TARGET Unveils Pride Collection That Includes LGBT Rainbow Onesies For Newborns

[EasternVol]

You're all over the place. I'm very familiar with the Bible. I was a full time minister for 2 years. He can promise to deliver the Israelites and that does not erase the event that you believe in where he murdered the world. I suppose I can conclude you are having trouble reconciling this because you can't stick to the event in question.

Were those the two years of your mission?

 

[n_huffhines]

Were those the two years of your mission?

Yeah. It's ordained ministry.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I thought we need not follow those OT rules.

What happened, young man? You cussed at me and insisted I not be "a pussy" and tell you how I feel about the Obergefell decision...... so I did and you've got nothing?

The Constitution says NOTHING, nor does the 14th Amendment, about marriage between anyone and only authorizes govt to protect citizens equally from exploitation. Marriage isn't within the US govt's scope and never has been and never will be.

So "don't be a pussy" and tell me I'm wrong and show me anywhere the Constitution suggests govt should be involved in marriage. I'll wait.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

What happened, young man? You cussed at me and insisted I not be "a pussy" and tell you how I feel about the Obergefell decision...... so I did and you've got nothing?

The Constitution says NOTHING, nor does the 14th Amendment, about marriage between anyone and only authorizes govt to protect citizens equally from exploitation. Marriage isn't within the US govt's scope and never has been and never will be.

So "don't be a pussy" and tell me I'm wrong and show me anywhere the Constitution suggests govt should be involved in marriage. I'll wait.

I didn’t hear any whining about government involvement in marriage until gay marriage became an issue. However, for as long as the government provides certain rights to married straight couples the us constitution provides those same rights to same sex married couples via the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The constitution doesn’t provide for 99% of the “rights” we enjoy, but it does say once the government is involved… the people must given equal access and protection of said laws. Face it, the rights given to married couples are completely intertwined into the laws of this country at the local, state and federal levels and for as long as that remains the case the constitution protects the rights of same sex couples to marry.

So, your argument though it does have some legal and logical merit would be impossible to implement because of the sheer number of laws regarding marriage on the books. In my opinion, your view is nothing more than a thinly veiled disdain for gay people.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

I didn’t hear any whining about government involvement in marriage until gay marriage became an issue. However, for as long as the government provides certain rights to married straight couples the us constitution provides those same rights to same sex married couples via the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The constitution doesn’t provide for 99% of the “rights” we enjoy, but it does say once the government is involved… the people must given equal access and protection of said laws. Face it, the rights given to married couples are completely intertwined into the laws of this country at the local, state and federal levels and for as long as that remains the case the constitution protects the rights of same sex couples to marry.

So, your argument though it does have some legal and logical merit would be impossible to implement because of the sheer number of laws regarding marriage on the books. In my opinion, your view is nothing more than a thinly veiled disdain for gay people.

Look at you. "It's too hard to implement the Constitution as written....." Actually, it's very easy, just as Obergefell interpreted the 14th to include same sex couples or as Loving allowed interracial marriage, the Supreme Court can correct itself and has repeatedly.

Brown v Board of Education massively changed schools in America by ending segregation. Despite taking several years to enforce, it was a massive change.

For God's sake, America overturned the mistake of slavery, the mistake of women's suffrage so getting out of the marriage business is not "too hard" for America. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me the govt SHOULD be involved in marriage (other than via contract law like any other two entities.)

Tell me you think it's correct that govt gives marriage and married individuals "special status" and show me in the Constitution where you think that's the case. Pussy. Hehehehe

 

[ClearwaterVol]

P

Look at you. "It's too hard to implement the Constitution as written....." Actually, it's very easy, just as Obergefell interpreted the 14th to include same sex couples or as Loving allowed interracial marriage, the Supreme Court can correct itself and has repeatedly.

Brown v Board of Education massively changed schools in America by ending segregation. Despite taking several years to enforce, it was a massive change.

For God's sake, America overturned the mistake of slavery, the mistake of women's suffrage so getting out of the marriage business is not "too hard" for America. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me the govt SHOULD be involved in marriage (other than via contract law like any other two entities.)

Tell me you think it's correct that govt gives marriage and married individuals "special status" and show me in the Constitution where you think that's the case. Pussy. Hehehehe

You don’t seem to have a grasp of how this all works.

1. There are 1000s of laws on the books regarding marriage. State, local and federal… How do you plan to get rid of them?


2. The examples you give struck down laws deemed unconstitutional. Do you believe laws granting rights and privileges to married people unconstitutional? If so, describe how.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

P


You don’t seem to have a grasp of how this all works.

1. There are 1000s of laws on the books regarding marriage. State, local and federal… How do you plan to get rid of them?


2. The examples you give struck down laws deemed unconstitutional. Do you believe laws granting rights and privileges to married people unconstitutional? If so, describe how.

There were thousands of laws concerning slavery and women's rights and segregation..... and here we are.

C'mon, stop being a pussy and tell me where the Constitution says government should be involved in marriage.

Pussy. Hehehehe

Edit: Look, kid. It's obvious you've got nothing. "There's too many laws all around. We can't possibly change this." You've no idea, obviously, how pervasive segregation was in America. I'm old enough to have SEEN "colored" and "whites only" bathrooms, seating in courthouses, doors in public buildings, etc.

Maybe you should stop insulting people who disagree with you and think a little deeper.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

There were thousands of laws concerning slavery and women's rights and segregation..... and here we are.

C'mon, stop being a pussy and tell me where the Constitution says government should be involved in marriage.

Pussy. Hehehehe

Edit: Look, kid. It's obvious you've got nothing. "There's too many laws all around. We can't possibly change this." You've no idea, obviously, how pervasive segregation was in America. I'm old enough to have SEEN "colored" and "whites only" bathrooms, seating in courthouses, doors in public buildings, etc.

Maybe you should stop insulting people who disagree with you and think a little deeper.

It is you that needs to think deeper and consider the questions which I posed to you in my last post. I’m not going to continue a discussion with someone who lacks a basic understanding of the mechanics and lacks the willingness to learn.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It is you that needs to think deeper and consider the questions which I posed to you in my last post. I’m not going to continue a discussion with someone who lacks a basic understanding of the mechanics and lacks the willingness to learn.

You're delirious. I actually WATCHED segregation be dismantled (somewhat) in this country with laws from the local, state, and federal level being overturned.

Just because you want to run away doesn't make you not clueless.

My point remains valid. The govt has zero business, beyond exploitation of individuals, being involved in marriage. A married person, ANY MARRIED PERSON, is not Constitutionally a protected class because it's none of the government's business, nor concern.

Refute that or stop insulting people who disagree with you.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

P


You don’t seem to have a grasp of how this all works.

1. There are 1000s of laws on the books regarding marriage. State, local and federal… How do you plan to get rid of them?


2. The examples you give struck down laws deemed unconstitutional. Do you believe laws granting rights and privileges to married people unconstitutional? If so, describe how.

Your own words:
"So, your argument though it does have some legal and logical merit would be impossible to implement because of the sheer number of laws regarding marriage on the books."

So you actually think there are more laws on the books for marriage than there were for slavery? For segregation? For women's rights?

You admit my argument is logical and legal then suggest it can't be done because there's simply too many laws....... Hehehehe...... seriously, listen to yourself....... please, continue to make yourself look like a fool.

America shouldn't do what you ADMIT is logical and legal because there's already too many wrong laws in the way.

Then you say you won't answer anymore because I'm not willing to look at reality.

Are you finished making a fool of yourself or would you like to try to dig your way out of your own words?

 

[UT-Rex]

P


You don’t seem to have a grasp of how this all works.

1. There are 1000s of laws on the books regarding marriage. State, local and federal… How do you plan to get rid of them?


2. The examples you give struck down laws deemed unconstitutional. Do you believe laws granting rights and privileges to married people unconstitutional? If so, describe how.

It takes one as astute of law(s) as you for others to recognize,

There's one earlier-prior law on the books --

Mark 10:6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’b 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,c 8and the two will become one flesh.’d So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Let's you and I be sure to let there be no misunderstanding among earthly nations: "male and female"

 

[UT-Rex]

P


You don’t seem to have a grasp of how this all works.

1. There are 1000s of laws on the books regarding marriage. State, local and federal… How do you plan to get rid of them?


2. The examples you give struck down laws deemed unconstitutional. Do you believe laws granting rights and privileges to married people unconstitutional? If so, describe how.

Did you know that Christ's church is a "nation" ("a holy nation") ?


1 Peter 2:6For it stands in Scripture: “See, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and precious cornerstone;
and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame.” ...

8and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.”c They stumble because they disobey the word—and to this they were appointed.

9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. 10Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.d

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Your own words:
"So, your argument though it does have some legal and logical merit would be impossible to implement because of the sheer number of laws regarding marriage on the books."

So you actually think there are more laws on the books for marriage than there were for slavery? For segregation? For women's rights?

You admit my argument is logical and legal then suggest it can't be done because there's simply too many laws....... Hehehehe...... seriously, listen to yourself....... please, continue to make yourself look like a fool.

America shouldn't do what you ADMIT is logical and legal because there's already too many wrong laws in the way.

Then you say you won't answer anymore because I'm not willing to look at reality.

Are you finished making a fool of yourself or would you like to try to dig your way out of your own words?

You still are not thinking about the logistics of it. Segregation was made unconstitutional. That alone invalidated all of the laws allowing or requiring segregation.

Are you suggesting that the United States Supreme Court could make marriage unconstitutional? If so, on what basis?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It takes one as astute of law(s) as you for others to recognize,

There's one earlier-prior law on the books --

Mark 10:6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’b 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,c 8and the two will become one flesh.’d So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Let's you and I be sure to let there be no misunderstanding among earthly nations: "male and female"

And the Bible does not govern in this country.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Target stores received bomb threats accusing retailer of betraying LGBTQ community amid woke backlash: reports

 

[n_huffhines]

I didn’t hear any whining about government involvement in marriage until gay marriage became an issue. However, for as long as the government provides certain rights to married straight couples the us constitution provides those same rights to same sex married couples via the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The constitution doesn’t provide for 99% of the “rights” we enjoy, but it does say once the government is involved… the people must given equal access and protection of said laws. Face it, the rights given to married couples are completely intertwined into the laws of this country at the local, state and federal levels and for as long as that remains the case the constitution protects the rights of same sex couples to marry.

So, your argument though it does have some legal and logical merit would be impossible to implement because of the sheer number of laws regarding marriage on the books. In my opinion, your view is nothing more than a thinly veiled disdain for gay people.

And "the sanctity of marriage" arguments when divorce rate among Christians is/was so high...

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You still are not thinking about the logistics of it. Segregation was made unconstitutional. That alone invalidated all of the laws allowing or requiring segregation.

Are you suggesting that the United States Supreme Court could make marriage unconstitutional? If so, on what basis?

The SCOTUS can simply declare that govt has no compelling interest in regulating marriage. Poof. People can and do perform all kinds of ceremonies that the govt doesn't regulate. People can call it a marriage, union, fraternity, club, whatever but the SCOTUS could DEFINITELY say the govt can't Constitutionally get involved and the laws are void.

That doesn't cancel marriage, son, it just gets govt out of a ton of legal mess related to the special perks, the record keeping, etc associated with marriage. Govt doesn't keep up with who is in what club or whatever until someone brings a lawsuit concerning breach of contract. So it should be with marriage.

You said it yourself. How could govt make marriage illegal? They can't. They shouldn't. It isn't a legal issue or wasn't until the govt butted in.

 

[n_huffhines]

The SCOTUS can simply declare that govt has no compelling interest in regulating marriage. Poof. People can and do perform all kinds of ceremonies that the govt doesn't regulate. People can call it a marriage, union, fraternity, club, whatever but the SCOTUS could DEFINITELY say the govt can't Constitutionally get involved and the laws are void.

That doesn't cancel marriage, son, it just gets govt out of a ton of legal mess related to the special perks, the record keeping, etc associated with marriage. Govt doesn't keep up with who is in what club or whatever until someone brings a lawsuit concerning breach of contract. So it should be with marriage.

You said it yourself. How could govt make marriage illegal? They can't. They shouldn't. It isn't a legal issue or wasn't until the govt butted in.

What part of the constitution empowers SCOTUS to do this?

 

[n_huffhines]

Target stores received bomb threats accusing retailer of betraying LGBTQ community amid woke backlash: reports

Very peculiar places to be receiving bomb threats from the lgbtq community

 

[ClearwaterVol]

The SCOTUS can simply declare that govt has no compelling interest in regulating marriage. Poof. People can and do perform all kinds of ceremonies that the govt doesn't regulate. People can call it a marriage, union, fraternity, club, whatever but the SCOTUS could DEFINITELY say the govt can't Constitutionally get involved and the laws are void.

That doesn't cancel marriage, son, it just gets govt out of a ton of legal mess related to the special perks, the record keeping, etc associated with marriage. Govt doesn't keep up with who is in what club or whatever until someone brings a lawsuit concerning breach of contract. So it should be with marriage.

You said it yourself. How could govt make marriage illegal? They can't. They shouldn't. It isn't a legal issue or wasn't until the govt butted in.

You have no grasp of the way in which this works.

1. What law would be challenged?
2. What would be the legal basis of challenging that law?
3. Why do you believe invalidating the law you utilized in paragraph 1 would invalidate all laws regarding marriage?

 

[VolStrom]

The only thing marriage is in the eyes of the government is a legal contract. Who cares who it's between.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

What part of the constitution empowers SCOTUS to do this?

The job of govt is to leave citizens alone. Getting involved in private contracts is EXACTLY unconstitutional except to avoid exploitation.

Why should govt be involved in this should be the FIRST question we ask. Do we need govt involved to make this work? We don't when it comes to marriage so why is govt involved?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You have no grasp of the way in which this works.

1. What law would be challenged?
2. What would be the legal basis of challenging that law?
3. Why do you believe invalidating the law you utilized in paragraph 1 would invalidate all laws regarding marriage?

Marriage laws should be challenged. Govt should be forced to show WHY it is involved in a private contract between two people. Until someone alleges the contract as breached, why should govt be able to make laws concerning ENTERING that contract (again, other than normal exploitive issues.)

It's simple but you're entrenched in letting govt get it's grubby paws in where it shouldn't. WHY SHOULD GOVT BE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE? Why is govt essential to marriage? If it isn't essential..... get out of the way of the citizens.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Marriage laws should be challenged. Govt should be forced to show WHY it is involved in a private contract between two people. Until someone alleges the contract as breached, why should govt be able to make laws concerning ENTERING that contract (again, other than normal exploitive issues.)

It's simple but you're entrenched in letting govt get it's grubby paws in where it shouldn't. WHY SHOULD GOVT BE INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE? Why is govt essential to marriage? If it isn't essential..... get out of the way of the citizens.

It is anything but simple as evidenced by your inability to address the questions I asked directly.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

It is anything but simple as evidenced by your inability to address the questions I asked directly.

Let's start again. Tell me why govt needs to be involved in marriage? What compelling interest does govt have in regulating marriage?

If we can't start with WHY govt should be involved, it's a good bet govt shouldn't be involved.

The Constitution is simple. Govt should get out of the way of citizens lives. Govt should leave us alone as much as possible. Getting involved in marriage is as intrusive as govt can get...... but here we are.