IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
   XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.prisons, alt.revisionism   
   XPost: alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.immigration   
   XPost: alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns, misc.survivalism   
   XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.   
   BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
      
   On 2/5/2015 11:25 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   > On 2/5/2015 12:37 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 2/4/2015 9:46 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >>> Gay marriage is a Judicial created law.  They can't delete parts of the   
   >>> law they say are unconstitutional and keep the rest.   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps a better tack is to assess whether homosexuality is right or   
   >> wrong (a moral dilemma), not whether or not it is constitutional.  Once   
   >> you have ascertained that it is wrong, constitutionality is moot.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Been there done that....   
   >   
   > Gays want marriage for themselves and they ignore the rights of   
   > Incestuous marriage and polygamy marriage on the same grounds as gay   
   > marriage, they tell me that gay marriage is *MORAL* because it's TWO   
   > CONSENTING ADULTS, well so is incest marriage and polygamy.... yet they   
   > exclude them from having the same marriage rights as gays.   
   >   
   > *THAT PROVES THEY'RE MORALLY BANKRUPT*   
   >   
   > The gays want to violate the civil rights of incestuous and polygamist   
   > persons.  I on the other hand tell them that if gays have the right to   
   > marry so do incestuous and polygamist consenting adult persons.   
   >   
   > And if they say it's NOT about being an adult and consent then the   
   > question is why then can't a Pedophile marry who the Pedophile loves?   
   > And once again the the gays are out to violate pedophiles right to   
   > marriage.  Gays want a special dispensation for themselves alone. And   
   > that is NOT constitutional.   
   >   
   > Gays and Liberals are out to violate someone's civil rights one way or   
   > the other, because they've created a CATCH-22 for themselves... they are   
   > in a box with no way out other than to lie their way out. But then   
   > that's who they are so looking at the constitutionality of the way they   
   > try to subvert the laws to their cause is a legitimate path and one I'm   
   > sure shows the gay marriage fallacy as corrupt as it does when you chase   
   > down the moral side of the issue.   
   >   
   > The constitution doesn't support gays violating others rights to   
   > marry... if it does then it would also support MY right to violate their   
   > gay rights and ban their marriage, wouldn't it?   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Jus Say'n   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)