Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

[UncleBuck]

Getting married and receiving privileges is just like any other licensed privilege

it's not, but if it were, that would mean that you can't deny it to people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

or do you believe that it would be legal to ban gays from driving?

 

[OddBall1st]

Gays haven`t been denied a law, they have been denied a privilege that saves money and health costs and money oriented things alike. The Gay line of attack is hurt feelings.

like a dog barking at itself in a mirror.

Could be worse, I could be chasing that damn tail again....

 

[OddBall1st]

it's not, but if it were, that would mean that you can't deny it to people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

or do you believe that it would be legal to ban gays from driving?

Exactly buck, and when a State says same sex marriage does not qualify, live with it. Gays did otherwise. The People have issues with that. You don`t.

 

[UncleBuck]

Gays haven`t been denied a law, they have been denied a privilege that saves money and health costs and money oriented things alike.

no, they've been denied access to a civil institution, not a privilege, which precludes them from enjoying equal protection of the law, their constitutional right.

dumbass.

 

[UncleBuck]

Exactly buck, and when a State says same sex marriage does not qualify, live with it. Gays did otherwise. The People have issues with that. You don`t.

so do you think it would be constitutional to prohibit gays from driving?

 

[OddBall1st]

so do you think it would be constitutional to prohibit gays from driving?

No. That would fall under a State law. Like Marriage, State to State, Nothing to do with the SCOTUS any way it`s brought to them. Prohibiting Gays from Driving is not a constitutional matter as much as prohibiting drunk drivers. Regulating marriage with stipulations is a States matter as well, nothing to do with Constitutional laws established to protect or grant you from or to written law. Gays lost twice. Then the Democrats needed votes and suddenly .....

 

[UncleBuck]

Prohibiting Gays from Driving is not a constitutional matter

wow, you are literally retarded.

 

[Padawanbater2]

So is driving, and my infractions shouldn`t affect other drivers. What you show is all the 14th alright but pertaining to after the fact. Qualifications are clearly spelled out to get it. The 14th gives you protection after that fact.

Which State has a law that says you must marry. That`s the one the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over, not the regulating of the marriage. Gays feel that they qualify to marry, which isn`t a big deal but the man and a woman part of it is where the States regulate, not the SCOUTUS. The States and Federal courts both ruled in favor of the people and by breaking the law, the SCOTUS ruled on it.

Peoples biggest misconception about the SCOTUS is that it is the appeal court of the Federal court or it`s "higher up",.....it is not. But when it came to regulating marriage privileges the SCOTUS ruled.....

Getting married and receiving privileges is just like any other licensed privilege, State to State and stipulations can apply.

You can`t do that to a Right or Constitutional law.

Gays didn`t like that, claimed discrimination and a court that shouldn`t rule on it did......They lost to the people,....twice.

Instead of using "gay", use "black", now, using the same argument, do states have the right to define marriage between one white man and one white woman, exclusively? If yes, why yes? (remember, the 14th amendment applies to "all citizens") If no, then why should states have that right if the only difference is the person's sexual orientation?

Looking forward to your reply

 

[OddBall1st]

wow, you are literally retarded.

If it ever came to fruition, it would be a State issue. Not a Constitutional matter. Marriage and driving are not Constitutional laws. The SCOTUS would rule on that States laws constitutionality but will not regulate them. Being able to drive or not is regulation. I have a license to drive but not tandem tractor trailer. The blind can`t drive maybe they should say they`re being discriminated against...The Gay can`t reproduce, their marriage is different and does not qualify for my privileges is not a Constitutional matter.

Instead of using "gay", use "black", now, using the same argument, do states have the right to define marriage between one white man and one white woman, exclusively? If yes, why yes? (remember, the 14th amendment applies to "all citizens") If no, then why should states have that right if the only difference is the person's sexual orientation?

