Trump Kills Proposed Rule Protecting LGBT Seniors

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.?

God created Adam and Eve with clear purpose: to produce children.
What children can produce LGBT?
See below.
Therefore no equal rights to LGBT 'marriages', but medical treatment in insane Asylums.'

Progeny of homo 'marriages'.

Should heterosexual couples who can't reproduce not be allowed to marry and not have equal rights either??

What rights are gays denied? They are now a protected class, which gives them more rights, not less. You need to stop whining.

First of all - not withstanding the fact that some have mistakenly interpreted Windson and/or Obergefell as having established gays as a protected class, it does not mean that they are.

IN both case , the court decided the case on the basis of the government violating the civil rights of gays, but doing so does not require the establishment of a protected class. The courts afforded them the highest level of scrutiny because a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment,

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. (A notable exception to this "liberty clause" rule, however, is parental rights, the only Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right denied strict scrutiny protection.[2]) Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Windsor was decided on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Obergefell on the 14th Amendment. Look them up.

Furthermore, the Federal Civil Rights Act does not establish them as a protected class and only 11 states do so.

What more do they want? . For starters, protection from housing and employment discrimination. Try to learn something .PLEASE!

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.?

God created Adam and Eve with clear purpose: to produce children.
What children can produce LGBT?
See below.
Therefore no equal rights to LGBT 'marriages', but medical treatment in insane Asylums.'

Progeny of homo 'marriages'.

Should heterosexual couples who can't reproduce not be allowed to marry and not have equal rights either??

Fag couples do not ever even have the possibility of reproducing with each other. Apples and oranges.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell us more about that.

The term homosexual means someone who is solely attracted to the same sex. So if one is truly homosexual, they should be unable to perform in bed with the opposite sex, as they are not sexually attracted to them. So a man that has been sleeping with his wife for years, that suddenly comes out and says they're actually a homo is a liar.

That person is bisexual in orientation, and simply has a preference for the same sex.

Thank you for that absolutely brilliant, scientific analysis of the spectrum of sexual preferences. It reflects a deep and thorough understanding of the complexities of human sexuality . You are a great asset to the quality of discourse on USMB. I think that I can safely speak for everyone here when I say the we are looking forward to learning so much more from you. THANK YOU!

Explain to me how I am wrong? Of course I am not wrong, but I'd like to see how you could say what I said is wrong.

Did I say that you were wrong?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.?

God created Adam and Eve with clear purpose: to produce children.
What children can produce LGBT?
See below.
Therefore no equal rights to LGBT 'marriages', but medical treatment in insane Asylums.'

Progeny of homo 'marriages'.

Should heterosexual couples who can't reproduce not be allowed to marry and not have equal rights either??

What rights are gays denied? They are now a protected class, which gives them more rights, not less. You need to stop whining.

First of all - not withstanding the fact that some have mistakenly interpreted Windson and/or Obergefell as having established gays as a protected class, it does not mean that they are.

IN both case , the court decided the case on the basis of the government violating the civil rights of gays, but doing so does not require the establishment of a protected class. The courts afforded them the highest level of scrutiny because a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment,

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. (A notable exception to this "liberty clause" rule, however, is parental rights, the only Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right denied strict scrutiny protection.[2]) Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Windsor was decided on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Obergefell on the 14th Amendment. Look them up.

Furthermore, the Federal Civil Rights Act does not establish them as a protected class and only 11 states do so.

What more do they want? . For starters, protection from housing and employment discrimination. Try to learn something .PLEASE!

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.?

God created Adam and Eve with clear purpose: to produce children.
What children can produce LGBT?
See below.
Therefore no equal rights to LGBT 'marriages', but medical treatment in insane Asylums.'

Progeny of homo 'marriages'.

Should heterosexual couples who can't reproduce not be allowed to marry and not have equal rights either??

Fag couples do not ever even have the possibility of reproducing with each other. Apples and oranges.

A hetero woman married to a male who cannot produce sperm also has zero chance.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Tell us more about that.

