Gay marriage

Full story: Los Angeles Times

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Comments (Page 227)

Showing posts 4,521 - 4,540 of39,785
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5238
Sep 6, 2013
 
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>You homosexuals may say that you follow every religion, but you really don't. If you followed the Word, you wouldn't celebrate your mental disorder, you'd be seeking help. All your high minded bullshit is just that. Sorry.
Prove that gay orientation is a "mental disorder". As of now, the Mental Health professionals here and in Europe disagree with that assertion.

If you thing we have problems regarding "the Word", then that is a religious issue, not one involving mental Health.

It's YOUR club. We don't have to abide by your club's rules. We're not members.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5239
Sep 6, 2013
 
Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
I would also clarify that all these social customs - child marriage, forced marriage, dowry have been abolished by law in India. Legal age for women is 18 & for men is 21yrs. They can be breached by persons at the risk of criminal prosecution. The state does not support this.
I've to say this because most of you know very little about the world outside of USA and you should not be led to believe that India is archaic.
Yet still the world news has continuing stories of such things.

I've traveled a bit (DNF, don't laugh), including India. Pretty much all of India but for a few large urban centers IS archaic.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5240
Sep 6, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, Topix doesn't need anti-gay policemen. You're wasting your time. They're already in aroused monkey status again, calling people names and pulling lunatic interpretations of legality out of their dark places. You're just setting yourself up.
Just ask lides about his definition of "strict scrutiny". You'll see. These bois are all about Socialism, doled out by a secret society. They just assume that they'll have a seat at the table once the political enemies are all in prison.
Why would "political enemies" need to be in prison?

That's not how we handle dissent in the U.S.A.

Where are YOU from?

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5241
Sep 6, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just all people. This is why we are your betters.
Let me know when you're done playing with your food. I have Boma here waiting to visit their dreams.

He'll sort 'em out.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5242
Sep 6, 2013
 
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>Did you ever hear of a fallen Angel by the name of Satan? He's called the "great deceiver" and he's obviously got a hold on you. Your mind is so twisted that you believe wrong is right. You're not alone, unfortunately.
You believe a pagan misinterpretation of a Jewish idea.

You might like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
common sense

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5243
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay_But_Not_Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, thankyou.
They can be dodgy here. As you say, life will catch up with them sooner than later.
Don't let them get to you ,they're just upset that nature dealt them a cruel blow and gave them abnormal sexual desires .They're jealous that they're missing out on the most beautiful things in life because of their affliction such as heterosexual love ,marriage ,natural kids ,and acceptance so they're trying to brainwash the world into believing that they're normal regardless of what they destroy and who they upset.Anyone that opposes them is called names and made out to be mentally deficient ,which is quite the opposite as its them who are mentally deficient and distorted.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5244
Sep 6, 2013
 
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let them get to you ,they're just upset that nature dealt them a cruel blow and gave them abnormal sexual desires .They're jealous that they're missing out on the most beautiful things in life because of their affliction such as heterosexual love ,marriage ,natural kids ,and acceptance so they're trying to brainwash the world into believing that they're normal regardless of what they destroy and who they upset.Anyone that opposes them is called names and made out to be mentally deficient ,which is quite the opposite as its them who are mentally deficient and distorted.
oh dear...it is you who proves that you are mentally deficient with your proven prejudicial and bigoted arguments...

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5245
Sep 6, 2013
 
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let them get to you ,they're just upset that nature dealt them a cruel blow and gave them abnormal sexual desires .They're jealous that they're missing out on the most beautiful things in life because of their affliction such as heterosexual love ,marriage ,natural kids ,and acceptance so they're trying to brainwash the world into believing that they're normal regardless of what they destroy and who they upset.Anyone that opposes them is called names and made out to be mentally deficient ,which is quite the opposite as its them who are mentally deficient and distorted.
So many assertions and accusations and libels, and no substantiating material for any of it.

