Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

View Poll Results: Should we allow gays the same rights as hetrosexuals?
Yes 68 72.34%
No 8 8.51%
Leave it to the states. Not a federal issue. 17 18.09%
GAZ says FU BRC, you are gay 1 1.06%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2012, 09:03 AM  
BigRedChief BigRedChief is offline
Brainwashed
 
BigRedChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Swims with fishes
Casino cash: $299750
SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you?

There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.
Posts: 42,511
BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:02 PM   #331
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
This basic issue happened already in United States History, the Dred Scott case. And the case was a primary cause for the creation of the Republican party because of the intense backlash, it was a great unionizing event for radicals and conservatives in the north against slavery.

Basically, the same situation. Being a slave from one state, you stay a slave if you were transported into a free state. Not only that, Chief Justice Taney ruled that no black person could be a citizen of the state, and Dred Scott had no baring to sue. Taney's reasoning, the founding fathers did not think blacks were citizens. That the framers regarding blacks as (direct quote) "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." What this meant was states could make individual laws regarding black citizenship, but the federal government or other states did not recognize them as citizens. Another direct quote from Taney, basically saying no state could "introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution." (both quotes can be found in "The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" 1978)

Notice the similarities between the those arguments and the anti gay marriage crowd today. State rights and all that, founders didn't mean this or that. Didn't work then, isn't going to work now. History as shown that the federal government will step in when states take away basic freedom, eventually. We always have to fight. And change the constitution if we have too. And marriage is a Fundamental Right. That is a legal definition.

The issue will be decided at the federal issue for this and various other reasons, if not now, sometime in the future. Its not a matter of if, but when. And again, those wishing to restrict freedom will be on the wrong side of history.
The similarities are pretty lame to be honest.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:03 PM   #332
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat View Post
I don't think anything new is being created, which is where we differ I think. The marriage is the same to me whether it's a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman. It is just a commitment to someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. The same advantages or disadvantages should apply to each marriage. This was where I think the equal protection clause should be applied that I was referring to earlier.

To the second point, I wouldn't say it's unconstitutional to treat people differently with kids than without. I also don't have any children so my knowledge of the differences is pretty limited, so I don't have a great response for that question. However, people choose to have children or not and choose to get married or not so I think the comparison may be a little off. If it's decided, for instance, that gay people that have kids get different tax advantages than straight people, then that would be wrong.
No one is prevented from making a commitment to someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.

Why is the comparison a little off if you admit that having kids and getting married are both choices people make.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:06 PM   #333
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $33161
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
There's two people here you're assuming are anti-gay marriage, simply because you have made assumptions based on two-valued logic and relied on stereotypes because you misread a legal argument. That's patteeu and I. You are a very good at making strawman arguments but I think it's because you can't process certain points of view outside of anti-gay marriage and pro-gay marriage to see there's other views in-between. In other words, you're pretty stupid when it comes to logic.

Furthermore you rely on a lot of PC history from govt and have not questioned certain things—at all. Your side always relies on the slavery/race card even when it does NOT apply. The Republican "1860 presidential platform promised not to disturb Southern slavery; its first president supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery." ( DiLorenzo) The Radical Republicans used duress to get the passage of the 14th Amendment. You need to look at the Woods video that covers all that omitted history. But of course it will not confirm your bias.
You didn't address a single issue I discussed.

Your internet degree in fringe southern history is not something I wish to continue to debate. Your knowledge of Corwin amendment is fundamentally flawed. (You refuse to acknowledge it allowed states to ban slavery and Lincoln believed, like you do now, states should end it).

Actually, screw it. Here are direct Lincoln quotes.

First, Lincoln, again, believed in the Constitution. The fugitive slave act had a clause in the Constitution. It was therefore Constitutional. You are dishonestly misrepresenting facts.

From the Lincoln dougless debates:
"This declared indifference, but as I mush think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- cause the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongest ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

"THe doctrine of self government is right -- absolutely and eternally right -- but it has no just application ... Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man... If athe negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self government, but when he govern himself, and also governs another man ... that is despotism. If the the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that " all men are created equal"; and that there can be no moral right in one man's making a slave of another."

