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.
You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.Gays have every right that straights have. The constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, it does not guarantee that you will find it. It is not bigoted to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Gay marriage is an oxymoron to a majority of human beings on planet earth.
What you are asking for is for the government to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage in spite of the beliefs of a majority of americans. You want to legislate beliefs and legislate revisions to human biology.
The bigotry here is coming from the left. It is you who are intolerant----intolerant of any beliefs but yours.
And finallly, race and sexual deviancy are two completely different things.
and for the record, I don't give a flying pig turd what gays do to each other in private. But calling a gay union a marriage is an abomination on humanity.
And for the record, you clearly do give a flying pig turd based upon your posts, and you just can't stand the idea of our government treating a gay couple legally the same way my wife and I are treated because they are gay.
not because they are gay. homosexuality is a mental illness, it should be treated as such, not as a normal human condition. gays deserve our sympathy and help, not our sanction of their abnormality.
Well thank you for your unsubstantiated personal opinion.
And yes-you are just a bigot who wants to discriminate against gays.
Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?
Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Its the same exact thing,
Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.
Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Its the same exact thing,
Not even close.
>>>>
Because it denies and disparages other religions that may want to use that same terminology for political ease and political convenience; much like the right does with their appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of morals from the Iron Age.Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.
Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Its the same exact thing,
Not even close.
>>>>
It depends on how we define marriage. for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
Because it denies and disparages other religions that may want to use that same terminology for political ease and political convenience; much like the right does with their appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of morals from the Iron Age.Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.
Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Its the same exact thing,
Not even close.
>>>>
It depends on how we define marriage. for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Well that's false. For thousands of years marriage has included a man and multiple women and in some places includes that to this day.
What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
One need not demonstrate a "compelling societal benefits" to have equal treatment under the law by the government. As a matter of fact it is quite the opposite, it is the responsibility of the government to demonstrate a compelling government interest that warrants the discriminatory treatment.
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
It was those opposed to legal recognition of same-sex unions that slammed the door on Civil Unions. Gays didn't pass amendments banning Civil Unions, it was social authoritarians that did that.
For example here is the Constitutional amendment passed herer in Virginia (similar to a lot of states that passed bans at the time):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Notice that it bans Civil Unions.
>>>>
I don't want to discriminate against anyone.
for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Well that's false. For thousands of years marriage has included a man and multiple women and in some places includes that to this day.
What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
One need not demonstrate a "compelling societal benefits" to have equal treatment under the law by the government. As a matter of fact it is quite the opposite, it is the responsibility of the government to demonstrate a compelling government interest that warrants the discriminatory treatment.
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
It was those opposed to legal recognition of same-sex unions that slammed the door on Civil Unions. Gays didn't pass amendments banning Civil Unions, it was social authoritarians that did that.
For example here is the Constitutional amendment passed herer in Virginia (similar to a lot of states that passed bans at the time):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Notice that it bans Civil Unions.
>>>>
if that is what the people of VA voted to put in place then thats the end of it in that state--------see how clear and easy that is?
for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Well that's false. For thousands of years marriage has included a man and multiple women and in some places includes that to this day.
What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
One need not demonstrate a "compelling societal benefits" to have equal treatment under the law by the government. As a matter of fact it is quite the opposite, it is the responsibility of the government to demonstrate a compelling government interest that warrants the discriminatory treatment.
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
It was those opposed to legal recognition of same-sex unions that slammed the door on Civil Unions. Gays didn't pass amendments banning Civil Unions, it was social authoritarians that did that.
For example here is the Constitutional amendment passed herer in Virginia (similar to a lot of states that passed bans at the time):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Notice that it bans Civil Unions.
>>>>
if that is what the people of VA voted to put in place then thats the end of it in that state--------see how clear and easy that is?
Notice that is wasn't the "left" that wouldn't accept Civil Unions at the time, it was mostly driven by social authoritarians which didn't want ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples.
It proved you were wrong that members on the "left" rejected Civil Unions. They didn't slam that door.
As a right of center Republican I would have supported Civil Unions, they would have been a fine intermediary step to give legal protections to same-sex couples. Everyone would have still called them "married" anyway, and in a generation it would have been quietly merged back into Civil Marriage anyway.
>>>>
You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.
and for the record, I don't give a flying pig turd what gays do to each other in private. But calling a gay union a marriage is an abomination on humanity.
And for the record, you clearly do give a flying pig turd based upon your posts, and you just can't stand the idea of our government treating a gay couple legally the same way my wife and I are treated because they are gay.
not because they are gay. homosexuality is a mental illness, it should be treated as such, not as a normal human condition. gays deserve our sympathy and help, not our sanction of their abnormality.
Well thank you for your unsubstantiated personal opinion.
