What rights are the gays missing?

[Ravi]

Ravi would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, in response to this post...

But like all of her little ****** friends, she's unable to offer up such and instead, decided to neg-rep it...

For those who would like to offer RAVI a Neg-rep in return, you can find her at this link:

>>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...h-time-thinking-about-gays-3.html#post1604050 <<<<<​

Now I will warn ya that this imbecile carries a serious neg-rep... but she knows it and uses her rep-means to control the reputation level of those members whose views she feels are not worthy...

But I encourage everyone to use the above link to Neg-rep the shit out of her... just to show a leftist that whatever power they might bring to the table against us is only going to get shoved right up their collective asses.

I neg rep you when your hatred of women shines through...which is in almost every post you make.

ROFLMNAO... My 'hatred of woman?'

I see... So what you're saying is that your using your rep-power to control speech; specifically using the only flaccid little power that you have, to coerce others to speak in terms which please you?

I mean, I've posted nothing, on this board or any other... which could lead any reasonable observer that I hate women.

I have however made it clear that I have little tolerance of irrational women... which includes the full scope of the ideological left... including the pathetic males who occupy that impotent human frailty known as the left.


Now if your goal was to protest the intolerance of irrational women... you'd be spending more time trying to solve the problem of irrational women; of which job #1 would be unplugging your key-board.

Your neg-repping is a political function... it's an unjustifiable abuse of power; which as is always the case in such circumstances, such will invevitably result in you losing that power.

These are immutable principles, Sis; they are forces of nature; and they don't require you to recognize and respect them... and to the best of my knowledge, they don't do exceptions.

If any member of the board feels that they would like to neg-rep Ravi for abusing her would-be power to control speech... advancing more than 150 negative rep points per neg...

I can see how such would be considered a form of defending your own rights to speak your mind without fear of sanction from the powerful who oppose such.

I mean hey... if you won't neg-rep an irrational female who abuses rep-points... in defense of your means to exercise your right to speak freely, what will you do to defend your rights?

You can neg the post above... or choose any of these if you already have

>>>

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results​

<<<

What a coward you are.

 

[bodecea]

Yer late to the party, manu1959
neither can me and my brother.

they don't have the same next of kin right you and your brother have nor do they have the transfer of property rights you have....

All of which can be specified in a legal document.

Actually, in several...that may or may not be recognized by other states after all that work.

So, do you truely think that spending the hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get OTHER paperwork drawn up, notarized and signed...gay couples will get all THIS: Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo
covered as much as a $50 marriage license will?

 

[bodecea]

They arent missing any rights. Though I wish they would exercise their right to remain silent for a while. Im tired of hearing about this immoral crap.

Trust me...people like you think and talk A LOT more about what we gays do in bed than we ever will.

 

[mal]

they don't have the same next of kin right you and your brother have nor do they have the transfer of property rights you have....

All of which can be specified in a legal document.

Actually, in several...that may or may not be recognized by other states after all that work.

So, do you truely think that spending the hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get OTHER paperwork drawn up, notarized and signed...gay couples will get all THIS: Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo
covered as much as a $50 marriage license will?

With Civil Unions, you Sure would...

You don't Need to Molest the Natural Definition of Marriage, the Definition this Country has Recognized since it's Founding, and on which ALL Cultures have Found their Foundation, to get the Legal Nicities Taken Care of...

You want "Marriage" because you Want Validation for what you are as Equal to something you Factually and Naturally are NOT.

And one other thing, not that it hasn't been Said, you are NOT Denied Marriage...

You are Denied the Priviledge of Redifining it to fit your Deviation from what Creates us.



peace...

 

[KittenKoder]

All of which can be specified in a legal document.

Actually, in several...that may or may not be recognized by other states after all that work.

So, do you truely think that spending the hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get OTHER paperwork drawn up, notarized and signed...gay couples will get all THIS: Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo
covered as much as a $50 marriage license will?

With Civil Unions, you Sure would...

You don't Need to Molest the Natural Definition of Marriage, the Definition this Country has Recognized since it's Founding, and on which ALL Cultures have Found their Foundation, to get the Legal Nicities Taken Care of...

You want "Marriage" because you Want Validation for what you are as Equal to something you Factually and Naturally are NOT.

