What do we agree upon?

If you were trying to respond to MY post, I talked about equal protection - not equal rights.

Define "equal protection" and explain how you homosexuals are not given equal protection.

I define it as:

A clause set out in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that dictates that state governments cannot pass or enforce any laws based solely on a specific classification of person by race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or age.

One of the main limitations in the Equal Protection Clause is that it limits only the powers of government bodies, and not the private parties on whom it confers equal protection. This limitation has existed since 1883 and has not been overturned.

The Civil Rights Act covers this, as far as employment is concerned anyway:

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[21]).

Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.

Now what part of this mentions homosexuals?

Ona side note:
Numbnuts wants to play semantics, equal protection v equal rights. I wonder what he thinks they're protecting if not equal rights.

Some idiots never learn.
 
The plurality then held that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage because that status is not premised on history or tradition and U.S. Supreme Court precedent on fundamental rights has usually linked marriage to procreation.
There is little tradition for modern marriage. Where are my other wives a, my female (sex) slaves, and my concubines? I
I demand my Christian marriage be recognized, with all my wives and concubines.
 
tive energy to the largest extent possible.

You homosexuals have the same rights as every other citizen. You can fuck each other enter into a civil union 'til you die. You just can't get "married" in the traditional sense of the word.

Which tradition? the Christian tradition of five wives, seven mistresses, a few female sex slaves...?[/QUOTE]

Ask the Supreme Court. They made the ruling.

I take it you're asuming I'm Christian. Is tradition synonymous with religion?
 
Trust me no one is running away from your pompous ass. You say they proved you claim I disagree. So there you have it. Now stop your whining! Oh noooo I made a mistake? Sue me!!!

Yes, I say they proved my claim and if you had actually read them, you'd understand why.

Apology accepted.

No apologies were made. I did read them and I still disagree with your assessment.

Are you done whining yet?
 
The plurality then held that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage because that status is not premised on history or tradition and U.S. Supreme Court precedent on fundamental rights has usually linked marriage to procreation.
There is little tradition for modern marriage. Where are my other wives a, my female (sex) slaves, and my concubines? I
I demand my Christian marriage be recognized, with all my wives and concubines.

Hey stupid, plurality is in reference to the majority of the Supreme Court Justices and religion was never mentioned. Not once.

Pay attention you may learn something.
 
when you prove you can discuss things like a grown-up, I'll consider proving you wrong again - until then - you don't merit any attention at all.
 
This is a thread to find things we agree upon and I hope it will be used in this fasion.......

I am pretty lib on most issues but I also have some strongly held conservative views....

I am for strong boarder control(all four of them).

I am opposed to gun control because I believe that law abiding citizens have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to bare arms.

A great idea cold and a good thread for a while. These things always seemed to get hijacked however. Some folks are determined to try to turn EVERY thread into a namecalling flameout. I guess some folks just aren't confortable discussing issues maturely. Too bad - but I sure wish they'd stick to their own threads without trying to drag EVERYONE down to their level. Props and I look forward to kicking it around with you again soon.

:clap2:
 
Last edited:
I believe Dubya and Dick got rich off the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation and their greed distracted from capturing OBL in Afghanistan.
Investments are held in a blind trust, that being said, Clinton has made a fortune as ahas colon Powell speaking in Islamic countries .
There should be a life time ban of receiving funds for lobbying , speaking off shore or receiving funds for sales of books, lectures or awards from countries that do not allow religious freedom that mean building churches and repairing them.
 
There should be a life time ban of receiving funds for lobbying , speaking off shore or receiving funds for sales of books, lectures or awards from countries that do not allow religious freedom that mean building churches and repairing them.

There may be some merit to this idea, but why would you limit it the way you have? If a president is unduly influenced by potential earnings from foreign countries, then I don't understand why that influence is worse or something we need to protect ourselves from more depending on the foreign country's policy on church repair????????
 
However I am a supporter of rights for gays/lesbians....

I think Bush and his illegal war was the worst mistake in our nations history....


I believe we need to fund alternative energy to the largest extent possible.

