# Gay Bar Owner Shows Intolerance



## Buford

Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?

'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.



Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.

Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.


----------



## Sunni Man

Buford said:


> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties


I agree that you and your friends shouldn't be forced to allow women into your bar.


----------



## Katzndogz

Just as bars catering to a straight clientele should not be forced to serve gays.  It's called business practice.


----------



## The Infidel

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.



Except if they decide to allow smoking in their bar


----------



## The Infidel

Katzndogz said:


> Just as bars catering to a straight clientele should not be forced to serve gays.  It's called business practice.



You evil bigot you


----------



## Katzndogz

Gay men generally object to women flaunting their femaleness.  Fag hags are special, they're okay.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
Click to expand...


Sure they can. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender...which is perfectly legal in a number of states.



> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.



Because that's where the best music is...and it's full of good looking men that aren't going to hit on you.


----------



## Katzndogz

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
Click to expand...


It's safe.  They won't get pawed or grabbed.  Usually at a bachelorette party the women are out to have a good time not hook up.  Notice that bachelorette parties don't go to lesbian bars.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.





Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
Click to expand...


I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.

This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference


----------



## WillowTree

Damn, he sounds like a pusssy and a bad business man.. it's his loss.


----------



## Seawytch

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
Click to expand...


They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they can. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender...which is perfectly legal in a number of states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that's where the best music is...and it's full of good looking men that aren't going to hit on you.
Click to expand...


So let's see a bar put up a sign saying, "No homosexuals allowed", and see how long THAT lasts before there are lawsuits and protests and whatever.

And actually, btw, they're just ASSUMING those parties are for hetero women.  What if a lesbian couple is getting married, and one of them decides to have HER bachelorette party there?

Why does this whining dipshit bar owner think he's "excluded from the experience", anyway?  Who the fuck is stopping him from having a wedding with all the trappings, including parties beforehand, if that's what he wants to do?  Does he really need that piece of paper - and public approbation - so badly that he lets it stop him from living his life?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Katzndogz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's safe.  They won't get pawed or grabbed.  Usually at a bachelorette party the women are out to have a good time not hook up.  Notice that bachelorette parties don't go to lesbian bars.
Click to expand...


I thought it was because lesbian bars suck.  As far as I'm aware, my city only has one lesbian bar, and even the lesbians hardly go there.  Damned if I know how they stay in business.


----------



## Buford

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
Click to expand...


A gay bar is a perfect place.  The women can party without fear of being hit on.


----------



## Missourian

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.



"A Christian photographer in New Mexico was found  guilty last week of breaking state law for refusing to take pictures of a  lesbian ceremony.


Elaine Huguenin of Elane  Photography was contacted in 2006 by a same-sex couple wanting pictures  taken of their "commitment ceremony."


After  Huguenin told them she only photographed traditional marriages, the  couple filed a complaint for discrimination against their sexual  orientation.

The case was taken before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which heard the case in January.


On  Wednesday, the state commission ruled that Huguenin violated the  state's Human Rights Act. An order was issued for the photographer to  pay close to $7,000 for the couple's attorney's fees."

Christian Photog Sued by Same-Sex Couple - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com​


----------



## Cecilie1200

Katzndogz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's safe.  They won't get pawed or grabbed.  Usually at a bachelorette party the women are out to have a good time not hook up.  Notice that bachelorette parties don't go to lesbian bars.
Click to expand...


Okay, seriously, do women really freak out that much about being hit on?  Is it really so traumatic to just say, "No, get lost"?

Maybe they should just go see male strippers.  That way, they're still surrounded by handsome gay men who aren't going to hit on them.


----------



## Buford

Now we are getting to the point........  Intolerance by those who demand tolerance.


----------



## Political Junky

A Bachelorette Party would be a private affair, from which the owner's regular clientele would be prohibited. That would be wrong to impose on the owner.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Chuckles, but if hosting parties is one of the services his bar offers - and every bar I've ever heard of does - then he can't refuse to offer it to ALL his customers.

Don't be such a fucking hypocrite.  You don't think any other business in the nation should have any freedom to say how it's run, but talk about a gay bar, and it's suddenly "private and nobody else's business".

Every time I see you post, I think, "My God, I'd be ashamed to exist if I were you."


----------



## Sallow

Buford said:


> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties



It's a stupid idea.


----------



## del

Sallow said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid idea.
Click to expand...


it matches the thread


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Chuckles, but if hosting parties is one of the services his bar offers - and every bar I've ever heard of does - then he can't refuse to offer it to ALL his customers.
Click to expand...


It's a gay male bar. It's "all inclusive" that he won't be hosting bachelorette parties. 



> Don't be such a fucking hypocrite.  You don't think any other business in the nation should have any freedom to say how it's run, but talk about a gay bar, and it's suddenly "private and nobody else's business".



Maybe you can find a post where I said a private business shouldn't have "any freedom" to say how it is run. 



> Every time I see you post, I think, "My God, I'd be ashamed to exist if I were you."



Awww...and now I won't be able to sleep because some anonymous douche bag on the Internet thinks I shouldn't exist.


----------



## Seawytch

Sallow said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid idea.
Click to expand...


Not if you read the reason for doing it.

_The Abbey is following the lead of gay bars in Chicago; in March of 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported that gay bars had already started banning bachelorette parties two years before. Speaking of the gay bar Cocktail, the Tribune noted that the owner stopped hosting bachelorette parties a couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them "flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not Allowed._


----------



## J.E.D

Let's put it in context before we let Brietbart.com get our undies in a bunch, shall we?



> Cooley, who owns The Abbey in West Hollywood, a bar often frequented by Elizabeth Taylor, said seeing the bachelorettes was &#8220;kind of a slap in my face that I couldn&#8217;t have that same experience ... so I thought that I would put a ban on bachelorette parties until every person will have the right to have a marriage and be able to marry their loved one.&#8221;



1. He's not banning females; he's banning bacheloette parties.

2. He's doing so as a form of protest against people who want to deny him the opportunity to marry a person of the same sex.

Carry on.


----------



## Buford

Just watch the commotion if a bar that hosts events declared "No Gay engagement parties".


----------



## Buford

Seawytch said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you read the reason for doing it.
> 
> _The Abbey is following the lead of gay bars in Chicago; in March of 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported that gay bars had already started banning bachelorette parties two years before. Speaking of the gay bar Cocktail, the Tribune noted that the owner stopped hosting bachelorette parties a couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them "flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not Allowed._
Click to expand...


How about a bar that states "No Gay Engagement Parties because we are tired of homos flaunting their gayness in our faces".  Same exact thing.  The intolerance by those who demand tolerance.  Funny stuff.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> Just watch the commotion if a bar that hosts events declared "No Gay engagement parties".



Well, what are you waiting for? Get out there and demand equal treatment for all people no matter their sexual orientation.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Let's put it in context before we let Brietbart.com get our undies in a bunch, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooley, who owns The Abbey in West Hollywood, a bar often frequented by Elizabeth Taylor, said seeing the bachelorettes was kind of a slap in my face that I couldnt have that same experience ... so I thought that I would put a ban on bachelorette parties until every person will have the right to have a marriage and be able to marry their loved one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He's not banning females; he's banning bacheloette parties.
> 
> 2. He's doing so as a form of protest against people who want to deny him the opportunity to marry a person of the same sex.
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


How does he know they want to deny him the opportunity to marry a person of the same sex?  Does he ask every female who enters his bar?  Wouldn't that be discrimination?


----------



## Sallow

del said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matches the thread
Click to expand...


Well it comes from Breitbart.

But in any case..as a former owner of a bar..I don't know what good it is to close down a revenue stream.

Makes no sense, business wise.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Buford said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay bar is a perfect place.  The women can party without fear of being hit on.
Click to expand...


I don't "fear" being hit on.  And I thought women at bachelorette parties - other than the bride herself, presumably - LIKED the idea of getting all wild and naughty.  I thought that was actually the POINT of the whole thing, to be honest.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watch the commotion if a bar that hosts events declared "No Gay engagement parties".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what are you waiting for? Get out there and demand equal treatment for all people no matter their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


I don't have to.  Everyone is treated equally under the law.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you read the reason for doing it.
> 
> _The Abbey is following the lead of gay bars in Chicago; in March of 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported that gay bars had already started banning bachelorette parties two years before. Speaking of the gay bar Cocktail, the Tribune noted that the owner stopped hosting bachelorette parties a couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them "flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not Allowed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about a bar that states "No Gay Engagement Parties because we are tired of homos flaunting their gayness in our faces".  Same exact thing.  The intolerance by those who demand tolerance.  Funny stuff.
Click to expand...


The anti-choice by those who demand their freedoms. Good stuff.


----------



## Buford

Cecilie1200 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gay bar is a perfect place.  The women can party without fear of being hit on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "fear" being hit on.  And I thought women at bachelorette parties - other than the bride herself, presumably - LIKED the idea of getting all wild and naughty.  I thought that was actually the POINT of the whole thing, to be honest.
Click to expand...


Perhaps not everyone thinks like you do.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watch the commotion if a bar that hosts events declared "No Gay engagement parties".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what are you waiting for? Get out there and demand equal treatment for all people no matter their sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to.  Everyone is treated equally under the law.
Click to expand...


No, they're not. Gay people can't legally marry in most states. That's the point the bar owner is making. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your phony outrage. Need a tissue? It might make the crocodile tears appear more authentic.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you read the reason for doing it.
> 
> _The Abbey is following the lead of gay bars in Chicago; in March of 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported that gay bars had already started banning bachelorette parties two years before. Speaking of the gay bar Cocktail, the Tribune noted that the owner stopped hosting bachelorette parties a couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them "flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not Allowed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a bar that states "No Gay Engagement Parties because we are tired of homos flaunting their gayness in our faces".  Same exact thing.  The intolerance by those who demand tolerance.  Funny stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The anti-choice by those who demand their freedoms. Good stuff.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what that means.  Could you explain that to me?  Thanks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Political Junky said:


> A Bachelorette Party would be a private affair, from which the owner's regular clientele would be prohibited. That would be wrong to impose on the owner.



Clearly, you know NOTHING about bachelorette parties, OR running a bar.  You're just pulling shit out of your ass to try to defend the left's right to behave like hypocritical, whining shitheads.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what are you waiting for? Get out there and demand equal treatment for all people no matter their sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to.  Everyone is treated equally under the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Gay people can't legally marry in most states. That's the point the bar owner is making. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your phony outrage. Need a tissue? It might make the crocodile tears appear more authentic.
Click to expand...


Then go to a state where it's legal.  Many people go to Vegas, Reno, or even Mexico to get married and divorced.  I never heard any of them complain about it.  Talk about crocodile tears.....LOL.  "Waaaaa, I'm gay and I can't get married.........waaaaaa"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Chuckles, but if hosting parties is one of the services his bar offers - and every bar I've ever heard of does - then he can't refuse to offer it to ALL his customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a gay male bar. It's "all inclusive" that he won't be hosting bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be such a fucking hypocrite.  You don't think any other business in the nation should have any freedom to say how it's run, but talk about a gay bar, and it's suddenly "private and nobody else's business".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you can find a post where I said a private business shouldn't have "any freedom" to say how it is run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I see you post, I think, "My God, I'd be ashamed to exist if I were you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awww...and now I won't be able to sleep because some anonymous douche bag on the Internet thinks I shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...


There's no such thing as a "gay male bar".  Know why?  Because it's illegal to refuse customers based on sex.  And obviously, it's NOT "all-inclusive", because he's BEEN hosting them, and sniveling and pouting about it the whole time.  This is a NEW decision in his policy.

And honey, don't even TRY to pretend you've been all about the freedom of businesses to run as they see fit without government interference all this time.  No one's going to buy it, and I'm not even going to dignify such an outrageous lie by wasting my time on it.

Epic fail.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties



Are you saying  he doesn't have the right to run his own business as he sees fit?


----------



## Warrior102

Why does a bar have to be gay?
Can't a bar just be a bar?


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to.  Everyone is treated equally under the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. Gay people can't legally marry in most states. That's the point the bar owner is making. But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your phony outrage. Need a tissue? It might make the crocodile tears appear more authentic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then go to a state where it's legal.  Many people go to Vegas, Reno, or even Mexico to get married and divorced.  I never heard any of them complain about it.  Talk about crocodile tears.....LOL.  "Waaaaa, I'm gay and I can't get married.........waaaaaa"
Click to expand...


1. You're a moron.

2. Gay people should not have to move out of fucking state in order to get married. It should -- and will be -- legal in every state. It's called freedom. This country was founded on it. Get a clue.


----------



## bodecea

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
Click to expand...


If you had bothered to read the story, women are allowed in the bar....just bachelorette parties are not allowed.   That requires reservations for large numbers.    BTW...it has been a rage lately....something about drunk straight women googling, fondling, and harrassing the gay men.   (Safe, I guess).   I know several gay men that have become annoyed by such harassment in their own bars.


----------



## MeBelle

Warrior102 said:


> Why does a bar have to be gay?
> Can't a bar just be a bar?



Why are you against happy bars?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you read the reason for doing it.
> 
> _The Abbey is following the lead of gay bars in Chicago; in March of 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported that gay bars had already started banning bachelorette parties two years before. Speaking of the gay bar Cocktail, the Tribune noted that the owner stopped hosting bachelorette parties a couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them "flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not Allowed._
Click to expand...


Which is another way of saying, "The women weren't doing anything that isn't done by everyone in bars, but the gays were being self-absorbed, whining douches and thinking that the celebration was all about making them feel bad."

Maybe gay people, like all other liberals, should consider the possibility that the world doesn't revolve around them, and the vast majority of people are not planning their entire lives around "How can I upset the homosexuals?"  Most people just don't think about them - or anyone else - at all.

Or is THAT what they're so upset about:  not being the center of existence for everyone?


----------



## bodecea

Katzndogz said:


> Just as bars catering to a straight clientele should not be forced to serve gays.  It's called business practice.



Interesting how you give a completely wrong comparison.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying  he doesn't have the right to run his own business as he sees fit?
Click to expand...


I think he's showing intolerance, bigotry, and he is obviously sexist.  I wonder if he has the same policy for Bachelor partys?


----------



## bodecea

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender...which is perfectly legal in a number of states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that's where the best music is...and it's full of good looking men that aren't going to hit on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's see a bar put up a sign saying, "No homosexuals allowed", and see how long THAT lasts before there are lawsuits and protests and whatever.
> 
> And actually, btw, they're just ASSUMING those parties are for hetero women.  What if a lesbian couple is getting married, and one of them decides to have HER bachelorette party there?
> 
> Why does this whining dipshit bar owner think he's "excluded from the experience", anyway?  Who the fuck is stopping him from having a wedding with all the trappings, including parties beforehand, if that's what he wants to do?  Does he really need that piece of paper - and public approbation - so badly that he lets it stop him from living his life?
Click to expand...


Has this bar put up a "No heterosexuals allowed" sign?


----------



## Pho_King

I wonder if, at my restaurant, I can simultaneously permit males to host men's club meetings, while denying members of NOW a weekly table?  And the big question is, could I do so without the progressive fucktwits in this country protesting the bigotry with which I run my business?


----------



## J.E.D

bodecea said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender...which is perfectly legal in a number of states.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's where the best music is...and it's full of good looking men that aren't going to hit on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see a bar put up a sign saying, "No homosexuals allowed", and see how long THAT lasts before there are lawsuits and protests and whatever.
> 
> And actually, btw, they're just ASSUMING those parties are for hetero women.  What if a lesbian couple is getting married, and one of them decides to have HER bachelorette party there?
> 
> Why does this whining dipshit bar owner think he's "excluded from the experience", anyway?  Who the fuck is stopping him from having a wedding with all the trappings, including parties beforehand, if that's what he wants to do?  Does he really need that piece of paper - and public approbation - so badly that he lets it stop him from living his life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has this bar put up a "No heterosexuals allowed" sign?
Click to expand...


Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> Just watch the commotion if a bar that hosts events declared "No Gay engagement parties".



We had a few around here who wouldn't host those....people moved on.   But you, however, seem to be clutching those "heteros are being discriminated against" pearls very close.


----------



## bodecea

Cecilie1200 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Bachelorette Party would be a private affair, from which the owner's regular clientele would be prohibited. That would be wrong to impose on the owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, you know NOTHING about bachelorette parties, OR running a bar.  You're just pulling shit out of your ass to try to defend the left's right to behave like *hypocritical, whining shitheads*.
Click to expand...


Considering this thread, that's some really Ironic Gold right there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JosefK said:


> Let's put it in context before we let Brietbart.com get our undies in a bunch, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooley, who owns The Abbey in West Hollywood, a bar often frequented by Elizabeth Taylor, said seeing the bachelorettes was kind of a slap in my face that I couldnt have that same experience ... so I thought that I would put a ban on bachelorette parties until every person will have the right to have a marriage and be able to marry their loved one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He's not banning females; he's banning bacheloette parties.
> 
> 2. He's doing so as a form of protest against people who want to deny him the opportunity to marry a person of the same sex.
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


1. Can I put up a sign in a restaurant saying that blacks can buy dinner, but not dessert?  Discrimination is discrimination; doesn't matter if it's discriminating in just one service you offer.

2. Pretty sure anti-discrimination laws don't include an "unless you're doing it as a protest" clause.

I should point out that bachelorette parties are rarely organized things where space is reserved ahead of time or separate from the rest of the bar.  Usually, the group of women just shows up somewhere, sits together, and gets drunk and acts silly, like most bar patrons.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying  he doesn't have the right to run his own business as he sees fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he's showing intolerance, bigotry, and he is obviously sexist.  I wonder if he has the same policy for Bachelor partys?
Click to expand...


So a bar owner can't decide whether to accept large parties or not?


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see a bar put up a sign saying, "No homosexuals allowed", and see how long THAT lasts before there are lawsuits and protests and whatever.
> 
> And actually, btw, they're just ASSUMING those parties are for hetero women.  What if a lesbian couple is getting married, and one of them decides to have HER bachelorette party there?
> 
> Why does this whining dipshit bar owner think he's "excluded from the experience", anyway?  Who the fuck is stopping him from having a wedding with all the trappings, including parties beforehand, if that's what he wants to do?  Does he really need that piece of paper - and public approbation - so badly that he lets it stop him from living his life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has this bar put up a "No heterosexuals allowed" sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.
Click to expand...


When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".

When you see a homosexual being denied marriage because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years, it's called "hateful bigotry".

Hypocrites.


----------



## bodecea

Cecilie1200 said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it in context before we let Brietbart.com get our undies in a bunch, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooley, who owns The Abbey in West Hollywood, a bar often frequented by Elizabeth Taylor, said seeing the bachelorettes was kind of a slap in my face that I couldnt have that same experience ... so I thought that I would put a ban on bachelorette parties until every person will have the right to have a marriage and be able to marry their loved one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He's not banning females; he's banning bacheloette parties.
> 
> 2. He's doing so as a form of protest against people who want to deny him the opportunity to marry a person of the same sex.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Can I put up a sign in a restaurant saying that blacks can buy dinner, but not dessert?  Discrimination is discrimination; doesn't matter if it's discriminating in just one service you offer.
> 
> 2. Pretty sure anti-discrimination laws don't include an "unless you're doing it as a protest" clause.
> 
> I should point out that bachelorette parties are rarely organized things where space is reserved ahead of time or separate from the rest of the bar.  Usually, the group of women just shows up somewhere, sits together, and gets drunk and acts silly, like most bar patrons.
Click to expand...


Now bachelorette parties = blacks.


You guys crack me up.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has this bar put up a "No heterosexuals allowed" sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage *because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years,* it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Show us those 200 year old laws, my friend.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying  he doesn't have the right to run his own business as he sees fit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's showing intolerance, bigotry, and he is obviously sexist.  I wonder if he has the same policy for Bachelor partys?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a bar owner can't decide whether to accept large parties or not?
Click to expand...


could I refuse to serve large parties of homos?  while permitting large parties of heteros?   would that be ok with you?


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has this bar put up a "No heterosexuals allowed" sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years, it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Link to those laws.


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's showing intolerance, bigotry, and he is obviously sexist.  I wonder if he has the same policy for Bachelor partys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a bar owner can't decide whether to accept large parties or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> could I refuse to serve large parties of homos?  while permitting large parties of heteros?   would that be ok with you?
Click to expand...


Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.


----------



## MeBelle

bodecea said:


> If you had bothered to read the story, women are allowed in the bar....just bachelorette parties are not allowed.   That requires reservations for large numbers.    BTW...it has been a rage lately....*something about drunk straight women googling,* fondling, and harrassing the gay men.   (Safe, I guess).   I know several gay men that have become annoyed by such harassment in their own bars.




I know you meant ogle...


----------



## bodecea

MeBelle60 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had bothered to read the story, women are allowed in the bar....just bachelorette parties are not allowed.   That requires reservations for large numbers.    BTW...it has been a rage lately....*something about drunk straight women googling,* fondling, and harrassing the gay men.   (Safe, I guess).   I know several gay men that have become annoyed by such harassment in their own bars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you meant ogle...
Click to expand...


Thanks....you are correct.


----------



## J.E.D

I can't believe that it's not legal to segregate blacks but it's ok if a gay bar owner decides what to do with his own business. Damn hypocrites! Get your hands off my freedoms!!


----------



## bodecea

This thread summed up:

*
OMIGOD!   Teh gheys are discriminating against drunken straight women coming to ghey bars  before marrying straight guys!   THE HUMANITY!!!!!*


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A gay bar is a perfect place.  The women can party without fear of being hit on.
Click to expand...


Not sure if this bar has male dancers.  There's mega gay bar in DC, that does, and from a Post article, these bachelorette parties can get a bit out of hand.

As for the discrimination POV, that's total bullshit.  This guy didn't say no women allowed, he's just saying that his bar doesn't allow certain types of functions.  His rationale is pretty reasonable as well.



> Cooley, who owns The Abbey in West Hollywood, a bar often frequented by Elizabeth Taylor, said seeing the bachelorettes was kind of a slap in my face that I couldnt have that same experience ... so I thought that I would put a ban on bachelorette parties until every person will have the right to have a marriage and be able to marry their loved one.


----------



## del

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has this bar put up a "No heterosexuals allowed" sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years, it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
Click to expand...




you're giving stupid a bad name, pal.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a bar owner can't decide whether to accept large parties or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could I refuse to serve large parties of homos?  while permitting large parties of heteros?   would that be ok with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge.  Or are you just challenged when it comes to reading comprehension?
If so, let me point out that, in my hypothetical, i was referring to myself, not the bar owner in question.  Proceed.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage *because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years,* it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us those 200 year old laws, my friend.
Click to expand...


Show me two homosexuals getting married in the first 200 years of our history as a nation.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years, it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to those laws.
Click to expand...


Gay marriage has never been legal in this nation until recently.  You're missing the point here.  The point is your double standard, hypocrisy, and bigotry.


----------



## Buford

del said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Just more faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years, it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're giving stupid a bad name, pal.
Click to expand...


Naw, we both know that isn't true.  We both also know that the gays here will insult anyone who exposes their hypocritical acts.


----------



## del

Buford said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years, it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're giving stupid a bad name, pal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, we both know that isn't true.  We both also know that the gays here will insult anyone who exposes their hypocritical acts.
Click to expand...


unless you've got a mouse in your pocket, there's no 'we' here, bub.

carry on


----------



## Buford

del said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're giving stupid a bad name, pal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, we both know that isn't true.  We both also know that the gays here will insult anyone who exposes their hypocritical acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> unless you've got a mouse in your pocket, there's no 'we' here, bub.
> 
> carry on
Click to expand...


You and I.  We.

I will carry on.  You know I'm right and there is not a damn thing you're gonna do about it.  Now who is stupid?  You got all pissy when you saw a homo getting called on his bigotry and hypocrisy, the very thing you rail against, so you thought you'd lob an insult at me.  That's all you have and we both know it.  Now go back to whatever it was you were doing before you got your little hissy prissy fit.


----------



## WillowTree

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a bar owner can't decide whether to accept large parties or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could I refuse to serve large parties of homos?  while permitting large parties of heteros?   would that be ok with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
Click to expand...


what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?


----------



## del

Buford said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, we both know that isn't true.  We both also know that the gays here will insult anyone who exposes their hypocritical acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unless you've got a mouse in your pocket, there's no 'we' here, bub.
> 
> carry on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I.  We.
> 
> I will carry on.  You know I'm right and there is not a damn thing you're gonna do about it.  *Now who is stupid?*
Click to expand...


you're still pretty much in the lead.



nice work


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A gay bar is a perfect place.  The women can party without fear of being hit on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure if this bar has male dancers.  There's mega gay bar in DC, that does, and from a Post article, these bachelorette parties can get a bit out of hand.
> 
> As for the discrimination POV, that's total bullshit.  This guy didn't say no women allowed, he's just saying that his bar doesn't allow certain types of functions.  His rationale is pretty reasonable as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cooley, who owns The Abbey in West Hollywood, a bar often frequented by Elizabeth Taylor, said seeing the bachelorettes was kind of a slap in my face that I couldnt have that same experience ... so I thought that I would put a ban on bachelorette parties until every person will have the right to have a marriage and be able to marry their loved one.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...








he's saying he won't tolerate celebrations of heterosexual marriage.So okay,, then he needen't get his nose out of joint because some don't celebrate gay marriage.. kinda tit for tat and all dat.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> could I refuse to serve large parties of homos?  while permitting large parties of heteros?   would that be ok with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?
Click to expand...


That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.

*OE: This post was neg repped by WillowTree*


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
Click to expand...


well if the gay guy can refuse then why can't the hetero? we'll wait!


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> could I refuse to serve large parties of homos?  while permitting large parties of heteros?   would that be ok with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice dodge.  Or are you just challenged when it comes to reading comprehension?
> If so, let me point out that, in my hypothetical, i was referring to myself, not the bar owner in question.  Proceed.
Click to expand...


Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.


----------



## WillowTree

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge.  Or are you just challenged when it comes to reading comprehension?
> If so, let me point out that, in my hypothetical, i was referring to myself, not the bar owner in question.  Proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
Click to expand...


It's in the op stupid.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if the gay guy can refuse then why can't the hetero? we'll wait!
Click to expand...


If he was banning this type of function because they were heteros, you'd have a point.  He's not, so as usual, you don't.


----------



## bodecea

WillowTree said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge.  Or are you just challenged when it comes to reading comprehension?
> If so, let me point out that, in my hypothetical, i was referring to myself, not the bar owner in question.  Proceed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in the op stupid.
Click to expand...


Nope...it's not.


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well if the gay guy can refuse then why can't the hetero? we'll wait!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he was banning this type of function because they were heteros, you'd *have a point.  He's not, so as usual, you don't.*
Click to expand...

*

Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*


so now you can eat you some shit.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge.  Or are you just challenged when it comes to reading comprehension?
> If so, let me point out that, in my hypothetical, i was referring to myself, not the bar owner in question.  Proceed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's in the op stupid.
Click to expand...


Liar.  He's only banning a specific type of function, bachelorette parties.  Why do you make shit like this up?


----------



## Buford

del said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> unless you've got a mouse in your pocket, there's no 'we' here, bub.
> 
> carry on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I.  We.
> 
> I will carry on.  You know I'm right and there is not a damn thing you're gonna do about it.  *Now who is stupid?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're still pretty much in the lead.
> 
> 
> 
> nice work
Click to expand...


According to some miscreant troll.  This is about it for you.  You see something that offends your miscreant iintellect so you hop up and shout....."You're stupid" and then slink back into the darkness until you see something else that offends you.  Sensitive little fellar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they can. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender...which is perfectly legal in a number of states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that's where the best music is...and it's full of good looking men that aren't going to hit on you.
Click to expand...


While its true businesses are prohibited from engaging in discrimination concerning public accommodations, in this case an event or practice is being ended, heterosexual women are still allowed to access the bar, thus no discrimination is taking place.


----------



## WillowTree

bodecea said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the op stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...it's not.
Click to expand...


yep it is stupid.


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the op stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  He's only banning a specific type of function, bachelorette parties.  Why do you make shit like this up?
Click to expand...


It's not my fault you're stupid and brain dead.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> *OE: This post was neg repped by WillowTree*
Click to expand...


You're defending this guy's right to be a heterophobe.  What's the difference?


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> *OE: This post was neg repped by WillowTree*
Click to expand...


Big fat assed whiner


----------



## Pho_King

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the op stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  He's only banning a specific type of function, bachelorette parties.  Why do you make shit like this up?
Click to expand...


Perhaps I can ban specific functions such as Kwaanza celebrations, gay birthdays, and female graduation parties.....  can't see any issue with those sorts of bans.....


----------



## Buford

Plasmaball said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which isnt discrimination, its just not catering a certain service. Or we all going to go down to the local wendy's and demand they cater to our want of
> these type of parties?
Click to expand...


Is he going to ban homosexual bachelor parties?


----------



## WillowTree

*Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge.  Or are you just challenged when it comes to reading comprehension?
> If so, let me point out that, in my hypothetical, i was referring to myself, not the bar owner in question.  Proceed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
Click to expand...


did I ever state that the bar owner was acting so?  link that assertion, plz.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the op stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  He's only banning a specific type of function, bachelorette parties.  Why do you make shit like this up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault you're stupid and brain dead.
Click to expand...


You're the one who chose to be a liar and claim something is in the OP article that's not.  But that's what you do, pea brain.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years, it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to those laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gay marriage has never been legal in this nation until recently.  You're missing the point here.  The point is your double standard, hypocrisy, and bigotry.
Click to expand...


So, you CAN'T cite a 200 yr old US law banning gay marriage. Then why did you bring it up?


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> *Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*



A lie of omission is still a lie.  He's only banninig bachelorette parties, and since you already know that, you're a liar.


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  He's only banning a specific type of function, bachelorette parties.  Why do you make shit like this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my fault you're stupid and brain dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who chose to be a liar and claim something is in the OP article that's not.  But that's what you do, pea brain.
Click to expand...


*Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a stupid idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you read the reason for doing it.
> 
> _The Abbey is following the lead of gay bars in Chicago; in March of 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported that gay bars had already started banning bachelorette parties two years before. Speaking of the gay bar Cocktail, the Tribune noted that the owner stopped hosting bachelorette parties a couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them "flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not Allowed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is another way of saying, "The women weren't doing anything that isn't done by everyone in bars, but the gays were being self-absorbed, whining douches and thinking that the celebration was all about making them feel bad."
> 
> *Maybe gay people, like all other liberals,* should consider the possibility that the world doesn't revolve around them, and the vast majority of people are not planning their entire lives around "How can I upset the homosexuals?"  Most people just don't think about them - or anyone else - at all.
> 
> Or is THAT what they're so upset about:  not being the center of existence for everyone?
Click to expand...


There are gay conservatives, whether you believe it or not. 

Gays arent seeking any attention, they want equal access to the law, just like every other American.


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lie of omission is still a lie.  He's only banninig bachelorette parties, and since you already know that, you're a liar.
Click to expand...


*Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*






ha ha ha,, bachelorette parties and heterosexuals are what he's banning it's a slap in his gay face. he said it not I.


----------



## del

Buford said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I.  We.
> 
> I will carry on.  You know I'm right and there is not a damn thing you're gonna do about it.  *Now who is stupid?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're still pretty much in the lead.
> 
> 
> 
> nice work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to some miscreant troll.  This is about it for you.  You see something that offends your miscreant iintellect so you hop up and shout....."You're stupid" and then slink back into the darkness until you see something else that offends you.  Sensitive little fellar.
Click to expand...


i guess the word for the day is miscreant. 

apparently, you really are stupid.

color me miscreant


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that bar owner refusing large parties of heteros?   Link that info, plz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> *OE: This post was neg repped by WillowTree*
Click to expand...


Hate to spoil your rant, but I believe the Knights of Columbus are a private religious charitable organization, rather than an open-to-the-public, for-profit business.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lie of omission is still a lie.  He's only banninig bachelorette parties, and since you already know that, you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha ha,, bachelorette parties and heterosexuals are what he's banning it's a slap in his gay face. he said it not I.
Click to expand...


"The Best Gay Bar in the World according to Time Magazine,* has decided to ban bachelorette parties. *Its owner and founder David Cooley, who is gay, was in pain from seeing young women celebrating their upcoming marriages. Cooley, who owns The Abbey in West Hollywood, a bar often frequented by Elizabeth Taylor, said seeing the bachelorettes was kind of a slap in my face that I couldnt have that same experience ... so I thought that I would put a ban on bachelorette parties until every person will have the right to have a marriage and be able to marry their loved one."

The fact just proves what a lying sack of shit you are.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to those laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage has never been legal in this nation until recently.  You're missing the point here.  The point is your double standard, hypocrisy, and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you CAN'T cite a 200 yr old US law banning gay marriage. Then why did you bring it up?
Click to expand...


Semantics must excite you.  No homosexuals have been allowed to get married in the USA until recently.  Go ahead and deny that.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> When your pals get caught in the middle of bigotry and discrimination it's called "faux-outrage from the wingnut brigade".
> 
> When you see a homosexual being denied marriage *because it's been against the law in this nation for over 200 years,* it's called "hateful bigotry".
> 
> Hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us those 200 year old laws, my friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me two homosexuals getting married in the first 200 years of our history as a nation.
Click to expand...


Show us it was illegal.   Name the law or statute.


----------



## WillowTree

*Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage has never been legal in this nation until recently.  You're missing the point here.  The point is your double standard, hypocrisy, and bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you CAN'T cite a 200 yr old US law banning gay marriage. Then why did you bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics must excite you.  No homosexuals have been allowed to get married in the USA until recently.  Go ahead and deny that.
Click to expand...


Name the law/statute from 200 years ago.


----------



## Buford

del said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're still pretty much in the lead.
> 
> 
> 
> nice work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to some miscreant troll.  This is about it for you.  You see something that offends your miscreant iintellect so you hop up and shout....."You're stupid" and then slink back into the darkness until you see something else that offends you.  Sensitive little fellar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess the word for the day is miscreant.
> 
> apparently, you really are stupid.
> 
> color me miscreant
Click to expand...


You colored yourself miscreant.  No one else was involved.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage has never been legal in this nation until recently.  You're missing the point here.  The point is your double standard, hypocrisy, and bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you CAN'T cite a 200 yr old US law banning gay marriage. Then why did you bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics must excite you.  No homosexuals have been allowed to get married in the USA until recently.  Go ahead and deny that.
Click to expand...


So, you CAN'T cite a 200 yr old US law banning gay marriage. Then why did you bring it up?


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you CAN'T cite a 200 yr old US law banning gay marriage. Then why did you bring it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics must excite you.  No homosexuals have been allowed to get married in the USA until recently.  Go ahead and deny that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name the law/statute from 200 years ago.
Click to expand...


Tell us how many homosexuals got married in the USA in the first 200 years of this nation.  Is this the latest homo game?


----------



## WillowTree

so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..





we knew this all along.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us those 200 year old laws, my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me two homosexuals getting married in the first 200 years of our history as a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us it was illegal.   Name the law or statute.
Click to expand...


Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the hell do you think "banning  bachelorette" parties mean dude?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> *OE: This post was neg repped by WillowTree*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big fat assed whiner
Click to expand...


Not whining at all.  I just think people ought to know what a petty little pissant you are.


----------



## Buford

WillowTree said:


> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.



Of course we knew this all along.  The only ones being fooled are the ignorant.  Leftism requires ignorance to flourish.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.



Are you coming out for marriage equality or just demonstrating that your a mental midget?


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> *OE: This post was neg repped by WillowTree*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big fat assed whiner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not whining at all.  I just think people ought to know what a petty little pissant you are.
Click to expand...


it's whining asswipe. now go blow you nose and wipe you tears.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That he's refusing to allow certain events in his establishment.  Most Knights of Columbus posts rent out their halls for things like wedding receptions.  Suppose they banned same sex wedding receptions.  You'd be turning on a dime defending their right to be homophobes.
> 
> *OE: This post was neg repped by WillowTree*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big fat assed whiner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not whining at all.  I just think people ought to know what a petty little pissant you are.
Click to expand...


The pusillanimous pissant prarie punk homos are getting riled.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me two homosexuals getting married in the first 200 years of our history as a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us it was illegal.   Name the law or statute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?
Click to expand...


Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you coming out for marriage equality or just demonstrating that your a mental midget?
Click to expand...


I've demonstrated that I can read. You, however have some catching up to do.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you coming out for marriage equality or just demonstrating that your a mental midget?
Click to expand...


"Marriage equality"....LOL.  You pissants are sooooo funny.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we knew this all along.  The only ones being fooled are the ignorant.  Leftism requires ignorance to flourish.
Click to expand...


So you're now in favor of marriage equality?


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us it was illegal.   Name the law or statute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
Click to expand...


Then why can't you tell us why?


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you tell us why?
Click to expand...


Where is the law that you claimed existed?


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we knew this all along.  The only ones being fooled are the ignorant.  Leftism requires ignorance to flourish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're now in favor of marriage equality?
Click to expand...


"Marriage equality"......LOL.  You homo twits are soooo funny.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why can't you tell us why?
Click to expand...


There are laws on the books, that allow discrimination due to sexual orientation.  Can you tell us why?


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you tell us why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the law that you claimed existed?
Click to expand...


Gee, I guess there was none.  Now tell us why homos never got married until recently.


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you tell us why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are laws on the books, that allow discrimination due to sexual orientation.  Can you tell us why?
Click to expand...


well the gay guy did it,, why can't the rest of us?


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you tell us why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are laws on the books, that allow discrimination due to sexual orientation.  Can you tell us why?
Click to expand...


"Sexual orientation".......LOL.  You homo twits are sooooo funny.


----------



## Buford

It's so fun to stir up the homo nest.  I need to bet a beer and some popcorn.  This is getting fun.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we knew this all along.  The only ones being fooled are the ignorant.  Leftism requires ignorance to flourish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're now in favor of marriage equality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"......LOL.  You homo twits are soooo funny.
Click to expand...


"Equality of the Races"...LOL  You twits are sooooo funny.   - Buford, 1954

"Equality of the Sexes"...LOL   You twits are sooooo funny.  - Buford, 1914

"Equality of the Religions"...LOL   You twits are soooo funny.  -Buford, 1620


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you tell us why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the law that you claimed existed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, I guess there was none.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Now go crawl back into your tar pit.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you coming out for marriage equality or just demonstrating that your a mental midget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've demonstrated that I can read. You, however have some catching up to do.
Click to expand...


You've demonstrated that you're a pathetic liar.

So are you coming out for marriage equality or not?


----------



## WillowTree

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're now in favor of marriage equality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"......LOL.  You homo twits are soooo funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Equality of the Races"...LOL  You twits are sooooo funny.   - Buford, 1954
> 
> "Equality of the Sexes"...LOL   You twits are sooooo funny.  - Buford, 1914
> 
> "Equality of the Religions"...LOL   You twits are soooo funny.  -Buford, 1620
Click to expand...

*
Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*





got news for you honeycakes, bigotry in any form is bigotry.. deal with it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Plasmaball said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which isnt discrimination, its just not catering a certain service. Or we all going to go down to the local wendy's and demand they cater to our want of
> these type of parties?
Click to expand...


If Wendy's is hosting parties for other people, damned right I will.

And so would you, except that leftists are only interested in their own rights.  Other people's don't exist.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in conclusion liberals are A okay with bigotry.. as long as it's them that's bigoted..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we knew this all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you coming out for marriage equality or just demonstrating that your a mental midget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"....LOL.  You pissants are sooooo funny.
Click to expand...


Is the question too difficult for you to give an honest answer?  Should same sex couples have the same opportunities, including rights and responsibilities, that heterosexuals enjoy?

Don't be a coward, just answer the question.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're now in favor of marriage equality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"......LOL.  You homo twits are soooo funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Equality of the Races"...LOL  You twits are sooooo funny.   - Buford, 1954
> 
> "Equality of the Sexes"...LOL   You twits are sooooo funny.  - Buford, 1914
> 
> "Equality of the Religions"...LOL   You twits are soooo funny.  -Buford, 1620
Click to expand...


LOL.  That's a good one.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> It's so fun to stir up the homo nest.  I need to bet a beer and some popcorn.  This is getting fun.



I can't speak for anybody else; but I'm not gay. I just think that gay people should have equal rights. Freedom is funny like that; it has no boundaries. When are you freedom-loving "patriots" in the GOP going to catch on?


----------



## bodecea

WillowTree said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"......LOL.  You homo twits are soooo funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Equality of the Races"...LOL  You twits are sooooo funny.   - Buford, 1954
> 
> "Equality of the Sexes"...LOL   You twits are sooooo funny.  - Buford, 1914
> 
> "Equality of the Religions"...LOL   You twits are soooo funny.  -Buford, 1620
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got news for you honeycakes, bigotry in any form is bigotry.. deal with it.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.   Now...tell us.  Does this business owner have the right to refuse parties he doesn't want in his establishment....or not?


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the law that you claimed existed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I guess there was none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Now go crawl back into your tar pit.
Click to expand...


Why didn't any homosexuals ever get married in our first 200 years of history?


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I guess there was none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Now go crawl back into your tar pit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homosexuals ever get married in our first 200 years of history?
Click to expand...


Are we still playing this game? You already admitted you were wrong.


----------



## Dick Tuck

WillowTree said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you tell us why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws on the books, that allow discrimination due to sexual orientation.  Can you tell us why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well the gay guy did it,, why can't the rest of us?
Click to expand...


So you're against marriage equality, because you're a liar regarding what a gay guy did?  Is that your level of tolerance?  It certainly fits with your cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you coming out for marriage equality or just demonstrating that your a mental midget?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"....LOL.  You pissants are sooooo funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the question too difficult for you to give an honest answer?  Should same sex couples have the same opportunities, including rights and responsibilities, that heterosexuals enjoy?
> 
> Don't be a coward, just answer the question.
Click to expand...


The question is based on a lie.  Marriage is a man and a woman.  

Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Plasmaball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they can. It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender...which is perfectly legal in a number of states.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that's where the best music is...and it's full of good looking men that aren't going to hit on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's see a bar put up a sign saying, "No homosexuals allowed", and see how long THAT lasts before there are lawsuits and protests and whatever.
> 
> And actually, btw, they're just ASSUMING those parties are for hetero women.  What if a lesbian couple is getting married, and one of them decides to have HER bachelorette party there?
> 
> Why does this whining dipshit bar owner think he's "excluded from the experience", anyway?  Who the fuck is stopping him from having a wedding with all the trappings, including parties beforehand, if that's what he wants to do?  Does he really need that piece of paper - and public approbation - so badly that he lets it stop him from living his life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> god you are stupid. Its not the samething...
Click to expand...


It's never the same thing with you people.  It's be nice if just once you had a better reason for it than just "because it's US".


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"....LOL.  You pissants are sooooo funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question too difficult for you to give an honest answer?  Should same sex couples have the same opportunities, including rights and responsibilities, that heterosexuals enjoy?
> 
> Don't be a coward, just answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is based on a lie. * Marriage is a man and a woman.  *
> 
> Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.
Click to expand...


Or a man and several women.

Or, as in our case, two women.   And yes...totally legal.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Now go crawl back into your tar pit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homosexuals ever get married in our first 200 years of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we still playing this game? You already admitted you were wrong.
Click to expand...


You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me two homosexuals getting married in the first 200 years of our history as a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us it was illegal.   Name the law or statute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?
Click to expand...


Because homosexuality in of itself was illegal until 2003.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homosexuals ever get married in our first 200 years of history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we still playing this game? You already admitted you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.
Click to expand...


You DO know...that in this country...for something to be illegal, there has to be a law against it, right?   Name said law or statute.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question too difficult for you to give an honest answer?  Should same sex couples have the same opportunities, including rights and responsibilities, that heterosexuals enjoy?
> 
> Don't be a coward, just answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is based on a lie. * Marriage is a man and a woman.  *
> 
> Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or a man and several women.
> 
> Or, as in our case, two women.   And yes...totally legal.
Click to expand...


That's nice.  However, marriage is a man and a woman in my view.


----------



## Pho_King

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so fun to stir up the homo nest.  I need to bet a beer and some popcorn.  This is getting fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for anybody else; but I'm not gay. I just think that gay people should have equal rights. Freedom is funny like that; it has no boundaries. When are you freedom-loving "patriots" in the GOP going to catch on?
Click to expand...


Are  business owners permitted to refuse to allow gay celebrations? Not refuse gay persons. mind you, just their celebrations.  Is that what you mean by "freedom has no boundaries"?


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we still playing this game? You already admitted you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You DO know...that in this country...for something to be illegal, there has to be a law against it, right?   Name said law or statute.
Click to expand...


Homo marriage was never legal in this country until recently.  How many states is homo marriage legal in?


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You DO know...that in this country...for something to be illegal, there has to be a law against it, right?   Name said law or statute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many states is homo marriage legal in?
Click to expand...


Homo marriage?


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so fun to stir up the homo nest.  I need to bet a beer and some popcorn.  This is getting fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for anybody else; but I'm not gay. I just think that gay people should have equal rights. Freedom is funny like that; it has no boundaries. When are you freedom-loving "patriots" in the GOP going to catch on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are  business owners permitted to refuse to allow gay celebrations? Not refuse gay persons. mind you, just their celebrations.  Is that what you mean by "freedom has no boundaries"?
Click to expand...


Businesses do that, you know.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is based on a lie. * Marriage is a man and a woman.  *
> 
> Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or a man and several women.
> 
> Or, as in our case, two women.   And yes...totally legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice.  However, marriage is a man and a woman in my view.
Click to expand...


Fortunately your view is irrelevant.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Buford said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which isnt discrimination, its just not catering a certain service. Or we all going to go down to the local wendy's and demand they cater to our want of
> these type of parties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he going to ban homosexual bachelor parties?
Click to expand...


He's busy pretending that a lack of state-sanctioned papers prevents them from having weddings and parties to celebrate them.


----------



## del

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You DO know...that in this country...for something to be illegal, there has to be a law against it, right?   Name said law or statute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many states is homo marriage legal in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homo marriage?
Click to expand...


it's like homo schooling, innit?


----------



## WillowTree

bodecea said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Equality of the Races"...LOL  You twits are sooooo funny.   - Buford, 1954
> 
> "Equality of the Sexes"...LOL   You twits are sooooo funny.  - Buford, 1914
> 
> "Equality of the Religions"...LOL   You twits are soooo funny.  -Buford, 1620
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got news for you honeycakes, bigotry in any form is bigotry.. deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   Now...tell us.  Does this business owner have the right to refuse parties he doesn't want in his establishment....or not?
Click to expand...






he probably does have the right,, but he's bigoted.. deal with it.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Equality of the Races"...LOL  You twits are sooooo funny.   - Buford, 1954
> 
> "Equality of the Sexes"...LOL   You twits are sooooo funny.  - Buford, 1914
> 
> "Equality of the Religions"...LOL   You twits are soooo funny.  -Buford, 1620
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got news for you honeycakes, bigotry in any form is bigotry.. deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.   Now...tell us.  Does this business owner have the right to refuse parties he doesn't want in his establishment....or not?
Click to expand...


Apparently, you believe this one has the right to such an exclusion.  But I am guessing you would not agree that, in my restaurant, I can refuse to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.  And that is what this case so brilliantly exposes.  The left's embrace of discrimination-as long as it is aimed at groups they despise.


----------



## WillowTree

Dick Tuck said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are laws on the books, that allow discrimination due to sexual orientation.  Can you tell us why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well the gay guy did it,, why can't the rest of us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're against marriage equality, because you're a liar regarding what a gay guy did?  Is that your level of tolerance?  It certainly fits with your cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


*Banning the parties, Cooley stated, was a sign of solidarity until marriage is legal everywhere for everyone, because he feels the parties celebrate an offensive heterosexual tradition [that] flaunts marriage inequality in the face of gays and lesbians.*


he's a bigoted dolt.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homosexuals ever get married in our first 200 years of history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we still playing this game? You already admitted you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.
Click to expand...


You claimed there have been laws in the US for the last 200 yrs that make gay marriage illegal. I'm still waiting on that proof. But of course, we both know that you're a liar.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so fun to stir up the homo nest.  I need to bet a beer and some popcorn.  This is getting fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for anybody else; but I'm not gay. I just think that gay people should have equal rights. Freedom is funny like that; it has no boundaries. When are you freedom-loving "patriots" in the GOP going to catch on?
Click to expand...


Where in this thread did I ever deny rights to anyone?


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I guess there was none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Now go crawl back into your tar pit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homosexuals ever get married in our first 200 years of history?
Click to expand...


Because flat earth, mouth breathing, knuckle draggers encoded laws against homosexuality until the Supreme Court struck them down in Lawrence v Texas made your homophobia rationale unconstitutional.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we still playing this game? You already admitted you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claimed there have been laws in the US for the last 200 yrs that make gay marriage illegal. I'm still waiting on that proof. But of course, we both know that you're a liar.
Click to expand...


Show us the post.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for anybody else; but I'm not gay. I just think that gay people should have equal rights. Freedom is funny like that; it has no boundaries. When are you freedom-loving "patriots" in the GOP going to catch on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are  business owners permitted to refuse to allow gay celebrations? Not refuse gay persons. mind you, just their celebrations.  Is that what you mean by "freedom has no boundaries"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses do that, you know.
Click to expand...


I would love to hear about a few of those businesses, so i can be sure not to patronize them.  link, plz....


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Marriage equality"....LOL.  You pissants are sooooo funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question too difficult for you to give an honest answer?  Should same sex couples have the same opportunities, including rights and responsibilities, that heterosexuals enjoy?
> 
> Don't be a coward, just answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is based on a lie.  Marriage is a man and a woman.
> 
> Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.
Click to expand...


No it's not.  It's a legally binding contract between two people that designates rights and responsibilities regarding property, next of kin, and power of attorney.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You DO know...that in this country...for something to be illegal, there has to be a law against it, right?   Name said law or statute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many states is homo marriage legal in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Homo marriage?
Click to expand...


Duh!!  Never heard of homo marriage?  I thought that's what you all wanted.  Gee, I guess I'm not playing the right game here.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed there have been laws in the US for the last 200 yrs that make gay marriage illegal. I'm still waiting on that proof. But of course, we both know that you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the post.
Click to expand...


You're a moron.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're playing the game all by yourself.  You're showing your dishonesty by refusing to answer my question after I answered yours.  That makes you dishonest and a coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed there have been laws in the US for the last 200 yrs that make gay marriage illegal. I'm still waiting on that proof. But of course, we both know that you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the post.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/5359632-post56.html

This one


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many states is homo marriage legal in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homo marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh!!  Never heard of homo marriage?  I thought that's what you all wanted.  Gee, I guess I'm not playing the right game here.
Click to expand...


Duh?   Show us a law that says "Homo marriage".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Plasmaball said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Chuckles, but if hosting parties is one of the services his bar offers - and every bar I've ever heard of does - then he can't refuse to offer it to ALL his customers.
> 
> Don't be such a fucking hypocrite.  You don't think any other business in the nation should have any freedom to say how it's run, but talk about a gay bar, and it's suddenly "private and nobody else's business".
> 
> Every time I see you post, I think, "My God, I'd be ashamed to exist if I were you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to get married in your house, because i like the look of the place, therefore by your logic you cant say no if i want to hold it on your birthday or whatever. Tough shit.
Click to expand...


Do you just enjoy looking like a blithering fool in front of everyone?  Is it a fetish with you, or something?

I'm not wasting time dignifying this.  I'm just going to let it stand for everyone to laugh at.


----------



## Seawytch

If y'all really want him to keep hosting bachelorette parties, the solution is simple...legalize gay marriage.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question too difficult for you to give an honest answer?  Should same sex couples have the same opportunities, including rights and responsibilities, that heterosexuals enjoy?
> 
> Don't be a coward, just answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is based on a lie.  Marriage is a man and a woman.
> 
> Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  It's a legally binding contract between two people that designates rights and responsibilities regarding property, next of kin, and power of attorney.
Click to expand...


Nope.  You can call it marriage, but that doesn't make it marriage.  You can quack like a duck and crap like a mule, but you're still a human being.  It's called reality, something homos have a hard time with.


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are  business owners permitted to refuse to allow gay celebrations? Not refuse gay persons. mind you, just their celebrations.  Is that what you mean by "freedom has no boundaries"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do that, you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would love to hear about a few of those businesses, so i can be sure not to patronize them.  link, plz....
Click to expand...


Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.

Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homo marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duh!!  Never heard of homo marriage?  I thought that's what you all wanted.  Gee, I guess I'm not playing the right game here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh?   Show us a law that says "Homo marriage".
Click to expand...


Show me your underwear.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do that, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear about a few of those businesses, so i can be sure not to patronize them.  link, plz....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
Click to expand...


And now the bachelorettes will have to go someplace else because of this homo bigot.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you read the reason for doing it.
> 
> _The Abbey is following the lead of gay bars in Chicago; in March of 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported that gay bars had already started banning bachelorette parties two years before. Speaking of the gay bar Cocktail, the Tribune noted that the owner stopped hosting bachelorette parties a couple of years ago when he noticed his gay patrons weren't just complaining about the women being minor irritants but about them "flaunting" their right to marry. So Zaharakis hung a sign on the front door of his establishment that says, "Bachelorette Parties Are Not Allowed._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another way of saying, "The women weren't doing anything that isn't done by everyone in bars, but the gays were being self-absorbed, whining douches and thinking that the celebration was all about making them feel bad."
> 
> *Maybe gay people, like all other liberals,* should consider the possibility that the world doesn't revolve around them, and the vast majority of people are not planning their entire lives around "How can I upset the homosexuals?"  Most people just don't think about them - or anyone else - at all.
> 
> Or is THAT what they're so upset about:  not being the center of existence for everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are gay conservatives, whether you believe it or not.
> 
> Gays arent seeking any attention, they want equal access to the law, just like every other American.
Click to expand...


"Gays aren't seeking any attention."  Let's just let that digest for a second.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is based on a lie.  Marriage is a man and a woman.
> 
> Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  It's a legally binding contract between two people that designates rights and responsibilities regarding property, next of kin, and power of attorney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You can call it marriage, but that doesn't make it marriage.  You can quack like a duck and crap like a mule, but you're still a human being.  It's called reality, something homos have a hard time with.
Click to expand...


How odd...the State license says Marriage License.   Oh, and when we had a church service....it too was called a wedding and a marriage. 


How odd, that you seem to think you are the arbitrator of such things when you can't even cite a 200 year  old law you insist exists.


----------



## bodecea

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another way of saying, "The women weren't doing anything that isn't done by everyone in bars, but the gays were being self-absorbed, whining douches and thinking that the celebration was all about making them feel bad."
> 
> *Maybe gay people, like all other liberals,* should consider the possibility that the world doesn't revolve around them, and the vast majority of people are not planning their entire lives around "How can I upset the homosexuals?"  Most people just don't think about them - or anyone else - at all.
> 
> Or is THAT what they're so upset about:  not being the center of existence for everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay conservatives, whether you believe it or not.
> 
> Gays arent seeking any attention, they want equal access to the law, just like every other American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Gays aren't seeking any attention."  Let's just let that digest for a second.
Click to expand...


No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.

But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.


----------



## Seawytch

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Chuckles, but if hosting parties is one of the services his bar offers - and every bar I've ever heard of does - then he can't refuse to offer it to ALL his customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a gay male bar. It's "all inclusive" that he won't be hosting bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can find a post where I said a private business shouldn't have "any freedom" to say how it is run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I see you post, I think, "My God, I'd be ashamed to exist if I were you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awww...and now I won't be able to sleep because some anonymous douche bag on the Internet thinks I shouldn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "gay male bar".  Know why?  Because it's illegal to refuse customers based on sex.  And obviously, it's NOT "all-inclusive", because he's BEEN hosting them, and sniveling and pouting about it the whole time.  This is a NEW decision in his policy.
Click to expand...


And now he's not, for anyone. No bachelorette  parties for anyone. That's all inclusive.



> honey, don't even TRY to pretend you've been all about the freedom of businesses to run as they see fit without government interference all this time.  No one's going to buy it, and I'm not even going to dignify such an outrageous lie by wasting my time on it.
> 
> Epic fail.



Then find the post where I proclaimed otherwise. Good luck.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  It's a legally binding contract between two people that designates rights and responsibilities regarding property, next of kin, and power of attorney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You can call it marriage, but that doesn't make it marriage.  You can quack like a duck and crap like a mule, but you're still a human being.  It's called reality, something homos have a hard time with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How odd...the State license says Marriage License.   Oh, and when we had a church service....it too was called a wedding and a marriage.
> 
> 
> How odd, that you seem to think you are the arbitrator of such things when you can't even cite a 200 year  old law you insist exists.
Click to expand...


I never claimed to be a dictator any more than all the billions of people who ever lived on this civilized planet who believed marriage was a man and a woman.  

YOU are the odd one here, not me.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do that, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear about a few of those businesses, so i can be sure not to patronize them.  link, plz....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
Click to expand...


Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You can call it marriage, but that doesn't make it marriage.  You can quack like a duck and crap like a mule, but you're still a human being.  It's called reality, something homos have a hard time with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How odd...the State license says Marriage License.   Oh, and when we had a church service....it too was called a wedding and a marriage.
> 
> 
> How odd, that you seem to think you are the arbitrator of such things when you can't even cite a 200 year  old law you insist exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never claimed to be a dictator any more than all the billions of people who ever lived on this civilized planet who believed marriage was a man and a woman.
> 
> YOU are the odd one here, not me.
Click to expand...

Ah...so, because I am in a minority, I don't get equal rights under the law?


----------



## Seawytch

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is based on a lie.  Marriage is a man and a woman.
> 
> Don't be a dick head.  Live in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  It's a legally binding contract between two people that designates rights and responsibilities regarding property, next of kin, and power of attorney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  You can call it marriage, but that doesn't make it marriage.  You can quack like a duck and crap like a mule, but you're still a human being.  It's called reality, something homos have a hard time with.
Click to expand...


So my legal marriage license is a duck?


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay conservatives, whether you believe it or not.
> 
> Gays arent seeking any attention, they want equal access to the law, just like every other American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Gays aren't seeking any attention."  Let's just let that digest for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.
> 
> But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.
Click to expand...


Nope.  I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal.  You can also define marriage how you want to.  Allow me the same right.  Is that fair?


----------



## koshergrl

Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.

You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear about a few of those businesses, so i can be sure not to patronize them.  link, plz....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....
Click to expand...


You asked, I answered.   If you didn't want to hear about a few of those businesses in the first place, why did you ask?   Did you think I wouldn't have an answer?


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.



Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.

This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are gay conservatives, whether you believe it or not.
> 
> Gays arent seeking any attention, they want equal access to the law, just like every other American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Gays aren't seeking any attention."  Let's just let that digest for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.
> 
> But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.
Click to expand...


Just shut up and drink out of your fountain. It's the same water.


----------



## Buford

Seawytch said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.  It's a legally binding contract between two people that designates rights and responsibilities regarding property, next of kin, and power of attorney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You can call it marriage, but that doesn't make it marriage.  You can quack like a duck and crap like a mule, but you're still a human being.  It's called reality, something homos have a hard time with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my legal marriage license is a duck?
Click to expand...


That's entirely up to you.  As for me, it means nothing so don't bother telling me it's legal because I don't recognize it and there is not a damn thing you're gonna do about it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Seawytch said:


> If y'all really want him to keep hosting bachelorette parties, the solution is simple...legalize gay marriage.



When the Constitution and common sense come up against rightist dogma in the conservative mind, the Constitution and common sense lose every time.


----------



## Pho_King

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a gay male bar. It's "all inclusive" that he won't be hosting bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can find a post where I said a private business shouldn't have "any freedom" to say how it is run.
> 
> 
> 
> Awww...and now I won't be able to sleep because some anonymous douche bag on the Internet thinks I shouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "gay male bar".  Know why?  Because it's illegal to refuse customers based on sex.  And obviously, it's NOT "all-inclusive", because he's BEEN hosting them, and sniveling and pouting about it the whole time.  This is a NEW decision in his policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now he's not, for anyone. *No bachelorette  parties for anyone. *That's all inclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> honey, don't even TRY to pretend you've been all about the freedom of businesses to run as they see fit without government interference all this time.  No one's going to buy it, and I'm not even going to dignify such an outrageous lie by wasting my time on it.
> 
> Epic fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then find the post where I proclaimed otherwise. Good luck.
Click to expand...


I think I will stop allowing any celebrations of homosexual birthday parties.  It will aplly to homos and heteros, and both homos and heteros will retain the opportunity to celebrate the birthdays of heterosexuals.  I just cant imagine that might be a problem for anyone.


----------



## koshergrl

Where on earth does the constitution promise that it's a right to marry the person you love, no matter who that person is?


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.



Why do you feel threatened if two people in a marriage are allowed to file a joint federal tax return?  Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?

Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to claim their spouse's Social Security death benefit?  Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?

Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to visit their spouse in the ICU?  Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?

Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to get on their spouse's employer provided heath insurance plan?  Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Gays aren't seeking any attention."  Let's just let that digest for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.
> 
> But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal.  You can also define marriage how you want to.  Allow me the same right.  Is that fair?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.  I have made no move, nor will I ever make any move to legally restrict your civil right to marry another law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizen.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
Click to expand...


You're beating a dead horse.  Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.  There is no such thing.


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if two people in a marriage are allowed to file a joint federal tax return? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to claim their spouse's Social Security death benefit? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to visit their spouse in the ICU? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
Click to expand...

 
Because it undermines the traditional family. Just as no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution did. And we are paying today for those things. Enough is enough. If they were actually being denied anything, that would be different. But they can participate, they choose not to, end of story. They can live with their choice, or opt to participate.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.
> 
> But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal.  You can also define marriage how you want to.  Allow me the same right.  Is that fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  I have made no move, nor will I ever make any move to legally restrict your civil right to marry another law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizen.
Click to expand...


You misunderstood me.  I said you can call it marriage if you want to, but don't tell me to believe it's marriage.  That's what I meant.  You're not going to force the American people to accept it as marriage.  You all go ahead.


----------



## koshergrl

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're beating a dead horse. Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. There is no such thing.
Click to expand...

 
Still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution states that we all have the *right* to marry any person we so desire.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked, I answered.   If you didn't want to hear about a few of those businesses in the first place, why did you ask?   Did you think I wouldn't have an answer?
Click to expand...


I was hoping you would be able to point to private establishments that maintain a policy of prohibiting celebrations based on gender.  Something I could verify.  Because I have been to gay wedding receptions hosted by the VFW, the KOC, and the Freemasons.  Do my anecdotes trump yours?


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> Where on earth does the constitution promise that it's a right to marry the person you love, no matter who that person is?



Please see number 2.


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where on earth does the constitution promise that it's a right to marry the person you love, no matter who that person is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please see number 2.
Click to expand...

 
Oh, I see.

It doesn't. Thank you.


----------



## Buford

Homos hijacked the word "gay" so their perversion could be more acceptable.  They're doing the same thing here with "marriage".  It never ends.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.
> 
> But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal.  You can also define marriage how you want to.  Allow me the same right.  Is that fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  I have made no move, nor will I ever make any move to legally restrict your civil right to marry another law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizen.
Click to expand...


Have you done anything to overurn the proscriptions in many states against marrying within one's direct bloodline?


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're beating a dead horse. Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution states that we all have the *right* to marry any person we so desire.
Click to expand...


Read Number 2


----------



## MaxCha

So? One bar in West Hollywood doesn't allow bachelorette parties until gays are allowed to marry? So if a black guy in Florida calls a white man "stupid", should we be worried about black people ruining the world?

Why don't intolerant conservatives just leave people alone? Seriously, the same basic uneducated/reactionary people continue racism, fought against civil rights in the 60's and women's rights a few decades before that. And every time general public acceptance is reached (eg civil rights by the 70's) they either keep their prejudice beliefs more of a secret or pretend they never were the fools they were and move on to something new that "really is wrong, this time!"

Call gay people whatever you want - homos, fags, sissies. Doesn't offend them as it's like calling you a white cracker. Not like theres anything wrong with it, nor anything you can do about it, so wheres the insult? Takes a lot more balls then you'll likely ever have to come out as gay in a world like it is today.

Why don't you continue believing being gay is wrong and not enter into a same sex relationship. No problem there. But don't force other people to do the same, and don't make up bullshit about how it existing somehow endangers the population. It doesn't, and there is not a single shred of evidence, nor will there ever be, that it does.

Again, leave people who have done nothing wrong to you or anybody else alone. Dehumanizing people is the reason nearly every atrocity this world has ever faced has happened.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where on earth does the constitution promise that it's a right to marry the person you love, no matter who that person is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please see number 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.
> 
> It doesn't. Thank you.
Click to expand...


You clamped your hands over your eyes when you read it, didn't you.

Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue what the Constitution contains or its meanings.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear about a few of those businesses, so i can be sure not to patronize them.  link, plz....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....
Click to expand...


You mean like the premise of this thread?


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal.  You can also define marriage how you want to.  Allow me the same right.  Is that fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  I have made no move, nor will I ever make any move to legally restrict your civil right to marry another law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you done anything to overurn the proscriptions in many states against marrying within one's direct bloodline?
Click to expand...


Your kind is so predictable, I made a list for you.

Please read number 1.


----------



## Buford

MaxCha said:


> So? One bar in West Hollywood doesn't allow bachelorette parties until gays are allowed to marry? So if a black guy in Florida calls a white man "stupid", should we be worried about black people ruining the world?
> 
> Why don't intolerant conservatives just leave people alone? Seriously, the same basic uneducated/reactionary people continue racism, fought against civil rights in the 60's and women's rights a few decades before that. And every time general public acceptance is reached (eg civil rights by the 70's) they either keep their prejudice beliefs more of a secret or pretend they never were the fools they were and move on to something new that "really is wrong, this time!"
> 
> Call gay people whatever you want - homos, fags, sissies. Doesn't offend them as it's like calling you a white cracker. Not like theres anything wrong with it, nor anything you can do about it, so wheres the insult? Takes a lot more balls then you'll likely ever have to come out as gay in a world like it is today.
> 
> Why don't you continue believing being gay is wrong and not enter into a same sex relationship. No problem there. But don't force other people to do the same, and don't make up bullshit about how it existing somehow endangers the population. It doesn't, and there is not a single shred of evidence, nor will there ever be, that it does.
> 
> Again, leave people who have done nothing wrong to you or anybody else alone. Dehumanizing people is the reason nearly every atrocity this world has ever faced has happened.



You said a lot, but you missed the point.  The point is a person who demands tolerance being intolerant.  That's the point.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Gays aren't seeking any attention."  Let's just let that digest for a second.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.
> 
> But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal.  You can also define marriage how you want to.  Allow me the same right.  Is that fair?
Click to expand...


You can be as loonytunes fundie as you want, as long as you don't deny equal protection under law.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like the premise of this thread?
Click to expand...


You don't like it when your being shown in a hypocritical light.


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> Have you done anything to overurn the proscriptions in many states against marrying within one's direct bloodline?



You never hear someone bring up incest and bestiality in a conversation about opposite sex marriage.

"A man and a woman getting married?  OH. MY. GOD.  What is to stop a man from marrying his dog!!?!"

But that's how stupid you guys sound.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more, no less than anyone else going for equal rights under the law.
> 
> But we get it....you think we're "uppity" and should keep quiet and know our place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal.  You can also define marriage how you want to.  Allow me the same right.  Is that fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be as loonytunes fundie as you want, as long as you don't deny equal protection under law.
Click to expand...


Oh my, yes.  All those thousands of years and billions of people who lived during the history of our civilization on earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were all bigots.

Yes, indeedy, we are the loonytunes fundies.  Oh my, yes.  You're quite an emotional little fellar, aren't you.


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please see number 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.
> 
> It doesn't. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clamped your hands over your eyes when you read it, didn't you.
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue what the Constitution contains or its meanings.
Click to expand...

 

You all are the ones who claim that we're "walking all over the constitution" when we refuse to re-define marriage, to include those who have opted out of participating in the original.....despite the fact that they're free to participate, if they so desire...

Then when asked "what part of the constitution guarantees the right to marry anyone you like?" you cry "LOGICAL FALLACY"!

It's pretty typical of the dishonesty and stupidity of progressives.


----------



## koshergrl

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I could care less what you do sexually as long as it's legal. You can also define marriage how you want to. Allow me the same right. Is that fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be as loonytunes fundie as you want, as long as you don't deny equal protection under law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my, yes. All those thousands of years and billions of people who lived during the history of our civilization on earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were all bigots.
> 
> Yes, indeedy, we are the loonytunes fundies. Oh my, yes. You're quite an emotional little fellar, aren't you.
Click to expand...

 
I guess the majority of the population are fundies.


----------



## del

koshergrl said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be as loonytunes fundie as you want, as long as you don't deny equal protection under law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, yes. All those thousands of years and billions of people who lived during the history of our civilization on earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were all bigots.
> 
> Yes, indeedy, we are the loonytunes fundies. Oh my, yes. You're quite an emotional little fellar, aren't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the majority of the population are fundies.
Click to expand...


no, the majority of the population is stupid.

oh, wait...


----------



## MaxCha

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're beating a dead horse.  Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.  There is no such thing.
Click to expand...


Haha. and so do you think racists in the 60's thought civil rights had anything to do with the women's rights movement a few decades before? They'd say bullshit like you like "Don't try compare the struggle of a man and woman who are both white with a negro. White men and women are decent people, negros are not people at all."

The uneducated/ego protecting fools always think the new group looking for equality is nothing like the ones from before.

And your wording - "homo marriage" - thinly veils your clear disgust and dislike of gay people. You dislike a group of people, so is that not the very definition of prejudice?

Say whatever you want about "family-values" or "ass fucking is wrong" but I know for a fact you won't be using a shred of evidence to back up your claim. Every objective psychological association in the US agrees being gay is natural, unchangeable and harmless. all the evidence indicates the same.

So what your dad taught you about homos back on the farm when you were a kid holds no weight. Facts do, and that is where you and those who discriminate fall on their faces.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  I have made no move, nor will I ever make any move to legally restrict your civil right to marry another law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done anything to overurn the proscriptions in many states against marrying within one's direct bloodline?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your kind is so predictable, I made a list for you.
> 
> Please read number 1.
Click to expand...


Well that is fantastic, if totally irrelevant.  I have said nothing about poofter marriage.  I was responding to Bodefullofshits apparent belief that law-abiding, tax paying, consenting adults should all have the right to marry.  A belief that is not really all-inclusive if she does not then believe proscriptions against biological brothers and sisters should be lifted.  I have made no statement in favor of or against poofter marriage.  Try to stay on topic.


----------



## J.E.D

koshergrl said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be as loonytunes fundie as you want, as long as you don't deny equal protection under law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, yes. All those thousands of years and billions of people who lived during the history of our civilization on earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were all bigots.
> 
> Yes, indeedy, we are the loonytunes fundies. Oh my, yes. You're quite an emotional little fellar, aren't you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the majority of the population are fundies.
Click to expand...


No, the minority are. You're a dinosaur. get with the times or stay behind. Your choice.

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polls in 2012

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.[13]

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.[14][15]

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[16] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement.[17] A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.[18]

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.[19]

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[20] 

A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.[21]

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.[22]


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you done anything to overurn the proscriptions in many states against marrying within one's direct bloodline?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never hear someone bring up incest and bestiality in a conversation about opposite sex marriage.
> 
> "A man and a woman getting married?  OH. MY. GOD.  What is to stop a man from marrying his dog!!?!"
> 
> But that's how stupid you guys sound.
Click to expand...


