A Simple Question For Those Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

[Silhouette]

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex? So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex? So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex? So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

Oh, spare me. There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex? So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

Oh, spare me. There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.

Same sex couples weren't fighting for the right to marry like everyone else?

You might want to tell the Supreme Court that. As the Obergefell ruling seems to contradict your assumptions rather elegantly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex? So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

Oh, spare me. There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.

Same sex couples weren't fighting for the right to marry like everyone else?

You might want to tell the Supreme Court that. As the Obergefell ruling seems to contradict your assumptions rather elegantly.

No, they aren't. They're fighting for the "right" to marry in a way that no one else does, or can.

You might want to consider that the Supreme Court is hardly infallible, and that it's very suspicious that leftists only consider their decisions to be unchangeable gospel from on high when they agree with them. Otherwise, they seem to view those decisions as strangely meaningless and ephemeral. Curious, that.

 

[Silhouette]

The 2015 USSC was undisguised as in-pocket for the LGBT cult. The 2018 Court won't be that as much. Obergefell (fed decides marriage for the states) overturned Windsor (states decide marriage for the fed) in 2 years' time. So quick turnarounds do have precedent in the USSC. Recent precedent too.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex? So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

Oh, spare me. There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.

Same sex couples weren't fighting for the right to marry like everyone else?

You might want to tell the Supreme Court that. As the Obergefell ruling seems to contradict your assumptions rather elegantly.

No, they aren't. They're fighting for the "right" to marry in a way that no one else does, or can.

Same sex couples fought for the right to marry....just like any other couple. And they won. As demonstrated elegantly by same sex marriage being recognized and legal in 50 of 50 states.

You might want to consider that the Supreme Court is hardly infallible, and that it's very suspicious that leftists only consider their decisions to be unchangeable gospel from on high when they agree with them. Otherwise, they seem to view those decisions as strangely meaningless and ephemeral. Curious, that.

I consider their rulings legally authoritative on issues of rights and the constitution.

And so does the State you live in. As same sex marriage is legal there too.

 

[Skylar]

The 2015 USSC was undisguised as in-pocket for the LGBT cult. The 2018 Court won't be that as much. Obergefell (fed decides marriage for the states) overturned Windsor (states decide marriage for the fed) in 2 years' time. So quick turnarounds do have precedent in the USSC. Recent precedent too.

Sigh....another batshit conspiracy, Sil?

Is this where you start babbling about how Kennedy must be gay and start ranting about how 'the gays' have infiltrated Gallup polling again?

 

[Vinnieboombotz]

In my opinion racists who marry and have children are for more dangerous than gays.

 

[Circe]

Did you know it's illegal to possess a contract that banishes children away from a necessity; one that holds them in psychological bondage away from either a mother or father for life? Did you know there is no language at all in the US Constitution protecting just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polygamists)? That quagmire Obergefell that you call "settled" is in no way at all legally binding. I'm looking for a southern state to push the issue once a conservative Court is in place. Enjoy Obergefell while you can.

You remind me of a very leftist lady in a group I was in some 18 years ago, who kept telling us about how wonderful it was that her homosexual brother who had a black homosexual mate, and they had adopted a black baby, a boy, in New Jersey. It didn't seem wonderful to me: it seemed like a school for sex perversion. I suppose converting children is the only way homosexuals can reproduce, and I'm surprised the state of New Jersey allows such a thing. I guess they just don't have ANYone to adopt unwanted black children and are desperate. The issue must be that some care is better than no care at all, in a state orphanage. I don't think this sort of thing is right all the same -- poor kid! -- and should be stopped.

 

[Circe]

[QUOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 18771051, member: 54822
Still obsessed with child sexual abuse I see while failing to show that gay men are more likely to prey on children than straight men.[/QUOTE]

The whole entire world knows that homosexual males prey on boys wildly more than anyone else. Also teens. Like that Rep. Mark Foley who was constantly and obscenely propositioning male pages in Congress, till they finally threw him out. I think they should stop doing it. it's a pretty terrible thing to do, to convert children and teens to such a perverse lifestyle.

