Unless you're gay, on the dole, or a commie why would you vote Democrat ?

[PaintMyHouse]

The Constitution prevents discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation. So-called "gay marriage" has nothing to do with anyone's Constitutional rights.

It has to do with Equal before the Law.

Gays are already equal before the law.

No little idiot, they aren't. If they were they'd have the right to marry the adult they love like the rest of us. The dog won't hunt and you've lost the war. Move along.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

exactly, one of the goals of progressives is to destroy marriage, when two people marry and form a family that family unit takes precedence over all else to those people, the progressives want people's first loyalty to be to the federal govt.

thats the same reason why progressives fight against states rights. We all must kowtow to the feds, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot put anything or anyone above the government masters.

these silly assholes on the left have no idea what they are asking for.

Sure thing. You either wear the approved track suit and sing Obama For Life or we drag you and your entire family to a DHS reeducation camp and make you watch Rachel Maddow for days on end.

If you then can't praise George Soros, we shoot you and feed you to the dogs.

That policy could become reality if your ilk ever gets complete control over our government.

How did your mother raise such a stupid child who can still manage to type?

 

[bripat9643]

It has to do with Equal before the Law.

Gays are already equal before the law.

No little idiot, they aren't. If they were they'd have the right to marry the adult they love like the rest of us. The dog won't hunt and you've lost the war. Move along.

Yes, idiot, they are. They can marry anytime they want, so long is it's to a member of the opposite sex. You see, many laws have conditions on them. For instance, if you want to drive on the public streets, you have to be of a certain age and you have to pass a test. I don't see anyone running around screaming that the laws in my state discriminate again 15-year-olds or blind people because they aren't allowed to drive.

 

[rightwinger]

A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.

A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.

exactly, one of the goals of progressives is to destroy marriage, when two people marry and form a family that family unit takes precedence over all else to those people, the progressives want people's first loyalty to be to the federal govt.

thats the same reason why progressives fight against states rights. We all must kowtow to the feds, we cannot think for ourselves, we cannot put anything or anyone above the government masters.

these silly assholes on the left have no idea what they are asking for.

Well put
That is exactly how gays feel

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays are already equal before the law.

No little idiot, they aren't. If they were they'd have the right to marry the adult they love like the rest of us. The dog won't hunt and you've lost the war. Move along.

Yes, idiot, they are. They can marry anytime they want, so long is it's to a member of the opposite sex. You see, many laws have conditions on them. For instance, if you want to drive on the public streets, you have to be of a certain age and you have to pass a test. I don't see anyone running around screaming that the laws in my state discriminate again 15-year-olds or blind people because they aren't allowed to drive.

This is the same as having a law that says Gays can't drive.

 

[The Rabbi]

What case, you dumb ****? You're trying to claim that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. That's not at all what the CDC says, that's just how you want to read it.

The rate of new HIV infections is higher among homosexuals and the black community. That's what the CDC says.
CDC ? HIV in the United States ? Statistics Overview ? Statistics Center ? HIV/AIDS

You read this as "proof" that AIDS can't be spread among heterosexuals.

POST ONE LINK which states that "heterosexual women have to have unprotected sex with an infected person multiple times before contracting the disease."

POST ONE LINK which states that "40 million people have died from AIDS".

POST ONE LINK to back up your stupid ******* ignorant bullshit.

So now you're reduced to the straw man fallacy. No one said straught men could not get AIDS. That's a fabrication on your part.
AIDS is primarily a disease of gay men and drug abusers in this country. That has been proven conclusively, even by your links. That was the claim. It has been supported. Now on to the next time you get pwned.

You don't say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS? "The chances are virtually zero." Yeah, stupid ignorant ****, that's saying that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. You're saying that heterosexuals have to TRY to get AIDS. That's ******* retarded and not based on any science at all.

Just because HIV infections are higher in the gay community doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of heterosexuals contracting the disease each year. In fact, according to the CDC, the rate of heterosexuals contracting the disease is higher than that of drug users.

You are one stupid git for sure. Where on your chart are straight white men? Yeah, nowhere Because their infection rate is insignificant.
Again, post where I wrote it was impossible for straight men to get AIDS. Still waiting.

 

[rightwinger]

Gays are already equal before the law.

No little idiot, they aren't. If they were they'd have the right to marry the adult they love like the rest of us. The dog won't hunt and you've lost the war. Move along.

