DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[bigrebnc1775]

The millions and millions of straight people in Africa with AIDS approve of this message.



>>>>

When did the North American Continent start looking like Africa?

Where did you limit your comment to the North American Continent?

You didn't, the fact is AIDS (actually HIV) thrives in areas where heterosexuals practice unprotected sex to a great degree.



>>>>

When I first said aids attacked the gay community when it was first observed in America that's when I did it.

 

[Nosmo King]

As there are no rational answers to this question: 'What harm will befall you personally by same sex marriage equality?' those with the capability for rational thought must dismiss objections to same sex marriage equality as invalid.

If objections are invalid there remains no rational reason to oppose same sex marriage equality.

Those still posing objections have yet to make their case. So, we must then presume that those still posing objections are just objecting to homosexuality altogether.

As homosexuality is a personal choice and has no adverse affects on the institution of marriage or personal lives and is not criminal behavior, those objecting must be seen for what they are: bigots and small minded haters without the capacity for rationality in this area.

Why then are they potent enough to throw roadblocks up in the way of liberty? Do they claim to be Americans? What then about America do they love? It certainly isn't the liberty and freedom we have here.

It's as if we are back in the 1960s arguing for the basic freedoms for African Americans. No rational objections were posed then, and, as a result of the protections of law all Americans now enjoy, we have a stronger nation. We could not, nor should we, hold any moral authority while we allow blatant discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation.

 

[mal]

You consider IV drug users and those who sleep with the same gender while claiming to be straight as the "normal" side of the aisle? (I am assuming you meant aisle, since the normal side of an island would be silly)

But you didn't answer the question. How would allowing them to marry effect the spread of AIDs?

It started with gays that's enough right their.

Actually HIV started with SIV and infected straights and was spread by straights, it wasn't until years later it came to gays in the United States.



>>>>

So how's the SIV Rate with Heteros compared with the HIV Rate with Homos?...

That's right, 3 Decades after it's Appearance it is still Overwhelmingly a Gay Male Disease in the First World.

Let me know when that HeteroHIVPlague get's to us.



peace...

 

[mal]

Aids thrives in gay sex.

The millions and millions of straight people in Africa with AIDS approve of this message.



>>>>

Yep... You bet. Unclean Vaccinations, Genital Mutilation, Poor and Uneducated People who Believe Raping Babies is the Cure...

Now that you are done Hating on Poor Africans, tell me what the Excuse is for the 1 in 4 Rate in San Francisco among Educated First World Homosexuals.



peace...

 

[Papageorgio]

So two brothers marrying is okay but a brother and sister getting married is wrong? Why?

 

[del]

Gay's doin't want to pull their weight they want non gays to keep supplying human life.

Quoted for stupidity.

When people view abnormal as normal thats when things get really stupid.

good to see you pulling your weight to alleviate the stupidity shortfall

 

[WinterBorn]

For some reason it found it's way into the normal people side of the isle. I wonder how that happened?

You consider IV drug users and those who sleep with the same gender while claiming to be straight as the "normal" side of the aisle? (I am assuming you meant aisle, since the normal side of an island would be silly)

But you didn't answer the question. How would allowing them to marry effect the spread of AIDs?

It started with gays that's enough right their.

No, it is not enough. It is nonsense. Plus, straights who have AIDs are allowed to marry, so your use of AIDs as a reason not to allow gays to marry is simply evidence of your bigotry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So two brothers marrying is okay but a brother and sister getting married is wrong? Why?

Sigh. Can two brothers create a child? That's the first objection to your stupid comment.

 

[WinterBorn]

LMAO!! Oh, is the survival of the human race threatened??

Actually, gays pay plenty of taxes used for things that only effect families.

I tell you what gays can live together on an island and even marry let's see how long that island remains populated. 30 years maybe.

It's called Manhattan.

This island, with all the gay men, would be the best decorated island anywhere. And when the more butch lesbians were finished, it would be well constructed and safe.

My question is what happens to the fashion industry when you remove all the gay men? Will we be wearing rags?

 

[Ravi]

You consider IV drug users and those who sleep with the same gender while claiming to be straight as the "normal" side of the aisle? (I am assuming you meant aisle, since the normal side of an island would be silly)

But you didn't answer the question. How would allowing them to marry effect the spread of AIDs?

It started with gays that's enough right their.

No, it is not enough. It is nonsense. Plus, straights who have AIDs are allowed to marry, so your use of AIDs as a reason not to allow gays to marry is simply evidence of your bigotry.

Not to mention that it didn't start with gays....

 

[WinterBorn]

Yep isn't that just like the left to support more people who do not want to pull their weight and share the burden of helping the human race survive?

Help the human race survive? Are you this stupid in real life?

I would love too see a gay couple create life and pull their weight to help keep the human race going. But they can't

I can't believe you are continuing this nonsense argument.

There is no threat to the human race by a lack of population.

And how will allowing gays (who aren't going to create life as single people either) to marry going to do anything at all to the population growth??

 

[SillyWabbit]

Except that the legal rational is different. In a 14th Amendment analysis, restrictions based on sex undergo intermediate scrutiny, while a restriction on family relations would only need to pass a rational basis test.

What the SCOTUS called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" is a Right that EVERY American of Consenting Age has...

The Right to Marriage.

Because some Choose to Defy their Natural Design and Equipment is not Society's Burden.

Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal.

One Produces Life and the other does not yet ALL of us are Equipped and Designed for one of them.



peace...

But producing life isn't required for marriage. We let the elderly marry and people who are infertile.

