Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Rikurzhen]

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole? Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?

You're asking a leftist to think? They're operating on pure emotion. Notice all the name calling directed at you? A thinking person dismantles an opponent's argument, a leftist calls you names.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Unfortunately, you are one of those people who will never change. You will die a bigot (and you can claim you are no one all you like, it won't change what you are), because no amount of evidence will ever convince you that your emotional, visceral reaction to homosexuality informs you inaccurate view of the ability of homosexuals to raise children.

You homosexuals have already wreaked havoc on the US with your AIDS and Hep C.....thankfully most who died were the queers themselves, but enough damage was done for the filthy practice to have seen the laws against it ENFORCED instead of ignored. BTW it's easy for perverts to cry "bigotry" when confronted with their disgusting behavior....I'm also an EBOLA BIGOT by any sane definition. And we're not fooled by the attacks on Christianity...it's all coming from queer atheists who deny they have offended God and are DOOMED...they are the true "bigots".

Now that is a new one for the bigots...gay people are like Ebola? Geez you people are nucking futs.

Yeah...Kurtz seems to have gone off the deep end.

 

[Pop23]

wonderful news for individual rights

Dangerous Dolt,

Individual rights were just diminished. A small handful of unelected black robes, far removed from your best interests, just over-rided the will of the people in those states. Millions of people. And you rejoice? How ignorant!!!!

I live when ignorant rightwingnut bigots think they are insulting me. Cracks me up.

Yet, you ignore the point made. Ignore the facts. Hence, dangerous dolt.

there was no point made that required response. trying to teach bigots the error of their ways is like trying to teach a pig to talk.... it doesn't work and it annoys the pig

Finishing another sentence for you


.......is like teaching fools which gender to have sex with.

 

[Pop23]

It is too bad you feel that way.........the reflexive habit of those on your side of the argument to call people bigots is despicable.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country.

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.

Yeah, those folks opposed to interracial marriage thought they were wanting what was best for the country too. They didn't think they were bigots either.

Homosexuality is not a race

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop is not sentient.

 

[BullKurtz]

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

And independent judiciary was never meant to be an activist judiciary......for the last time, VOTES WERE CAST, your argument was defeated. It didn't mean you were to be rounded up and shot. All it meant was that you would not be allowed to pervert the concept of marriage. Yet enough judges believed they had superiority over the ballot ie the will of the people. You can't say you respect the Constitution and allow this just because you're hot for sodomy. Call us bigots and we'll call you queers....who really cares...nobody is neutral on this anymore.

 

[Seawytch]

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

And independent judiciary was never meant to be an activist judiciary......for the last time, VOTES WERE CAST, your argument was defeated. It didn't mean you were to be rounded up and shot. All it meant was that you would not be allowed to pervert the concept of marriage. Yet enough judges believed they had superiority over the ballot ie the will of the people. You can't say you respect the Constitution and allow this just because you're hot for sodomy. Call us bigots and we'll call you queers....who really cares...nobody is neutral on this anymore.

So you don't care if something passed by voters is unconstitutional? If California was to, say, prohibit handguns via referendum, you wouldn't expect it to be challenged and found unconstitutional even though it was passed by a majority of Californians?

Wow...you're gonna call me queer? Gosh, I don't think I've ever heard that before. It'll hurt so much.

You can call me anything you want. You can think anything you want about me...what you won't be able to do anymore is discriminate against me based on your animus towards gay people.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country.

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.

Yeah, those folks opposed to interracial marriage thought they were wanting what was best for the country too. They didn't think they were bigots either.

Homosexuality is not a race

Women are not a race either. Yet civil rights laws pertain to gender.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And to age, young and old.

And, Bull, the voters, either democratically or by republican representation, cannot vote away civil rights except by the Amendment process, which, by Article III, the SCOTUS is not bound.

 

[bodecea]

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole? Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?

You're asking a leftist to think? They're operating on pure emotion. Notice all the name calling directed at you? A thinking person dismantles an opponent's argument, a leftist calls you names.

Don't you have some female gamers to harass?

 

[bodecea]

And to age, young and old.

And, Bull, the voters, either democratically or by republican representation, cannot vote away civil rights except by the Amendment process, which, by Article III, the SCOTUS is not bound.

I bet we've got some here who would support an amendment to repeal the 14th.

 

[Rikurzhen]

And to age, young and old.

And, Bull, the voters, either democratically or by republican representation, cannot vote away civil rights except by the Amendment process, which, by Article III, the SCOTUS is not bound.

I bet we've got some here who would support an amendment to repeal the 14th.

Right here. When "Independent" women marry the government and vote to use force to extract wealth from me and direct it to them so that they can be independent women who don't need men then they're misusing the power of their vote in a way that the Founders never intended. The nation wasn't set up as a frigging commune where people share their income with others via government redistribution.

If women can't vote responsibly then they shouldn't vote. Sad for the women who do vote responsibly though.

 

[dcraelin]

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole?

You can have whatever views you want. No one is telling you you don't get to be a bigot; only that you don't get to force everyone else to behave according to your bigoted views.

Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?

