Republicans are not for our constitution.

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gay people shouldn't marry because potentially someone might challenge incest laws. It's not going to happen Ray. Scaremongering because you have nothing else.

Really? Well people 40 years ago thought the same thing about gay marriage: it's never going to happen. Guess what?????

There's a big difference between fucking your sister, and fucking someone of the same sex Ray. You might not have guessed what it is yet, but you can have a try. Go on, have a try, tell me what the difference is.

I'll give you a clue. Queen Victoria's Hemophilia

Actually people back then thought both ideas were repulsive. Of course thanks to liberalism, one changed.......for now........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The phrase CONSENTING ADULTS springs to mind.

Let's see. Is a dog able to consent? No. Oh.

Does the dog give consent to be forced to live in your home, eat dog food or be walked on a leash?

And again you go way off topic. Don't even bother to try and explain what you're talking about, it's just deflecting again.

We're talking about consent to marry Ray, children can live in your home, they can't consent to marry. It's fucking simple Ray.

So, would you care to talk about the topic, or just go off on another bullshit deflection?

I see, you thought when I said children I was talking about minors. Hardly. I'm 57 years old and I'm still my mother and fathers child. You see.....child is the offspring of parents regardless of age.

And I'm not off topic at all. If marriage should not be denied to gay couples, why should it be denied to anybody? After all, it basically boils down to government benefits, doesn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gay people shouldn't marry because potentially someone might challenge incest laws. It's not going to happen Ray. Scaremongering because you have nothing else.

Really? Well people 40 years ago thought the same thing about gay marriage: it's never going to happen. Guess what?????

There's a big difference between fucking your sister, and fucking someone of the same sex Ray. You might not have guessed what it is yet, but you can have a try. Go on, have a try, tell me what the difference is.

I'll give you a clue. Queen Victoria's Hemophilia

Actually people back then thought both ideas were repulsive. Of course thanks to liberalism, one changed.......for now........

There's a difference between thinking an idea is repulsive and there actually being good reasons to stop something from happening.

Do you get this point or not?

Did you get the hemophilia thing at all? Or did it just end up going straight over your head? Because you've not spoken about it (yet another thing in a long list).

 

[Markle]

Fine . Unlike you I will answer the question .

Freedom of speech : cons always try to pass laws making flag buring illegal .

Please show us your source and link proving that Conservatives "always try to pass laws making flag burning illegal".

 

[frigidweirdo]

The phrase CONSENTING ADULTS springs to mind.

Let's see. Is a dog able to consent? No. Oh.

Does the dog give consent to be forced to live in your home, eat dog food or be walked on a leash?

And again you go way off topic. Don't even bother to try and explain what you're talking about, it's just deflecting again.

We're talking about consent to marry Ray, children can live in your home, they can't consent to marry. It's fucking simple Ray.

So, would you care to talk about the topic, or just go off on another bullshit deflection?

I see, you thought when I said children I was talking about minors. Hardly. I'm 57 years old and I'm still my mother and fathers child. You see.....child is the offspring of parents regardless of age.

And I'm not off topic at all. If marriage should not be denied to gay couples, why should it be denied to anybody? After all, it basically boils down to government benefits, doesn't it?

No Ray, I didn't think you meant children under the age of 18.

You so fucking far off topic you might as well be on the moon.

Look. We're talking about CONSENT here. Do you know what this word means? If you don't, try using a dictionary. onelook.com is great.

Marriage is about two people coming together and marrying with CONSENT. It's about not producing children that have major medical flaws.

You keep going off on one about how if we let everyone marry, then everyone can marry. But this is like the thing the Koch brothers tell rednecks to keep them ignorant Ray, it's so ridiculous I can't believe I'm having a conversation with a 57 year old about this. It's like a 57 year old coming up to you and saying something you'd expect of a 6 year old.

Let's try another approach here.

Fundamental principles. Things that are valid for ALL CASES.

Here are mine.

Human Rights. Adults can do anything they like as long as it doesn't harm other people.