The term homosexual means someone who is solely attracted to the same sex. So if one is truly homosexual, they should be unable to perform in bed with the opposite sex, as they are not sexually attracted to them. So a man that has been sleeping with his wife for years, that suddenly comes out and says they're actually a homo is a liar.

That person is bisexual in orientation, and simply has a preference for the same sex.

Thank you for that absolutely brilliant, scientific analysis of the spectrum of sexual preferences. It reflects a deep and thorough understanding of the complexities of human sexuality . You are a great asset to the quality of discourse on USMB. I think that I can safely speak for everyone here when I say the we are looking forward to learning so much more from you. THANK YOU!

Explain to me how I am wrong? Of course I am not wrong, but I'd like to see how you could say what I said is wrong.

Did I say that you were wrong?

Your sarcasm said so.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.?

God created Adam and Eve with clear purpose: to produce children.
What children can produce LGBT?
See below.
Therefore no equal rights to LGBT 'marriages', but medical treatment in insane Asylums.'

Progeny of homo 'marriages'.

Should heterosexual couples who can't reproduce not be allowed to marry and not have equal rights either??

What rights are gays denied? They are now a protected class, which gives them more rights, not less. You need to stop whining.

First of all - not withstanding the fact that some have mistakenly interpreted Windson and/or Obergefell as having established gays as a protected class, it does not mean that they are.

IN both case , the court decided the case on the basis of the government violating the civil rights of gays, but doing so does not require the establishment of a protected class. The courts afforded them the highest level of scrutiny because a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment,

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. (A notable exception to this "liberty clause" rule, however, is parental rights, the only Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right denied strict scrutiny protection.[2]) Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Windsor was decided on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Obergefell on the 14th Amendment. Look them up.

Furthermore, the Federal Civil Rights Act does not establish them as a protected class and only 11 states do so.

What more do they want? . For starters, protection from housing and employment discrimination. Try to learn something .PLEASE!

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

That does not make a fucking iota of sense. You my not agree with it but it is indeed constitution until such time that it's overturned. Perhaps you would like to share your legal theory with us, professor.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

God created Adam and Eve with clear purpose: to produce children.
What children can produce LGBT?
See below.
Therefore no equal rights to LGBT 'marriages', but medical treatment in insane Asylums.'

Progeny of homo 'marriages'.

Should heterosexual couples who can't reproduce not be allowed to marry and not have equal rights either??

What rights are gays denied? They are now a protected class, which gives them more rights, not less. You need to stop whining.

First of all - not withstanding the fact that some have mistakenly interpreted Windson and/or Obergefell as having established gays as a protected class, it does not mean that they are.

IN both case , the court decided the case on the basis of the government violating the civil rights of gays, but doing so does not require the establishment of a protected class. The courts afforded them the highest level of scrutiny because a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment,

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. (A notable exception to this "liberty clause" rule, however, is parental rights, the only Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right denied strict scrutiny protection.[2]) Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Windsor was decided on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Obergefell on the 14th Amendment. Look them up.

Furthermore, the Federal Civil Rights Act does not establish them as a protected class and only 11 states do so.

What more do they want? . For starters, protection from housing and employment discrimination. Try to learn something .PLEASE!

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

That does not make a fucking iota of sense. You my not agree with it but it is indeed constitution until such time that it's overturned. Perhaps you would like to share your legal theory with us, professor.

The decision was based on a nonsensical goobledygook with no grounding in the constitution. The court wrongly stated that the government has interest in marriage to ensure the happiness of those who want to get married...that's a load of horse shit. The government has interest in marriage because of children, anyone with any knowledge of why our government got involved in marriage knows this.

The ruling was pure activism from the bench and should be ignored.

The dissenting views are there for you to read, I agree with every objection they had to the ruling.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Should heterosexual couples who can't reproduce not be allowed to marry and not have equal rights either??

What rights are gays denied? They are now a protected class, which gives them more rights, not less. You need to stop whining.

First of all - not withstanding the fact that some have mistakenly interpreted Windson and/or Obergefell as having established gays as a protected class, it does not mean that they are.

