Gays

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hmmm ... maybe we need to get Jim to revise the profile group? What do you eat? What do you screw? What color is your hair? If anyone says sheep I'm gonna die laughing from a heart attack.

Y'all are all right handed so I hate all of you anyway. Everything you do is ass-backwards. Not to mention I bet most of you a-holes have hair. And you probably drive cars instead of a truck. Eat chicken and pork. Y'all should all just go shoot yourselves right now.

I am left-handed, which is another reason I shoot rifles, pistols, shotguns and bows so well.
Being left-handed is a major plus in a fight as most people expect right-handed knock out shots.
I only ever knocked out two people with my right hand, the others(more than a dozen) all were and floored caught by a very powerful left shot.
We lefties have our known traits--many of which are great positives.

However, we face world tailored for right handed people, thus its adapt to meet the demands.

I save my bullets for my enemies and shooting myself seems to me to be a bit counter productive. ----Tyr

[Gunny]

I am left-handed, which is another reason I shoot rifles, pistols, shotguns and bows so well.
Being left-handed is a major plus in a fight as most people expect right-handed knock out shots.
I only ever knocked out two people with my right hand, the others(more than a dozen) all were and floored caught by a very powerful left shot.
We lefties have our known traits--many of which are great positives.

However, we face world tailored for right handed people, thus its adapt to meet the demands.

I save my bullets for my enemies and shooting myself seems to me to be a bit counter productive. ----Tyr

I'm a martial artist, was a kickboxer and boxer. I'm WELL aware of the advantages of getting in the ring with a goof that doesn't know how to deal. What just drives me nuts is a southpaw that doesn't know how to stay outside the opponents left foot. You take away all their power. I can actually fight both way (because of the karate and tae kwon do), but I AM a lefty and that's the way I play.

Same with basketball. If can go left and shoot, most people can't deal with you. Same with baseball. They like to make that strategic move of putting a lefty in on right handed batters but they can't pitch to us. You're either going to hit me with the ball or throw outside.

I hated shooting at first though. That shell casing ejects right down your shirt. Fucker is hot.

[fj1200]

Point of order - that's flatly wrong. Sexual preference was never a condition of marriage. The ONLY requirement was opposite genders. Any man and woman of legal age could wed. Sexual preference is akin to eating preference, or what politics someone prefers. It's an internal choice - and the State had NO quizzes nor requirements of any preference; simply two tests - Biology-based gender and age.

No it's not. The requirement of man/woman is couched on the definition of who wants to live together long term and raise a family; by default that is a straight marriage. Could a gay man and lesbian woman get married before? Of course but they don't want to because that's not the family or union that they want. The problem is the government stepped in to decide who to grant benefits to based on a definition in which they had, or should have had, no interest.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm a martial artist, was a kickboxer and boxer. I'm WELL aware of the advantages of getting in the ring with a goof that doesn't know how to deal. What just drives me nuts is a southpaw that doesn't know how to stay outside the opponents left foot. You take away all their power. I can actually fight both way (because of the karate and tae kwon do), but I AM a lefty and that's the way I play.

Same with basketball. If can go left and shoot, most people can't deal with you. Same with baseball. They like to make that strategic move of putting a lefty in on right handed batters but they can't pitch to us. You're either going to hit me with the ball or throw outside.

I hated shooting at first though. That shell casing ejects right down your shirt. Fucker is hot.

I hated shooting at first though. That shell casing ejects right down your shirt. Fucker is hot.

Been there a couple times myself .....
Until one experiences that burn, they haven't a clue just how hot that damn casing is.....
Hot enough once burned--you tend to never forget..--Tyr

[Gunny]

No it's not. The requirement of man/woman is couched on the definition of who wants to live together long term and raise a family; by default that is a straight marriage. Could a gay man and lesbian woman get married before? Of course but they don't want to because that's not the family or union that they want. The problem is the government stepped in to decide who to grant benefits to based on a definition in which they had, or should have had, no interest.

Incorrect. Insurance companies decided who gets what. I can understand fighting for THAT because it IS inequality. I should be able to give whatever I want to whoever I want. That is more of a family issue than a man/woman issue, and insurance companies that look for any excuse to not pay up.

The man/woman definition is couched on biology. PEOPLE brought the government into the fray, not the other way around.

[fj1200]

Incorrect. Insurance companies decided who gets what. I can understand fighting for THAT because it IS inequality. I should be able to give whatever I want to whoever I want. That is more of a family issue than a man/woman issue, and insurance companies that look for any excuse to not pay up.

The man/woman definition is couched on biology. PEOPLE brought the government into the fray, not the other way around.

You haven't shown how I was incorrect. PEOPLE did bring the government into the fray when the Federal government decided to grant benefits based on interpersonal relationships and the PEOPLE didn't complain, but now that the government has to grant benefits and administer laws equally, which was the heart of the SCOTUS decision, people are complaining about a governmental definition. Besides much of the private market, big companies anyway, had already granted equality to those relationships even before the decision so it's the Feds catching up to the market IMO.

[Gunny]

You haven't shown how I was incorrect. PEOPLE did bring the government into the fray when the Federal government decided to grant benefits based on interpersonal relationships and the PEOPLE didn't complain, but now that the government has to grant benefits and administer laws equally, which was the heart of the SCOTUS decision, people are complaining about a governmental definition. Besides much of the private market, big companies anyway, had already granted equality to those relationships even before the decision so it's the Feds catching up to the market IMO.