You mean, the book whose name you can't even remember, let alone whether you are citing it accurately? You mean That book? I think the fact that you can't even cite the source says everything about how much consideration your "source" deserves.
Tell you what. when you can actually give us an actual source, I'll be happy to go see what it has to say.

Ive linked the book before, but here it is again.
Wrong Why experts keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them Scientists finance wizards doctors relationship gurus celebrity CEOs ... consultants health officials and more David H. Freedman 9780316087919 Amazon.com Books

Just read a story today in Discover magazine how when a number of cancer cell lines for scientific study were found to be misidentified,the scientist who propagated them sent out 69 letters to other scientists to cease using them, only 2 replied. 10,000 citations a YEAR are using studies made from these faulty cell lines. Now this is in an area of study that is very fact orientated. Studies about how well kids do in gay-marriages I think by nature are less objective.

 

[dcraelin]

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole? Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?

You're asking a leftist to think? They're operating on pure emotion. Notice all the name calling directed at you? A thinking person dismantles an opponent's argument, a leftist calls you names.

Well some leftists..............I consider myself a leftist..........but you are right in that the gay-marriage advocates are pushing this idea less on law and logic than on emotion.

 

[Pop23]

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country.

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.

Yeah, those folks opposed to interracial marriage thought they were wanting what was best for the country too. They didn't think they were bigots either.

Homosexuality is not a race

Women are not a race either. Yet civil rights laws pertain to gender.

And all women can marry.

Your slipping

 

[RKMBrown]

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country.

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.

Yeah, those folks opposed to interracial marriage thought they were wanting what was best for the country too. They didn't think they were bigots either.

Homosexuality is not a race

Women are not a race either. Yet civil rights laws pertain to gender.

And all women can marry.

Your slipping

They can't marry each other in all states... not yet,... but they will soon... you lost.

 

[Czernobog]

Sorry, but if the shoe fits, wear it proudly or are you ashamed of your bigotry?

If the shoe dont fit....you must acquit.

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

I dont believe it does. I think it just points to a concerned citizen wanting the best for his country.

But if it makes you feel better to call me names thats on you.

Yeah, those folks opposed to interracial marriage thought they were wanting what was best for the country too. They didn't think they were bigots either.

Homosexuality is not a race

So, the 14th amendment only guarantees equal protection for races? I'm sure that all of the women who have sought the 14th amendment protection on several issues will be thrilled to hear that; as will the disabled, and non-Christian religious,. That is a very interesting, if somewhat limited, view of "equal protection" you have there, pal.

 

[Czernobog]

Bigot - a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp. on religion, politics,or race. Considering your intolerant insistence on your opinion of homosexuals in spite of studies to the contrary, with which part of of that description do you take issue?

Where's your "tolerance" of me and my views asshole?

You can have whatever views you want. No one is telling you you don't get to be a bigot; only that you don't get to force everyone else to behave according to your bigoted views.

Where's your consideration of the book and studies questioning the bias of numerous studies?

You mean, the book whose name you can't even remember, let alone whether you are citing it accurately? You mean That book? I think the fact that you can't even cite the source says everything about how much consideration your "source" deserves.
Tell you what. when you can actually give us an actual source, I'll be happy to go see what it has to say.

Ive linked the book before, but here it is again.
Wrong Why experts keep failing us--and how to know when not to trust them Scientists finance wizards doctors relationship gurus celebrity CEOs ... consultants health officials and more David H. Freedman 9780316087919 Amazon.com Books

Just read a story today in Discover magazine how when a number of cancer cell lines for scientific study were found to be misidentified,the scientist who propagated them sent out 69 letters to other scientists to cease using them, only 2 replied. 10,000 citations a YEAR are using studies made from these faulty cell lines. Now this is in an area of study that is very fact orientated. Studies about how well kids do in gay-marriages I think by nature are less objective.

Okay. So, no study ever can be trusted is your contention? That's convenient, as that means that you can then ignore any empirical data that doesn't happen to fit with your personal world views.

Yeah...I think we're done...

 

[ShackledNation]

Ah, but I do believe it does fit. Do you wish to deny the equal protections afforded civil marriage to gay couples? Yes you do. Hell, you'd even like to keep them from having and/or adopting children wouldn't you? All that points to bigot.

And independent judiciary was never meant to be an activist judiciary......for the last time, VOTES WERE CAST, your argument was defeated. It didn't mean you were to be rounded up and shot. All it meant was that you would not be allowed to pervert the concept of marriage. Yet enough judges believed they had superiority over the ballot ie the will of the people. You can't say you respect the Constitution and allow this just because you're hot for sodomy. Call us bigots and we'll call you queers....who really cares...nobody is neutral on this anymore.

The rights granted by the population are not subject to popular vote. You can not vote away free speech. You cannot vote away free press. You can not vote away the right to own a gun. You cannot vote away the right to a fair trial. You cannot vote away equal protection of the law and due process.

An independent jury is as much a check on the voters as it is on the government. The constitution trumps any popular vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And to age, young and old.

And, Bull, the voters, either democratically or by republican representation, cannot vote away civil rights except by the Amendment process, which, by Article III, the SCOTUS is not bound.

I bet we've got some here who would support an amendment to repeal the 14th.

Of course some would so vote such an amendment.

They would lose.