Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious Beliefs’ Are ‘Standing in the Way’ of Gay Rights

[Forever_frost]

Which trumps which Racr? Case law or the words of the Constituiton? Answer that simple question.

[Forever_frost]

And you can't answer where it is as it's not there, it's expressly forbidden in the equal protections clause.

[racrguy]

You mean this one?

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

They aren't abridging you of of anything, and you're equally protected under the laws.
You don't know what you're talking about.

[exlude]

Tell me where hate crimes are listed as enumerated powers in the constitution and how it doesn't fall foul of the equal protection clause.

I'll wait.

I'll take tangential arguments for 1,000, Alex.

[Baba Ganoush]

Destroying the religious foundation? I hate to break it to you guy, but the foundation of this nation specifically excluded religion because the founding fathers saw what it did in Britain and other places. And another thing, it can be argued that homosexuality in nature has been around far longer than your religion.

Well my word choices kind of sucked there. I just meant to say the moral standards that are very important are slipping out of view by the day because of pansies like you who will never choose a side, but instead attack anyone with a position in morality. You would love for all our moral standards to crumble wouldn't you?

For the record, I don't have a religion and I haven't been to church in 10 years. I do however study scripture, occasionally.

I'm sure that if you were attacked by someone solely because you're heterosexual the other party would get charged with a hate crime as well, yet we don't see that, do we? All we see are close-minded fucks like you that beat other people because they don't subscribe to the same thought patterns you do.

If I was attacked by anyone for any reason, it is a crime, and I don't need SPECIAL terminology in the statute so I can feel better about my SPECIAL treatment.

I don't give a fuck how you conduct yourself, but don't push for MY acceptance of an ideal that I know is wrong.

The point I imagine she's trying to make is that people have been trying to control what other people do in the bedroom for a long time. Doesn't make it right though

Also, post the SC decision that overturns them. It's funny that they were on the books for so long. Also, how can laws be 300 years old, when the country is only 235 years old. You might want to be a bit more accurate when making statements.

Again, I don't care if you smoke crack in your bedroom. When you show up on my TV, in my classroom, or at my favorite restaurant, and try to tell everyone to accept your habit and its normal and ok to be a crackhead because you're genetically programmed or some shits, then you're wrong.

Laurence v. Texas 2003 invalidated all Sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states. Fuck man, it's called google.

Wait, so youre saying we've only had laws for 235 years? Talk about fucking HERP DERP dude. Officially, Jefferson wrote the first AMERICAN sodomy law in 1778, so I should've said 233 years, 6 months 7 days 11 hours and 6 minutes......and 8 seconds.



Bottom line is man, you're an intelligent motherfucker, no doubt. However, you simply pick out stupid shit and expound on it only to try and point out little flaws in someone's logic, when your basis for your criticism is not only inaccurate, but completely falsified and pulled out of thin air.

Eh, whatever, I'd still buy you a beer. I can't hate a good debate.

[racrguy]

Well my word choices kind of sucked there. I just meant to say the moral standards that are very important are slipping out of view by the day because of pansies like you who will never choose a side, but instead attack anyone with a position in morality. You would love for all our moral standards to crumble wouldn't you?

Never choose a side? I'm pretty sure I've chosen a side. And, it shouldn't be against anyone's morals when the action is between two consenting adults. We aren't talking about pedophilia here, we're talking about consensual sex between adults.

For the record, I don't have a religion and I haven't been to church in 10 years. I do however study scripture, occasionally.

Your earlier posts will disagree with you. But on the off chance you aren't blowing smoke, what makes homosexuality morally wrong in your eyes?

If I was attacked by anyone for any reason, it is a crime, and I don't need SPECIAL terminology in the statute so I can feel better about my SPECIAL treatment.

Well, sometimes we have protected classes because sometimes people are unable to deal with the fact that other people are different and don't conform to whatever "norms" a person sees. Like, black, women, any one of a myriad of religions, sexual preference, I can go on and on.

I don't give a fuck how you conduct yourself, but don't push for MY acceptance of an ideal that I know is wrong.

