IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.   
   BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov   
      
   On 4/24/2015 12:12 PM, Vandar wrote:   
   > On 4/24/2015 11:59 AM, Snout@smack.com wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:54:16 -0400, Vandar  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 4/23/2015 10:56 PM, Snout@smack.com wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:32:37 -0500, David Hartung   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> read and heed. Tolerance is indeed a two way street, and lately there   
   >>>>> has been precious little coming from the LGBT people.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You first, Hartung   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Get YOUR idiots to accept and agree that EVERY citizen has the   
   >>>> identical rights as everyone else.   
   >>>   
   >>> Every citizen does not.   
   >>   
   >> Well, there ya go   
   >>   
   >> Due to Conservatives, that's true   
   >   
   > Due to the Constitution.   
   >   
   >> We're making progress--especially in the last 70 years whipping and   
   >> defeating the racist rightwing ignorance and stupidity that you   
   >> exemplify.   
   >>   
   >> The constitution (as interpreted now) makes it clear that citizens are   
   >> equal under the law--and states prerogatives are curtailed when it   
   >> comes to discriminating against co-equal citizens   
   >   
   > Children, the incapacitated, and many criminals can't vote.   
   > Felons do not have the right to own firearms.   
   > Those on probation/parole do not have the right to freely travel.   
   > Adults under age 35 can't be President.   
   >   
   > Every citizen *does not* have identical rights to every other citizen.   
   >   
   >> Since marriage is a RIGHT, (as established related to age, consent,   
   >> ect) and IS a CIVIL CONTRACT----then it's indefensible to say it can   
   >> be limited according to a false claim of a religious nature.   
   >   
   > I've never advocated any such thing. I'm indifferent to gay marriage.   
   > Let them marry, don't let them marry, I don't care either way.   
   > And I am in no way religious.   
   >   
   > Everything you say is a lie.   
      
   I'm NOT religious or gay and I say gays "if they are a sexual group"   
   should NOT be allowed to marry since it's a religious ceremony and   
   religion doesn't need to conform to sexual ideological standards.  Since   
   "Congress shall make no law" the only law that counts is the   
   Constitution its self.  And the constitution doesn't recognize gay as a   
   group or classification and the gays can't prove they are gay. In order   
   to become a group they would have to prove themselves a Gender or they   
   would need to form a religion where they believe they are gays, like   
   Christians believe they are Christians.  It's solely a belief on their   
   part, and there is no proof.   
      
   But then if you accept believing in gay as a religion then I guess they   
   can marry. The problem then is that government can't marry them,   
   government can only offer civil ceremonies to everyone, rather than a   
   gay ceremony from a gay church.   
      
   SO gays go to their church or get a civil ceremony/union, just like all   
   other religions. The government can't marry any of them, the government   
   can offer a civil union and no marriages for any of the religions.   
   --   
    That's Karma   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)