And yes-you are just a bigot who wants to discriminate against gays.
I don't want to discriminate against anyone. Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license? Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Its the same exact thing,
for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Well that's false. For thousands of years marriage has included a man and multiple women and in some places includes that to this day.
What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
One need not demonstrate a "compelling societal benefits" to have equal treatment under the law by the government. As a matter of fact it is quite the opposite, it is the responsibility of the government to demonstrate a compelling government interest that warrants the discriminatory treatment.
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
It was those opposed to legal recognition of same-sex unions that slammed the door on Civil Unions. Gays didn't pass amendments banning Civil Unions, it was social authoritarians that did that.
For example here is the Constitutional amendment passed herer in Virginia (similar to a lot of states that passed bans at the time):
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Notice that it bans Civil Unions.
>>>>
if that is what the people of VA voted to put in place then thats the end of it in that state--------see how clear and easy that is?
Notice that is wasn't the "left" that wouldn't accept Civil Unions at the time, it was mostly driven by social authoritarians which didn't want ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples.
It proved you were wrong that members on the "left" rejected Civil Unions. They didn't slam that door.
As a right of center Republican I would have supported Civil Unions, they would have been a fine intermediary step to give legal protections to same-sex couples. Everyone would have still called them "married" anyway, and in a generation it would have been quietly merged back into Civil Marriage anyway.
>>>>
I too would support civil unions for gays, but the people of VA voted not to. Its up to them, not you and me.
Because it denies and disparages other religions that may want to use that same terminology for political ease and political convenience; much like the right does with their appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of morals from the Iron Age.Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.
Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Its the same exact thing,
Not even close.
>>>>
It depends on how we define marriage. for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. What is the compelling societal benefit to changing a definition that has worked for 3000 years?
Having said that, I am just fine with a civil union for gays that would give them all of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get.
Why is the word "marriage" so critical to you on the left? Answer: because this is not really about rights and equality, its about using govt to force societal acceptance of a aberant human lifestyle as normal.
so you favor a society with no morals, ethics, rules, or laws--------------got it, anything goes as long as it feels good.
Your measure of tolerance is whether or not you are killing people? WTF is wrong with you?You claiming gays an abomination on humanity with your picture in the dictionary under "abomination on humanity" is actually pretty funny. How many people have you killed lately on your holy crusade?You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.As of yet they don't have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness that Heterosexuals have. But it's getting closer to that eventuality. Face it, people who enjoy being racist, homophobic, stone throwers are quickly becoming the ones who are being ostracized by nearly all of society outside of Radical Muslim terrorist cells and KKK meetings. The reign of religious zealots in demonzing blacks, gays, women etc. is coming to an end.
Gays have every right that straights have. The constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, it does not guarantee that you will find it. It is not bigoted to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Gay marriage is an oxymoron to a majority of human beings on planet earth.
What you are asking for is for the government to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage in spite of the beliefs of a majority of americans. You want to legislate beliefs and legislate revisions to human biology.
The bigotry here is coming from the left. It is you who are intolerant----intolerant of any beliefs but yours.
And finallly, race and sexual deviancy are two completely different things.
and for the record, I don't give a flying pig turd what gays do to each other in private. But calling a gay union a marriage is an abomination on humanity.
none, how many gays have been killed by islamists? The difference is that we are tolerant of those who differ from us or believe differently.
But you, like the islamists, want to demonize and destroy anyone who dares disagree with your far left bullshit.
Gays have down syndrome? WTF is wrong with you?You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.
and for the record, I don't give a flying pig turd what gays do to each other in private. But calling a gay union a marriage is an abomination on humanity.
And for the record, you clearly do give a flying pig turd based upon your posts, and you just can't stand the idea of our government treating a gay couple legally the same way my wife and I are treated because they are gay.
not because they are gay. homosexuality is a mental illness, it should be treated as such, not as a normal human condition. gays deserve our sympathy and help, not our sanction of their abnormality.
Well thank you for your unsubstantiated personal opinion.
And yes-you are just a bigot who wants to discriminate against gays.
I don't want to discriminate against anyone. Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license? Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Its the same exact thing,
Well why is the Supreme Court even hearing this case today?
Oh thats right because a couple dozen judges disagree with you.
And the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not a gay persons 14th Ammendment guarantees of equal protection before the law are being violated by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice.
discrimination legal definition of discrimination
State and local laws can also protect individuals from discrimination. For example, gays and lesbians, although not yet included under federal civil rights laws, are protected in many cities by local ordinances outlawing discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and other states have passed such legislation—although some voters have sought to repeal it, with mixed results. Local antidiscrimination laws have been used to deny funding to groups that bar members because of their sexual orientation.