"That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world... The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings... It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and Ill eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his won nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or form one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, its the same tyrannical principle."

Have you ever actually read a first hand history account? Do you even know what the means. The peoples own words, speeches, dairies, letters. Instead of believing some history hack with a agenda, try reading what the actual actors of history said.
Posts: 3,625
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:07 PM   #334
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $33161
Posts: 3,625
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:09 PM   #335
Prison Bitch Prison Bitch is offline
The Bitch is back
 
Prison Bitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lees summit
Casino cash: $80338
I love the question: "Should we allow gays the same rights as hetrosexuals?"


We should now ask: "Should we allow gun owners the same rights as non gun owners?"
Posts: 12,466
Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.Prison Bitch is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:13 PM   #336
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is online now
Veteran
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $32245
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
No one is prevented from making a commitment to someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.

Why is the comparison a little off if you admit that having kids and getting married are both choices people make.
But gay are being prevented from making the same kind of commitment that straight people can make. That is the discrimination.

I guess I don't see how children and spouses are somehow the same. I don't see the comparison. I think understand what you are trying to do here, so unless you have a point to make with this, I think I will just move on.
Posts: 3,652
WhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:25 PM   #337
PunkinDrublic PunkinDrublic is offline
Reign in Bayside!
 
PunkinDrublic's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Casino cash: $42961
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcan View Post
Where are all the pro slavery people today?
Conservatives would be calling it traditional labor.
__________________
Disappointing my parents since 1976
Posts: 5,668
PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:34 PM   #338
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107865
Quote:
Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic View Post
Conservatives would be calling it traditional labor.
No they'd point out that the pro-slavery folks are those who support a progressive income tax today for creeping socialism. As well as who you can hire, who you can fire based on egalitarianism. They want everyone on the plantation...then we'd all be equal. Equal poverty for all.
It's no wonder the Progs rail so hard about slavery. That's their end result.

Remember control of the major means of production (you and I ) is done through the income tax code and regulation for egalitarian purposes.
The road to serfdom has arrived.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 56,207
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:39 PM   #339
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
The Warren Court is virtually synonymous with the term judicial activism. It rewrote the Constitution. Keep asserting it loneguana. It doesn't make it true.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 56,207
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:42 PM   #340
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat View Post
But gay are being prevented from making the same kind of commitment that straight people can make. That is the discrimination.

I guess I don't see how children and spouses are somehow the same. I don't see the comparison. I think understand what you are trying to do here, so unless you have a point to make with this, I think I will just move on.
Gay people aren't prevented from making the same kind of commitments. What they are prevented from doing is accessing the government benefits that married couples get, unless they decide to do what it takes to access those benefits (i.e. marry someone of the opposite sex). Single people can't access those benefits either.

Gay people aren't prevented from having children. What they can't do is access the government benefits that come from having children unless they do what it takes to access those benefits (i.e. have a child). Straight people who don't want to have kids can't access those benefits either.

In either case, they may not want to do what it takes to get those benefits, but that doesn't mean we're discriminating against gays by limiting access. The question becomes, are we limiting access to those benefits for an adequate reason.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:55 PM   #341
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107865
You forgot one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
You didn't address a single issue I discussed.

Your internet degree in fringe southern history is not something I wish to continue to debate. Your knowledge of Corwin amendment is fundamentally flawed. (You refuse to acknowledge it allowed states to ban slavery and Lincoln believed, like you do now, states should end it).

Actually, screw it. Here are direct Lincoln quotes.

First, Lincoln, again, believed in the Constitution. The fugitive slave act had a clause in the Constitution. It was therefore Constitutional. You are dishonestly misrepresenting facts.

From the Lincoln dougless debates:
"This declared indifference, but as I mush think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- cause the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongest ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

"THe doctrine of self government is right -- absolutely and eternally right -- but it has no just application ... Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man... If athe negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self government, but when he govern himself, and also governs another man ... that is despotism. If the the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that " all men are created equal"; and that there can be no moral right in one man's making a slave of another."

"That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world... The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings... It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and Ill eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his won nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or form one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, its the same tyrannical principle."