And one other thing, not that it hasn't been Said, you are NOT Denied Marriage...

You are Denied the Priviledge of Redifining it to fit your Deviation from what Creates us.



peace...

This "redefining" bullshit is old. Marriage has been "redefined" many times over the centuries as it is. Remember it wasn't long ago they "redefined" it to not include polygamy, they "redefined" it to include all "races", they "redefined" it to earlier to be a legal contract. Once it became a legal contract the definition stopped being important and the contract itself must be held to the same standards as any business contract. Get the legal contract out of it completely, then you can "define" it however you want.

 

[mal]

Actually, in several...that may or may not be recognized by other states after all that work.

So, do you truely think that spending the hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get OTHER paperwork drawn up, notarized and signed...gay couples will get all THIS: Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo
covered as much as a $50 marriage license will?

With Civil Unions, you Sure would...

You don't Need to Molest the Natural Definition of Marriage, the Definition this Country has Recognized since it's Founding, and on which ALL Cultures have Found their Foundation, to get the Legal Nicities Taken Care of...

You want "Marriage" because you Want Validation for what you are as Equal to something you Factually and Naturally are NOT.

And one other thing, not that it hasn't been Said, you are NOT Denied Marriage...

You are Denied the Priviledge of Redifining it to fit your Deviation from what Creates us.



peace...

This "redefining" bullshit is old. Marriage has been "redefined" many times over the centuries as it is. Remember it wasn't long ago they "redefined" it to not include polygamy, they "redefined" it to include all "races", they "redefined" it to earlier to be a legal contract. Once it became a legal contract the definition stopped being important and the contract itself must be held to the same standards as any business contract. Get the legal contract out of it completely, then you can "define" it however you want.

Polygamy was a United States Standard?...

As for Race, a Black Man and a White Woman can Procreate...

A White Woman and a White Woman can NOT...

Race is Irrelevant Regarding this Issue, and the Fact that Marriage was Denied Unconstitutionally to People Based on Race isn't a Sufficient Justification for Exclusively Expanding it to those who Defy Nature.



peace...

 

[KittenKoder]

With Civil Unions, you Sure would...

You don't Need to Molest the Natural Definition of Marriage, the Definition this Country has Recognized since it's Founding, and on which ALL Cultures have Found their Foundation, to get the Legal Nicities Taken Care of...

You want "Marriage" because you Want Validation for what you are as Equal to something you Factually and Naturally are NOT.

And one other thing, not that it hasn't been Said, you are NOT Denied Marriage...

You are Denied the Priviledge of Redifining it to fit your Deviation from what Creates us.



peace...

This "redefining" bullshit is old. Marriage has been "redefined" many times over the centuries as it is. Remember it wasn't long ago they "redefined" it to not include polygamy, they "redefined" it to include all "races", they "redefined" it to earlier to be a legal contract. Once it became a legal contract the definition stopped being important and the contract itself must be held to the same standards as any business contract. Get the legal contract out of it completely, then you can "define" it however you want.

Polygamy was a United States Standard?...

As for Race, a Black Man and a White Woman can Procreate...

A White Woman and a White Woman can NOT...

Race is Irrelevant Regarding this Issue, and the Fact that Marriage was Denied Unconstitutionally to People Based on Race isn't a Sufficient Justification for Exclusively Expanding it to those who Defy Nature.



peace...

Yes, polygamy was a "standard" ... if marriage is about "procreation" then why didn't anyone like the law that in order for a marriage to be valid the female would have to be pregnant within 6 months or the contract is void? Or are you forgetting that demonstration?

Face it, you are all running out of excuses, either get rid of marriage from the laws completely and make it only a religious matter, or make it a business contract like it is, allowing any consenting adults to enter into the contract.

 

[Setarcos]

and where they feel that such is insufficient, THEY CAN LOBBY TO HAVE THE LAW CHANGED!...

But the fact is that THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANY OF THAT...

Which is why they're lobbying to get the law changed

 

[Setarcos]

Why ios it that the pro-equality crowd cites SCOTUS cases while the anti-equality crowd keeps shouting '***'?

 

[007]

Actually, in several...that may or may not be recognized by other states after all that work.

