"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[WinterBorn]

and one man and one man- and one woman and one woman.

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

That did not change. Marriage joins one man and one woman. But it now also joins two men, and it joins 2 women. All according to the choices of the people involved. Your input is not needed, nor is mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys' motivation becomes ever more important.

His syllogism fractured in the first sentence. In fact, marriage IS two people of appropriate age.

 

[sealybobo]

And Keys continues to come unglued. We scan quickly his ranting, smile, and move on.

SCOTUS in American law has the final say. End of the line for Keys.

I tend to agree with keys on this one. I don't like the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. They side with corporations 100% of the time + BFD they give us gay marriage

An interesting syllogism...

If the court hears suits brought by corporate interests, and 'deciding for corporate interests' is BAD... the Court is axiomatically BAD.

Of course, the thing is NOT the decision, but the reasoning.

The Court's reasoning in the Licensing of Degeneracy is wildly unreasonable, illogical, and inappropriate, lacking lucidity... . Leaving little room to reasonably believe that the decision had absolutely no basis in reason and was entirely a function of a majority establishing a right, where reason precludes any potential for such a right to exist.

The same was true for the decision on ObamaScare, with such being separated from any sense of principle and having no relevance to the US Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

 

[Spare_change]

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

Apparently, they don't ... you can discriminate against anti-gays, but not against gays. Get used to it ... today, it's anti-gay bakers, tomorrow it's priests, and the day after, it's you.

This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here s Why That s Not Discrimination. ThinkProgress

 

[Spare_change]

It's just like them saying liberalism is going to destroy the country.

Liberalism has destroyed the country. Or did ya miss the Economic Collapse of the US Financial markets as a result of "Liberal" (socialist) coercion of the interests in those markets to set aside sound actuarial lending principle in favor of the Left' perverse notion of Fairness...?

Oh and how about the part where 5 Liberals (socialists) on the Federal Judiciary just Licensed Degeneracy, unleashing what amounts to Nazism upon anyone who recognizes that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman?

Don't see how ya could given that it's the only thing you've thought about in the last 7 years... only to find out that there's no more legitimacy in abusing the judicial process then there is in sexual deviancy.

Legitimacy is a simple but irretrievable consequence of human physiology, which is a consequence of how Nature designed humanity, which is how God designed Nature. Thus anyone who recognizes the simple facts of nature and the God who created Nature is now required to accept that which is otherwise UNACCEPTABLE, which puts the majority of the nation in direct confrontation with the US Federal Government.

Thus every person of any sense of decency is injured by their responsibility to never stop contesting the public display of and support for degeneracy and to do so without apology and the consequence of that will inevitably be catastrophic.

Because... it ain't anywhere over and it's never going to be over until the Federal Government of the United States reverses that Decision, voids all unions between same gender couples and states in no uncertain terms that there is no potential right to promote Degeneracy... or whatever government replaces it.

I'll stop you after your first paragraph because you're wrong immediately. Why did all those houses get foreclosed? Because everyone's jobs get shipped overseas. A result of Bush policies. It's much more than that but basically your boy Bush f***** up

You REALLY need to work on your history ---- this is revisionist history at its finest ... at least, pretend to be honest.

 

[Spare_change]

And Keys continues to come unglued. We scan quickly his ranting, smile, and move on.

SCOTUS in American law has the final say. End of the line for Keys.

I tend to agree with keys on this one. I don't like the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. They side with corporations 100% of the time + BFD they give us gay marriage

An interesting syllogism...

If the court hears suits brought by corporate interests, and 'deciding for corporate interests' is BAD... the Court is axiomatically BAD.

Of course, the thing is NOT the decision, but the reasoning.

The Court's reasoning in the Licensing of Degeneracy is wildly unreasonable, illogical, and inappropriate, lacking lucidity... . Leaving little room to reasonably believe that the decision had absolutely no basis in reason and was entirely a function of a majority establishing a right, where reason precludes any potential for such a right to exist.

The same was true for the decision on ObamaScare, with such being separated from any sense of principle and having no relevance to the US Constitution.

What about the general welfare clause?

The "general welfare" clause is only appropriate when it does NOT interfere with individual rights ..... until now.

 

[MikeK]

Because I am one of those heterosexuals who happens to believe same-sex marriage is simply none of my concern I feel compelled to respond to this assertion by the Blaze contributor.

(Excerpt)

"An improper understanding of a squirrel is one thing, though. An improper understanding of marriage, on the other hand, will destroy us. Marriage is the bedrock upon which all of human civilization rests. To expand its definition into oblivion is to weaken and destabilize it."

