm not going to show you what you should already know. neither of those parades is about ones sexual orientation to my knowledge. i'm not a phobe just don't want your dirty shit dicks in my or my kids faces on main street. sorry if that hurts

 

[haissem123]

i just youtubed it and saw a white cock customed guy walking down the street. lol. sorry he wasn't ten foot tall that would have really turned you on. lol

 

[Seawytch]

tits are fair game cause they are all over and almost legal now in some states. look at them on the red carpet as if we've never seen them before and they need attention so they strip for it. how silly and immature. that stuff really should be left for the casting couch

Way to not address my point, phobe. Gay Pride parades, like St Patty's or Mardi Gras, celebrate an event.

Where's your evidence of 10 foot dicks?

i'm not going to show you what you should already know. neither of those parades is about ones sexual orientation to my knowledge. i'm not a phobe just don't want your dirty shit dicks in my or my kids faces on main street. sorry if that hurts

So you can't provide the evidence you claim exists. Color me surprised.

Have you ever attended a pride parade anywhere?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you see a man strolling down the street with a 10 foot penis exposed- call the police and the Guinness Book of Records......

And Vivid Video...

sanfran gay parade carries them all the time.

Yeah? You go a lot do you? I've been a time or two...never saw a single penis, 10 foot or not.

it's all over fox. guess they banned giant rubber boners the times you went. if you don't want to be treated differently for your sexual orientation, why make it such a big deal you have to parade it around? yeah we know you are gay. why do you feel so ashamed of it you have to stick it in others faces?

Then you should be able to post evidence, right?

Why do the Irish have to have a parade every year? Mardi Gras? What's the "big deal" that you straights have to flaunt your sexuality during Mardi Gras and"stick it others faces?"

LOL! Now THAT is pitiful.

 

[PredFan]

Not much of a right then is it?

I think it is.

I can own a gun- but if I commit a violent felony, I lose my right to possess gun.
I have the right to marry a consenting adult- I can't marry a child who cannot consent.

Sorry you can't appreciate those rights.

I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.

You say marriage isn't a right.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.

Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....

No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.

So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?

The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...

You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.

 

[Seawytch]

I think it is.

I can own a gun- but if I commit a violent felony, I lose my right to possess gun.
I have the right to marry a consenting adult- I can't marry a child who cannot consent.

Sorry you can't appreciate those rights.

I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.

You say marriage isn't a right.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.

Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....

No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.

So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?

The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...

You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.

These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?


Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]

The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]

By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]

Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]

The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]

In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]

We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.

 

[Seawytch]

We can take away an incarcerated individuals right to own a gun or to vote...but not to marry and still morons want to declare marriage is not a right. (and then want to call you stupid for insisting it is) Life stranger than fiction...

 

[PredFan]

I appreciate them dumbass, marriage just isn't a right.

You say marriage isn't a right.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a right.

Hmmmm who to listen to.....who to listen to.....

No, the SCOTUS doesn't say that, never has. You are listening to the voices in your alleged mind.

So those cases in which marriage was declared a fundamental right didn't happen?

The irony of you accusing someone else of delusion...

You are pretty dense, either that or you are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong. Either way it sucks to be you. Those cases happened moron, but they didn't rule what you are trying to say they did dumbass.

These are actual Supreme Court rulings. The exact language of those rulings. What words are highlighted?


Loving v Virginia - "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Zablocki v Wisconsin - Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.[...]

The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry. [...]

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals....[...]

By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry, we do not mean to suggest that every state regulation which relates in any way to the incidents of or prerequisites for marriage must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. To the contrary, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry. [...]

Turner v Safely - n support of the marriage regulation, petitioners first suggest that the rule does not deprive prisoners of a constitutionally protected right. They concede that the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), and Loving v. Virginia (1967), but they imply that a different rule should obtain "in . . . a prison forum." Petitioners then argue that even if the regulation burdens inmates' constitutional rights, the restriction should be tested under a reasonableness standard. [...]

The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. [...]

In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. [...]

We conclude that on this record, the Missouri prison regulation, as written, is not reasonably related to these penological interests. No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate's right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.

No those aren't rulings nit wit. how fucking stupid are you really? Loving for example ruled that you couldn't deny anyone marriage on the basis of color. Do you understand the difference? I'll bet you aren't smart enough.