Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[bodecea]

you libs have that wrapped up. Keep them in the ghettos where you can buy their votes with EBT cards and free cheese. Keep them dumb so you can brainwash them.

BTW, which recent president had the most minorities in his adminsitration? Hint--its not clinton or obama.

I cannot understand why minorities don't flock to the Right wing when they see attitudes like yours.

Bodecea never did like the truth Redfish...

I think you should carry on with your raping analogies.

 

[bodecea]

State laws cannot be forced on churches. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Haven't you heard of the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't stop cum-guzzlers like you from trying to outlaw guns...

Now go away sweetie and play with your dolls. Let the adults talk.

Where does the 2nd Amendment say "guns"?

 

[DoItMyself]

Keeping social order is one of the governments few legitimate roles, and homosexuals are not meant to be lawfully married. Its just not right.

But those laws can be on the books, without having bloated agencies of tax guzzling employees enforcing them. Just keep it illegal on paper, and that way, the paperwork will never allow the bad parts.

 

[Seawytch]

I reserve the right to react negatively to male homosexual behavior; however certain female homosexual activities and participants can be delightful to the eye and other organs.

As long as "reacting negatively" doesn't occur outside the confines of your own person-hood, no problem.

I still search for poster with a sense of humor.....

Like a wall poster with a humorous saying?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Keeping social order is one of the governments few legitimate roles, and homosexuals are not meant to be lawfully married. Its just not right.

But those laws can be on the books, without having bloated agencies of tax guzzling employees enforcing them. Just keep it illegal on paper, and that way, the paperwork will never allow the bad parts.

Thank you for your subjective, ignorant, and legally irrelevant opinion.

And fortunately we have a Constitution that protects citizens – in this case same-sex couples – from the ignorance and hate you and many others on the right exhibit toward homosexuals.

You are of course at liberty to hate homosexuals to your heart’s content; you are not at liberty, however, to seek to codify that hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Get over yourself . Stop telling people that they have to tolerate their 1st amendment rights of freedom of religion being destroyed just so you can feel good about your gay friends. If you think this is about marriage you are a idiot because it isn't. It is about forcing a Religion to change its ways... It is about destroying religion and you like the good progressive tool you are help them.

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

You may not be stupid but you’re clearly ignorant.

Private sector entities such as churches aren’t subject to Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, consequently they can’t be ‘sued,’ as no judge would validate the complaint.

 

[P@triot]

State laws cannot be forced on churches. Haven't you ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Haven't you heard of the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't stop cum-guzzlers like you from trying to outlaw guns...

Now go away sweetie and play with your dolls. Let the adults talk.

Where does the 2nd Amendment say "guns"?

It says arms genius. Arms is another word for guns. You clearly lied about your military service if you don't know this.

So which is it bodecea - did you lie about your military service or are you lying about the 2nd Amendment. I just proved you're lying about one of them. Which is it?

arms
ärmz/
noun
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel More

 

[P@triot]

I cannot understand why minorities don't flock to the Right wing when they see attitudes like yours.

Bodecea never did like the truth Redfish...

I think you should carry on with your raping analogies.

Oh - you mean our laws which you claim are "open to interpretation"? Well, except when it's a law that you like/support. Then that is suddenly and magically set in stone. But any other law, well hell, that doesn't have to be obeyed. It's "open to interpretation"..

I noticed you ran for the hills when I pointed out how you are adamant that speed limits and laws against rape are not open for interpretation. I love it when a Dumbocrat acknowledges they were wrong in their own, special, immature way...

 

[bodecea]

Bodecea never did like the truth Redfish...

I think you should carry on with your raping analogies.

Oh - you mean our laws which you claim are "open to interpretation"? Well, except when it's a law that you like/support. Then that is suddenly and magically set in stone. But any other law, well hell, that doesn't have to be obeyed. It's "open to interpretation"..

I noticed you ran for the hills when I pointed out how you are adamant that speed limits and laws against rape are not open for interpretation. I love it when a Dumbocrat acknowledges they were wrong in their own, special, immature way...

The Federal courts interpret the laws when there are questions as to what applies....but two points you seem to be too stupid to see:

1) the courts ONLY hear cases that are brought to them, which means there already is a question about a law's meaning

2) the courts do the interpreting, NOT you when you break into a home and rape some woman.

 

[P@triot]

I think you should carry on with your raping analogies.

Oh - you mean our laws which you claim are "open to interpretation"? Well, except when it's a law that you like/support. Then that is suddenly and magically set in stone. But any other law, well hell, that doesn't have to be obeyed. It's "open to interpretation"..

I noticed you ran for the hills when I pointed out how you are adamant that speed limits and laws against rape are not open for interpretation. I love it when a Dumbocrat acknowledges they were wrong in their own, special, immature way...