(Close)

Slightly more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce or permanent separation. http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf

About half of the remaining percentage are dissatisfied with their partners, regret being married to them, and admit to either regular or occasional infidelity. So according to the Blaze article these statistics mean our society is resting on a bedrock composed of approximately one-fourth of today's marriages.

I believe the simple fact of the matter is marriage just ain't what it used to be. The social and material changes which have taken place in our ever-evolving social order have made the moral institution of marriage wholly dispensable -- with the single exception of the legal obligation to care for children. The romantic promise to "love, honor and obey 'til death do we part" has become almost comically redundant -- as well as a rather flimsy "bedrock."

 

[Spare_change]

No they wont. Only a few kooks like yourself will resist long enough for it to get like that. At that point you will be classified as a cult and dealt with accordingly.

Your math is as abysmal as your English. The kooks are not on my side, and the majority is not on your side.

There is no math to it. You kooks will lose. You always do. You either ride or collide with us. There is no other option.

No, we don't always lose. We're the ones who win. You're the ones that are on the side of the Nazis. Like the idiot Germans, you don't get it.

But you will.

Funny about winning...since no real offspring can come of such "same sex" unions, eventually normalcy will reign...provided the government feel good PCers eventually fall to the wayside, as they must.

LOL......'normalcy' to me is allowing people in love to marry.

The bigotted butthurt continues.
Meanwhile, gay marriage legal in all 50

Knock off the bullshit ... aren't you capable of having an intelligent discussion about an issue? Must you, and the rest of the left, always resort to childish attacks, rather than addressing the issue?

Grow the hell up.

 

[Spare_change]

So Keys and Spare Change are sliding down a non-existent slippery slope.

Nothing, by their own admission, has happened.

Spare has surpassed Keys for the silliest statement of the day, "SCOTUS has intentionally placed the collective rights of a group in direct competition with individual rights." The 13th Amendment placed the collective rights on no-longer slaves about the individual rights of slavers.

What a couple of fucking loons.

Are you really that incapable of having an intelligent discussion? Must you always act like some schoolyard bully who tries to cover their ignorance by calling people names?

As for your comment ---- you REALLY want to go there? You REALLY want to claim that slavers had an individual right that was violated??? REALLY?

Let me guess ---- you're a product of the US public education system, right?

 

[Spare_change]

Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.

Well done. Your mom must be proud of the quality of this response ... clearly, it reflects the quality of your education.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.

We think you are defective in character or deficient in intellect or both if you oppose it.

I am not being mean. I am telling you what the majority of America thinks of your opinion: it stinks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Key's philosophy is poppy cock, nothing else, the feverish phantoms of a mind poisoned by the hash pipe.

Well done. Your mom must be proud of the quality of this response ... clearly, it reflects the quality of your education.

It reflects the lack of yours and Keys. I can't address you as normal, intelligent people.

 

[boedicca]

It doesn't matter if Gay Marriage or Transgender or Yes-Means-Yes hurts you. You will:


7355 by boedicca on US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Spare_change]

Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.

We think you are defective in character or deficient in intellect or both if you oppose it.

I am not being mean. I am telling you what the majority of America thinks of your opinion: it stinks.

First of all, you have absolutely no idea what my opinion is .... I have not stated, one way or the other, my position on gay marriage. So, I would appreciate it if you would grow up and actually read what is written.

My objection has been, and will consistently be, that the ruling by SCOTUS has violated my First Amendment rights ... that has NOTHING, NIL, NADA to do with gay marriage. Quite bleating that same ol' garbage, attacking people for what you THINK they feel, and actually engage in the conversation.

If you can't do that, I strongly recommend you just shut the hell up.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

Apparently, they don't ... you can discriminate against anti-gays, but not against gays. Get used to it ... today, it's anti-gay bakers, tomorrow it's priests, and the day after, it's you.

This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here s Why That s Not Discrimination. ThinkProgress

Please read the laws concerning operating a business.

 

[Spare_change]

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

Apparently, they don't ... you can discriminate against anti-gays, but not against gays. Get used to it ... today, it's anti-gay bakers, tomorrow it's priests, and the day after, it's you.

This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here s Why That s Not Discrimination. ThinkProgress

Please read the laws concerning operating a business.

Try to keep up --- this has nothing to do with operating a business (unless, of course, you want to talk about selective application of the law).

This has to do with my First Amendment rights, which for the first time in history, SCOTUS has decided can be selectively applied, as well.