Looking forward to your reply

White man and White woman, are not scientific, Man and Woman are. Question 2, Same sex marriage is not the same as heterosexual and should not enjoy the same benefits if said State regulation says so. To say they are the same is denying the other the difference which is scientific and reproductive which paves way for stipulation. The 14th isn`t involved and the SCOTUS isn`t either. All because they`re Gay. Being Gay is limited, so I can clearly see the need for stipulations.

Remember, we`re talking about why marriage should not be between a man and woman. I`m on the it should be side. Others are on the should not be side to reap benefits of the other. That is all. Still not a Constitutional matter because marriage is not a law of the land. State regulated....live with it. But Gays didn`t because democrats needed votes.

The only thing going good is that the SCOTUS left open the door for the people to decide. That will surly happen if they don`t stop demanding shit cuz they`re Gay.

So far I can live with what`s transpired with the Gay crowd but do not have to like it nor support it. Now how that got done calls for an arrest and that`s out of my hands r it wouldn`t have gotten done.. Once opposition to being Gay becomes illegal, I`ll start that war. Even in the rain.

I saw through your trick try........don`t put it in the pool, it has a hole in it......

 

[UncleBuck]

The Gay can`t reproduce, their marriage is different and does not qualify for my privileges

so we should also deprive old people and infertile couples of marriage benefits as well?

dumbass.

Same sex marriage is not the same as heterosexual and should not enjoy the same benefits

the literal definition of bigotry right there.

State regulated....live with it. But Gays didn`t because democrats needed votes.

yep, it's a conspiracy. just like how the jews faked the holocaust for sympathy and now they own hollywood, the banks, and the media.

Once opposition to being Gay becomes illegal, I`ll start that war. Even in the rain.

no you won't, you're a cowardly pussy.

 

[Padawanbater2]

White man and White woman, are not scientific, Man and Woman are. Question 2, Same sex marriage is not the same as heterosexual and should not enjoy the same benefits if said State regulation says so. To say they are the same is denying the other the difference which is scientific and reproductive which paves way for stipulation. The 14th isn`t involved and the SCOTUS isn`t either. All because they`re Gay. Being Gay is limited, so I can clearly see the need for stipulations.

Remember, we`re talking about why marriage should not be between a man and woman. I`m on the it should be side. Others are on the should not be side to reap benefits of the other. That is all. Still not a Constitutional matter because marriage is not a law of the land. State regulated....live with it. But Gays didn`t because democrats needed votes.

The only thing going good is that the SCOTUS left open the door for the people to decide. That will surly happen if they don`t stop demanding shit cuz they`re Gay.

So far I can live with what`s transpired with the Gay crowd but do not have to like it nor support it. Now how that got done calls for an arrest and that`s out of my hands r it wouldn`t have gotten done.. Once opposition to being Gay becomes illegal, I`ll start that war. Even in the rain.

I saw through your trick try........don`t put it in the pool, it has a hole in it......

So basically what you're saying is that the racism analogy I used is invalid because your entire marriage argument stems from procreation? That's what you mean by "not scientific", right? That marriage between two men or two women shouldn't be legally recognized because they can't procreate? Well, then I guess in order to remain logically consistent, you're against casual sex between a man and a woman, condoms, birth control, and oral sex and anal sex, too, right? How bout the fact that two homosexual people can procreate? Surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, there you go

Regardless, the 14th amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, marriage is a legal institution, therefore, the 14th amendment guarantees homosexual couples the equal protection under the law to enter into the union of marriage. The Supreme Court will decide on that this month and I have a feeling they're going to say something similar

Like I tell everybody against this sort of stuff, you're on the losing side of the fight, equal rights is an inevitability. It's going to happen.

There's nothing you can do to stop it, so bring a raincoat

 

[OddBall1st]

If that`s the literal definition of bigotry then there`s nothing wrong. Clearly two men or two women can`t make three people. There is a scientific and obvious difference. Stipulations would not be discriminatory, they would be needed.