 

[Skylar]

Did you know it's illegal to possess a contract that banishes children away from a necessity; one that holds them in psychological bondage away from either a mother or father for life?

Did you know that your personal opinion isn't a legal argument?

As no such restrictions on any marriage actually exist in the law.

Did you know there is no language at all in the US Constitution protecting just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others like polygamists)?

1) 9th amendment: not all rights must be enumerated.

2) The basis of the right to marry isn't sex.

Really, this is getting embarrassing.

That quagmire Obergefell that you call "settled" is in no way at all legally binding.

Laughing......the 50 of 50 states that now recognize same sex marriage would disagree.

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah. The gays don't want black oppression to be a distant foggy memory. Otherwise what else could they ride the coattails of to milk sympathy for their cult of ass sex? So much more sanitary to market that crap "as equal to racial oppression!"

Very nice of them too, the comparison of a noble race to a dude humping another guys asshole.

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

Oh, spare me. There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.

Same sex couples weren't fighting for the right to marry like everyone else?

You might want to tell the Supreme Court that. As the Obergefell ruling seems to contradict your assumptions rather elegantly.

No, they aren't. They're fighting for the "right" to marry in a way that no one else does, or can.

Same sex couples fought for the right to marry....just like any other couple. And they won. As demonstrated elegantly by same sex marriage being recognized and legal in 50 of 50 states.

You might want to consider that the Supreme Court is hardly infallible, and that it's very suspicious that leftists only consider their decisions to be unchangeable gospel from on high when they agree with them. Otherwise, they seem to view those decisions as strangely meaningless and ephemeral. Curious, that.

I consider their rulings legally authoritative on issues of rights and the constitution.

And so does the State you live in. As same sex marriage is legal there too.

No, they fought for the "right" to legal sanction of same-sex relationships, something no one else had ever had. It's only "just like everyone else" if you're dumb enough to believe that women and men are exactly alike and interchangeable, which I know you don't really believe, or you wouldn't be very good at toeing the feminist line or the transgender "I'm a woman/man in my head" line. You can't have it all ways at once, y'know.

Also, they didn't "won" much of anything, really. You leftists are always in such a rush to get your own way by hook or by crook and to force your will onto everyone else that you never see the logical conclusion of your actions. If they really wanted to win a lasting achievement, they'd have gone by way of public opinion and votes instead of judicial fiat. I don't think I'd be touting a "victory" that causes more hostility and conflict than there was to start with. Rather Pyrrhic, in my opinion.

ALL of their rulings are on the issues of rights and the Constitution, dumbass. That's their JOB. You consider their rulings legally authoritative when it gives you your way, and at no other time. You can bullshit yourself about that if you like, but I'M not stupid enough to believe you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

QUOTE="TheProgressivePatriot, post: 18771051, member: 54822]
Still obsessed with child sexual abuse I see while failing to show that gay men are more likely to prey on children than straight men.[/QUOTE]

The whole entire world knows that homosexual males prey on boys wildly more than anyone else. Also teens. Like that Rep. Mark Foley who was constantly and obscenely propositioning male pages in Congress, till they finally threw him out. I think they should stop doing it. it's a pretty terrible thing to do, to convert children and teens to such a perverse lifestyle.

The whole entire world? What world is that ? The narrow, isolated bubble world of bigots who are to ignorant to know that there's a difference between gay man and pedophiles?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

Oh, spare me. There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.

Same sex couples weren't fighting for the right to marry like everyone else?

You might want to tell the Supreme Court that. As the Obergefell ruling seems to contradict your assumptions rather elegantly.

No, they aren't. They're fighting for the "right" to marry in a way that no one else does, or can.

Same sex couples fought for the right to marry....just like any other couple. And they won. As demonstrated elegantly by same sex marriage being recognized and legal in 50 of 50 states.

