Are really sure you want gay marriage?

[TemplarKormac]

View attachment 38313

Are really sure you want gay marriage?

Yes, we do. Real Americans value Equality. You aren't one so you won't understand.

So. Your argument is that I'm not a real American? Seriously?

Imagine how I felt when I got lambasted for defending gay rights, the reaction was that of "traitor!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

View attachment 38313

Are really sure you want gay marriage?

Yes, we do. Real Americans value Equality. You aren't one so you won't understand.

So. Your argument is that I'm not a real American? Seriously?

Is that your understanding? You do not value equality?

 

[JakeStarkey]

and a gigantic blue dog could chase our asses

let's live our lives as it is delivered to us

 

[kaz]

Are really sure you want gay marriage?

Yes, we do. Real Americans value Equality. You aren't one so you won't understand.

LOL, when have you ever supported "equality?"

 

[jillian]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...

Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.

As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.

As God's son he would have followed God's laws.

Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, O men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

G-d's son? Only in your belief system. Do you not get that?

 

[Mr.Right]

View attachment 38313

Are really sure you want gay marriage?

Yes, we do. Real Americans value Equality. You aren't one so you won't understand.

So. Your argument is that I'm not a real American? Seriously?

Is that your understanding? You do not value equality?

Do you value the ability of a very small minority using the legal system to tell people to accept their perverted lifestyle as valid, or suffer legal repercussions?

 

[Skylar]

Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.

I don't think 'venue shopping' means what you think it means. Gay marriage bans have been adjudicated at virtually every level of 6 different court districts, going all the way to the top of each district. 5 of 6 times, gay marriage bans were overturned, totally 46 different proceedings and over 75 judges.

44 times gay marriage bans lost. When 95% of all cases on a particular topic go in a specific way, that's a pretty strong indication of the weight of current precedent.

With the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. And denying stays for EVERY state attempting to defend such bans.

Without exception.

A majority of the judges were selected by Clinton and Obama, who don't give a flying **** about the actual text of the law.

Says you. The validity of a ruling isn't based on its agreement with you. But on its agreement with the constitution. And gay marriage bans fail the standards required of any abrogation of rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

View attachment 38313

Are really sure you want gay marriage?

Yes, we do. Real Americans value Equality. You aren't one so you won't understand.

So. Your argument is that I'm not a real American? Seriously?

Is that your understanding? You do not value equality?

Do you value the ability of a very small minority using the legal system to tell people to accept their perverted lifestyle as valid, or suffer legal repercussions?

You don't understand the Constitution at all.

 

[bripat9643]

Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.

I don't think 'venue shopping' means what you think it means. Gay marriage bans have been adjudicated at virtually every level of 6 different court districts, going all the way to the top of each district. 5 of 6 times, gay marriage bans were overturned, totally 46 different proceedings and over 75 judges.

44 times gay marriage bans lost. When 95% of all cases on a particular topic go in a specific way, that's a pretty strong indication of the weight of current precedent.

With the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. And denying stays for EVERY state attempting to defend such bans.

Without exception.

A majority of the judges were selected by Clinton and Obama, who don't give a flying **** about the actual text of the law.

Says you. The validity of a ruling isn't based on its agreement with you. But on its agreement with the constitution. And gay marriage bans fail the standards required of any abrogation of rights.

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

 

[Mr.Right]

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

And morality and common sense prove that you, and the SCOTUS, are full of crap.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

quiet, loon.

You don't want to touch it either.

Telling.

not really.

Yes, really. You and the other ghey marriage apologists are afraid to discuss the issue because you know you look like idiots whenever you try to claim it's OK for Adam to marry Steve but not OK for Adam to marry his mother or his adult sister.

Not sure I would go there since one, there were no laws then besides God's instructions, and two, Cain and Abel were ******* their younger sisters.

"Then?" I didn't mention a time frame. I meant now, not the mythical "then."

And, legally, you should be able to marry mommy, or your sister, but good luck with that since the US is not known for logic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

And morality and common sense prove that you, and the SCOTUS, are full of crap.

Same dead argument, different day.

 

[bripat9643]

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

The courts are not the arbiters of truth, Fakey.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't want to touch it either.

Telling.

not really.

Yes, really. You and the other ghey marriage apologists are afraid to discuss the issue because you know you look like idiots whenever you try to claim it's OK for Adam to marry Steve but not OK for Adam to marry his mother or his adult sister.

Not sure I would go there since one, there were no laws then besides God's instructions, and two, Cain and Abel were ******* their younger sisters.

"Then?" I didn't mention a time frame. I meant now, not the mythical "then."

And, legally, you should be able to marry mommy, or your sister, but good luck with that since the US is not known for logic.

And neither are gays.

 

[ChrisL]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Why does it matter so much to conservatives? I'll never understand WHY most are against gay marriage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To be clear, I don't want gay marriage, I don't like gay marriage, and frankly wished it never existed, and I'm to the point where I don't even care. But I also want the law to recognize them the way it does us. If you are attempting to use the legal system to ban one form of marriage, it isn't going to work. Don't think that just because I defend their rights on one specific issue that I have abandoned my personal beliefs on the subject. Far from it.

 

[Skylar]

Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.

I don't think 'venue shopping' means what you think it means. Gay marriage bans have been adjudicated at virtually every level of 6 different court districts, going all the way to the top of each district. 5 of 6 times, gay marriage bans were overturned, totally 46 different proceedings and over 75 judges.

44 times gay marriage bans lost. When 95% of all cases on a particular topic go in a specific way, that's a pretty strong indication of the weight of current precedent.

With the USSC preserving EVERY lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans. And denying stays for EVERY state attempting to defend such bans.

Without exception.

A majority of the judges were selected by Clinton and Obama, who don't give a flying **** about the actual text of the law.

Says you. The validity of a ruling isn't based on its agreement with you. But on its agreement with the constitution. And gay marriage bans fail the standards required of any abrogation of rights.

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

Again, says you.

No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

It doesn't make the slightest sense. Which again, may explain its 95% failure rate.

 

[Skylar]

No they don't. There is no right for Adam to marry Steve. Adam and Steve can never conceive a child, so there is no justification for them to be married.

The courts overwhelming have stated that on this point bripat is full of shit.

And morality and common sense prove that you, and the SCOTUS, are full of crap.

If you were a source of either morality or common sense, your post might have some meaning.

 

[Londoner]

We want a minimalist libertarian state that hands out contracts to consenting adults. We don't want a Big Moral Government who takes the place of churches by stipulating the kinds of acceptable marriage.

Unlike Republicans, who crave Government control of morality, I'd rather give the choice to the individuals involved and let them stand before God. They don't need the nanny moral state to keep them from harming themselves with bad choices. Maximize freedom and let God take care of the rest.

Republicans need government to uphold and impose morality on the rest of us. I wish they would let the rest of us move government out of the way. I don't want some Washington bureaucrat at the foot of every bed. Let families raise their children to be heterosexuals, not Washington.