Yes, idiot, they are. They can marry anytime they want, so long is it's to a member of the opposite sex. You see, many laws have conditions on them. For instance, if you want to drive on the public streets, you have to be of a certain age and you have to pass a test. I don't see anyone running around screaming that the laws in my state discriminate again 15-year-olds or blind people because they aren't allowed to drive.

You might have a point if there were laws that say gay 16 year olds are not allowed to drive on our streets and that you are not descriminating because they can use the streets if they stop being gay

 

[The Rabbi]

There is nothing in the US Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. That's just your religious fantasy. Marriage is a contract between two people, recognized by the nation in which they live.

If two drunks who just met can get married at a drive-through window then marriage is not as sacred as you think it is.

Another straw man. No one claimed the US Constitution defined marriage. The Constitution does say rights not specified are reserved for the states. If the people in MA want gay marriage, let 'em have it. But the people in my state voted over 80% to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

[The Rabbi]

In many states that is still true, and will be fixed shortly.

Yes, teh Supreme Court will rule that the 10th Amendment actually means something and that states have traditionally and rightly set marriage criteria.

the states can't override the federal constitution's requirement of equal protection.

learn something.

There is no issue of "protection" here, "counselor".
Yeah, lawyer my ass.

 

[bripat9643]

Who the **** is Michael Fumento? He wants someone to ask the Surgeon General why more heterosexuals aren't contracting AIDS? This is your "proof"?

An opinion piece from some douchebag's blog? Jesus God damned Christ, man. What is wrong with your mind? That isn't fact, that isn't science. That's an opinion.

What you are trying to claim is that heterosexuals do not contract HIV and AIDS at as high of a rate as homosexuals, therefore heterosexuals are just entirely off the hook when it comes to the spread of the disease. That is a frighteningly irresponsible thought process, and you need to either learn or kill yourself. It is fine if you want to go shoot up or **** whoever without a condom, but the rest of society recognizes a real threat in this disease and we want responsible social policies in place to defeat it. The rate of infection being higher for homosexuals and the black community does not mean that the heterosexual community's chances of contracting the disease are "virtually zero." It means that a good Christian heterosexual society has decided to neglect the disease as a "gay problem" or a "black problem" and not as a "human problem".

It doesn't matter who Michael Fumento is. His article contains an extensive list of facts. Either dispute the facts or shut the **** up.

What is frighteningly irresponsible is pretending that anal sex is not the primary vector for sexual transmission of HIV. That only leads to more people contracting the disease than might otherwise be the case.

I've already disputed your "facts" by pointing out that it is an opinion piece. Quote the Federation of American Scientists, the Center for Disease Control, or anyone with a PhD in medicine who will confirm your claim that heterosexuals' chance of contracting HIV and AIDS is "virtually zero."

That is an absolutely moronic thing to say. That's just insane.

You haven't disputed jack shit. You haven't even tried. You simply want to dismiss any information that makes you unconformable by labeling it "opinion."

The CDC is one of the main dispensers of disinformation about HIV. You would know that if you had read the material I posted. for instance a large number of of Haitians who were allowed to immigrate to this country are infected with HIV. The CDC simply lumps them all into the "heterosexual" category without even questioning them about how they acquired the disease. That fact alone is sufficient to tell you that CDC statistics are bullshit propaganda.

In fact, the article I posted quotes Dr. Harold Jaffe, the CDC’s chief epidemiologist.

 

[bripat9643]

No little idiot, they aren't. If they were they'd have the right to marry the adult they love like the rest of us. The dog won't hunt and you've lost the war. Move along.

Yes, idiot, they are. They can marry anytime they want, so long is it's to a member of the opposite sex. You see, many laws have conditions on them. For instance, if you want to drive on the public streets, you have to be of a certain age and you have to pass a test. I don't see anyone running around screaming that the laws in my state discriminate again 15-year-olds or blind people because they aren't allowed to drive.

You might have a point if there were laws that say gay 16 year olds are not allowed to drive on our streets and that you are not descriminating because they can use the streets if they stop being gay

My point stands without adding the word "gay" to it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who the **** is Michael Fumento? He wants someone to ask the Surgeon General why more heterosexuals aren't contracting AIDS? This is your "proof"?

