Gay marriage in all 50 states!!

Yep! This country goes right way!!! Next: marriage between man and animal, between brother and sister, mother and son, etc. Can I marry a stone or a tree?
Lets enjoy these freedoms!


PS. You can clearly see how in US, having a strong lobby, money, control of the mass media and addition of fluoride into your tap water, you can impose upon people practically anything.

 

<snort!> Did you also miss the evils of voter registration?

 

The amendment of the civil rights act is the next logical step.

 

Since I am not getting the answer, which means EXACT wording", then there is none. Can someone point me to the exact phrases, which supports "gay marriage"? You know perfectly that there is nothing about gay marriage.

No, I won't deal with it. And it's too bad that people with money can force others accept things they don't agree with. US type of democracy, which is in reality is a plutocracy. 10-20 years ago I wouldn't be concerned about any "gay rights". But now I hate it, because it's being put everywhere on a media.

I see that hate crime statistics against gays is only rising, in fact, proportionaly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States
So, don't talk to us like that and watch your mouth. You only endangering your community. You perfectly know that this "gay stuff" is getting imposed and people hate it!

It's excluded, because the definition of marriage was defined as "between man and woman". If you would be man and woman and someone would deny your right to marry, then it would be a violation of rights. Man/man, woman/woman don't fit that definition, then it was not a discrimination.

How can you call a marriage a "right"? It's was a unity between man and woman for 100s of years. Who were fitting into that definition had a right to marry. So, you were not discriminated, since gay couple is not man and woman. You have a right to marry, if you are man and a woman.

Example of president shows you how I can also link definition to a "right" and scream about the violation, like people have no right to be called "presidents"! So their rights are violated!!!". This is how I can twist it.

What is done-the definition of marriage was redefined. But before you were not discriminated by definition of marriage.



So, can someone else point to the words in 14th amendment which says that man/man woman/woman have a right to marry?

I guess "founding fathers" are turning in their graves hearing this. Since they would never guess that definition of marriage can be perverted on a such way and it would need a protection by specific definition.

 

As I see, the definition of "right" in USA is defined by amount of money is payed. Lobby + mass media control.
It's a crap. US government can't be no longer trusted, by observing many facts.

For example, seeing how Collin Powell lied right in front of UN and whole world community:


US was supporting Taliban, while USSR was fighting it, which is an obvious truth. Now US is cowardly trying to play some sort of "evil fighter" in Afghanistan, while refusing to destroy Heroin poppy field plantations.
http://www.infowars.com/war-on-drug...rding-assisting-lucrative-afghan-opium-trade/

US proclaimed that there will be "no fly zone" above Libya, while it just went ahead and bombed it.

US dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japanese civilians on 1945.

US harasses Russia with Crimean annexation, while it did absolutely the same with Kosovo, by taking it away from Serbia by mean of referendum. But there was a great difference - the Crimean annexation was conducted via referendum without any single shot fired.

Giving these examples you can see that US government can't be trusted. If you have money, you can impose anything I want in US. If you don't - you are nothing. Was there a referendum about "gay marriage"? 9 people decided it for all! These people are not even elected by US people, they are assigned!

Obama's second campaign wouldn't be sponsored if he wouldn't support "gay rights". US presidents are rather the marionettes of the sponsors and not true leaders.

So, where is a democracy? US government is a crap.

 

Show me the exact wording in the second amendment that says you can own a colt M4

Of course you'll deal with it. You don't have a choice.


[QUOTEwIt's excluded, because the definition of marriage was defined as "between man and woman". If you would be man and woman and someone would deny your right to marry, then it would be a violation of rights. Man/man, woman/woman don't fit that definition, then it was not a discrimination.[/QUOTE]
Nope

Marriage is a right. Can't denying because of the gender of the couple.

This is retarded.

Equal,protection.

They're also spinning because blacks aren't property and women can vote.

 

The issue here is that marriage requires consent. Children lack the legal right to consent. Animals, plants, and inaminate things lack the mental capacity to understand marriage, and so can not consent.

Incest between homosexual couples should legal, since the ban on incest is mainly because of imbreeding.

Opposite sex incest carries a danger to the overall gene pool, since any defects caused can be carried on to future generations, even without continued imbreeding.

 

Why I have to show to that? I was not referring to that, while you do. I am not asking you EXACT wording, I am asking where EXACTLY is says that. Defend your case. I am third time asking it.