 

[OddBall1st]

So basically what you're saying is that the racism analogy I used is invalid because your entire marriage argument stems from procreation? That's what you mean by "not scientific", right? That marriage between two men or two women shouldn't be legally recognized because they can't procreate? Well, then I guess in order to remain logically consistent, you're against casual sex between a man and a woman, condoms, birth control, and oral sex and anal sex, too, right? How bout the fact that two homosexual people can procreate? Surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, there you go

Regardless, the 14th amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law, marriage is a legal institution, therefore, the 14th amendment guarantees homosexual couples the equal protection under the law to enter into the union of marriage. The Supreme Court will decide on that this month and I have a feeling they're going to say something similar

Like I tell everybody against this sort of stuff, you're on the losing side of the fight, equal rights is an inevitability. It's going to happen.

There's nothing you can do to stop it, so bring a raincoat

Same sex marriage cannot procreate without assistance,.. making it different than mine. Not equal.

Entering into the union of marriage is not the issue, making that marriage the same as mine to receive the benefits, is, so the 14th is out. The SCOTUS can say yes or no to the marriage part being discriminatory against the people but not weather or not they receive the benefits, that`s a State issue. Gays want same sex marriage equal to mine to receive benefits too. It`s scientifically not. They don`t want marriage regulation or stipulations for personal reasons.

Should the Gov. discontinue marriage benefits, the Gay thing will disappear. It`s all about fairness.....Right !i

 

[UncleBuck]

Clearly two men or two women can`t make three people.

actually, gay people have been having their own biological kids for some time now.

for example, two gay men would have one be the sperm donor and the egg would come from the close blood relative. DNA from both parents is passed onto the child, just like any heterosexual relation.

try to be less retarded. your best bet is to simply remain silent, or kill yourself.

 

[UncleBuck]

Same sex marriage cannot procreate without assistance,.. making it different than mine. Not equal.

you are clearly the type who can't get laid without paying her first (cash assistance) and a shitload of viagra to get your flaccid pecker to stand up (medical assistance).

 

[OddBall1st]

Paddy, if by some exchange Me and Buck were chosen to be the two that will argue in favor of the gay in their final stand, against all the opposition....let`s just say,...I would whip his ass in that argument. But I`m on the other side.....You wouldn`t make the cut.....

 

[UncleBuck]

...I would whip his ass in that argument.

you're barely literate.

there's a reason why not even your bigoted right wing colleagues come to your defense, you are an embarrassment to them and yourself.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Same sex marriage cannot procreate without assistance

So what? Why is procreation the basis for your standard of marriage?

making it different than mine. Not equal.

"Blacks are different than me. Not equal."

"Women are different than me. Not equal."

"Gays are different than me. Not equal."

...

Entering into the union of marriage is not the issue, making that marriage the same as mine to receive the benefits, is, so the 14th is out. The SCOTUS can say yes or no to the marriage part being discriminatory against the people but not weather or not they receive the benefits, that`s a State issue. Gays want same sex marriage equal to mine to receive benefits too. It`s scientifically not. They don`t want marriage regulation or stipulations for personal reasons.

Should the Gov. discontinue marriage benefits, the Gay thing will disappear. It`s all about fairness.....Right !i

Why are you against homosexual couples receiving the same benefits heterosexual couples receive upon entering into marriage? http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

[OddBall1st]

actually, gay people have been having their own biological kids for some time now.

for example, two gay men would have one be the sperm donor and the egg would come from the close blood relative. DNA from both parents is passed onto the child, just like any heterosexual relation.

try to be less retarded. your best bet is to simply remain silent, or kill yourself.

You and paddy in a locked cave, me and my wife in the other cave. You can unlock it when there are three of you in the cave, I`ll be out in about nine months, you and paddy will never be out.

 

[UncleBuck]

my wife

400+ pounds?

massive facial deformity?

blind and deaf?

You can unlock it when there are three of you in the cave, I`ll be out in about nine months, you and paddy will never be out.

no you won't. your posts here and on the drumming website peg you as old enough to be impotent, and your wife as post-menopausal.

since you two old farts can't procreate anymore, you will now lose all your marriage benefits.

sound good, gramps?