An opinion piece from some douchebag's blog? Jesus God damned Christ, man. What is wrong with your mind? That isn't fact, that isn't science. That's an opinion.

What you are trying to claim is that heterosexuals do not contract HIV and AIDS at as high of a rate as homosexuals, therefore heterosexuals are just entirely off the hook when it comes to the spread of the disease. That is a frighteningly irresponsible thought process, and you need to either learn or kill yourself. It is fine if you want to go shoot up or **** whoever without a condom, but the rest of society recognizes a real threat in this disease and we want responsible social policies in place to defeat it. The rate of infection being higher for homosexuals and the black community does not mean that the heterosexual community's chances of contracting the disease are "virtually zero." It means that a good Christian heterosexual society has decided to neglect the disease as a "gay problem" or a "black problem" and not as a "human problem".

Did I call it or what? When he can't impugn the facts, he impugns the source.
The fact remains that AIDS is almost entirely a disease of the gay community, with some involvement from the drug community.
And yes the incresaed medical bills from the gay lifestyle do impose a cost on society as a whole.

 

[bripat9643]

So now you're reduced to the straw man fallacy. No one said straught men could not get AIDS. That's a fabrication on your part.
AIDS is primarily a disease of gay men and drug abusers in this country. That has been proven conclusively, even by your links. That was the claim. It has been supported. Now on to the next time you get pwned.

You don't say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS? "The chances are virtually zero." Yeah, stupid ignorant ****, that's saying that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. You're saying that heterosexuals have to TRY to get AIDS. That's ******* retarded and not based on any science at all.

Just because HIV infections are higher in the gay community doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of heterosexuals contracting the disease each year. In fact, according to the CDC, the rate of heterosexuals contracting the disease is higher than that of drug users.

You are one stupid git for sure. Where on your chart are straight white men? Yeah, nowhere Because their infection rate is insignificant.
Again, post where I wrote it was impossible for straight men to get AIDS. Still waiting.

The black "heterosexual" men and women are mostly Haitians who were never asked how they contracted the disease. The numbers are based entirely on self-reporting of the source of the infection. However, when questioned professionally and thoroughly, it turns out that in almost every case that the source was anal receptive intercourse or IV drug use or a women having sex with an HIV positive partner.

 

[KNB]

There is nothing in the US Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. That's just your religious fantasy. Marriage is a contract between two people, recognized by the nation in which they live.

If two drunks who just met can get married at a drive-through window then marriage is not as sacred as you think it is.

Another straw man. No one claimed the US Constitution defined marriage. The Constitution does say rights not specified are reserved for the states. If the people in MA want gay marriage, let 'em have it. But the people in my state voted over 80% to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

And this is where the Federal government gets involved. To end disputes between states. If one state recognizes a gay couple's marriage then every state must recognize that gay couples marriage. That is how it works for heterosexuals, so equality under the law states that this is how it must be for homosexual and lesbian couples, too. A heterosexual couple who gets drunk in Las Vegas and get married as a joke are legally married in every state. This same right is equally available to everyone, or it is not available to anyone.

The US Federal government cannot pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or defining "traditional" marriage as between a man and a woman because that is unconstitutional. It infringes on the rights of the homosexual and lesbian citizens, and the First Amendment forbids religious dogma from becoming US law.

Your religion does not have any power over American law. That is your religious fantasy.

Do you want to abolish the First Amendment in order to protect "traditional" marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

The real reason to vote Democrat comes to light here: Hatred. You hate this country, you hate the majority of people in it, you hate its historical values, you hate its economy, you hate its innovation, you hate its laws, you hate its foreign policy so you vote Democrats.

 

[KNB]

You don't say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS? "The chances are virtually zero." Yeah, stupid ignorant ****, that's saying that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. You're saying that heterosexuals have to TRY to get AIDS. That's ******* retarded and not based on any science at all.

Just because HIV infections are higher in the gay community doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of heterosexuals contracting the disease each year. In fact, according to the CDC, the rate of heterosexuals contracting the disease is higher than that of drug users.

You are one stupid git for sure. Where on your chart are straight white men? Yeah, nowhere Because their infection rate is insignificant.
Again, post where I wrote it was impossible for straight men to get AIDS. Still waiting.

The black "heterosexual" men and women are mostly Haitians who were never asked how they contracted the disease.