The Federal courts interpret the laws when there are questions as to what applies....but two points you seem to be too stupid to see:

1) the courts ONLY hear cases that are brought to them, which means there already is a question about a law's meaning

2) the courts do the interpreting, NOT you when you break into a home and rape some woman.

But if laws are "open to interpretation" [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION], then according to you I can break into your house and rape you - then take it to the courts to (and I quote you here) "do the interpreting". And I can claim that I figured the courts would support me since it's ambiguous in your eyes.

See, this is where you fail miserably bodecea and the final nail I've been waiting to drive into your debate coffin. A law can NEVER be "open to interpretation" because it would literally be impossible to be compliant with a law that changes from person to person, based on the view of the person sitting on the bench.

There is a reason laws are written in black and white and set in stone. It's the ONLY way they could be obeyed.

Sorry sweetie, you lose. The U.S. Constitution never granted anyone the authority to "interpret" it. It says exactly what it says, it means exactly what it says, and it is to be followed. It is set in stone until amended.

You are dead wrong on this and I have proved it. A law that is "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be obeyed.

 

[thanatos144]

When are you people going to learn that the fight for same sex marriage equality has nothing to do with changing your religion?

The fight for same sex marriage has all to do with getting the government to recognize the same sex marriages performed by the religions that already willingly marry same sex couples these days.

If a religion decides it wants to start marrying gay people, that's a decision that will come the leaders of that the religion as well as the congregation.

No law in the land will ever force a certain religion to marry gay people. Period.

Your prattle about gays forcing your religion to accept gay marriage makes you look like unintelligent and unaware of the real issue.

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

You may not be stupid but you’re clearly ignorant.

Private sector entities such as churches aren’t subject to Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, consequently they can’t be ‘sued,’ as no judge would validate the complaint.

Ignorant means of lack of knowledge which I do not have in this instance Hey dummy First Amendment right to worship First Amendment rights that says the government cannot force Church or religion to change its believes 21 that the government says is appropriate since no one is killed in property is in don't want from them there is no need for government to even be into the marriage business I really don't f****** care of homosexuals marry I do give a s*** that you try and force the Church in to recognizing it they don't need to. You see the one ignoring here right now is you should be used as you normally are a stupid f***

tapatalk post

 

[KevinWestern]

Actually racist southerners created the KKK. The Democratic party that existed in 1870 is not equal to the one that exists today.

What about Lincoln pushing a big gov't agenda - as a Republican - when he sought to abolish slavery Federally. Today's GOP would lean more towards the idea of "states rights". A lot of things change in 140 years.

I'm going to take a stab it thank you still believe Santa is real to you f****** idiot?

tapatalk post

Which part of my post do you not agree with?

1.) Did racist southerners not create the KKK?
2.) Have the Democratic/Republican Parties not changed at all since 1870?
3.) Did Lincoln not wish to abolish slavery via Federal (and not state) action?

Put your money where your mouth is Thanatos, and explain exactly where I was incorrect.

Thanatos, still awaiting a response on the above post. You called me a F*cking idiot, and would appreciate you to elaborate why by going through the three bulleted points above.

 

[bodecea]

Haven't you heard of the 2nd Amendment? Doesn't stop cum-guzzlers like you from trying to outlaw guns...

Now go away sweetie and play with your dolls. Let the adults talk.

Where does the 2nd Amendment say "guns"?

It says arms genius. Arms is another word for guns. You clearly lied about your military service if you don't know this.

So which is it bodecea - did you lie about your military service or are you lying about the 2nd Amendment. I just proved you're lying about one of them. Which is it?

arms
ärmz/
noun
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel More

Hmmm....sounds like you need someone to interpret that. Because you also have "artillery" in your definition. Does that mean we are allowed artillery due to the 2nd Amendment?

 

[rdean]

Just promise me Republicans, that you continue to hate minorities.

We leave that to you democrats ... The ones that created the KKK and whose majority voted against civil rights

You mean before the middle 60's when conservatives ruled the Democratic Party?

KKK Disbands Claiming GOP Has Co-opted All Of Their Ideas

 

[P@triot]

Where does the 2nd Amendment say "guns"?

It says arms genius. Arms is another word for guns. You clearly lied about your military service if you don't know this.

So which is it bodecea - did you lie about your military service or are you lying about the 2nd Amendment. I just proved you're lying about one of them. Which is it?

arms
ärmz/
noun
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel More

Hmmm....sounds like you need someone to interpret that. Because you also have "artillery" in your definition. Does that mean we are allowed artillery due to the 2nd Amendment?

Ah....duh! It amazes me how Dumbocrats need even the most basic things explained to them.

The 2nd Amendment did NOT say muskets. It did NOT say revolvers. It did NOT say handguns. It says "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed".

Which part of this do you not understand? I've even posted the exact definition of arms for you. Good grief...