Heterosexual consenting adults having sex = hurts no one. Allowed
Heterosexual man raping heterosexual woman = hurts the woman. Not allowed.
Gay consenting adults having sex = hurts no one. Allowed
Gay man rapes gay man = hurts second gay man. Not allowed.
Gay man with HIV/AIDS has unprotected sex with another gay man. Hurts second gay man. = Not allowed.
Gay man with HIV/AIDS has protected sex with another gay man. Hurts no one. = Allowed

Brother having sex with sister = potentially hurts the child. Hemophilia was caused by the European Royal Families interbreeding. = Not allowed.

This is all about rights.

Your view is just "Don't like gay people, gay people shouldn't be able to marry, fuck them".

 

[Markle]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

They do the same with the bible. Ignore most of it but use it's branding as a political tool and a hammer to bash other people over the head with.

Progressives cherry pick the Bible repeatability. Shit for brains

100% true. They never know the true meaning of what they are quoting or have a clue what comes before or after their tidbit proving they've never opened a Bible to read their excerpt. They just look foolish and run like the wind when challenged.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Gay people shouldn't marry because potentially someone might challenge incest laws. It's not going to happen Ray. Scaremongering because you have nothing else.

Really? Well people 40 years ago thought the same thing about gay marriage: it's never going to happen. Guess what?????

There's a big difference between fucking your sister, and fucking someone of the same sex Ray. You might not have guessed what it is yet, but you can have a try. Go on, have a try, tell me what the difference is.

I'll give you a clue. Queen Victoria's Hemophilia

Actually people back then thought both ideas were repulsive. Of course thanks to liberalism, one changed.......for now........

There's a difference between thinking an idea is repulsive and there actually being good reasons to stop something from happening.

Do you get this point or not?

Did you get the hemophilia thing at all? Or did it just end up going straight over your head? Because you've not spoken about it (yet another thing in a long list).

No, I didn't get the hemophilia thing at all. What I do get is that the foundation of marriage is religious and less government. Government got involved with marriage to aid the nuclear family.

Now that government is no longer needed (since most families are two-income) they should step aside.

Liberalism is like cancer. It doesn't have a stopping point. With liberalism, they cross the line in the sand. When the line gets drawn further back, they cross that line, and then the next, and then the next........

You don't think that somebody will use the SC ruling to marry a family member? Like I said, liberalism is like a cancer that continues spreading. Of course somebody will try to marry a family member perhaps to inherit their SS payments or just for the sake of advancing perversion.

Since the founding of this country, marriage (by law and religious rites) was the union between one man and one woman until this ridiculous Supreme Court decision. Now it's open season for everybody.

 

[Markle]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

Name the agendas!

Fine . Unlike you I will answer the question .

Freedom of speech : cons always try to pass laws making flag buring illegal .

What does the flag have to do with speech? You can't convey a message without buying the American flag?

It’s all about free speech .

Why is it ok for a Boy Scout troop to burn flags , but not some hippee commie protestor ?

Motive

 

[Markle]

Boy scouts burning the flag?

Yes, there is a flag protocol for disposing of old or tattered American Flags. The Boy Scouts will collect them and then following the protocol, burn the flags.

 

[westwall]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

obummer signed an EO creating DACA, that was unconstitutional. Trump rescinded that illegal EO returning the US to the rule of law. It has been the Democrats who have been the law breakers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Gay people shouldn't marry because potentially someone might challenge incest laws. It's not going to happen Ray. Scaremongering because you have nothing else.

Really? Well people 40 years ago thought the same thing about gay marriage: it's never going to happen. Guess what?????

There's a big difference between fucking your sister, and fucking someone of the same sex Ray. You might not have guessed what it is yet, but you can have a try. Go on, have a try, tell me what the difference is.

I'll give you a clue. Queen Victoria's Hemophilia

Actually people back then thought both ideas were repulsive. Of course thanks to liberalism, one changed.......for now........

There's a difference between thinking an idea is repulsive and there actually being good reasons to stop something from happening.

Do you get this point or not?

Did you get the hemophilia thing at all? Or did it just end up going straight over your head? Because you've not spoken about it (yet another thing in a long list).

No, I didn't get the hemophilia thing at all. What I do get is that the foundation of marriage is religious and less government. Government got involved with marriage to aid the nuclear family.

Now that government is no longer needed (since most families are two-income) they should step aside.