Race has what to do with anything? You said that heterosexuals' chances of getting AIDS is "virtually zero". You are wrong. Irresponsibly and tremendously wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is nothing in the US Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. That's just your religious fantasy. Marriage is a contract between two people, recognized by the nation in which they live.

If two drunks who just met can get married at a drive-through window then marriage is not as sacred as you think it is.

Another straw man. No one claimed the US Constitution defined marriage. The Constitution does say rights not specified are reserved for the states. If the people in MA want gay marriage, let 'em have it. But the people in my state voted over 80% to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

And this is where the Federal government gets involved. To end disputes between states. If one state recognizes a gay couple's marriage then every state must recognize that gay couples marriage. That is how it works for heterosexuals, so equality under the law states that this is how it must be for homosexual and lesbian couples, too. A heterosexual couple who gets drunk in Las Vegas and get married as a joke are legally married in every state. This same right is equally available to everyone, or it is not available to anyone.

The US Federal government cannot pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or defining "traditional" marriage as between a man and a woman because that is unconstitutional. It infringes on the rights of the homosexual and lesbian citizens, and the First Amendment forbids religious dogma from becoming US law.

Your religion does not have any power over American law. That is your religious fantasy.

Do you want to abolish the First Amendment in order to protect "traditional" marriage?

The 1A has nothing to do with this, low information one.
And nothing in the Constitution makes one state subservient to another state. The opposite in fact.

 

[bripat9643]

You are one stupid git for sure. Where on your chart are straight white men? Yeah, nowhere Because their infection rate is insignificant.
Again, post where I wrote it was impossible for straight men to get AIDS. Still waiting.

The black "heterosexual" men and women are mostly Haitians who were never asked how they contracted the disease.

Race has what to do with anything? You said that heterosexuals' chances of getting AIDS is "virtually zero". You are wrong. Irresponsibly and tremendously wrong.

I just explained it for those who capable of committing logic. It has to do with Haitians, moron. The fact that they are black is purely incidental. The CDC's numbers are propaganda. The proof is in the article I posted. They put all Haitians with HIV into the "heterosexual" category. That is a huge lie.

 

[KNB]

Another straw man. No one claimed the US Constitution defined marriage. The Constitution does say rights not specified are reserved for the states. If the people in MA want gay marriage, let 'em have it. But the people in my state voted over 80% to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

And this is where the Federal government gets involved. To end disputes between states. If one state recognizes a gay couple's marriage then every state must recognize that gay couples marriage. That is how it works for heterosexuals, so equality under the law states that this is how it must be for homosexual and lesbian couples, too. A heterosexual couple who gets drunk in Las Vegas and get married as a joke are legally married in every state. This same right is equally available to everyone, or it is not available to anyone.

The US Federal government cannot pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or defining "traditional" marriage as between a man and a woman because that is unconstitutional. It infringes on the rights of the homosexual and lesbian citizens, and the First Amendment forbids religious dogma from becoming US law.

Your religion does not have any power over American law. That is your religious fantasy.

Do you want to abolish the First Amendment in order to protect "traditional" marriage?

The 1A has nothing to do with this, low information one.
And nothing in the Constitution makes one state subservient to another state. The opposite in fact.

So a drive-through marriage in Las Vegas isn't recognized by other states? And gay people have that same freedom, right? So the Federal government has to get involved.

The First Amendment has everything to do with this because you religious talking monkeys can only cite the Bible as your reason for opposing gay and lesbian rights, and the First Amendment prohibits religious bullshit from taking over the US legal system. So the question stands: Are you willing to abolish the First Amendment in order to inject your narrow-minded religious view of marriage into US law?

 

[KNB]

The black "heterosexual" men and women are mostly Haitians who were never asked how they contracted the disease.

Race has what to do with anything? You said that heterosexuals' chances of getting AIDS is "virtually zero". You are wrong. Irresponsibly and tremendously wrong.

I just explained it for those who capable of committing logic. It has to do with Haitians, moron. The fact that they are black is purely incidental. The CDC's numbers are propaganda. The proof is in the article I posted. They put all Haitians with HIV into the "heterosexual" category. That is a huge lie.

So the CDC is lying and Michael Fumento is telling the truth? Again, who the **** is Michael Fumento? And where does he get his information from if not the CDC? From his asshole?

Post one REAL link to anyone with a PhD in medicine who will say that heterosexuals have virtually no chance of contracting HIV/AIDS.