Sure I did. This was not a government issue UNTIL people brought them into it.

I think gays should have every right the rest of us do. I don't think we should have special laws based on aberrant behavior. The big complaint back when I pointed it out when you were still putting on your Huggies was that gays didn't have the same rights as the rest of us. I agreed with their cause only insofar as the insurance companies were screwing them. I was fine with I get to choose who or whatever the Hell I want to get my insurance/inheritance.

When you think you need a special law? I'm going over the rail. How about we ban sunlight? I have no hair and my head fries in a NY minute. I should have a special law protecting me. Or I could just not whine about it and wear a ball cap. I think I'll have a parade instead. All us guys with shaved heads can dance around the street in thongs showing everyone our beet red heads.

The shit is ridiculous.

[fj1200]

Sure I did. This was not a government issue UNTIL people brought them into it.

I think gays should have every right the rest of us do. I don't think we should have special laws based on aberrant behavior. The big complaint back when I pointed it out when you were still putting on your Huggies was that gays didn't have the same rights as the rest of us. I agreed with their cause only insofar as the insurance companies were screwing them. I was fine with I get to choose who or whatever the Hell I want to get my insurance/inheritance.

When you think you need a special law? I'm going over the rail. How about we ban sunlight? I have no hair and my head fries in a NY minute. I should have a special law protecting me. Or I could just not whine about it and wear a ball cap. I think I'll have a parade instead. All us guys with shaved heads can dance around the street in thongs showing everyone our beet red heads.

The shit is ridiculous.

Not really. Based on your post I'm not quite sure where we disagree; Everyone should have the same rights and laws. There shouldn't be, and aren't anymore, sodomy laws that are only prosecuted against certain people for example just as their shouldn't be marriage laws, and aren't anymore, that provide benefits to only one group of people. Just like we shouldn't have laws for/against particular religious groups they all should be protected under 1A. The question being what is the State's interest in legislating interpersonal relationships of consenting adults?

[Abbey Marie]

Not really. Based on your post I'm not quite sure where we disagree; Everyone should have the same rights and laws. There shouldn't be, and aren't anymore, sodomy laws that are only prosecuted against certain people for example just as their shouldn't be marriage laws, and aren't anymore, that provide benefits to only one group of people. Just like we shouldn't have laws for/against particular religious groups they all should be protected under 1A. The question being what is the State's interest in legislating interpersonal relationships of consenting adults?

Should criminals have all the same rights as anyone else? How about terrorists? The unborn?

[fj1200]

Should criminals have all the same rights as anyone else? How about terrorists? The unborn?

Setting aside the unborn because they unfortunately don't but the rest??? They already do have the same rights but they've also broken laws and are subject to the penalties heretoforthwith.

[Gunny]

Not really. Based on your post I'm not quite sure where we disagree; Everyone should have the same rights and laws. There shouldn't be, and aren't anymore, sodomy laws that are only prosecuted against certain people for example just as their shouldn't be marriage laws, and aren't anymore, that provide benefits to only one group of people. Just like we shouldn't have laws for/against particular religious groups they all should be protected under 1A. The question being what is the State's interest in legislating interpersonal relationships of consenting adults?

Apples and oranges. You are entitled to your opinion. However, the states, not the federal gov't should decide what marriage is and isn't. The federal government should spend more time carrying out its own duties than meddling with the will of the people. Remember? That's what our law is supposed to be based on.

Perhaps the state's interest is they don't want raving gay pride parades in the streets of their cities? I wouldn't and don't. That is NOT legislating interpersonal relationships. It's legislating a term that activist gays demand to have. Ididn't start this crap. I ain't out in the street demanding I get treated special because I'm weird.

[fj1200]

Apples and oranges. You are entitled to your opinion. However, the states, not the federal gov't should decide what marriage is and isn't. The federal government should spend more time carrying out its own duties than meddling with the will of the people. Remember? That's what our law is supposed to be based on.

Perhaps the state's interest is they don't want raving gay pride parades in the streets of their cities? I wouldn't and don't. That is NOT legislating interpersonal relationships. It's legislating a term that activist gays demand to have. Ididn't start this crap. I ain't out in the street demanding I get treated special because I'm weird.

Equal Protection is not apples and oranges, it's in the Constitution. But I would agree with you about keeping the Federal government out of the definition but they put themselves in the defining business when they started doling out benefits based upon citizens meeting the marriage definition... and of course if 10A meant anything in this country which it doesn't. Pie in the sky "supposed to be" really means nothing at this point.

And parades aren't really at the heart of the matter, they've been having parades for far longer than any state allowed gay marriage. The real answer to the question is the State really has no business in regulating the relationships of consenting adults.

[Abbey Marie]

Setting aside the unborn because they unfortunately don't but the rest??? They already do have the same rights but they've also broken laws and are subject to the penalties heretoforthwith.

In addition to being punished for their crime, felons are denied the right to vote.

[Noir]

Probably never. Since you're wildly guessing...

My wild guess is built on two assumptions -
1 - People who are emotionally/physically bullied are more likely to commit suicide.
2 - People who are LGBT+ are more likely to be bullied.

I don't think either of those assumptions are outrageous.

[Noir]

It's nice that I do not act on my reaction. I didn't ask to have this reaction. Had one of them ever touched me I guarantee the violence would not be quelled.

Well good for you for not acting on your psychopathic impulses, imposed on you by those bloody gays and their gayness.