IN both case , the court decided the case on the basis of the government violating the civil rights of gays, but doing so does not require the establishment of a protected class. The courts afforded them the highest level of scrutiny because a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment,

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. (A notable exception to this "liberty clause" rule, however, is parental rights, the only Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right denied strict scrutiny protection.[2]) Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Windsor was decided on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Obergefell on the 14th Amendment. Look them up.

Furthermore, the Federal Civil Rights Act does not establish them as a protected class and only 11 states do so.

What more do they want? . For starters, protection from housing and employment discrimination. Try to learn something .PLEASE!

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

That does not make a fucking iota of sense. You my not agree with it but it is indeed constitution until such time that it's overturned. Perhaps you would like to share your legal theory with us, professor.

The decision was based on a nonsensical goobledygook with no grounding in the constitution. The court wrongly stated that the government has interest in marriage to ensure the happiness of those who want to get married...that's a load of horse shit. The government has interest in marriage because of children, anyone with any knowledge of why our government got involved in marriage knows this.

The ruling was pure activism from the bench and should be ignored.

The dissenting views are there for you to read, I agree with every objection they had to the ruling.

You need to read the majority opinion. If you did, you would know that there is a lot about children in it.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about this

 

[miketx]

Everybody wants a special seat at the table. If a gay couple married they are entitled to the same rights as a heterosexual couple.?

God created Adam and Eve with clear purpose: to produce children.
What children can produce LGBT?
See below.
Therefore no equal rights to LGBT 'marriages', but medical treatment in insane Asylums.'

Progeny of homo 'marriages'.

Indeed, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

[miketx]

Kudos to Trump!The entirely LGBT shall burn in Hell!
A good mentally hospital can treat any kind of homosexuality with good results.

If you want to classify LGBT as mentally ill, then they will fall under the American's with Disabilities Act. And this will give them even MORE protections.

More regressive fantasy. Never gonna happen. They choose to be freaks and they get what they get. Usually an infection.

 

[xotoxi]

Kudos to Trump!The entirely LGBT shall burn in Hell!
A good mentally hospital can treat any kind of homosexuality with good results.

If you want to classify LGBT as mentally ill, then they will fall under the American's with Disabilities Act. And this will give them even MORE protections.

More regressive fantasy. Never gonna happen. They choose to be freaks and they get what they get. Usually an infection.

Own it. You'll soon be a LGTB senior.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell us more about that.

The term homosexual means someone who is solely attracted to the same sex. So if one is truly homosexual, they should be unable to perform in bed with the opposite sex, as they are not sexually attracted to them. So a man that has been sleeping with his wife for years, that suddenly comes out and says they're actually a homo is a liar.

That person is bisexual in orientation, and simply has a preference for the same sex.

Thank you for that absolutely brilliant, scientific analysis of the spectrum of sexual preferences. It reflects a deep and thorough understanding of the complexities of human sexuality . You are a great asset to the quality of discourse on USMB. I think that I can safely speak for everyone here when I say the we are looking forward to learning so much more from you. THANK YOU!

Explain to me how I am wrong? Of course I am not wrong, but I'd like to see how you could say what I said is wrong.

I replied with sarcasm to drive home the point that there is a difference between making a statement that has an element of truth and demonstrating an actual understanding of the subject matter .

You start out with a simplistic, inane assertion about homosexuals not being attracted to the oposite sex as though it were some profound insight.
Then you say that someone who was living as a straight person and comes out as gay is a liar. What exactly does that mean. ? Have they been lying to themselves as in having been in denial? Have they known all along and been lying to their partner? Either is a posibility but I doubt that you have the intelect or curiousity to have actually thought about . Nor do I think that you considered the posibility that such a person may be, to some degree bisexual and that they may or may not have been fully awar of it. You don't seem to have the cognitive ability or the will to delve into the nuances and sublties of human sexuality

Or... maybe you meant that they lying about being gay which is absurd, but, non the less, your believing that is not outside the rhelm of possibilities.