Liberalism is like cancer. It doesn't have a stopping point. With liberalism, they cross the line in the sand. When the line gets drawn further back, they cross that line, and then the next, and then the next........

You don't think that somebody will use the SC ruling to marry a family member? Like I said, liberalism is like a cancer that continues spreading. Of course somebody will try to marry a family member perhaps to inherit their SS payments or just for the sake of advancing perversion.

Since the founding of this country, marriage (by law and religious rites) was the union between one man and one woman until this ridiculous Supreme Court decision. Now it's open season for everybody.

Exactly Ray, you didn't get something. You didn't ask. You just ignored it, like you ignore everything else that isn't convenient.

Queen Victoria gave Hemophilia to her children and grandchildren.

Her son Prince Leopold had it (It goes mostly to males through the female line).
Her two daughters passed on the hereditary illness to their children.

The disease came about due to INBREEDING. We know INBREEDING causes serious diseases. So we ban it.

It hurts people.

What you get is that marriage has been around LONGER than Christianity. Jesus was probably married, his parents were probably married. Marriage probably existed BEFORE any religion that exists in the modern era. So, it's not just religious. Also, are you suggesting non-religious people should not get married? It's neither here nor there.

What we're talking about is the 14th Amendment. Certain things are granted to those who get married by governments. That's fact. The 14th says if this is so, then all people should get these. So, if Alabama says all married people can inherit from their dead spouse, then all people should have the right to be able to get this.

Maybe government should step aside from marriage. But this isn't the argument you are making. You're not saying "no gay marriage and no straight marriage under the law", you're saying just no gay marriage under the law. Which is against the 14th Amendment. Stop trying to twist things.

No Ray, liberalism isn't like cancer. You come on here and you don't understand most of the things you talk about, then you complain that those who understand what you don't understand are bad. That's fucked up.

No Ray, I don't think anyone will use this SC ruling to marry a family member. Why? Because it's illegal. It goes against human nature, it goes against Human Rights.

Hemophilia Ray, think about it.

It's like saying if you let someone use a gun, then they're going to kill people. So ban all guns. Is that true?

Yes, marriage used to be between a man and a woman. However from 1868 it should have included gay marriage. It didn't. But legally it should have done. So, a hundred and fifty years of people ignoring the Constitution doesn't mean that the Constitution shouldn't be obeyed, does it?

 

[Markle]

What Constitutional rights are Republicans trying to deny or take away from people?

14th amendment /equal protection under the law
Rights to citizenship
Voter rights

Who is trying to repeal the 14th amendment? There is a process to become a citizen for those who come here legally. Showing a photo ID does not prevent one from voting.

Voter suppression is a Republican initiative
Make it more difficult to vote, Strict ID standards, limit voter hours, selectively reduce the number of voting machines, cut back early voting

A photo ID is not a strict standard voter hours are generally 7am to 7pm 12 hours I have seen no one reduce the number of voting machines you might have to cut back early voting if you don’t have enough people to work at polls.

Almost 95% of Americans have an acceptable photo ID. Determining what is acceptable is a way Republicans suppress the vote.
A gun permit is acceptable while a student ID is not
Drivers licenses are acceptable, but many legitimate voters in urban areas do not drive

5% not having ID is not that big a deal until you realize many elections are won by 1-2%
If most of the people without an acceptable ID vote Democrat, Voter ID laws are an effective means of suppression

As you know, but somehow seem to have left out here is the fact that every state that requires a photo ID to vote, also provide free photo ID's to anyone who wants one. Problem solved and NOT voter suppression.

 

[Markle]

Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

Do they get any government benefits? If so, they have photo ID. Curious isn't it? That "poor, black, Latino or elderly can find a photo ID for the purpose of obtaining benefits...but not to vote. Got it!

 

[KissMy]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

The opposite of whatever they say is almost always the truth.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The fundamental difference between the Dems and Reps is that the Reps believe that the constitution is designed to protect the People from the Government. The Dems believe that the constitution is designed to protect the Government from the People.

 

[Markle]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

First that comes to mind is our electoral college. Thanks for playing Timmy.

Lol! Yeah, for thier own benefit! See voter suppression and illegal redistricting .

Cons will not allow DC to get representation just because it’s mostly Dems .

Democrats too have used Gerrymandering for decades.