Troll!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5246
Sep 6, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely agree with that. Gays want to make what they do everyone's business, that's what I'm against. That makes it a concern to others. They want to brainwash elementary school kids into thinking gay is just normal. They want to force their way into the Boy Scouts instead of just starting their own club. They stopped father/daughter dances in Rhode Island public schools because two moms can't participate. Next thing you know they'll want to stop Christmas because many gays are non-believers. All a concern to others.
No. Socialists want to make what gays do everyone else's business. It keeps the riff-raff from putting their filthy hands on anyone important.

The reality is that the masses are complete cretins. They could be content forever with Elvis, Gay sex stories and Jesus. As long as they get their daily fix from the love pump, they'll pretend that they have it all under control.

Now, the real question is what YOU intend to do about it! Are you going to keep totally quiet and pretend that YOU have it all under complete control? If so, step right up Mr. Sheep and get your hair cut!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5247
Sep 6, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Grow a brain. I didn't make up the term. it is a legal term, referring to a heightened degree of judicial review.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
HEY DUMMY! GROW A HEAD! HEU! HEU!

I've already read the definition. It doesn't apply to gay marriage.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

No law protecting gay behavior means no compelling governmental interest and no Strict Scrutiny.

Tell us all how you know how to interpret that better than than the Supreme Court does.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5248
Sep 6, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would "political enemies" need to be in prison?
That's not how we handle dissent in the U.S.A.
Where are YOU from?
YOU don't handle anything because YOU aren't in charge of anything.

But really, no we actually don't put political enemies in prison ....yet. But the NSA is ready to step up to the plate when their government calls on them!

For now, we just steal their corporate secrets and drive their businesses under.....but there's always an empty seat at the table for new campaign contributors!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5249
Sep 6, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Here. Let's have an entertaining lesson for a bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Ever see the Declaration of Independence used as a legal document? I hope not because the Continental Congress was not the government that is in place today!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5250
Sep 6, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
So many assertions and accusations and libels, and no substantiating material for any of it.
Troll!
Libel? Does Common_Sense have knowledge of your actual name and has told lies about you?

....Or is he offering an opinion and you're just tossing off fancy-pants legal terms as if you had a clue as to how they apply?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5252
Sep 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>Good, then don't expect the rest of us 98% to put up with your piss ant 2% demands. We aren't listening and the pendulum will swing back to the right sooner than you think. Besides, we don't have any use for sexual predators in our "club."
really? your club is famous for aiding and abetting sexual predators...

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5253
Sep 7, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Socialists want to make what gays do everyone else's business. It keeps the riff-raff from putting their filthy hands on anyone important.
The reality is that the masses are complete cretins. They could be content forever with Elvis, Gay sex stories and Jesus. As long as they get their daily fix from the love pump, they'll pretend that they have it all under control.
Now, the real question is what YOU intend to do about it! Are you going to keep totally quiet and pretend that YOU have it all under complete control? If so, step right up Mr. Sheep and get your hair cut!
Very sloppy agitprop there, crosspatch.

Only one of your "cretins" could possibly be moved by it.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5254
Sep 7, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever see the Declaration of Independence used as a legal document? I hope not because the Continental Congress was not the government that is in place today!
Correct there, but the conceptual framework predicates the principles which followed.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5255
Sep 7, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Libel? Does Common_Sense have knowledge of your actual name and has told lies about you?
....Or is he offering an opinion and you're just tossing off fancy-pants legal terms as if you had a clue as to how they apply?
ok. Calumny against an entire population.

I'm using this definition of "calumny"(actually, one so close that the differences are truly academic):

http://catholicism.about.com/od/Catholic-Dict...

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5256
Sep 7, 2013
 
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>Good, then don't expect the rest of us 98% to put up with your piss ant 2% demands. We aren't listening and the pendulum will swing back to the right sooner than you think. Besides, we don't have any use for sexual predators in our "club."
Neither do we.
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5258
Sep 7, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Very sloppy agitprop there, crosspatch.
Only one of your "cretins" could possibly be moved by it.
Pulling an arcane, and paranoid political word out of your @ss doesn't change the meaning of anything. Try engaging in English, not Klingon!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5259
Sep 7, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct there, but the conceptual framework predicates the principles which followed.
One man's conceptual framework is another man's agitprop! ;)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,521 - 4,540 of39,785
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••