Is Anyone Else Getting Tired Of The Queer Agenda???

[P@triot]

[Q

"lawless" nation? If I go out and rob a bank tomorrow and get caught, I will suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

Well there is some liberal "logic" at its finest. Just because we still hold a bank robber accountable, then we have not become a lawless nation. Even if we allow rape. Murder. Assault. ?

Well I can't help you with your twisted 'Conservative logic' which appears to have an entirely different definition of 'lawless' than the rest of the world.

The law is being enforced in the United States.
Lawless does not mean "what triot is pissed off about.

In other words....you irrational position has been exposed and you can't dispute it so you'll just change the subject and resort to personal attacks? Got it!

 

[P@triot]

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry.

No, you aren't. At all. Two guys filing a joint tax return just like every other married couple harms you in no way at all. A man being able to visit his spouse in the ICU harms you in no way at all.

You're full of shit.

Look at G-string taking an entire post and editing everything out because he can't dispute it. I'm sorry you're so pissed off that I'm right and your gay marriage is a major detriment to America G-string, but it is. Here is the actual post again (in its entirety) so that everyone can laugh at your inability to dispute what was said and your desperation to edit it out lest anyone see the facts:

1.) I'm harmed by the fact that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. I'm harmed by the fact that liberals have turned this into a lawless nation.

2.) I'm harmed by the fact that gay marriage has redefined marriage. And in turn, has opened Pandora's Box. There was no discrimination before. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That's simply what it was. But by illegally and unconstitutionally permitting gay marriage, we now may not prevent any form of marriage. Which means a muslim man can now legally marry 18 women (if we don't permit it - that is the purest form of discrimination as the Supreme Court illegally redefined marriage). So now you have to pay high insurance premiums for your company to cover 18 wives with health insurance. Is that fair to you? And oh yeah genius - the ICU must allow all 18 wives in to see that muslim husband. Do you have any idea how disruptive that is to an ICU? That's why they limit visitors genius. And get this - what happens when 9 of those wives say to pull the plug and the other 9 say to keep that muslim husband on life support? Then what genius? Who gets to decide? Some ******* court?!?!

3.) I'm harmed by the fact that liberals are so astoundingly ignorant and stupid, that they think every action occurs in a vacuum. They never once stop to think about what effect their idealistic desires will have on society - like now making us all pay for 18 wives of a muslim or have to decide what to do when 9 of those wives want to pull the plug while the other 9 want to keep him on life support.

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry. The entire county is harmed by it. How sad that you need something so simple and basic explained to you.

 

[P@triot]

I notice the pseudo cons don't want to "redefine" marriage, but don't hesitate to go along with redefining citizenship.

Nobody knows how to make stuff up like g-string does!

 

[P@triot]

2.) I'm harmed by the fact that gay marriage has redefined marriage.

It's not the first time marriage has been redefined in my lifetime. See below.

And in turn, has opened Pandora's Box. There was no discrimination before. Marriage was between one man and one woman. That's simply what it was.

The Supreme Court opened Pandora's box. There was no discrimination before. Marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race. That's simply what it was.

But by illegally and unconstitutionally permitting gay marriage, we now may not prevent any form of marriage.

Bullshit slippery slope fallacy.

You cannot provide a rational reason for banning gay or interracial marriage. All you bigots have ever had in the way of argument was, "We have always oppressed these people" and pretended it was all about tradition.

The Supreme Court unconstitutionally redefined marriage. They have now lost any and all grounds to prevent any form of marriage. They are discriminating if they attempt to prevent a man from having 18 wives or a woman from marrying chimp.

Actions do not occur in a vacuum. Unfortunately, those of a limited intellect just can't wrap their small minds around such a simple reality.

 

[P@triot]

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry.

No, you aren't. At all. Two guys filing a joint tax return just like every other married couple harms you in no way at all. A man being able to visit his spouse in the ICU harms you in no way at all.

You're full of shit.

I've been legally married since 2008...I hope that pains him every day.

Yeah...we know wytchy. You're selfish. You'd rather see the entire U.S. collapse than have to abandon either your ideology or your sexuality. We get it. You're very proud of your selfishness. I guess some people know no shame.

Incidentally, we've had to listen to you gloat in other threads about your selfishness to place your adopted children in a fucked up home where they don't have a mother and a father. Because....well...**** them, right? It all about you.