Have you ever actually read a first hand history account? Do you even know what the means. The peoples own words, speeches, dairies, letters. Instead of believing some history hack with a agenda, try reading what the actual actors of history said.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . . I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race."

~ Abraham Lincoln, First Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Ottawa, Illinois, Sept. 18, 1858, in The Collected Works of Abraham
Lincoln vol.3, pp. 145-146.
Quote:
First, Lincoln, again, believed in the Constitution.
If he did, he would have allowed the south to secede; wouldn't have tried to jail Justice Taney for stating the legislature, not the executive, can suspend Habeas Corpus; wouldn't have shut down printing presses criticizing his war; wouldn't have jailed congressman criticizing his war; wouldn't have shot draft protestors; provoked Fort Sumter into firing first; or invaded Virginia.

The Constitution got in Lincoln's way quite a bit. So I wouldn't call him a big believer in the Constitution. More like Lincoln destroyed the nation philosophically, even if he held it together geographically. Keep living in your fantasy land about Lincoln.

A history hack? A college professor who teaches economic history and is the author of books that unmask Lincoln pointing out what the hagiographers omitted? Obviously, you prefer court historians. This just shows what a statist you really are instead of a classical liberal.

Perhaps you should read, Lerone Bennett, Jr. the longtime executive editor of Ebony magazine and author of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream. He points out some fiction about Lincoln too.

Instead you probably prefer plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Spielberg who says his Lincoln was creative license.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 03-27-2013 at 07:04 PM..
Posts: 56,207
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:59 PM   #342
PunkinDrublic PunkinDrublic is offline
Reign in Bayside!
 
PunkinDrublic's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dallas, Tx
Casino cash: $42961
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
No they'd point out that the pro-slavery folks are those who support a progressive income tax today for creeping socialism. As well as who you can hire, who you can fire based on egalitarianism. They want everyone on the plantation...then we'd all be equal. Equal poverty for all.
It's no wonder the Progs rail so hard about slavery. That's their end result.

Remember control of the major means of production (you and I ) is done through the income tax code and regulation for egalitarian purposes.
The road to serfdom has arrived.
JFC it was a joke you frigid bitch.
__________________
Disappointing my parents since 1976
Posts: 5,668
PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.PunkinDrublic is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 07:02 PM   #343
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107865
Quote:
Originally Posted by PunkinDrublic View Post
JFC it was a joke you frigid bitch.
JFC it's not always easy pick up with text, especially without a smiley, you choad wanker.

Oh, and there aren't any frigid women. It's usually the man.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 03-27-2013 at 07:37 PM..
Posts: 56,207
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 07:06 PM   #344
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is online now
Veteran
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $32245
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Gay people aren't prevented from making the same kind of commitments. What they are prevented from doing is accessing the government benefits that married couples get, unless they decide to do what it takes to access those benefits (i.e. marry someone of the opposite sex). Single people can't access those benefits either.

Gay people aren't prevented from having children. What they can't do is access the government benefits that come from having children unless they do what it takes to access those benefits (i.e. have a child). Straight people who don't want to have kids can't access those benefits either.

In either case, they may not want to do what it takes to get those benefits, but that doesn't mean we're discriminating against gays by limiting access. The question becomes, are we limiting access to those benefits for an adequate reason.
I'll post this again because you forgot about it before - The same advantages or disadvantages should apply to each marriage. This was where I think the equal protection clause should be applied that I was referring to earlier.

The same goes for people who have children.
Posts: 3,652
WhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliWhawhaWhat 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 07:17 PM   #345
WhiteWhale WhiteWhale is offline
Veteran
 
WhiteWhale's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Doo-Dah
Casino cash: $41950
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
No they'd point out that the pro-slavery folks are those who support a progressive income tax today for creeping socialism. As well as who you can hire, who you can fire based on egalitarianism. They want everyone on the plantation...then we'd all be equal. Equal poverty for all.
It's no wonder the Progs rail so hard about slavery. That's their end result.

Remember control of the major means of production (you and I ) is done through the income tax code and regulation for egalitarian purposes.
The road to serfdom has arrived.
Digitized feudalism.
Posts: 4,018
WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.