This was the case after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). The Court held that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), as a private organization, had the constitutional right to bar homosexual troop leaders and members from its ranks. The Boy Scouts hailed this as an important victory, but many corporations and local governments were angered by the decision.
Well thanks for sharing that totally unrelated post.
Meanwhile
Well why is the Supreme Court even hearing this case today?
Oh thats right because a couple dozen judges disagree with you.
And the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not a gay persons 14th Ammendment guarantees of equal protection before the law are being violated by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice.
Just think, if they rule in your favor, you can marry your sister, your mother, your father, your brother-------------------------because you love them.
.
You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?
Not a clue.
If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.
You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.
Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.
Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Its the same exact thing,
Not even close.
>>>>
It depends on how we define marriage. for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman.
Is it discrimination to prevent a downs syndrome person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Secondly, downs syndrome doesn't automatically disqualify you from getting a drivers license. People with downs syndrome that have demonstrated the capability to operate a vehicle safely can get licenses.
Is it discrimination to prevent a blind person from getting a drivers license?
Yes it is discrimination, however that isn't the question. The question is "is there a compelling government interest" in prevent those that demonstrate an inability to see to operate a vehicle on public roads in a safe manner in driving on public roads. Yes it is discrimination, but there is a valid reason.
Its the same exact thing,
Not even close.
>>>>
It depends on how we define marriage. for over 3000 years, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman.
Actually for over 3,000 years marriage has been both a union of one man and one woman, and one man and many women.
You are essentially arguing that based upon tradition, polygamy should be legal.
discrimination legal definition of discrimination
State and local laws can also protect individuals from discrimination. For example, gays and lesbians, although not yet included under federal civil rights laws, are protected in many cities by local ordinances outlawing discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation. Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and other states have passed such legislation—although some voters have sought to repeal it, with mixed results. Local antidiscrimination laws have been used to deny funding to groups that bar members because of their sexual orientation.
This was the case after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). The Court held that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), as a private organization, had the constitutional right to bar homosexual troop leaders and members from its ranks. The Boy Scouts hailed this as an important victory, but many corporations and local governments were angered by the decision.
Well thanks for sharing that totally unrelated post.
Meanwhile
Well why is the Supreme Court even hearing this case today?
Oh thats right because a couple dozen judges disagree with you.
And the Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not a gay persons 14th Ammendment guarantees of equal protection before the law are being violated by not being allowed to marry the person of their choice.
Just think, if they rule in your favor, you can marry your sister, your mother, your father, your brother-------------------------because you love them.
.
You really don't have a clue what the case is that the Supreme Court is hearing do you?
Not a clue.
If the Supreme Court rules that same gender couples can marry- you still will not be able to marry your favorite sister, or your mother, or your father.
You are the one who does not get it. If SC rules that two people of the same sex may marry, then there is no prohibition of mother/daughter or father/son marriage. If the only criteria is that they love each other and want to commit to each other, then it will happen.
I don't know whether you are stupid or just deliberately lying.
Right now it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a man to marry his mother.
If the Supreme Court rules that same gender marriage is legal then, a man can marry a man, but it will still be illegal for a man to marry his father or his mother.
Whatever the Supreme Court rules, will not change laws regarding incestuous marriage at all.
Your claim is false- and probably a lie.
You claiming gays an abomination on humanity with your picture in the dictionary under "abomination on humanity" is actually pretty funny. How many people have you killed lately on your holy crusade?You're a bigot and a liar. No one is mandating you do anything. What they want is for you to get your jack boot off their necks.As of yet they don't have the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness that Heterosexuals have. But it's getting closer to that eventuality. Face it, people who enjoy being racist, homophobic, stone throwers are quickly becoming the ones who are being ostracized by nearly all of society outside of Radical Muslim terrorist cells and KKK meetings. The reign of religious zealots in demonzing blacks, gays, women etc. is coming to an end.
Gays have every right that straights have. The constitution guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness, it does not guarantee that you will find it. It is not bigoted to believe that homosexuality is an abnormal human condition. Gay marriage is an oxymoron to a majority of human beings on planet earth.
What you are asking for is for the government to mandate societal acceptance of gay marriage in spite of the beliefs of a majority of americans. You want to legislate beliefs and legislate revisions to human biology.
The bigotry here is coming from the left. It is you who are intolerant----intolerant of any beliefs but yours.
And finallly, race and sexual deviancy are two completely different things.
and for the record, I don't give a flying pig turd what gays do to each other in private. But calling a gay union a marriage is an abomination on humanity.
none, how many gays have been killed by islamists? The difference is that we are tolerant of those who differ from us or believe differently.
But you, like the islamists, want to demonize and destroy anyone who dares disagree with your far left bullshit.
