What is wrong with being gay exactly?

[Syriusly]

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

Silly argument. The point was the state cannot have men treated differently based on the race. Marriage is a state legality and the government cannot tax people and treat them differently. That doesn't men gender no longer matters. How could it?

No-its reality

No more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriages.

That is exactly the question the Supreme Court is deciding on this year. And whatever the Supreme Court decides will be binding.

is that the court's ruling didn't change what marriage was, it ruled that the government cannot treat races seperately.

And back to my point- "no more than we needed a constitutional amendment to recognize the legality of mixed race marriage"

States said "no marriage between a black man and a white woman"- Supreme Court said such a ban was unconstitutional as marriage is a right
States said "no marriage between a man and a man"- Supreme Court will rule on whether such a ban is unconsitutional or whether such bans violate American's rights.

Whether the issue is race or sexual preference or gender- the Supreme Court can rule on whether marriage bans are constitutional or not.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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.

What a fucking moron you are- and apparently functionally illiterate too.

Over and over the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right- and has referred to these rulings in subsequent cases dealing with marriage.

You are a fucking illiterate moron.

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.

 

[dblack]

Except that no one has ever said gays should get "perks" that straights don't get.

That's pretty much the gist of adding them to the protected classes gravy train.

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong. The Constitution clearly protects our rights.
Yes it is your right to "say" pursuit of happiness is being able to fuck sheep.

Gays are not yet allowed protection of the law that heteros receive. So Yes they are still being ostracized by people like... YOU.

Take a look in the mirror if you are wondering where the gay bashers have gone. Yes, these panzy cowards mostly patrol internet boards these days, they don't have the balls to come out in public to do their gay bashing.

What does piss me off is the FORCED acceptance. Gays account for less than %4 of the population and demand %100 of our devotion. If they'd just shut the fuck up and enjoy their lives without worrying what anyone else "thinks" like the rest of us do they might just find out they fit in after all.

If they did that, it would still be illegal for them to have sex in Texas- heck you would still be arresting them for having sex in Texas.

It pisses me off that people like you want homosexuals to stop being so uppity, when what that means is that homosexuals just want to be treated equally before the law.

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Syriusly]

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

Why were you youtubing looking for a 'white cock"?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Which one in particular? I have attended several of them- the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade is the most fun parade in San Francisco.

Oh wait- you are the one who found that looking for 'cocks' on Youtube?

Well that was your problem.

 

[Syriusly]

Your repeating the same incorrect information does not suddenly make it correct. The SCOTUS has ruled marriage a fundamental right. Denying that fact does not make it less of a fact. Pretending the government doesn't have the authority to restrict speech or the owning of firearms is still plain denial.

An incarcerated individual cannot have a gun while in prison...but the SCOTUS did rule you can't deny them a civil marriage license.

No, the SCOTUS did not. You are wrong.
t.

Glad to keep posting the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage- you can disagree with the Supreme Court, but unless you have a reading comprehension issue- you can't deny that they have indeed said that marriage is a right.

From Zablocki:


The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. 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. Id., at 11-12. 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. The Court's language on the latter point bears repeating:

• 
  "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
  
  

• 
  "Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Id., at 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). [434 U.S. 374, 384]
  
  

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. Long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id., at 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," id., at 211. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id., at 399, and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, marriage was described as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," 316 U.S., at 541 .

More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:



"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." Id., at 486.

 

[Pete7469]

If they did that, it would still be illegal for them to have sex in Texas- heck you would still be arresting them for having sex in Texas.

It pisses me off that people like you want homosexuals to stop being so uppity, when what that means is that homosexuals just want to be treated equally before the law.

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then stay out of Texas...

Can I carry a gun in commiefonia? It's my 2A right but it's denied there.

The COTUS protects that, but the bed wetting locals reject my right so I stay out.

If you want to buttfuck, stay in commiefornia.

 

[Seawytch]

If they did that, it would still be illegal for them to have sex in Texas- heck you would still be arresting them for having sex in Texas.

It pisses me off that people like you want homosexuals to stop being so uppity, when what that means is that homosexuals just want to be treated equally before the law.

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then stay out of Texas...

Can I carry a gun in commiefonia? It's my 2A right but it's denied there.

The COTUS protects that, but the bed wetting locals reject my right so I stay out.

