32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[frigidweirdo]

You think huh?

Well you tell me what you KNOW and not what you just made up.

I KNOW that I seriously hope you aren't as ugly as your avatar.

Well at least we've cleared up that you know nothing about how gay people became gay then.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Um hello! Read some of my posts. Or are you talking about just the gay cult? Yeah, I know. In that case you're right. Children are like this little conversation they want to save until after they get the legal loophole to get them home behind closed doors. If we can judge that environment as anything close to a gay pride parade, these children are headed for big trouble..

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I read your posts and I like them. You're an intelligent person. That's refreshing around this place.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Doesn't seem any more harmful to society than a bunch of frat boys having a good time

Why would you include a picture of gay fathers as harmful to society?

The three pictures are inseparable. And "gay pride parades" are not "frat parties" where children are expected not to attend. Very unlike frat parties, gay pride parades are sober events where the participants express unapologetic and perennial-pride over the displays and behaviors therein. Participants HOPE children will be in attendance viewing what goes on.

There's the difference that all but simpletons would find compelling.

I didn't see any kids in those parade pictures.

 

[rightwinger]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

You have the right to be ignorant and hateful; and you have the right to express your ignorance and hate.


Thankfully, however, you don't have the right to seek to codify your ignorance and hate, prohibited from doing so by the Constitution and its case law.

In other words I made good points and you don't have a lucid rebuttal so as usual you substitute ad hominem and hope it passes as a weak substitute.

 

[Seawytch]

It never fails in the 15 years I've perused these threads online, when gays defend their "right" to marriage and especially their "right" to get their hands on little kids, that never, not once in all that time and in thousands of posts, has anyone ever voiced their concern for the welfare of the children in question, for their right not to become victims of predatory animals. What does that tell you?

Not once? That's odd because in every thread I've ever been in that talks about gays at all, some nimrod dimwit brings up pedophiles as though they were related. It shows how pathetically weak their argument is.

It has even been brought up in court, and got laughed out of it.

 

[Seawytch]

I think a lot of gay men were victims of homosexual predation themselves as kids. Like any abused slash abuser, they just keep the cycle going.

Which simply goes to show that you don't think.

 

[rightwinger]

I think a lot of gay men were victims of homosexual predation themselves as kids. Like any abused slash abuser, they just keep the cycle going.

I think it has more to do with listening to broadway show tunes while they were growing up

 

[Rozman]

Ethel Merman was my trigger...
I mean that's what someone said once,er sometime ago,on the Interrnet.I think.

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

No more than blacks who wanted to marry whites would have accepted a vote on THEIR civil rights. I don't believe we should get to vote on civil rights...with good reason.

Not the same thing no matter how many times you try it. you can get the equality that you seek, and that I want for you, without the word 'marriage'.

You insist on calling a gay union a marriage because you want society to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Why can't you admit that?

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

How does one word (marriage) create or take away gay rights? Which rights does a gay marriage convey that a civil union does not? Please give us a list.

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

 

[Redfish]

Oh, but you do care. Its the only thing you care about. The word is everything to you. Equality is not your goal and you know it. I hate to keep saying it, but forced societal acceptance is your goal.

Admit it and then we can continue intelligently. If not , this is a waste of time.

Why keep lying? Change the name. It's the equality gays care about, not the word. Change it to "life partner contract" if that twirls your whiskers, but make it exactly the same for your civil marriage as it is for mine. Do it...but the onus is on you precisely because we don't care what it's called.

your post above proves what I have been saying------------it is all about the word with you. Maybe you don't even realize it

 

[Redfish]

I think a lot of gay men were victims of homosexual predation themselves as kids. Like any abused slash abuser, they just keep the cycle going.

I think it has more to do with listening to broadway show tunes while they were growing up

is that what happened to you? or were you born gay? just curious.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not the same thing no matter how many times you try it. you can get the equality that you seek, and that I want for you, without the word 'marriage'.

You insist on calling a gay union a marriage because you want society to accept homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Why can't you admit that?

How about we insist on calling a gay union marriage because in the English Speaking World there are quite a few countries that call these marriage, say the UK, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and even certain states in the US. I'd say that's good enough reason, wouldn't you?

Now, would you say the hermaphrodites have "a normal human condition"? I would say at about 1 in 25,000 births it's not normal.
Does that mean I can then pound on them because I don't want to accept this as normal?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

Yes, can you please quote the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear?

we'll be waiting---------------------------------------and waiting-------------------------------and waiting

 

[Redfish]

What becomes codified into law in any society is what a majority of the citizens believe is right and wrong. I think each state should have a referendum on the issue, or a national referendum if you choose. Are you willing to accept the results of such a vote?

Do you think there should be a referendum on whether to keep the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment? How do you think that will go? I'd say most people would be in favor of it.

that has nothing to do with this topic.

It has as much to do with this topic as what you said.

You want a referendum on whether to have gay marriage or not. I'd say this is allowing a referendum to take people's rights away.

So let's make it a lot simpler for people to understand. We either have a referendum to take all constitutional protections for rights away, or we keep rights, embrace rights and stop trying to treat people as second class citizens because you have a problem with other people having rights.

How would you vote? Yes or no?

when you understand the issue, maybe we can talk, until then you are just looking foolish.

I don't understand the issue, or I'm saying something that you can't comprehend??? Hmmm.

Seriously, have you read the 14th Amendment at all?

respond to my post #332, or STFU.

 

[Plasmaball]

The 14th doesn't extend to sexual behaviors. No matter how much they want the world to suspend judgment and think of them as "a minority race". For they are not. And making this crucial error in premise is going to be the downfall of the gay-cult argument in Court.

I really don't see what "sexual behaviors" has to do with this.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

Is marriage a right or is it a privilege? Either way, gay people are citizens, ans as such the privilege, if it is one and not a right, shall not be abridged.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

liberty definition of liberty in Oxford dictionary American English US

"1) The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views:

1.1) (usually liberties) An instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties"

So an individual, regardless of sexual orientation, but just merely because they are a citizen of the USA, cannot be deprived of liberty. Now, liberty is basically being able to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt others, in essence liberty is human rights, and may also include privileges too.

So, how can the states deny someone their liberty, without due process of the law? The answer is they shouldn't be able to.

" nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection of the laws means that when they make a law, ALL CITIZENS should be protected equally, or have the same privileges or rights.
Clearly this isn't the case.

I'm not sure which bit of this doesn't cover gay people......

Then by your logic, the privelege of driving may not be denied to the blind.

Priveleges are conditional. Rights are not. Gays have neither the right nor the access to the privelege of marriage because they refuse to abide by its constructs defined by the majority: man/woman husband/wife father/mother. We set up those parameters because we as a majority decided that children do best in that description. Children's rights trump all. So we consider them first, gays, polygamists, incest pairings come second to children's civil rights.

Blind people can take taxis, but they cannot legally qualify to drive. A blind person driving can be predicted to harm other people. Gay people marrying can be predicted to harm children, given their cultural mores on display at a gay pride parade near you.

Sorry.

neat! this doesnt hold up as a legit argument.