If you want the legal coverage of you being in a perverse relationship, then call it a union and ask for legal protections from the government.
But the fact that this is "not enough" for the activists proves it's not about the government providing the same "legal rights" but rather an attack on religion and God, trying to force their own false religion on the rest of us and trying to use the government to force and establish this false religion on society, passing laws to establish this false religion, to establish this false religious definition of marriage, all of which is a violation of the First Ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is exactly what they'd be doing if they pass laws forcing us to accept their new religion.
People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society and for government to establish this new religion.
You have legal rights via civil unions. That you demand the "right" for the government to make a new religion instead and make laws establishing it says it all and is the only true violation of the Constitution.
55 comments
Same shit, different guy.
No one actually wants that, no one does that. Cry about your lost privileges.
The government not allowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional. The equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment guarantees that all rights protected for one must be protected for all. A woman has the right to marry a man, but I, solely based on my gender, do not have that same right. That is sexual discrimination and unconstitutional.
*headdesk*
fundies! y u no change ur arguments?! y u no grow up?
another p.r.a.t.t... i swear, this one is about as tired as hamsterdance, and twice as annoying
their new religion
Even if homosexuality were a religion, it would hardly be new. In addition, that would make heterosexuality a religion too.
Being an agnostic would make me what? A priss? Or at least the male version of a priss?
If you're going to try to use the Establishment Clause to ban same sex marriage, then I'll use it to ban the Republican Party.
So there.
"People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society and for government to establish this new religion. "
Why do people not understand that this is WHY gay marriage should be allowed?
You mean the amendment that has been all but broken by your crazy attempts to turn America into a larger-scale Christian version of Iran? And stop crying, already. You Christians been the ones always on the offensive throughout history, and now you're crying because your targets fight back.
Also, you are right about people not having the right to have government force their religion of perverse desires upon the rest of society. Why do you think your opposition has finally grown a spine, Christian?
What about the religions that do allow gay marriage, aren't they also protected by the first amendment? But, at least you believe in the legal rights of gays for the most part, compared to other fundie fucktards who want none.
Last time I checked, heterosexual and conservatard extremists have been shoving their religion and tenets down everyone's throat far longer than any other religion in its comparison. Religion is not to be established as the single most supported by the government yet you little wingnuts continue to try to do that every time you get into office. I'm surprised he didn't end his post with God bless 'Merica, thus pissing on the country with different beliefs than him.
Hullo unReason2012.
Gays were gtting married in the 1960s.
"If you want the legal coverage of you being in a perverse relationship, then call it a union and ask for legal protections from the government.
But the fact that this is "not enough" for the activists proves it's not about the government providing the same "legal rights""
The fact that you want to limit same sex unions to "unions" but not allow marriages proves it's not about government providing the same "legal rights" but rather an attack on the constitution and Traditional American Values, trying to force your false religion on the rest of us and trying to use the government to force and establish this false religion on society, passing laws to establish this false religion, to establish this false religious definition of marriage, all of which is a violation of the First Ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is exactly what they'd be doing if they pass laws forcing us to accept their old mythology.
People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society and for government to establish this old mythology.
You have legal rights via religious ceremonies. That you demand the "right" for the government to enforce your old mythology instead and make laws establishing it says it all and is the only true violation of the Constitution.
People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society
I agree 100%. Remember this the next time you want to put God into government.
Nobody is forcing anything on you. It's just about permitting someone the same rights you already have. None of my gay friends would slam their throbbing fuckstick into your tight puckered bunghole unless you asked them to.
And I'll bet you're too closeted to ask.
Let's pretend for one minute that you're not insanely wrong and that homosexuality is a religion. You would then be correct in that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But you seem to be forgetting the next part of the 1st Amendment; Congress shall make no law preventing the free-exercise of a religion either. Which means limiting marriage to heterosexuals is also unconstitutional.
So stop fantasizing about cocks and suck on that instead, bitch.
"You have legal rights via civil unions. That you demand the "right" for the government to make a new religion instead and make laws establishing it says it all and is the only true violation of the Constitution."
Holland's King William of Orange was one proponent of Protestant Christianity that, via his power & influence centuries ago, became the basis of what your beliefs are today, pal. And speaking of today, re. Holland:
image
85% of people can't be wrong .
Papabear:
When homos get married the current 10 year olds will associate marriage with icky homos.
Ten years later when it's time for them to marry the association of 'marriage' with something icky homos do will cause them to decide not to be married.
This is not snark, this is what they really think. I heard this once in the early 90s when a radio talk show host twisted a fundies arm on the air until he finally explained it. I read it several times again in 2004 when the SCOTAS said sodomy laws were unconstitutional and MA allowed same sex marriage.