Well, there you are: Old folks and the barren can get married, now look who wants to join the party. Marriage is strictly for men and the 10 year olds they knock up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Guess it was that damn racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic DEMOCRAT president in 1996 that allowed DOMA to be passed...Bill Clinton.

It was also every single Republican Senator and Represenative except one.

 

[WinterBorn]

It started with gays that's enough right their.

Actually HIV started with SIV and infected straights and was spread by straights, it wasn't until years later it came to gays in the United States.



>>>>

So how's the SIV Rate with Heteros compared with the HIV Rate with Homos?...

That's right, 3 Decades after it's Appearance it is still Overwhelmingly a Gay Male Disease in the First World.

Let me know when that HeteroHIVPlague get's to us.



peace...

And allowing gays to marry will have what effect on the rate of HIV in the US??

Unless you can explain how allowing two people to join in a committed relationship will cause an increase in the rate of HIV transmission, it is a ridiculous argument.

 

[Nosmo King]

I tell you what gays can live together on an island and even marry let's see how long that island remains populated. 30 years maybe.

It's called Manhattan.

This island, with all the gay men, would be the best decorated island anywhere. And when the more butch lesbians were finished, it would be well constructed and safe.

My question is what happens to the fashion industry when you remove all the gay men? Will we be wearing rags?

What would happen to the Broadway stage? When you die, who will arrange the floral tributes at your funeral?

There remains no logical reason to oppose same sex marriage equality. And there are plenty of reasons not to dismiss homosexuals.

 

[Pho_King]

As there are no rational answers to this question: 'What harm will befall you personally by same sex marriage equality?' those with the capability for rational thought must dismiss objections to same sex marriage equality as invalid.
If objections are invalid there remains no rational reason to oppose same sex marriage equality.

Those still posing objections have yet to make their case. So, we must then presume that those still posing objections are just objecting to homosexuality altogether.

As homosexuality is a personal choice and has no adverse affects on the institution of marriage or personal lives and is not criminal behavior, those objecting must be seen for what they are: bigots and small minded haters without the capacity for rationality in this area.

Why then are they potent enough to throw roadblocks up in the way of liberty? Do they claim to be Americans? What then about America do they love? It certainly isn't the liberty and freedom we have here.

It's as if we are back in the 1960s arguing for the basic freedoms for African Americans. No rational objections were posed then, and, as a result of the protections of law all Americans now enjoy, we have a stronger nation. We could not, nor should we, hold any moral authority while we allow blatant discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation.

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

 

[Pho_King]

So two brothers marrying is okay but a brother and sister getting married is wrong? Why?

Sigh. Can two brothers create a child? That's the first objection to your stupid comment.

What does marriage have to do with pregnancy, retard?

 

[Nosmo King]

As there are no rational answers to this question: 'What harm will befall you personally by same sex marriage equality?' those with the capability for rational thought must dismiss objections to same sex marriage equality as invalid.
If objections are invalid there remains no rational reason to oppose same sex marriage equality.

Those still posing objections have yet to make their case. So, we must then presume that those still posing objections are just objecting to homosexuality altogether.

As homosexuality is a personal choice and has no adverse affects on the institution of marriage or personal lives and is not criminal behavior, those objecting must be seen for what they are: bigots and small minded haters without the capacity for rationality in this area.

Why then are they potent enough to throw roadblocks up in the way of liberty? Do they claim to be Americans? What then about America do they love? It certainly isn't the liberty and freedom we have here.

It's as if we are back in the 1960s arguing for the basic freedoms for African Americans. No rational objections were posed then, and, as a result of the protections of law all Americans now enjoy, we have a stronger nation. We could not, nor should we, hold any moral authority while we allow blatant discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation.

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

 

[bodecea]

I tell you what gays can live together on an island and even marry let's see how long that island remains populated. 30 years maybe.

It's called Manhattan.

They are allowed to escape there.

Oh, that's right. You believe in Concentration Camps.

 

[Pho_King]

As there are no rational answers to this question: 'What harm will befall you personally by same sex marriage equality?' those with the capability for rational thought must dismiss objections to same sex marriage equality as invalid.
If objections are invalid there remains no rational reason to oppose same sex marriage equality.

Those still posing objections have yet to make their case. So, we must then presume that those still posing objections are just objecting to homosexuality altogether.

As homosexuality is a personal choice and has no adverse affects on the institution of marriage or personal lives and is not criminal behavior, those objecting must be seen for what they are: bigots and small minded haters without the capacity for rationality in this area.

Why then are they potent enough to throw roadblocks up in the way of liberty? Do they claim to be Americans? What then about America do they love? It certainly isn't the liberty and freedom we have here.

It's as if we are back in the 1960s arguing for the basic freedoms for African Americans. No rational objections were posed then, and, as a result of the protections of law all Americans now enjoy, we have a stronger nation. We could not, nor should we, hold any moral authority while we allow blatant discrimination based on immutable characteristics like skin color or sexual orientation.

Nosmo- you seem like a rational, decent poster. But this is absurd. Just because the question posed is meaninglerss, does not mean that there are no valid reasons for opposition to gay marriage. What harm would befall you if we could marry donkeys? None? Are you in favor of such legal relationships? Are you a bigot? A small-minded hater? Incapable of rational though on the matter?

I recognize marriage as a contract. Contracts are entered by adults, not animals. The donkey proposition is a strawman.

It is not a strawman- it is a valid illustration of the absurdity of your belief that no objection to gay marriage is reasonable or valid if the objector cannot describe personal damage to himself that would occur in the face of gay marriage.