But here's the thing that you can't see because of your blind rage. I could care less that your married. Doesn't bother me a bit. Hell, you and your gay partner could live next door to me and it wouldn't bother me. Not the slightest shred. What bothers me is that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. But you want to avoid that at all costs. They were wrong - and you know it. So, in typical liberal fashion, you need to turn this into some absurd "homophobe" thing. After all, when a liberal gets their ass kicked with facts, they scream "racist" and run.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah I keep hearing that from bigots who hate the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. But the thing is- that just isn't true.

Same gender couples have been able to get married for over 10 years in Massachusetts- and it is still just as illegal as it has always been for a mother to marry her son, or for you to have 8 wives.

Bingo! The state of Massachusetts decided a long time ago to legalize gay marriage - as was their right. I had a couple of co-workers that left my state almost two decades ago and move to Vermont so that they could get married. That is constitutional government. That's how the U.S. was intended to work. 50 individual states, its citizens deciding for themselves the direction they want their world to move in. Gay people were free to move to state recognizing gay marriage. Those that didn't like it were free to move to states that didn't legalize gay marriage.

Thank you for making my case for me. You just unequivocally proved that Obergefell was 100% unconstitutional.

 

[P@triot]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

I've been saying it for decades. The contempt that liberals have for the United States is palpable. It's why they always bash the U.S., our history, and why they point to other nations as the "beacon" of ideal.

"We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country."

- Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[P@triot]

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling was no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than was Loving v. Virginia. You are about 50 years late to be so outraged.

Your desperate desire for something to not be true doesn't make it so. The ruling was an egregious violation of the 10th Amendment. You know it. I know it. Every single member of the Supreme Court knows it. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers. This could not be more obvious.

 

[Seawytch]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

 

[P@triot]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

 

[Seawytch]

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry.

No, you aren't. At all. Two guys filing a joint tax return just like every other married couple harms you in no way at all. A man being able to visit his spouse in the ICU harms you in no way at all.

You're full of shit.

I've been legally married since 2008...I hope that pains him every day.

Yeah...we know wytchy. You're selfish. You'd rather see the entire U.S. collapse than have to abandon either your ideology or your sexuality. We get it. You're very proud of your selfishness. I guess some people know no shame.

Incidentally, we've had to listen to you gloat in other threads about your selfishness to place your adopted children in a fucked up home where they don't have a mother and a father. Because....well...**** them, right? It all about you.

But here's the thing that you can't see because of your blind rage. I could care less that your married. Doesn't bother me a bit. Hell, you and your gay partner could live next door to me and it wouldn't bother me. Not the slightest shred. What bothers me is that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. But you want to avoid that at all costs. They were wrong - and you know it. So, in typical liberal fashion, you need to turn this into some absurd "homophobe" thing. After all, when a liberal gets their ass kicked with facts, they scream "racist" and run.

Nope, that doesn't read like a temper tantrum at all.

 

[P@triot]

I'm horribly harmed by same gender couples being unconstitutionally permitted to marry.

No, you aren't. At all. Two guys filing a joint tax return just like every other married couple harms you in no way at all. A man being able to visit his spouse in the ICU harms you in no way at all.

You're full of shit.

I've been legally married since 2008...I hope that pains him every day.

Yeah...we know wytchy. You're selfish. You'd rather see the entire U.S. collapse than have to abandon either your ideology or your sexuality. We get it. You're very proud of your selfishness. I guess some people know no shame.

Incidentally, we've had to listen to you gloat in other threads about your selfishness to place your adopted children in a fucked up home where they don't have a mother and a father. Because....well...**** them, right? It all about you.

But here's the thing that you can't see because of your blind rage. I could care less that your married. Doesn't bother me a bit. Hell, you and your gay partner could live next door to me and it wouldn't bother me. Not the slightest shred. What bothers me is that the Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. But you want to avoid that at all costs. They were wrong - and you know it. So, in typical liberal fashion, you need to turn this into some absurd "homophobe" thing. After all, when a liberal gets their ass kicked with facts, they scream "racist" and run.

Nope, that doesn't read like a temper tantrum at all.

For once we agree! You need to keep the focus off of the federal government's illegal actions at all costs because it doesn't suit your agenda.

 

[Seawytch]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

Right...Case law going back to the 60s, but i'ts unconstitutional 'cause Puppy says so.