Washington DC is not a state.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

So now that we agree marriage should have limitations, it's a matter of opinion what those limits should be. Gays could always get married. If they found a religion that was willing to marry them, they got married and nobody from the federal or state government stopped them. It's just that they didn't recognize the marriage.

There is no reason for the federal of state governments to not recognize a marriage. You, yourself, have stated that government should not be involved in marriages, and I disagree with you there since the law is concerned with things like taxation, rights to property, rights to make decisions for cometose partners, rights of inheritance, etc. These are all civil law matters.

Yes. I have standards. They are being met. But you are lying. Gays were not allowed to get married, legally, until the Supreme Court decision. Actually, there was a judicial decision that okayed the firing of a state-government lawyer who had a religious marriage ceremony with her same-sex partner. I am wracking my brain for the name of the case to post a link and can't come up with it, but I remember the case well.

If you want to get married, why don't you go down to the courthouse and get a license, and/or have a ceremony right there. If you want a religious ceremony, go plan it.

Marriage was always a religious rite. It was even wrote about in the First Testament. It was the same here in this country when it was founded, but as time went on, government got involved and adopted marriage.

So now that marriage meets your standards, everything is just fine and dandy? What about those of us who's standards marriage doesn't meet? And when the time comes when your standards are broken, what will you say then?

Property rights, inheritances, all that could be worked out legislatively without marriage. As far as spouse only visitation rights, that is not law, that is hospital policy. Same holds true with medical coverage. There is no law that states your spouses health insurance company must put you on their policy.

Yes, gays were always allowed to get married. Who tried to stop them? There was no law against it, it's just that the state didn't have to recognize the marriage until that SC decision. Now states are being forced to accept it.

Under Constitution and States Rights...the States should be in control of civil law, and they should determine boundaries for marriage.

The states are NOT free to violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They are NOT free to violate the rights of their citizens. We talk about "freedom" all the time, but what would this term actually mean if a state could strip its citizens of freedom at mere will of a majority legislature. You ignore the history of prejudice among state actors/legislators toward their own citizens. Just look at the shamelessness of the Texas legislature in passing garbage laws to prevent Texans for having abortions. Look at the shamelessness of the Mississippi legislature passing laws to legalize discrimination against LGBT Mississippians. Look at the history of states, particularly ones in the U.S. south, manipulating state and local law to allow the mistreatment of African-American citizens of those states. You "states rights" people just want permission to turn on your own.

Affirmative Action is racial and gender discrimination in employment and education.
Liberals defend it all the way to the US Supreme Court.
It is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Markle]

Repubs hate separation of powers . Always crapping on the court system . “Activist judges” sound familiar? Trump calls the court system a joke whenever they shoot him down .

Did you know that President Donald Trump has appointed four times as many Federal Judges in his first year than delicate former President Barack Hussein Obama?

President Trump Appointed Four Times as Many Federal Appeals Judges as Obama in His First Year
By TESSA BERENSON
December 15, 2017
President Trump likes to tout his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court as one of his main accomplishments in his first year in office. But he broke an important record Thursday that proves he also stands to have a major effect on lower courts.

As of Thursday, Trump set a record for the most ever federal appeals judges confirmed during the first year of a presidency, Axios reports. Trump has successfully appointed 12 so far; President Barack Obama confirmed just three in his first year, and President George W. Bush confirmed six. He beat out presidents Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, who each confirmed 11.

President Trump Appointed Four Times as Many Federal Appeals Judges as Obama in His First Year

This is GREAT!

 

[frigidweirdo]

I constantly run across right wingers who claim that conservatives “follow the constitution” and are “for the constitution “.

Nothing but words . Whenever I ask for some real life proof, I get nothing .

I will concede that they are nuts over the 2nd . I’ll give you that .

But as far as the rest of the con? They push agendas to weaken our con freedoms .

Prove me wrong! What con talking points/agendas/ legislation strengthen (non 2nd amendmemt )constitutional rights ?

The opposite of whatever they say is almost always the truth.

And the truth is what you believe is the truth, based on nothing more than what you want to believe.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Same gender marriage is a behavior.
It is not an indelible thing like race and gender.
In effect a person can change their behavior, but not their race or gender.