If course I won't. It's my right to pursue the happiness and express myself Looks like you are dictating me what I would do about it, denying my constitutional rights!
There are a lot of none-criminal ways to hurt feelings of people which using money forced the crap upon us.

Yes. If something is not applicable to you by definition, then you can't call it "a right". Another example: People can't collect pension, unless they reached a certain age. I can't say that I am discriminated, because I didn't reach that age. If I would fit the definition and didn't get pension, then I can.

Marriage has a definition who can have that right.

As retarded as a "gay marriage", this is why I used that.

So, would you mind showing it to me, finally??? Can you back up yourself with something?

But not as fast as when hear a thing as "gay marriage"!


I wonder, if you compare these:
http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/domestic-issues/attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

With the crime stats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

You can see that stats about "gay marriage" is most likely a lie. Because crime stats are rising proportionally to the gay propaganda infused into the masses.

 

Exactly the same was with gay marriage. You can just pay to lobbyists and mass media, thus we will gradually work through that, as they did with "gay marriage". They started to work on that somewhere in 70s. You just need money, its a US and we will twist it on any way. First we start from "discrimination" of course, show movies how miserable these people are, then twist the Constitution and push this into the government and so on. We will get a President through, threatening that "we will not sponsor your campaign, if you won't do THAT for us!".
Sounds familiar?
In "leading democracy -USA", power don't belong to people, power belongs whom can control people via mass media and by fluoride addition into the tap water, and to "sponsors", which control elections.

 

Incest is legal between consenting adult partners in many states, what shouldn't be legal is for them to have children.

And since blood relations is not a protected class like race or sex, the government is legally justified in discriminating against them.

 

Non-direct relations are legal. Cousins for example. Parent/offspring and sibling incest is illegal in all 50 states.

 

BTW, I am amazed how disrespectful you are towards your "founding fathers", using the word "spinning" towards the well knonw political figures.
How long was out there a definition of marriage as a unity between man and a woman? For 1000s of years. All the time, all over the world, unlike the "black property" and woman voting rights.
And the way you twisted the constitution to redefine it. You can't even show it to me where is it in 14th amendment! Giving freedom to some people goes nothing in comparison with a redefinition of fundamental conception of marriage.

Yes, they are surely "spining" 1000 rpms in their graves, after what you've done!

 

Tell them that it's unconstitutional, because it makes you unhappy and you have a right to persue a happiness. Also you have a right to express yourself and it's blocked by these laws, which are discriminating you!

 

I really do not give a (*)(*)(*)(*). But, to say there is no legitimate reason for banning close relation incest is ignorant. The defects that can arise from imbreeding are passed on even without further imbreeding. One generation of children born of incest can pass on any defects they have for generations.

 

No the amazing thing is that you and others make such a big deal about two people having the and rights as heterosexuals do even though gay people have been together and raising children decades before this ruling. Any other bs claims you would like to complain about?

 

I have not taken a stance on this, but couldn't you require couples to take genetic DNA testing for defects prior to marriage and further require the results be examined by a geneticist so that at least you are discriminating against the right suspect class rather than presuming every familial marriage is dangerous and no non familial marriage is not. Of course this all somehow is supposed to make a big difference in an age where sex and pregnancy outside of wedlock is as common as dandelions in my lawn.

We know so much more about congenital defects, after mapping the genome, that we presumed to know in the 1950's1960's and 1970's. It would be a shame to base our laws on dated or half complete information. We can narrow our focus on individuals who actually are passing the genes, rather than guessing at populations that increase liklyhood.

 

Lol, because you are asking me for the exact wording for same sex marriage......

Of course you will. You don't have a choice. It's the law of the land.

I'll talk to you any way I wish. Threaten me again and you'll be reported.

Are you forced to be gay? If not nothing is being imposed on you.

And now it isn't because that limitation is unconstitutional. Deal with it.

Of course it was discrimination. That's why you lost.

The Supreme Court has always called it a right.

This argument was ruled unconstitutional.

This is retarded.

I'm not gay, so I wasn't affected. But the previous bans discriminated. That's why you lost.

As soon as you can point to the words in the second amendment saying you have a right to own a colt M4.

Just like they're turning in their graves because blacks and women can vote.

 

Just as it should be!!

Amen!!

 

You unironically say that you lost freedom by coexisting with gay people and don't even really try to hide your fascism, therefore your opinion has been discarded.