 

[Seawytch]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

Right...Case law going back to the 60s, but i'ts unconstitutional 'cause Puppy says so.

 

[kaz]

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling was no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than was Loving v. Virginia. You are about 50 years late to be so outraged.

Your desperate desire for something to not be true doesn't make it so. The ruling was an egregious violation of the 10th Amendment. You know it. I know it. Every single member of the Supreme Court knows it. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers. This could not be more obvious.

Liberals can't spin their way out of that being gay did not change who you could marry, being black did change who you could marry. So they as you said just ignored the 10th which gives the federal government no power over what they want the laws to say and dictated it to them

 

[P@triot]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

Right...Case law going back to the 60s, but i'ts unconstitutional 'cause Puppy says so.

You just admitted it! "Case Law" is not the Constitution.

Again wytchy...this is just as stupid as saying "Ted Bundy raped and murdered dozens of women so it must be ok to do". Just because the U.S. Constitution was violated in the 1960's doesn't make it ok to violate it again. The fact that you hate the U.S. Constitution so much because it prevents you from imposing your will on others speaks volumes.

"We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country."

-Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[P@triot]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

Right...Case law going back to the 60s, but i'ts unconstitutional 'cause Puppy says so.

The federal government has 18 enumerated powers sweetie. Would you like to attempt to tell us which of those 18 powers grants them authority over marriage? Oops...

 

[Seawytch]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

Right...Case law going back to the 60s, but i'ts unconstitutional 'cause Puppy says so.

You just admitted it! "Case Law" is not the Constitution.

Again wytchy...this is just as stupid as saying "Ted Bundy raped and murdered dozens of women so it must be ok to do". Just because the U.S. Constitution was violated in the 1960's doesn't make it ok to violate it again. The fact that you hate the U.S. Constitution so much because it prevents you from imposing your will on others speaks volumes.

"We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country."

-Alexis de Tocqueville

The Supreme Court of the United States found that marriage is a fundamental right on multiple occasions and with different justices. Your strawman doesn't fly, Puppy. The SCOTUS never ruled on murder being a constitutional right, but they DID rule on marriage being one. A right you can't deny interracial couples, formerly divorced people, incarcerated individuals or gay people. It is a recognized constitutional right, unlike your silly murder, death, kill scenario.

It's a done deal. Blacks are marrying whites, gays are marrying each other and Ted Bundy could have married while in prison.

You gonna have another meltdown over it? Change your name again? Poor little Puppy.

 

[Syriusly]

Nonsensical. Completely and totally nonsensical. Gay people could vote. Gay people could march. Gay people could carry firearms. Not one of their rights was ever violated.

But this ruling was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This ruling was no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than was Loving v. Virginia. You are about 50 years late to be so outraged.

Your desperate desire for something to not be true doesn't make it so. The ruling was an egregious violation of the 10th Amendment. You know it. I know it. Every single member of the Supreme Court knows it. Marriage is not one of the 18 enumerated powers. This could not be more obvious.

Liberals can't spin their way out of that being gay did not change who you could marry, being black did change who you could marry. So they as you said just ignored the 10th which gives the federal government no power over what they want the laws to say and dictated it to them

The exact same logic was used by the State of Virginia to prevent mixed race couples from marrying as was used by States arguing against same gender marriage.

Virginia said "Blacks can marry anyone that they wanted- as long as they marry another black"
Georgia said "A man can marry anyone he wants to- as long as he marries someone of another gender"

In both cases- the Supreme Court correctly decided in favor of the rights of Americans under the 14th Amendment- as the Supreme Court had done three previous times.

 

[Syriusly]

But they will argue that Loving was a good ruling and Obergefell a bad one. Because? Well....duh, gay.

You wish sweetie. The federal government has no authority over marriage. It's just that simple. It's for each state to decide.

So you're willing to admit here on this message board that the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v Virginia was a bad ruling? Pretty please?

Nice straw man. It's not "good" or "bad". It's unconstitutional. The federal government has zero authority over marriage. How hard is this for you to understand?

Right...Case law going back to the 60s, but i'ts unconstitutional 'cause Puppy says so.

The federal government has 18 enumerated powers sweetie. Would you like to attempt to tell us which of those 18 powers grants them authority over marriage? Oops...

The 14th Amendment- once again- provides equal protection. And we all have the right to marriage- even you.



Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"


In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"