"But the fact that this is "not enough" for the activists proves it's not about the government providing the same "legal rights" but rather an attack on religion and God "
Honestly, what pisses me off about this kind of thinking isn't really the persecution complex, but the sheer arrogance required to think that your religious beliefs are that relevant. I don't give a shit about you. I don't give a shit about your religious beliefs. Fucking get over yourself .
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is exactly what they'd be doing if they pass laws forcing us to accept their new religion."
By that line of reasoning we should strike the word "marriage" from our laws since it apparently has a religious connotation. I'd be good with that.
Why does everything the fundies and wingnuts hate have to be a religion? Socialism, evolution, abortion, liberalism, environmentalism, atheism, and homosexuality too? Just ridiculous.
First evolution was a religion, then atheism was a religion and now homosexuality is a religion?
Can these people actually be this fucking stupid?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Being gay is not a religion. Hating gays and refusing them equal rights is part of your religious dogma. As such, congress can make no law respecting your dogma.
"People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society"
So, why do you keep demanding that the government do just that? After all, YOU are demanding the Gov force YOUR religious belief onto everyone...
Isn't it funny how those who are being unconstitutional are the first ones to scream about how their constitutional rights are being violated...?
Civil Unions do not bestow all of the rights that a marriage does. Your argument is invalid.
And hateful. And very, very stupid.
Also, for the record the right "to establish this false religious definition of marriage" isn't yours either. Marriage was around long before your religion was and likely will continue to be after your religion dies out, assuming you morons don't kill us or get us killed.
Well, I'm from the uk so I'm not entirely sure how it works over there, but surely if homosexuality is now a religion, you can apply for tax exemption for "The Big-Gay" church?
Things that fundies also think are religions:
Atheism
Things fundies think are religious if you include "Satanism":
Harry Potter, especially since Dumbledore is gay. I thought their heads would never stop exploding over that.
My Little Ponies
Well, you get the idea.
Definition of religion per Dictionary.com:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
How does homosexuality fit that definition, and, how does Christianity not?
alright, as much as hate this guy, and (pretty much) everything he said, however ive heard this argument before.
if the issue boiled down to "i dont care what they do, just dont call it marriage" then i would have to side with the christians. it never boils down to just that, but it is an extremely reasonable position. if "marriage" is the word for the religious institution, then there should not be a problem with having a "civil union"(i am assuming here that civil unions are exactly the same as marriages, just not done by a religious figure or "under god"). it seems like a very reasonable compromise. of course, again, i am assuming that a marriage and a civil union both have the exact same legal ramifications
Hm, I wonder if I can actually think of some reason why there should be any laws against the gay community about their right to marriage.
Attempt: Gay people should not be allowed...
Attempt2: Its wrong to let them....
Attempt3: Um...they can't breed as easily?
Attempt4: Zeus was kind of gay since he raped men sometimes, and he was rude and all powerful....
Attempt395837: Cheese! Cheese from my eyeballs!
"If you want the legal coverage of you being in a perverse relationship, then call it a union and ask for legal protections from the government.
Okay. You asked for it...:
[img]http://s2.postimg.org/kz0o9e7ed/uk_union_flag_rainbow.jpg[/img]
Just recently...:
[img]http://s22.postimg.org/8k5y4ltwd/gay_marriage_vote.jpg[/img]
'The Noes to the left: 57.
The Ayes to the right: 391.
The Ayes have it. Order, order.' [/Speaker of the House]
And with certain sections of the Church of England dropping it's opposition to such, the legislation to make same-sex marriage legal here in the UK will be included in the Queen's Speech, then later enter the Statute Book, around this time next year.
So indeed, it is a union. I refer the Swivel-eyed Loon to the pic I posted just a few moments ago: the Union Flag. [/hyper-smartarse]
"People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society"
How [i]right[/i] you are. And that's the problem. In more ways than one.
'People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society '. You said it, [i]I[/i] didn't.
If you want the legal coverage of you being in a perverse relationship, then call it a union and ask for legal protections from the government.
Not good enough? Why did I see that coming...? I mean if it's good enough for us, surely it should be good enough for you.But the fact that this is "not enough" for the activists proves it's not about the government providing the same "legal rights" but rather an attack on religion and God...
...trying to force their own false religion on the rest of us and trying to use the government to force and establish this false religion on society...
...passing laws to establish this false religion, to establish this false religious definition of marriage, all of which is a violation of the First Ammendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, which is exactly what they'd be doing if they pass laws forcing us to accept their new religion. People do not have a "Constitutional right" to have the government force their religion of perverse desires on the rest of society and for government to establish this new religion.
Hypocrite.You have legal rights via civil unions.
That you demand the "right" for the government to make a new religion instead and make laws establishing it says it all and is the only true violation of the Constitution.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