While your post is superficially factual in some ways, it is clearly not intended to inform, but rather to demean, marginalize and belittle gay people and to depict them perverts who chose it as a "lifestyle" Each and every one of your utterances reflects your anti intelctual willfull ignorance and shameful bigotry.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Tell us more about that.

The term homosexual means someone who is solely attracted to the same sex. So if one is truly homosexual, they should be unable to perform in bed with the opposite sex, as they are not sexually attracted to them. So a man that has been sleeping with his wife for years, that suddenly comes out and says they're actually a homo is a liar.

That person is bisexual in orientation, and simply has a preference for the same sex.

Thank you for that absolutely brilliant, scientific analysis of the spectrum of sexual preferences. It reflects a deep and thorough understanding of the complexities of human sexuality . You are a great asset to the quality of discourse on USMB. I think that I can safely speak for everyone here when I say the we are looking forward to learning so much more from you. THANK YOU!

Explain to me how I am wrong? Of course I am not wrong, but I'd like to see how you could say what I said is wrong.

I replied with sarcasm to drive home the point that there is a difference between making a statement that has an element of truth and demonstrating an actual understanding of the subject matter .

You start out with a simplistic, inane assertion about homosexuals not being attracted to the oposite sex as though it were some profound insight.
Then you say that someone who was living as a straight person and comes out as gay is a liar. What exactly does that mean. ? Have they been lying to themselves as in having been in denial? Have they known all along and been lying to their partner? Either is a posibility but I doubt that you have the intelect or curiousity to have actually thought about . Nor do I think that you considered the posibility that such a person may be, to some degree bisexual and that they may or may not have been fully awar of it. You don't seem to have the cognitive ability or the will to delve into the nuances and sublties of human sexuality

Or... maybe you meant that they lying about being gay which is absurd, but, non the less, your believing that is not outside the rhelm of possibilities.

While your post is superficially factual in some ways, it is clearly not intended to inform, but rather to demean, marginalize and belittle gay people and to depict them perverts who chose it as a "lifestyle" Each and every one of your utterances reflects your anti intelctual willfull ignorance and shameful bigotry.

What do you mean I didn't consider that they would be bisexual? That's what I said they are.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell us more about that.

The term homosexual means someone who is solely attracted to the same sex. So if one is truly homosexual, they should be unable to perform in bed with the opposite sex, as they are not sexually attracted to them. So a man that has been sleeping with his wife for years, that suddenly comes out and says they're actually a homo is a liar.

That person is bisexual in orientation, and simply has a preference for the same sex.

Thank you for that absolutely brilliant, scientific analysis of the spectrum of sexual preferences. It reflects a deep and thorough understanding of the complexities of human sexuality . You are a great asset to the quality of discourse on USMB. I think that I can safely speak for everyone here when I say the we are looking forward to learning so much more from you. THANK YOU!

Explain to me how I am wrong? Of course I am not wrong, but I'd like to see how you could say what I said is wrong.

I replied with sarcasm to drive home the point that there is a difference between making a statement that has an element of truth and demonstrating an actual understanding of the subject matter .

You start out with a simplistic, inane assertion about homosexuals not being attracted to the oposite sex as though it were some profound insight.
Then you say that someone who was living as a straight person and comes out as gay is a liar. What exactly does that mean. ? Have they been lying to themselves as in having been in denial? Have they known all along and been lying to their partner? Either is a posibility but I doubt that you have the intelect or curiousity to have actually thought about . Nor do I think that you considered the posibility that such a person may be, to some degree bisexual and that they may or may not have been fully awar of it. You don't seem to have the cognitive ability or the will to delve into the nuances and sublties of human sexuality

Or... maybe you meant that they lying about being gay which is absurd, but, non the less, your believing that is not outside the rhelm of possibilities.

While your post is superficially factual in some ways, it is clearly not intended to inform, but rather to demean, marginalize and belittle gay people and to depict them perverts who chose it as a "lifestyle" Each and every one of your utterances reflects your anti intelctual willfull ignorance and shameful bigotry.

What do you mean I didn't consider that they would be bisexual? That's what I said they are.