 

[thanatos144]

I'm going to take a stab it thank you still believe Santa is real to you f****** idiot?

tapatalk post

Which part of my post do you not agree with?

1.) Did racist southerners not create the KKK?
2.) Have the Democratic/Republican Parties not changed at all since 1870?
3.) Did Lincoln not wish to abolish slavery via Federal (and not state) action?

Put your money where your mouth is Thanatos, and explain exactly where I was incorrect.

Thanatos, still awaiting a response on the above post. You called me a F*cking idiot, and would appreciate you to elaborate why by going through the three bulleted points above.

Why? I answered all of them before you posted you just refuse to believe democrats were, are and always will be racists

tapatalk post

 

[bodecea]

Oh - you mean our laws which you claim are "open to interpretation"? Well, except when it's a law that you like/support. Then that is suddenly and magically set in stone. But any other law, well hell, that doesn't have to be obeyed. It's "open to interpretation"..

I noticed you ran for the hills when I pointed out how you are adamant that speed limits and laws against rape are not open for interpretation. I love it when a Dumbocrat acknowledges they were wrong in their own, special, immature way...

The Federal courts interpret the laws when there are questions as to what applies....but two points you seem to be too stupid to see:

1) the courts ONLY hear cases that are brought to them, which means there already is a question about a law's meaning

2) the courts do the interpreting, NOT you when you break into a home and rape some woman.

But if laws are "open to interpretation" [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION], then according to you I can break into your house and rape you - then take it to the courts to (and I quote you here) "do the interpreting". And I can claim that I figured the courts would support me since it's ambiguous in your eyes.

See, this is where you fail miserably bodecea and the final nail I've been waiting to drive into your debate coffin. A law can NEVER be "open to interpretation" because it would literally be impossible to be compliant with a law that changes from person to person, based on the view of the person sitting on the bench.

There is a reason laws are written in black and white and set in stone. It's the ONLY way they could be obeyed.

Sorry sweetie, you lose. The U.S. Constitution never granted anyone the authority to "interpret" it. It says exactly what it says, it means exactly what it says, and it is to be followed. It is set in stone until amended.

You are dead wrong on this and I have proved it. A law that is "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be obeyed.

YOU are not the one doing the interpreting...that is what the courts do.

But tell you what....go ahead and break into someone's house and do your analogy....then file a lawsuit asking for the courts to interpret what you did as totally legal.

 

[bodecea]

It says arms genius. Arms is another word for guns. You clearly lied about your military service if you don't know this.

So which is it bodecea - did you lie about your military service or are you lying about the 2nd Amendment. I just proved you're lying about one of them. Which is it?

arms
ärmz/
noun
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel More

Hmmm....sounds like you need someone to interpret that. Because you also have "artillery" in your definition. Does that mean we are allowed artillery due to the 2nd Amendment?

Ah....duh! It amazes me how Dumbocrats need even the most basic things explained to them.

The 2nd Amendment did NOT say muskets. It did NOT say revolvers. It did NOT say handguns. It says "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed".

Which part of this do you not understand? I've even posted the exact definition of arms for you. Good grief...

So...is artillery "arms"?

 

[Seawytch]

Really? And when they sue a church for not marring them? Do you think we are all so stupid?

You may not be stupid but you’re clearly ignorant.

Private sector entities such as churches aren’t subject to Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, consequently they can’t be ‘sued,’ as no judge would validate the complaint.

Ignorant means of lack of knowledge which I do not have in this instance Hey dummy First Amendment right to worship First Amendment rights that says the government cannot force Church or religion to change its believes 21 that the government says is appropriate since no one is killed in property is in don't want from them there is no need for government to even be into the marriage business I really don't f****** care of homosexuals marry I do give a s*** that you try and force the Church in to recognizing it they don't need to. You see the one ignoring here right now is you should be used as you normally are a stupid f***

tapatalk post

My ability to get a legal marriage license does not have any effect on a church what so ever.

Churches will never be forced to perform ANY marriage against the tenants of their faith, just as they never have been.

 

[thanatos144]

You may not be stupid but you’re clearly ignorant.

Private sector entities such as churches aren’t subject to Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, consequently they can’t be ‘sued,’ as no judge would validate the complaint.

Ignorant means of lack of knowledge which I do not have in this instance Hey dummy First Amendment right to worship First Amendment rights that says the government cannot force Church or religion to change its believes 21 that the government says is appropriate since no one is killed in property is in don't want from them there is no need for government to even be into the marriage business I really don't f****** care of homosexuals marry I do give a s*** that you try and force the Church in to recognizing it they don't need to. You see the one ignoring here right now is you should be used as you normally are a stupid f***

tapatalk post

My ability to get a legal marriage license does not have any effect on a church what so ever.

Churches will never be forced to perform ANY marriage against the tenants of their faith, just as they never have been.

So they can pray in a courthouse or school?

tapatalk post