Although I would not call the war illegal I would agree Bush should not have gone there. Better us of our troops post 9-11 was to secure our borders.

Secure our borders and concentrate on the assholes who really did attack us. Afghanistan, the Taliban and the hunt for OBL got shortchanged. The people we lost on 911 deserved justice and we failed to pursue it.

Actually that would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistan.
 
However I am a supporter of rights for gays/lesbians....

I think Bush and his illegal war was the worst mistake in our nations history....


I believe we need to fund alternative energy to the largest extent possible.

You homosexuals have the same rights as every other citizen. You can fuck each other enter into a civil union 'til you die. You just can't get "married" in the traditional sense of the word. Get over it already!

You mentioned four borders. I know of two, the southern (Mexico)and the northern (Canada), who else borders the US ?


First of all I am not gay, I am maried (to a woman) and we do have FOUR boards. N,S,E, and W. I didn't think that was too difficult a concept.


You forgot Russia. ;)

But I can't think of a fourth, unless you count the border between the US and British Virgin Islands.

Although the ports on both coasts should count for the definition of homeland security. Where are the stimulus dollars used to hire and train port security? I wouldn't have complained about that.
 
Although I would not call the war illegal I would agree Bush should not have gone there. Better us of our troops post 9-11 was to secure our borders.

Secure our borders and concentrate on the assholes who really did attack us. Afghanistan, the Taliban and the hunt for OBL got shortchanged. The people we lost on 911 deserved justice and we failed to pursue it.

Actually that would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistan.

As for Saudi Arabis and Egypt, you could blame them but then you'd have to blame the entire US for the actions of every one of its citizens too. And we all know looking around just how monolithic we are. No, I blame the people who harbored, supported and trained them not the countries where they were born. But that might just be a new thread.
 
You know that interracial children will get teased and beat up. That they won't have an identity. They will be born mutated because white and black genes won't blend properly.

Isn't it ironic that white people spend billions annually on all sorts of cosmetics and bake in the sun or tanning beds for the sole purpose of having dark skin?
 
tive energy to the largest extent possible.

You homosexuals have the same rights as every other citizen. You can fuck each other enter into a civil union 'til you die. You just can't get "married" in the traditional sense of the word.

Which tradition? the Christian tradition of five wives, seven mistresses, a few female sex slaves...?[/QUOTE]

Lol - even without all the extracurricular activities that enter into many marriages, the act alone changes relationships. Men almost immediately revert back to Neanderthal thinking where women are best utilized in the kitchen or in the bedroom. "Get out in that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans..." "You do the cookin' honey, I'll pay the rent..." (Cept in my case it soon became, "You do the cookin' honey and you pay the rent...what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too..." {Shit, don't get me started.}
 
Define "equal protection" and explain how you homosexuals are not given equal protection.

I define it as:

A clause set out in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that dictates that state governments cannot pass or enforce any laws based solely on a specific classification of person by race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or age.

One of the main limitations in the Equal Protection Clause is that it limits only the powers of government bodies, and not the private parties on whom it confers equal protection. This limitation has existed since 1883 and has not been overturned.

The Civil Rights Act covers this, as far as employment is concerned anyway:

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[21]).

Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.

Now what part of this mentions homosexuals?

Ona side note:
Numbnuts wants to play semantics, equal protection v equal rights. I wonder what he thinks they're protecting if not equal rights.

Some idiots never learn.

The bolded part. If someone cannot discriminate based on "association" with a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, that would cover men who "associate" with other men or women who "associate" with other women.

As this was specifically designed to cover interracial or other types of marriage, it applies here.
 
I am an "individual" American, that happens to believe

In "personal" responsibility, ie for my own success or lack thereof

If I choose to wait tables for a lving or become a CEO of a fortune 500 company, that is my choice, both can be hard work and rewarding in different ways

I believe in "hope". That is why I am a conservative. I believe people can be happy if they are "poor". I also believe the opposite

I believe the lefts ideals steal away hope and dreams. That is simply unAmerican

It takes all kinds of people and personalities to make the world go around. but the leftists believe we should all be "uniform" in all our hopes dreams and endeavors. I reject that on it's face
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top