 

[Syriusly]

Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.

We think you are defective in character or deficient in intellect or both if you oppose it.

I am not being mean. I am telling you what the majority of America thinks of your opinion: it stinks.

First of all, you have absolutely no idea what my opinion is .... I have not stated, one way or the other, my position on gay marriage. So, I would appreciate it if you would grow up and actually read what is written.

My objection has been, and will consistently be, that the ruling by SCOTUS has violated my First Amendment rights .

How?

You still have every legal right to the same speech today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every religious right today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every free press right today that you had last Thursday.

The only thing that has changed is that you now have the right to marry someone of the same gender in all 50 states.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

There is no law mandating that you be nice to any gay person.

Well, as a matter of fact, there is ... if he comes into my bakery, I must serve him. If I, however, go into his bakery, he is free to refuse me service.

Explain again just how that works ...

The same laws apply to his bakery as to yours. Any business that has public access is barred from discriminating.

Apparently, they don't ... you can discriminate against anti-gays, but not against gays. Get used to it ... today, it's anti-gay bakers, tomorrow it's priests, and the day after, it's you.

This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here s Why That s Not Discrimination. ThinkProgress

Please read the laws concerning operating a business.

Try to keep up --- this has nothing to do with operating a business (unless, of course, you want to talk about selective application of the law).

This has to do with my First Amendment rights, which for the first time in history, SCOTUS has decided can be selectively applied, as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Feel free to provide a specific example of which of your First Amendments Rights has been violated and how.

 

[Spare_change]

Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.

We think you are defective in character or deficient in intellect or both if you oppose it.

I am not being mean. I am telling you what the majority of America thinks of your opinion: it stinks.

First of all, you have absolutely no idea what my opinion is .... I have not stated, one way or the other, my position on gay marriage. So, I would appreciate it if you would grow up and actually read what is written.

My objection has been, and will consistently be, that the ruling by SCOTUS has violated my First Amendment rights .

How?

You still have every legal right to the same speech today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every religious right today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every free press right today that you had last Thursday.

The only thing that has changed is that you now have the right to marry someone of the same gender in all 50 states.

You're wrong ... but it's nice to finally have your attention. I was getting a little tired of the childish antics.

The First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

My religion dictates that homosexuality is a sin - period. Further, my religion believes that aiding and/or abetting the commission of a sin makes you as guilty as the sinner.

The government is, for the first time in history, forcing me to choose between my religion and compliance with the law.

Whether it is by forcing me to acknowledge their homosexuality, participate in their ceremonies, or pay taxes that support their lifestyle, the government has mandated that I will aid and abet their sin.

Now - to be clear - I firmly believe that gays should receive equal treatment under the law. However, I do not believe that my individual rights should be violated to make it happen.

 

[WinterBorn]

Spare_Change, there is no discussion to be had about the validity of Marriage Equality with those of us who believe in it.

We think you are defective in character or deficient in intellect or both if you oppose it.

I am not being mean. I am telling you what the majority of America thinks of your opinion: it stinks.

First of all, you have absolutely no idea what my opinion is .... I have not stated, one way or the other, my position on gay marriage. So, I would appreciate it if you would grow up and actually read what is written.

My objection has been, and will consistently be, that the ruling by SCOTUS has violated my First Amendment rights .

How?

You still have every legal right to the same speech today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every religious right today that you had last Thursday.
You still have every free press right today that you had last Thursday.

The only thing that has changed is that you now have the right to marry someone of the same gender in all 50 states.

You're wrong ... but it's nice to finally have your attention. I was getting a little tired of the childish antics.

The First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

My religion dictates that homosexuality is a sin - period. Further, my religion believes that aiding and/or abetting the commission of a sin makes you as guilty as the sinner.

The government is, for the first time in history, forcing me to choose between my religion and compliance with the law.

Whether it is by forcing me to acknowledge their homosexuality, participate in their ceremonies, or pay taxes that support their lifestyle, the government has mandated that I will aid and abet their sin.

Now - to be clear - I firmly believe that gays should receive equal treatment under the law. However, I do not believe that my individual rights should be violated to make it happen.

Oh please. The 10 Commandments told you that you shall have no Gods before your God, that you shall not make graven images, and that you will remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. But all of those commandments are violated by millions of people, including the federal gov't, but that wasn't aiding and abetting their sin??

Your individual rights have not been violated. Funny that you don't mind your taxes being spent on war, but object to them being spent on gays. That sort of blows your claims of being harmed because of the your religion.