If you want to buttfuck, stay in commiefornia.

Are weapons permits treated like Marriage Licenses and vice versa?

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. The Constitution clearly protects our rights.
Yes it is your right to "say" pursuit of happiness is being able to fuck sheep.

Gays are not yet allowed protection of the law that heteros receive. So Yes they are still being ostracized by people like... YOU.

Take a look in the mirror if you are wondering where the gay bashers have gone. Yes, these panzy cowards mostly patrol internet boards these days, they don't have the balls to come out in public to do their gay bashing.

I said the COTUS protects rights, so I'm not wrong. I'm also not wrong in pointing out that there isn't a single word that can be misconstrued by a rational adult that gives any credibility to the gay marriage agenda.

If you want gay marriage law changed in your state either lobby your representative, or find a more favorable state. I came to TX so that I can own guns, keep more of my income, and not freeze to death. I DON'T CARE about gay marriage. I wouldn't show up to vote on it if it was an issue.

What does piss me off is the FORCED acceptance. Gays account for less than %4 of the population and demand %100 of our devotion. If they'd just shut the fuck up and enjoy their lives without worrying what anyone else "thinks" like the rest of us do they might just find out they fit in after all.

demand 100% of our devotion? I'm thinking I'm not the one that needs some sleep

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

Why were you youtubing looking for a 'white cock"?

White cock tastes like vanilla, when they stick in my ass it comes out with chocolate sprinkles enhancing the flavor.

If you're offended by this you're obvious a bigoted racist white christian male gun clinging bible thumpin' homophobe.

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

 

[g5000]

If you want to buttfuck, stay in commiefornia.

More and more evidence that the real motive behind those opposed to same sex marriage is a ban on gay sex.

 

[Pete7469]

Are weapons permits treated like Marriage Licenses and vice versa?

Yes, my weapons license doesn't allow me to carry in commiefornia. Even though the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution clearly says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

Nothing in the COTUS mentions marriage. Yet I have to tolerate the bigotry of commiefornians against my right to carry in their state so I stay out of it.

 

[Pete7469]

demand 100% of our devotion? I'm thinking I'm not the one that needs some sleep

You know better.

Good night.

 

[Pete7469]

White cock tastes like vanilla, when they stick in my ass it comes out with chocolate sprinkles enhancing the flavor.

If you're offended by this you're obvious a bigoted racist white christian male gun clinging bible thumpin' homophobe.

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

You probably could have been less descriptive, but if that's what you're in to I'm not going to judge you. I recommend sphincter exercises to prevent any further violations and carry a weapon.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

White cock tastes like vanilla, when they stick in my ass it comes out with chocolate sprinkles enhancing the flavor.

If you're offended by this you're obvious a bigoted racist white christian male gun clinging bible thumpin' homophobe.

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

You probably could have been less descriptive.

Why, were you disgusted by my description? Why are you so disgusted by homosexual acts? You're such a homophobe.

 

[Pete7469]

White cock tastes like vanilla, when they stick in my ass it comes out with chocolate sprinkles enhancing the flavor.

If you're offended by this you're obvious a bigoted racist white christian male gun clinging bible thumpin' homophobe.

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

GAY PRIDE

You probably could have been less descriptive.

Why, were you disgusted by my description? Why are you so disgusted by homosexual acts? You're such a homophobe.

You're an 11B?

 

[buddhallah_the_christ]

I see your liberal nature will never understand the idea: being gay is unnatural and abnormal. You will never have a child and this is awful.
Moreover it is disgusting and provokes children to think over the possibility to become a homosexual.
I am happy that the Church is against all this gays' movement.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Why were you youtubing looking for a 'white cock"?

White cock tastes like vanilla, when they stick in my ass it comes out with chocolate sprinkles enhancing the flavor.

Well thanks for sharing. Rather more than I think any of us wanted to know about your private life.

 

[Syriusly]

I see your liberal nature will never understand the idea: being gay is unnatural and abnormal. You will never have a child and this is awful.
Moreover it is disgusting and provokes children to think over the possibility to become a homosexual.
.

LOL....well my liberal nature led me to marry my wonderful wife and we have a fantastic child who is not a bigot like you.

Tell me- when did you decide between being gay or not being gay? See, I always knew I was straight- but apparently you believe that you could have chosen to be gay given the opportunity- I would like to hear more about that.