How do you know it's wrong?

Again, I don't care if you smoke crack in your bedroom. When you show up on my TV, in my classroom, or at my favorite restaurant, and try to tell everyone to accept your habit and its normal and ok to be a crackhead because you're genetically programmed or some shits, then you're wrong.

By this reasoning I refuse to accept you because you're genetically predisposed to have hair. You should shave it all off because I will not accept that you're genetically programmed to have hair or some shits.

Laurence v. Texas 2003 invalidated all Sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states. Fuck man, it's called google.

Thank you for providing a source, most on this site will throw out the claim and not substantiate it.

Wait, so youre saying we've only had laws for 235 years? Talk about fucking HERP DERP dude. Officially, Jefferson wrote the first AMERICAN sodomy law in 1778, so I should've said 233 years, 6 months 7 days 11 hours and 6 minutes......and 8 seconds.

Be accurate in your statements, that's all I was saying, you don't have to narrow it down, but at least come close. If you were to round off you'd have still been wrong, in which case the correct answer would have been 200 years. No, I'm not saying we've only had laws for 235 years, I'm saying we've only had United States laws for 235 years. Since we're in America, and talking about American laws I thought that was pretty evident and that it didn't need explaining.

Bottom line is man, you're an intelligent motherfucker, no doubt. However, you simply pick out stupid shit and expound on it only to try and point out little flaws in someone's logic, when your basis for your criticism is not only inaccurate, but completely falsified and pulled out of thin air.

Eh, whatever, I'd still buy you a beer. I can't hate a good debate.

Little flaws in someone's logic, that completely destroy their illogical arguments. See how that works? If you think you're making a logical argument, that has logical holes in it, your argument is illogical. And, you've yet to explain how my criticism of your stance is inaccurate.

[Pro88LX]

I believe in God and i don't care what racrguy and his boyfriend do to each other in their free time fwiw.

Racrguy, you strike me as a bottom for some reason.....

[talisman]

Jesus Christ. I'm not about to start dissecting this mess. I feel sorry for you guys. And that isn't a swipe, either. I'm 100% serious.

[Baba Ganoush]

....

Nope, no affiliation with any religion, but was raised baptist so that accounts for my moral stance.....don't start with the nature/genetic shit, can't be proven, whole other debate......you said I'm closed minded and that is totally inaccurate......no holes here, my logic is undeniable.


I don't need your pity, Eric.



Too fucking early to pick this up again....

[svauto-erotic855]

Would you be willing to divulge the groups? I'd be interested in looking into their work.

GLAAD and, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force are the ones that I can remember off of the top of my head.

[talisman]

Think bigger. My pity is more mourning the fact that in this day and age people are so appalled by what consenting adults do to try and find happiness on this cold and worthless planet are so deserving of misguided ire. It's fucking sickening to me.

[03WhiteGT]

I believe in God and i don't care what racrguy and his boyfriend do to each other in their free time fwiw.

Racrguy, you strike me as a bottom for some reason.....

Ha Ha,,,,,,, i just spit coffee all over my keyboard......

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Well where else does this acceptance train go? Definately not stopping off at "we've-gone-too-far-ville". If the gay rights movement is this successful, whats to stop other "preferences" of any kind to not use the same model?

It's very simple: You stop tolerating things at the point when people start being harmed.

I also hear it from teenagers, and our current generation. They think that everyone deserves special treatment, and unlimited tolerance of what used to be considered unacceptable deviant behavior. So the line is being pushed, and it isn't going to lose any momentum.

Equal, not special. Advocating for the restriction of someone else's desires is in itself seeking special treatment for your own - is it not?

[GhostTX]

When you start rejecting the morals and beliefs of answering to a higher power, then all your morals and beliefs then become defined by the government.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

When you start rejecting the morals and beliefs of answering to a higher power, then all your morals and beliefs then become defined by the government.

If you believe that man is essentially evil and incapable of acting without regard to consequences, then maybe so. The government as an entity can enforce behavioral legislation, but the legislation itself comes from what moral compass?