 

You fail. Common, stop fooling around. Where it says in constitution that gay people has a right to marry? Give me EXACT wording, what supports your case, meaning, cut and paste the EXACT parts of 14th amendment, where it says that gay people has a right to marry.
Asking 4th time!

MOD EDIT - Rule 3/9


MOD EDIT - Off Topic

What is it to do with the criminal stats, you have been presented? I am showing how you are hated. Love to gay people is imposed at me.

Every law and right has a definition. You don't fit it. This is where you lost. You are not discriminated, on the same way like I have no right to receive pension, because I didn't reach a certain age, etc.

I've heard that. And I've shown many points, which point to unfairness of this decision.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Why I should show you something, where I don't refer to support my self? You fail and keep failing to support your case.

You are getting better, but I am amazed how disrespectful you are towards your "founding fathers", how you used the word "spinning" before towards the well known political figures.
How long was out there a definition of marriage as a unity between man and a woman? For 1000s of years. All the time, all over the world, unlike the "black property" and woman voting rights.
And the way you twisted the constitution to redefine it. You can't even show it to me where is it in 14th amendment! Giving freedom to some people goes nothing in comparison with a redefinition of fundamental conception of marriage.

Yes, they are surely turning in their graves, after what you've done!


Hey, can you give me somebody else here, who can show me where exactly in constitution it says that gay people have a right to marry? You are giving me here only trolls, as usual, btw.
Cut and paste the wording + link, pls.


- - - Updated - - -

I just have a different view, I just go with nature, which was there for millions of years, this is how we got created and lived all the time and progress. What they are trying to do now is a BS.
Where is a proof that what all this gay stuff will bring us a progress? There are tons of statistics about pedophilia, suicidal rates, infection rates, death rates - which is much more then among heterosexuals. And of course, they can't give a birth.

 

Well the constitution doesn't say anybody has the right to marry anybody. If the states feel so incredibly strongly about banning same sex marriage they can just do away with licensing marriage all together. I doubt they will because it's one way they collect money. What do you wan't to bet religion isn't so important to the states if religious people demand the state quit recognizing marriage all together.

But i will go through the 14th amendment with you and explain how it was used in the court case.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

If a gay person is born in this country are they a citizen?
Is marriage a privilege?
Is a state ban on marriage between a same sex couple an abridgement of that privilege?
I say yes to all of the above.
If you disagree with my answers please address what question you feel the answer is not yes.

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Is marriage a liberty?
Are homosexuals persons?
Is denying them the ability to marry the same sex by banning such a union denying them liberty?
Again I say yes to all of these. If you disagree with my answers please address what question you feel the answer is not yes

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Who is within its jurisdiction?

 

Repetition. I've already dealt with all of this point by point and showed how and why you are wrong.

 

There is no such thing as marriage in nature.

Does something have to bring us progress to make it legal? What progress is there in allowing cigarettes, what progress is there in allowing obecity?

I would argue though it brings progress because it recognizes same sex families, especially those families that are raising children now.

Sorry but you are arguing something completely different and you are doing it quite erroneously.

We are talking about a MAN-MADE function called marriage, to which gays are now recognized federally and state wise. You are talking nonsense which has nothing to do with that. You spout off buzz words like "nature", but you don't even know what that means. Marriage is not "nature".

BTW, gays could get married before, their marriage just wasn't recognized legally by the state and federal and now it is. Marriage has NOTHING to do with nature, it is a man-made recognition.

 

Ok, finally, I've got a reasonable opponent. Thank you, that's a relief, these trolls are very annoying and just trying to shut me up!

If you go with definitions of 14th amendment, then you should go with definitions present at that time - July 9, 1868. Every law and right has definitions. It was written for 1868 definitions, so you are definitely not discriminated, because 1868 definition of marriage is not applicable to man/man and woman/woman.
At that time, marriage was defined as a man and woman. You can't beat this fact and this is where whole case is failing.
Even court (9 people) can be wrong, or rather sold out.

- - - Updated - - -

Where did I say that marriage=nature? I said that go with heterosexual relationship - this is what I've meant about nature. And in a marriage, they have heterosexual relationship, as it was defined at the time of 14th amendment - 1886, the year your were referring to via 14th amendment.

This is why I make a big deal out of "gay marriage", as I was asked originally:
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/pol...-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html
http://www.quora.com/What-are-all-the-arguments-against-gay-marriage