So, do you truely think that spending the hundreds if not thousands of dollars to get OTHER paperwork drawn up, notarized and signed...gay couples will get all THIS: Marriage Rights and Benefits - Free Legal Information - Nolo
covered as much as a $50 marriage license will?

With Civil Unions, you Sure would...

You don't Need to Molest the Natural Definition of Marriage, the Definition this Country has Recognized since it's Founding, and on which ALL Cultures have Found their Foundation, to get the Legal Nicities Taken Care of...

You want "Marriage" because you Want Validation for what you are as Equal to something you Factually and Naturally are NOT.

And one other thing, not that it hasn't been Said, you are NOT Denied Marriage...

You are Denied the Priviledge of Redifining it to fit your Deviation from what Creates us.



peace...

This "redefining" bullshit is old. Marriage has been "redefined" many times over the centuries as it is. Remember it wasn't long ago they "redefined" it to not include polygamy, they "redefined" it to include all "races", they "redefined" it to earlier to be a legal contract. Once it became a legal contract the definition stopped being important and the contract itself must be held to the same standards as any business contract. Get the legal contract out of it completely, then you can "define" it however you want.

But... those redefinitions you mention all consist of men coupling with women. There's no homosexual perversion in any of it, and there's mention in the Bible of men having many wives, so actually polygamy isn't a redefinition. Modern day marriage of one man to one woman could be said to be a redefinition to that. I'd like to have two wives. Hell I'd like to have ten wives.

 

[KittenKoder]

Why ios it that the pro-equality crowd cites SCOTUS cases while the anti-equality crowd keeps shouting '***'?

Liberals and conservatives have this serious problem now, they only agree with protests and lobbying if it's in their personal interest.

 

[Setarcos]

If your church is trying to marry queers, I would challenge the status of what you attend as a 'church....' as there is no means to be a church and advocate for evil.

​

As I've said many times... I've been married 30 years, all in a row, to the same woman

I feel really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, bad for that woman. You must keep her in a cage, judging by the way you refer to women on these boards.

Our deal is with each other, sanctioned by God and God's sanctions are not effected by the decrees of the collective.

So you admit that DOMA was a law passed enforcing religion?

So, what I see from the queer lobby is pure evil

This coming from the 'man' (I use the term very loosely) who just a few days ago was calling for genocide

 

[Setarcos]

My wife and I just adopted a foster child

Show therm your posts on this forum...

 

[Setarcos]

Well if you're writing marriage contracts, for people who are not qualified for marriage, then your contracts are void PERIOD.

If your church is trying to marry queers, I would challenge the status of what you attend as a 'church....' as there is no means to be a church and advocate for evil.

With that said, as I've told you probably 5 dozen times... you could file articles of incorporation and solve the problem TODAY.

You and the rests of the advocates of evil reject that readily available solution; so its clear that you're not LOOKING for THAT solution...

What you seek is the legitimacy that marriage bears... which, were you to find success, you would destroy. Thus the adament refusal to give ya this one.

I mean think about it...

On the one hand you demand that marriage is nothing but a legal instrument... that marriage is whatever the law says it is...

But you reject purely legal remedies and you reject 'legal unions'... which is what the law says marriage could be for queers... OKA: Pretend Marriage for those who can't make the cut...

If YOU felt that Marriage really was, just a legal instrument and can be anything the law says it is... this never would have come to public notice.

The truth is that MOST fags do not give a red rats ass about Marriage... they're making their pretend households... and going about the business of being in love with their bestest good buddies... and trying their individual bests to rationalize around their shame...

As I've said many times... I've been married 30 years, all in a row, to the same woman and if the Hussien Regime decreed that marriage was outlawed entirely tomorrow, it would not effect my relationship with my wife in the slightest.

Our deal is with each other, sanctioned by God and God's sanctions are not effected by the decrees of the collective. If my wife were in the hospital, there'd be no one who would keep me out of her room... and if someone tried, the odds are that would be our mutual last moments on earth, as I killed their asses and those who came to their defense.

Ya see, my rights are unalienable... I am rightfully entitled to exercise them and while I am tolerant of temporal disagreements for most of them, there are some which I have zero tolerance for... and not the least of those are the bonds of my family... It's my family... not the state's... we're not the property of, or a member of any collective.... we are a separate sovereign who is united with a common concept... but where those who reject that concept come to rule over me and get between me and my family, they'll find that I do not recognize their authority, as I did not get my rights from them and I do not ask for their leave to exercise them.

