Members banned from this thread: Humorme


Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 264
Thanks Tree145Thanks

Thread: Deplorable People Are Still Trying to Deprive Gays of Hard Won Rights

  1. #61
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,650
    Thanks
    1039

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Ask the gay community these questions. It's like this plain and simple:

    Rights are divided into three basic flavors: a "right," inalienable rights and unalienable Rights.

    * a right is generally granted by government; it is mostly permission since you ask for it and it is revocable

    * an inalienable right is one we are presumed to have, but it can be given up by consent

    * Unalienable Rights are bestowed upon you at birth and are above the jurisdiction of the government (i.e. the Right to Life.)

    Gay marriage is one of those "rights" that is a mere privilege. First, the Supreme Court had to over-turn laws that made it a crime to engage in same sex acts. That paved the way for the Court invented "right." Now, gays are asking for a license in order to marry. What is the legal definition of a license?

    "The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct."

    License legal definition of license

    IF gay marriage (or marriage in general) were an inalienable right or an unalienable one, you would not need permission to do that which you have a Right to do. Just as a ten year old cannot demand permission to stay up past his parents curfew, nobody in society can demand that the people grant them permission to do any act they so desire.

    It is highly inconsistent to give the federal government control over your life and then presume you can force that government to give you what you want when you don't have the power to over-rule them. If you think you have a Right to get married, then do it. Why are you asking for permission?

    IF you choose to operate outside the parameters of the federal government and their requirements, then you can't bitch when Uncle Scam denies you any benefits. For example: Years ago my brother exited the system and got all he paid into Socialist Security back. He revoked his SSN. When he retires, he will not get the government benefits that retirees get - i.e. a Socialist Security check, food stamps, etc.

    I'm trying to understand this guy's view, but man he isn't making it easy.


    Inalienable vs. unalienable
    English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form.*Unalienable mainly appears in quotes of or references to the Declaration. Inalienable prevails everywhere else. Inalienable vs. unalienable - Grammarist

    Now we know for sure what a blithering wind bag you actually are. Another thing that you can't seem to grasp is that the is of same sex marriage is not even about whether or not marriage per se is a right or what sort of right it might be. It is about the right of same sex couples to enjoy marriage within the parameters set by the laws of their state -as opposite sex couples enjoy. If you had read Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell, you would know that. So all of your blathering about rights is totally useless in that regard.
    Last edited by ProgressivePatriot; 23rd December 2016 at 09:48 AM.
    Thanks from AttusBlack and Friday13

  2. #62
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    7,084
    Thanks
    5609

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    The right to equal protection under the law was already there. They just applied it to same sex marriage just as they did to interracial marriage decades prior.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't know why that's so hard for the homophobes to understand...
    Thanks from Friday13

  3. #63
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    266

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    Going to be pretty freaking difficult to overturn a Supreme Court decision.

    It will require a keen, legal argument, that must prove that the right for gays to marry, is detrimental to society at large.

    I just can't see that happening.

    Now, whether Transgenders should be allowed to shower with females....that is still up for debate.

    (OH, and, while it may upset some on the left, there may be laws and/or legal decisions, that afford Christians some rights to not be forced to take part in a gay wedding ceremony.)

    But, if that is the worst you have to worry about...count yourself lucky. (People all over the globe, gay and straight, have much bigger problems.....)
    You're so close to understand precedent. Let's quote Scalia again:

    "Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

    I dug you up a link. The OP tries to deny the cold, hard facts, but IF it remained illegal for people to engage in same sex relationships, there could be no gay marriage. Scalia called it accurately. Now, that he was right, I'm asking those who benefited, why are they not on the side of the others Scalia mentioned.

    At some point, Scalia's points will be an issue. Can a guy marry two women? Is beastiality constitutionally protected? I think the opportunity to reconsider IS coming. So, now as I pursue the answers, trolls will be after me, the OP pissed at me, and my questions are going to be dodged.

  4. #64
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    51,862
    Thanks
    18490

    From
    america
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    How about you guys quit trying to get rid of nativity scenes or ten commandments statues?

    Talk about being hypocritical.

    Live and let live right?
    Good point.

  5. #65
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,650
    Thanks
    1039

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    You're so close to understand precedent. Let's quote Scalia again:

    "Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

    I dug you up a link. The OP tries to deny the cold, hard facts, but IF it remained illegal for people to engage in same sex relationships, there could be no gay marriage. Scalia called it accurately. Now, that he was right, I'm asking those who benefited, why are they not on the side of the others Scalia mentioned.

