Roy Moore stands with homophobic supporters

Okay, you can think it wrong as long as I and my partner get access to that license and government does not discriminate in how it applies its statutes and regulations concerning the nature of contract it represents.

 

Laws regarding murder have an obvious utility to society. Laws against homosexuality have no use except to certain religious fanatics. Laws prohibiting the immigration of people who are neither criminals nor contagiously sick truly damage our nation in all respects.

 

Joe Biden?

 

^ Opinion.

^ FACT

 

Made me lol, but I think Borat gets the point. It a parent thing.

 

I think it depends on the person.

Nature, she's a crazy beeyotch.

 

No, marriage is not a right. But if you are going to grant that right (or privilege, actually), then you must do so in a manner that does not unfairly and unjustifiably discriminate against a protected class of citizen.

 

You condemn Moore's views as unworthy of a US Senator, and yet have no opinion on TongueRapey Franken, the Sexual assaulter's views on Homosexuals?

Your thoughts on Al Franken's views:

"I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia."
~ Al Franken

 

Franken was being a creepy jerk there; it was tongue in cheek.

His own for once...

 

Too bad the same can't be said for you.

More to the point, it's all I need.

That might be a reasonable request had I asserted that they needed to take any positive action, but what I said is that what they are doing is illegal.

 

you are going to have to be specific. I suspect this is going to turn on definitions.

 

Marriage is a contract. A contract of a rather special type in many respects. Frex, in order to enter into most contracts you cannot be mentally ill, but in marriage it's a requirement.

Because Christianity has about as much of a prohibition against child rape/marriage as does Islam, which is to say it PROMOTES it. Look at just about ALL of those chiliasts that run into serious conflict with the law and that's what it's about in the end. Their hierarchy want to be Dirty Old Men and have Gee-YAY-sus help them

 

So you support no removal of gun rights, since you are so big on rights?
You likewise don't support any law that hinders ones right to free speech, even "hate" speech?

 

Just going to answer this because its here, and so am I. its not that there is not or should not be a system to restrict constitutional rights. Most people realize that rights as described in the bill of rights, are narrowed or broadened through a sluggish, arduous and indirect process through which political pressures to impact the kinds of justices nominated and confirmed to change direction through a long series of precedent setting decisions. its like turning around the biggest ocean liner ever put to sea. It takes a long long time.

The other way is through amendment Nobody I know has argued that the amendment process described in the Constitution to restrict, abandon or create new rights should be jettisoned so its not 'unamerican' to argue to hinder, remove or create new rights. We just have to be prepared for a complicated on controversial process to get there.

I do not support any legal recognition of 'hate speech' beyond its use as evidence of intent or motive behind criminal or tortious conduct but all speech is subject to that purpose and that is nothing unique or new.

I do support changes in the second amendment to allow states more latitude in regulating firearms, but not the federal government.

 

Dusmissed.

 

Haha, you just made my list of all-time favorite quotes.

 

Actually you are a mix of both. We all are. There is nothing else.

No, it's not. That is an opinion.

 

Your question is nonsense...unless you are an anarchist.

So you are seriously asking why someone should follow a law when someone else does not follow a TOTALLY different law?

'Gee your honor, why should I follow armed robbery laws while the defendant before me refuses to follow the drunk driving laws?'

Oh yeah...that will work REALLLLY well as a defense.


As for your question? If you (or that moron Moore) don't want to uphold abortion laws...go ahead. See how far you (or he) get with that plan.
Not far, I am guessing.

BTW - I am against illegal immigration and support building a wall (though not with Trump's idiotic 'the Mexican's will build it' idea).

 

No, it is not good. My state, and local cities within my state, are impeding, facilitating, and encouraging the breaking of Federal Immigration Law. What is being looked at is the proper case to bring forward, so that the Supreme Court can rule on the question.

 

Homophobia is not a real thing. Neither is same sex marriage.

 

Some real solid logic there, Lou.

 

It is. Homophobia and same sex marriage is the result of the dumbing down stupidity of Americans.

It's like the movie Idiocracy.

 

Oh man! Your logic is astoundingly brilliant! You even cited to a comedy movie as scientific fact!

 

What, you want scientific proof that homophobia is a made up thing?

You want scientific proof that gay marriage is a farce?

 

The absurdity you highlighted is precisely the point.

What are we without the law?

What becomes of us when we selectively decide which laws should be followed or enforced?

What becomes of us when its GOVERNMENT choose what laws it wants to adhere to?

See this is why the comparison I posed is so exceptional, every challenge to it is reinforcement of it.

In the end we either follow the law or we don't.

Splitting hairs is a subjective matter and subjectivity undermines our Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.