So, what I see from the queer lobby is pure evil, which is trying to con the sum of the individuals that comprise 'the people' out of their rights... to which my response is a resounding:

**** THAT! ​

What kind of polling method did you use?

I doubt you've heard of it, it's an old system which at one time was quite commonly applied, but today is fairly rare... Google if ya need to, although it's my experience that such isn't found much on the web... it's called: COMMON SENSE

So you admit to making baseless assertions and being a liar..

 

[Setarcos]

My personal feeling is that people who think homosexuality is a choice are often just two sixpacks and a lonely night away from seeing their haunting homoerotic dreams becoming a reality.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to paperview again.

This rep system bites

 

[Setarcos]

The only reason I can think of that PI would be so adamant that homosexuality is a choice (and that it matters) is that he has homosexual urges and feels that if he can resist them, everyone should be as self-loathing and unhappy as he is.

Now, come on, not EVERY person that's so adamant on the issue is necessarily gay.

Now, there are *cough* certain people on this board *cough* that I feel are resisting homo urges.

But Pubilus ain't one of 'em. He's arguing more from sociology/culture issues it seems. I disagree on some points, but labeling him a homophobe, nah.

That's actually one of the more uneducated stances:

If you defend women's rights, you must BE a woman.

If you defent black rights, you must BE black.

And if you defend gay rights, you must BE gay.

So, to the conservatives, I must be a gay black woman. And you're out.

The reasoning is clear, only stick up for your "own kind".

Well, it was conservatives who fought to keep voting a White Male-only thing...

 

[Setarcos]

Define: Normal

LOL, yeah, what is "normal" nowadays?

Normal is one male and one female... X and Y... innee and outee...

It's noteworthy that you phrased your response as ya have... noting the decadence which has seemingly no bottom.

But sit back and imagine for a moment what the world looks like a generation after homosexuals destroy marriage... When it is no longer even noteworthy when someone's a queer.

What do ya think the edge of THAT envelope is going to look like?

It's not terribly difficult... there's a finite number of probabilities...

After homosexual marriage, the next logical step is polygamy... and the same arguments used to lower the standard for homos will be used for polygamist.

We had the 200 page thread not too long ago where the queer advocates of the board, could not come up with ANY way or reason that marriage should not be opened to polygamists...

Then it's Adult/child Sex... then beastiality...

Now the first response to that will be for the usual suspect to reel and react with disgust at the very thought... But the fact is that human sexuality only has so many variables and what one generation accepts the next will embrace it and blow right by it.

One fairly good example of such study of the logical extension of a culture which embraces left-think is the movie "Idiocracy"... and frankly, they really toned it down...

You do realize, of course, that child pornography was legal once, right? It was the Progressives who fought to get it banned. Conservatives clung to child sex largely because it was based in the Judeo-Christian tradition in which a girl was only desirable and a young virgin. This all goes back to Jewish marriage and property laws.

 

[Setarcos]

They arent missing any rights. Though I wish they would exercise their right to remain silent for a while. Im tired of hearing about this immoral crap.

Who forced you to click the link to this thread?

Noone?


Shut the **** up and stop bitching.

 

[Setarcos]

But... those redefinitions you mention all consist of men coupling with women.

How many women were involved in those contracts?

Modern day marriage of one man to one woman could be said to be a redefinition to that. I'd like to have two wives. Hell I'd like to have ten wives.

Of course, you view women as subhuman

 

[007]

But... those redefinitions you mention all consist of men coupling with women.

How many women were involved in those contracts?

Modern day marriage of one man to one woman could be said to be a redefinition to that. I'd like to have two wives. Hell I'd like to have ten wives.

Of course, you view women as subhuman

I've been reading some of your prior frothing at the mouth, rabid, liberal, in love with homosexuality posts.

You do not know me, you do not know how I view women.

If anyone in this thread should be told to "shut the **** up," as you did to another, it should be you.

Get a grip, and quit puking up your tepid emotion that no one is buying, and learn how to properly use the ******* quote function. It's not that complicated.... for most.