You said that they were liars if they came out as gay later in life but you're still not explaining that. I suspect that you are failing to make the distinction between sexual orientation and the life choices that a person who is bi sexual, or closeted may make at various points- If I'm wrong show me.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The term homosexual means someone who is solely attracted to the same sex. So if one is truly homosexual, they should be unable to perform in bed with the opposite sex, as they are not sexually attracted to them. So a man that has been sleeping with his wife for years, that suddenly comes out and says they're actually a homo is a liar.

That person is bisexual in orientation, and simply has a preference for the same sex.

Thank you for that absolutely brilliant, scientific analysis of the spectrum of sexual preferences. It reflects a deep and thorough understanding of the complexities of human sexuality . You are a great asset to the quality of discourse on USMB. I think that I can safely speak for everyone here when I say the we are looking forward to learning so much more from you. THANK YOU!

Explain to me how I am wrong? Of course I am not wrong, but I'd like to see how you could say what I said is wrong.

I replied with sarcasm to drive home the point that there is a difference between making a statement that has an element of truth and demonstrating an actual understanding of the subject matter .

You start out with a simplistic, inane assertion about homosexuals not being attracted to the oposite sex as though it were some profound insight.
Then you say that someone who was living as a straight person and comes out as gay is a liar. What exactly does that mean. ? Have they been lying to themselves as in having been in denial? Have they known all along and been lying to their partner? Either is a posibility but I doubt that you have the intelect or curiousity to have actually thought about . Nor do I think that you considered the posibility that such a person may be, to some degree bisexual and that they may or may not have been fully awar of it. You don't seem to have the cognitive ability or the will to delve into the nuances and sublties of human sexuality

Or... maybe you meant that they lying about being gay which is absurd, but, non the less, your believing that is not outside the rhelm of possibilities.

While your post is superficially factual in some ways, it is clearly not intended to inform, but rather to demean, marginalize and belittle gay people and to depict them perverts who chose it as a "lifestyle" Each and every one of your utterances reflects your anti intelctual willfull ignorance and shameful bigotry.

What do you mean I didn't consider that they would be bisexual? That's what I said they are.

You said that they were liars if they came out as gay later in life but you're still not explaining that. I suspect that you are failing to make the distinction between sexual orientation and the life choices that a person who is bi sexual, or closeted may make at various points- If I'm wrong show me.

No, I'm not. I said that their orientation is bisexual, but they're preference is the same sex.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

 

[Lastamender]

What rights are gays denied? They are now a protected class, which gives them more rights, not less. You need to stop whining.

First of all - not withstanding the fact that some have mistakenly interpreted Windson and/or Obergefell as having established gays as a protected class, it does not mean that they are.

IN both case , the court decided the case on the basis of the government violating the civil rights of gays, but doing so does not require the establishment of a protected class. The courts afforded them the highest level of scrutiny because a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment,

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. (A notable exception to this "liberty clause" rule, however, is parental rights, the only Fourteenth Amendment fundamental right denied strict scrutiny protection.[2]) Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Windsor was decided on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Obergefell on the 14th Amendment. Look them up.

Furthermore, the Federal Civil Rights Act does not establish them as a protected class and only 11 states do so.

What more do they want? . For starters, protection from housing and employment discrimination. Try to learn something .PLEASE!

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

That does not make a fucking iota of sense. You my not agree with it but it is indeed constitution until such time that it's overturned. Perhaps you would like to share your legal theory with us, professor.

The decision was based on a nonsensical goobledygook with no grounding in the constitution. The court wrongly stated that the government has interest in marriage to ensure the happiness of those who want to get married...that's a load of horse shit. The government has interest in marriage because of children, anyone with any knowledge of why our government got involved in marriage knows this.

The ruling was pure activism from the bench and should be ignored.

The dissenting views are there for you to read, I agree with every objection they had to the ruling.

You need to read the majority opinion. If you did, you would know that there is a lot about children in it.

Children should be a concern but not to gay people until they figure out how to propagate. That is not going to happen, is it?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??