    At some point, Scalia's points will be an issue. Can a guy marry two women? Is beastiality constitutionally protected? I think the opportunity to reconsider IS coming. So, now as I pursue the answers, trolls will be after me, the OP pissed at me, and my questions are going to be dodged.
    I'm not pissed. I'm enjoying this. I don't have a dog in this fight. Nothing to loose

    Please know that no body is stopping you from petitioning the court, or lobbying for legislation to allow you to marry your mother, you dog, or your minor child of either sex......or all of them. But you might find that the legal, moral, and social issues and implications are a bit different which is why your pushing that clap trap is so fucking stupid!
    Thanks from cable2 and Friday13

  6. #66
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    266

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    Now we know for sure what a blithering wind bag you actually are. Another thing that you can't seem to grasp is that the is of same sex marriage is not even about whether or not marriage per se is a right or what sort of right it might be. It is about the right of same sex couples to enjoy marriage within the parameters set by the laws of their state -as opposite sex couples enjoy. If you had read Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell, you would know that. So all of your blathering about rights is totally useless in that regard.
    Geez, dude, if you would answer simple questions I might understand where you are coming from. If the Supreme Court had not overturned sodomy laws, it would have remained illegal for same sex partners to even engage in sex, let alone assume they could get married. Your Obergerfell decision could never have happened without first overturning sodomy laws.

    Now, I asked you simple questions and, smart ass, the "long winded" comments you referred to weren't even directed at you... except the one wherein your played dumb. It's time you got off your high horse and responded with simple answers to the simple questions... unless you got something to hide.

  7. #67
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    266

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Marriage is not an equal protection of the law matter. Equal protection of the law meant that one law applied to every party, regardless of race, creed, etc., when taken to court. It is the perversion of equal protection that is in play. But we see where this is going, doing away with laws on incest, and the age of consent, those are the next thing to be attacked.

    The Progs can't wait for the new Sodom and Gomorrah.
    I have tried to get the OP to respond to this point. Supreme Court Justice Scalia saw where this was going. The people you're calling progs see it, but refuse to answer simple questions.

    Obviously if they get what they want, the means justify the end, regardless of the other doors that it opens. With the doors to incest, age of consent, polygamy, bestiality, etc. being opened it got me curious as to how gays could oppose the inevitable outcome of their legal strategies. OR, do they want all of that to become law? Trying to get straight answers is like poking hot butter up a wild cat's rear end with a red hot poker.

  8. #68
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    266

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    I'm not pissed. I'm enjoying this. I don't have a dog in this fight. Nothing to loose

    Please know that no body is stopping you from petitioning the court, or lobbying for legislation to allow you to marry your mother, you dog, or your minor child of either sex......or all of them. But you might find that the legal, moral, and social issues and implications are a bit different which is why your pushing that clap trap is so fucking stupid!
    So you are here for entertainment value; I'm here for the educational pursuit. I'll continue to ask the pertinent questions... see my previous post before this one as an example.

    This should entertain you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3H3971NyQ#t=0.915532
    Last edited by Humorme; 23rd December 2016 at 12:26 PM.

  9. #69
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,650
    Thanks
    1039

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Geez, dude, if you would answer simple questions I might understand where you are coming from. If the Supreme Court had not overturned sodomy laws, it would have remained illegal for same sex partners to even engage in sex, let alone assume they could get married. Your Obergerfell decision could never have happened without first overturning sodomy laws.

    Now, I asked you simple questions and, smart ass, the "long winded" comments you referred to weren't even directed at you... except the one wherein your played dumb. It's time you got off your high horse and responded with simple answers to the simple questions... unless you got something to hide.
    Geezzzz yourself dude! I've answered your inane questions as have others here. I can't help it if you don't like the answers. All that you are doing here is trolling distracting from the actual issue which is the Obergefell Decision. Your crap about the sodomy is a prime example. It's irrelevant because it was overturned, and had it no been, you can't say with assurance that it would have precluded same sex marriage. Most likely it would have been tossed as part of the same ruling the same way the Baker v Nelson was tossed on that June day.

    Another distraction is your blathering about how marriage is not a right. Purely academic in relation to same sex marriage because, as I have tried to convey to you, the issues is whether or not same sex couple should have the same legal standing, protections and benefits as opposite sex couples.

    Now if you want to argue that some guy who wants to marry his daughter, or son, or horse, should have the same legal rights as unrelated, consenting, human adults please do . Should be good for a laugh.

  10. #70
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,650
    Thanks
    1039

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    I have tried to get the OP to respond to this point. Supreme Court Justice Scalia saw where this was going. The people you're calling progs see it, but refuse to answer simple questions.

    Obviously if they get what they want, the means justify the end, regardless of the other doors that it opens. With the doors to incest, age of consent, polygamy, bestiality, etc. being opened it got me curious as to how gays could oppose the inevitable outcome of their legal strategies. OR, do they want all of that to become law? Trying to get straight answers is like poking hot butter up a wild cat's rear end with a red hot poker.
    SCOTUS has said that it is indeed an equal protection issue. Who the hell are you people to say otherwise? Same sex, unrelated consenting adults are equal to opposite sex, unrelated, consenting adults. A man and his dog is not. I was hoping that you were smart enough to grasp that concept but I'm running low on hope.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Howey

Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 5th April 2016, 09:06 PM
  2. PHONY Cruz slams GAY rights--tape of him telling rich gays, he doesn't care!
    By cpicturetaker12 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 9th January 2016, 05:52 PM
  3. Replies: 95
    Last Post: 3rd May 2015, 02:02 PM
  4. Poll: 70 Percent In Jamaica Oppose Any Rights For Gays
    By freckles in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st June 2008, 10:06 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed