Equal protection for the privilege of state-sanctioned marriage, but not for the God-given right to bear arms. That's the point you've missed or ignored.
They didn't have the authority until they took it, frankly. The government considers marriage a vested interest of theirs, and they regulate it. It's treated virtually as an entitlement. There are legal and tax benefits under the law, and the law doesn't apply to marriage not sanctioned by the state. So while it shouldn't exist, state-sanctioned marriage does exist and is even the norm. That's exactly why it's such a fucked up institution at this point, with most "marriages" failing.
We're talking about the right to bear arms, actually. There is no distinction in the Constitution, the rightful authority to which you yourself are appealing. So the point stands.
Equal protection under the law only applies if it is an inherent characteristic of you, not your choice. Being gay is a choice.
This argument is exactly why they spent so long pushing the "born this way" bullshit. But now, ironically, they're saying sexuality is something you can change whenever you want.
Either way, "equal protection" doesn't cover choices you make. Otherwise it would cover if a person "chooses" to murder someone. It also doesn't cover preferences, even if you believe that preferences aren't explicit choices, otherwise it would cover if a person "prefers" to murder someone.
Every moment of every day when I decide to not go out and suck a cock. What kind of question is this?
You choose to own a gun.
We are talking about equal protection under the law, which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It is completely separate from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to own a gun, even though that is a choice. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.
If someone were to try to argue that gun laws are unconstitutional based on the equal protections guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment by claiming that the law applies to them differently as they are a "gun owner," I would call them retarded. Gun laws are unconstitutional based on something completely separate.
Where does the constitution say anything about choice vs inherent?
That's just what "equal protection under the law" means. Those are my words to explain how it works.
If being gay is indeed a choice, a law that prohibits gay shit is not a law that only applies to gay people, just the same as a law that prohibits theft wouldn't be considered a law that only applies to thieves.
If a thief argued in court that laws against theft were unconstitutional because he, as a thief, should be guaranteed the same protections under the law as a non-thief, what would you say to him?
If they're producing female hormone levels of estrogen they need to stop being a bitch and start actually working, going outside, doing things. It's their body telling them to stop being a fucking pussy, they should listen to it.
The fuck are you talking about? We're talking about the gays, not the trannies here.
"Sexual orientation" is about preference. And the progressives will claim that isn't a choice.
Preferences are closely related to temptations. And, since you bring up God, I think you should have a thorough understanding of what temptations are and what we are taught to do with them.
Giving in to homosexual temptations is no different than Eve taking a bite of the forbidden fruit.
I have no idea why you decided to bring up people switching sexes or whatever. And I resent your idea that fringe edge cases with actual, objective, scientific backing are anything close to the "norm" or any sort of reason why we should accept people who aren't affected by these conditions to "change their gender" at will.
Furthermore, if a person has a hormonal imbalance that causes a man to grow breasts... they are still a man. It would make sense if that person claimed that is how God made them and kept the breasts. Or it would make sense if they treated it like a disease and sought medical treatment to get their hormones back in check. But what doesn't make sense is deciding the breasts mean you're a woman, then chopping your dick off.
So hard for you to break free of your simplistic view that it is only a penis which makes an individual a male, isn't it?
Then how do you decide regarding hermaphrodites?
I'll tell you how.....your argument then (for people who are born with both a penis and vagina) is that they know whether they are male or female (by nature) because of how they feel on the inside. That feeling is determined by their respective levels of female hormones vs male hormones.
So it's not just a genital appendage which determines a person's nature, is it?
They also have the same right as anyone else. No one is stopping them from getting married to a woman. It's their right to marry, as a man and a woman.
They have the same rights as anyone else. But they don't have extra rights.
Faggots aren’t entitled to getting married
Says who?
People with common sense
"Common sense" is that people can do whatever they want to do without you interfering with their lives, retarded leftist.
God.
If you have a problem, you can take it up with Him.
God never said anything on it. Only men did.
If God wanted that to be the rule, he could have made it physically impossible. Yet it is physically possible.
Faggots like you think your narrow view of the world should be forced on others.
Wrong. Just KYS already. You’re a miserable individual. No one will miss you.
You first, faggot
Equal protection for the privilege of state-sanctioned marriage, but not for the God-given right to bear arms. That's the point you've missed or ignored.
"State-sanctioned marriage" is not a thing. The state has no authority to sanction marriages.
They didn't have the authority until they took it, frankly. The government considers marriage a vested interest of theirs, and they regulate it. It's treated virtually as an entitlement. There are legal and tax benefits under the law, and the law doesn't apply to marriage not sanctioned by the state. So while it shouldn't exist, state-sanctioned marriage does exist and is even the norm. That's exactly why it's such a fucked up institution at this point, with most "marriages" failing.
We are talking about concealed carry here.
That's the point you missed.
No State ignores a citizens right to legally own a gun.
We're talking about the right to bear arms, actually. There is no distinction in the Constitution, the rightful authority to which you yourself are appealing. So the point stands.
No ...the title of OPs post refers to "Permit to Carry" not Right to Bear Arms.
So your point is pointless.
Yet you're probably first in line to grab guns, right?
You have the reading comprehension of a two year old.
Equal protection under the law only applies if it is an inherent characteristic of you, not your choice. Being gay is a choice.
This argument is exactly why they spent so long pushing the "born this way" bullshit. But now, ironically, they're saying sexuality is something you can change whenever you want.
Either way, "equal protection" doesn't cover choices you make. Otherwise it would cover if a person "chooses" to murder someone. It also doesn't cover preferences, even if you believe that preferences aren't explicit choices, otherwise it would cover if a person "prefers" to murder someone.
When did you choose to be straight?
And where does the constitution say anything about choice vs inherent? You choose to own a gun.
Every moment of every day when I decide to not go out and suck a cock. What kind of question is this?
We are talking about equal protection under the law, which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It is completely separate from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to own a gun, even though that is a choice. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.
If someone were to try to argue that gun laws are unconstitutional based on the equal protections guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment by claiming that the law applies to them differently as they are a "gun owner," I would call them retarded. Gun laws are unconstitutional based on something completely separate.
That's just what "equal protection under the law" means. Those are my words to explain how it works.
If being gay is indeed a choice, a law that prohibits gay shit is not a law that only applies to gay people, just the same as a law that prohibits theft wouldn't be considered a law that only applies to thieves.
If a thief argued in court that laws against theft were unconstitutional because he, as a thief, should be guaranteed the same protections under the law as a non-thief, what would you say to him?
That's not what I asked. When did you CHOOSE to be straight? When did you decide that you preferred pussy over dick?
No it doesn't, retard. You're literally pulling shit out of your ass. I mean this interpretation is worse than anything I've ever heard a leftist say.
If they're producing female hormone levels of estrogen they need to stop being a bitch and start actually working, going outside, doing things. It's their body telling them to stop being a fucking pussy, they should listen to it.
This fucking incel idiot doesn't have the first clue as to how the reality of biology works, does he?
Stop being a little bitch, complaining about how you think others need to live their lives.
The fuck are you talking about? We're talking about the gays, not the trannies here.
"Sexual orientation" is about preference. And the progressives will claim that isn't a choice.
Preferences are closely related to temptations. And, since you bring up God, I think you should have a thorough understanding of what temptations are and what we are taught to do with them.
Giving in to homosexual temptations is no different than Eve taking a bite of the forbidden fruit.
I have no idea why you decided to bring up people switching sexes or whatever. And I resent your idea that fringe edge cases with actual, objective, scientific backing are anything close to the "norm" or any sort of reason why we should accept people who aren't affected by these conditions to "change their gender" at will.
Furthermore, if a person has a hormonal imbalance that causes a man to grow breasts... they are still a man. It would make sense if that person claimed that is how God made them and kept the breasts. Or it would make sense if they treated it like a disease and sought medical treatment to get their hormones back in check. But what doesn't make sense is deciding the breasts mean you're a woman, then chopping your dick off.
So hard for you to break free of your simplistic view that it is only a penis which makes an individual a male, isn't it?
Then how do you decide regarding hermaphrodites?
I'll tell you how.....your argument then (for people who are born with both a penis and vagina) is that they know whether they are male or female (by nature) because of how they feel on the inside. That feeling is determined by their respective levels of female hormones vs male hormones.
So it's not just a genital appendage which determines a person's nature, is it?
They also have the same right as anyone else. No one is stopping them from getting married to a woman. It's their right to marry, as a man and a woman.
They have the same rights as anyone else. But they don't have extra rights.
Where does the constitution say that?