You might want to consider that the Supreme Court is hardly infallible, and that it's very suspicious that leftists only consider their decisions to be unchangeable gospel from on high when they agree with them. Otherwise, they seem to view those decisions as strangely meaningless and ephemeral. Curious, that.

I consider their rulings legally authoritative on issues of rights and the constitution.

And so does the State you live in. As same sex marriage is legal there too.

No, they fought for the "right" to legal sanction of same-sex relationships, something no one else had ever had. It's only "just like everyone else" if you're dumb enough to believe that women and men are exactly alike and interchangeable, which I know you don't really believe, or you wouldn't be very good at toeing the feminist line or the transgender "I'm a woman/man in my head" line. You can't have it all ways at once, y'know.

Also, they didn't "won" much of anything, really. You leftists are always in such a rush to get your own way by hook or by crook and to force your will onto everyone else that you never see the logical conclusion of your actions. If they really wanted to win a lasting achievement, they'd have gone by way of public opinion and votes instead of judicial fiat. I don't think I'd be touting a "victory" that causes more hostility and conflict than there was to start with. Rather Pyrrhic, in my opinion.

ALL of their rulings are on the issues of rights and the Constitution, dumbass. That's their JOB. You consider their rulings legally authoritative when it gives you your way, and at no other time. You can bullshit yourself about that if you like, but I'M not stupid enough to believe you.

That is quite a boatload of bizarre ,bigoted bovine excrement. I take it you're not happy with the ruling.?? Perhaps you could your position a little bit more coherently. Who is it that said men and women are interchangeable ? And, what exactly does that have to do with the marriage issue? And drop the crap about transgender too.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'milk sympathy', you mean enjoy the same rights as everyone else?

Oh, spare me. There is nothing that they're fighting for that is a "right" enjoyed by other people, however much they try to dress it up as such.

Same sex couples weren't fighting for the right to marry like everyone else?

You might want to tell the Supreme Court that. As the Obergefell ruling seems to contradict your assumptions rather elegantly.

No, they aren't. They're fighting for the "right" to marry in a way that no one else does, or can.

Same sex couples fought for the right to marry....just like any other couple. And they won. As demonstrated elegantly by same sex marriage being recognized and legal in 50 of 50 states.

You might want to consider that the Supreme Court is hardly infallible, and that it's very suspicious that leftists only consider their decisions to be unchangeable gospel from on high when they agree with them. Otherwise, they seem to view those decisions as strangely meaningless and ephemeral. Curious, that.

I consider their rulings legally authoritative on issues of rights and the constitution.

And so does the State you live in. As same sex marriage is legal there too.

No, they fought for the "right" to legal sanction of same-sex relationships, something no one else had ever had.

They fought for the right to marry, just like anyone else. And won.

 

[Syriusly]

If things are settled, why have a Supreme Court in the first place. Gay Marriage WAS settled, until it wasn't.

Why should I have to explain this? The SCOTUS is who settled it.

It was "settled" illegally using judicial-legislation .

It is impossible for the Supreme Court to settle anything illegally.

Literally legally impossible.

 

[Syriusly]

BTW- if you’re ultimate concern is for children based on the misconception that a homosexual couple can’t raise a healthy and well adjusted child, then I suggest you do some research.

There's no research necessary..

Silhouette doesn't need research- the voices in her head are all she needs.

 

[Syriusly]

They can be married

/thread

They legalize gay marriage and it is still not enough. They must still convince every person on the planet it is OK.

Something tells me deep down they know better.

They freed the slaves but somehow that was not enough . The black folks wanted more too. Your thoughts??

Actually, until the leftists infected the black community with their poisonous attitudes in the 60s, what they really wanted was just to be left alone to live their lives.

Wow.....I wonder if you mean the 1860's or 1960's?

Anyone surprised that Cecile thinks that before the Civil Rights movement (or during slavery?) blacks were just happy as can be to be denied their voting rights, and to be lynched.

 

[Syriusly]

A race of people is not = to deviant sex behaviors. .

Well good thing that marriage is not based upon any sex behaviors.