Talk about sounding stupid.  You have now made two seperate posts bemoaning points I never made.  But do carry on.  Its like watching a mongoloid eat a hot pop tart.  A bit sad, but endlessly amusing.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see.
> 
> It doesn't. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clamped your hands over your eyes when you read it, didn't you.
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue what the Constitution contains or its meanings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You all are the ones who claim that we're "walking all over the constitution" when we refuse to re-define marriage, to include those who have opted out of participating in the original.....despite the fact that they're free to participate, if they so desire...
> 
> Then when asked "what part of the constitution guarantees the right to marry anyone you like?" you cry "LOGICAL FALLACY"!
> 
> It's pretty typical of the dishonesty and stupidity of progressives.
Click to expand...


I will use small words.  Just for you.

When a married couple files a married tax return, they do so because there is _a law_ which allows them to do so.  They could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which _created_ the married tax return.

When two _gay_ people get married, they are not allowed to file a married tax return.   For some reason, it scares the living bejeesus out of people like you if they were to file a married tax return.

This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws". 

Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  I know you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true!  There are!



> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.



So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it.  You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason.   You must have a _rational_ reason for denying that protection to them.

"I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from entering into a matrimonial contract and filing a joint tax return.

Are there any words that were too big for you to understand?


----------



## Pho_King

Dick Tuck said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like the premise of this thread?
Click to expand...


Do you know what an anecdote is?


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clamped your hands over your eyes when you read it, didn't you.
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue what the Constitution contains or its meanings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You all are the ones who claim that we're "walking all over the constitution" when we refuse to re-define marriage, to include those who have opted out of participating in the original.....despite the fact that they're free to participate, if they so desire...
> 
> Then when asked "what part of the constitution guarantees the right to marry anyone you like?" you cry "LOGICAL FALLACY"!
> 
> It's pretty typical of the dishonesty and stupidity of progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will use small words. Just for you.
> 
> When you file a married tax return, you do so because there is _a law_ which allows you to do so. You could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which _created_ the married tax return.
> 
> When two gay people get married, they are not allowed to do so under that _same law_.
> 
> This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws".
> 
> Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. I know you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true! There are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it. You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason. A _rational_ reason.
> 
> "I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from filing a joint tax return that is in the law.
> 
> Are there any words that were too big for you to understand?
Click to expand...

 
Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage. Just like single people choose not to be married, and people who just live together for years choose not to be married.


----------



## bodecea

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're beating a dead horse.  Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.  There is no such thing.
Click to expand...


So, you believe in denying equal civil rights to certain law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens based on the gender of their partner......why?


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the premise of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what an anecdote is?
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say that the OP is not an anecdote?


----------



## Buford

del said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, yes. All those thousands of years and billions of people who lived during the history of our civilization on earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were all bigots.
> 
> Yes, indeedy, we are the loonytunes fundies. Oh my, yes. You're quite an emotional little fellar, aren't you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the majority of the population are fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, the majority of the population is stupid.
> 
> oh, wait...
Click to expand...


Penis + Vagina = sexual intercourse.

Penis + Ass Hole = Homosexual intercourse.  I don't think we're the ones confused here, Del.


----------



## Buford

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're beating a dead horse.  Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.  There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe in denying equal civil rights to certain law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens based on the gender of their partner......why?
Click to expand...


I'm not doing that.  You think I'm doing that because you believe homo marriage is a civil right.  You're confused.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage.



Wrong.  They are denied state-sanctioned marriage by asshole bigots like you.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the premise of this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what an anecdote is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that the OP is not an anecdote?
Click to expand...


What part of the OP was an anecdote?


----------



## WillowTree

bodecea said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're beating a dead horse.  Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.  There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe in denying equal civil rights to certain law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens based on the gender of their partner......why?
Click to expand...


So, do you believe you can fight bigotry by being a bigot? why?


----------



## g5000

For some reason, the idea of two men filling out a single tax return scares the living shit out of some people.

They cannot coherently explain why this scares them.  It just does.

They don't even realize this is what they are afraid of.  They think "gay marriage" means they will be fucked in the ass by a fag.  They do not realize that what they are really fighting over is two guys filling out one form.  

They just can't abide that.

Is that bizarre, or what?


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  They are denied state-sanctioned marriage by asshole bigots like you.
Click to expand...


You are so sensitive, g5000.  And it is amazing that in a thread that is about one poofters targeted bigotry against heterosexual women, you accuse others of bigotry.  Tsk tsk.  But your apparent reverence and passion of all things homo is quite remarkable.


----------



## Buford

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  They are denied state-sanctioned marriage by asshole bigots like you.
Click to expand...


So tell us how many billions of asshole bigots have lived since the dawn of civilization who believed marriage is a man and a woman.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't care how they file their taxes. 

Change the tax code, I don't give a shit.

But they make the choice whether or not to participate in marriage...and they can live with that choice. They aren't going to force me to acknowledge them as a part of a construct they have rejected.


----------



## Buford

g5000 said:


> For some reason, the idea of two men filling out a single tax return scares the living shit out of some people.
> 
> They cannot coherently explain why this scares them.  It just does.
> 
> They don't even realize this is what they are afraid of.  They think "gay marriage" means they will be fucked in the ass by a fag.  They do not realize that what they are really fighting over is two guys filling out one form.
> 
> They just can't abide that.
> 
> Is that bizarre, or what?



No one is scared of anything.  You're just scaring yourself.  YOU are not going to tell us what marriage is.  Do you understand?


----------



## Pho_King

WillowTree said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're beating a dead horse.  Homo marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.  There is no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe in denying equal civil rights to certain law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens based on the gender of their partner......why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you believe you can fight bigotry by being a bigot? why?
Click to expand...


I think g5000's basic belief on this matter is that homos cannot be bigots.  Homos are, to some, above reproach, no matter what they do.  Unless, of course, they happen to be priests enjoying the flesh of young boys.  They hate those kinds of homos.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? One bar in West Hollywood doesn't allow bachelorette parties until gays are allowed to marry? So if a black guy in Florida calls a white man "stupid", should we be worried about black people ruining the world?
> 
> Why don't intolerant conservatives just leave people alone? Seriously, the same basic uneducated/reactionary people continue racism, fought against civil rights in the 60's and women's rights a few decades before that. And every time general public acceptance is reached (eg civil rights by the 70's) they either keep their prejudice beliefs more of a secret or pretend they never were the fools they were and move on to something new that "really is wrong, this time!"
> 
> Call gay people whatever you want - homos, fags, sissies. Doesn't offend them as it's like calling you a white cracker. Not like theres anything wrong with it, nor anything you can do about it, so wheres the insult? Takes a lot more balls then you'll likely ever have to come out as gay in a world like it is today.
> 
> Why don't you continue believing being gay is wrong and not enter into a same sex relationship. No problem there. But don't force other people to do the same, and don't make up bullshit about how it existing somehow endangers the population. It doesn't, and there is not a single shred of evidence, nor will there ever be, that it does.
> 
> Again, leave people who have done nothing wrong to you or anybody else alone. Dehumanizing people is the reason nearly every atrocity this world has ever faced has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said a lot, but you missed the point.  The point is a person who demands tolerance being intolerant.  That's the point.
Click to expand...


So you're using this anecdote to justify your own bigotry?  That's weak.


----------



## g5000

*A homophobe's worst nightmare...*


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> I think g5000's basic belief on this matter is that homos cannot be bigots.



You are grossly mistaken.

I believe every category of human contains members who are prejudiced, ignorant, bigoted, or otherwise weak-minded and fearful.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? One bar in West Hollywood doesn't allow bachelorette parties until gays are allowed to marry? So if a black guy in Florida calls a white man "stupid", should we be worried about black people ruining the world?
> 
> Why don't intolerant conservatives just leave people alone? Seriously, the same basic uneducated/reactionary people continue racism, fought against civil rights in the 60's and women's rights a few decades before that. And every time general public acceptance is reached (eg civil rights by the 70's) they either keep their prejudice beliefs more of a secret or pretend they never were the fools they were and move on to something new that "really is wrong, this time!"
> 
> Call gay people whatever you want - homos, fags, sissies. Doesn't offend them as it's like calling you a white cracker. Not like theres anything wrong with it, nor anything you can do about it, so wheres the insult? Takes a lot more balls then you'll likely ever have to come out as gay in a world like it is today.
> 
> Why don't you continue believing being gay is wrong and not enter into a same sex relationship. No problem there. But don't force other people to do the same, and don't make up bullshit about how it existing somehow endangers the population. It doesn't, and there is not a single shred of evidence, nor will there ever be, that it does.
> 
> Again, leave people who have done nothing wrong to you or anybody else alone. Dehumanizing people is the reason nearly every atrocity this world has ever faced has happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said a lot, but you missed the point.  The point is a person who demands tolerance being intolerant.  That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're using this anecdote to justify your own bigotry?  That's weak.
Click to expand...


I used this article to show how those who demand tolerance can be just as intolerant.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Pho_King said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe in denying equal civil rights to certain law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens based on the gender of their partner......why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you believe you can fight bigotry by being a bigot? why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think g5000's basic belief on this matter is that homos cannot be bigots.  Homos are, to some, above reproach, no matter what they do.  Unless, of course, they happen to be priests enjoying the flesh of young boys.  They hate those kinds of homos.
Click to expand...


Who's claiming that a homosexual can't be a bigot?  And the fact is that the homophobes here are using this anecdote to justify their bigotry.


----------



## Buford

g5000 said:


> *A homophobe's worst nightmare...*



Got heterophobia?


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> *A homophobe's worst nightmare...*



why would you think a homophobe would be afraid of two men examining a document?  Is there any indication that the two men pictured are poofters?  They look like professionals in an office to me.  You do realize that, just because two men examine a document together, it does not make them queer, don't you?  Talk about bigotry...


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you believe you can fight bigotry by being a bigot? why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think g5000's basic belief on this matter is that homos cannot be bigots.  Homos are, to some, above reproach, no matter what they do.  Unless, of course, they happen to be priests enjoying the flesh of young boys.  They hate those kinds of homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's claiming that a homosexual can't be a bigot?  And the fact is that the homophobes here are using this anecdote to justify their bigotry.
Click to expand...


What bigotry are you referring to?


----------



## g5000

Buford said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  They are denied state-sanctioned marriage by asshole bigots like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell us how many billions of asshole bigots have lived since the dawn of civilization who believed marriage is a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


There were asshole bigots who believed marriage was one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman.

Were they right?


----------



## Buford

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A homophobe's worst nightmare...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would you think a homophobe would be afraid of two men examining a document?  Is there any indication that the two men pictured are poofters?  They look like professionals in an office to me.  You do realize that, just because two men examine a document together, it does not make them queer, don't you?  Talk about bigotry...
Click to expand...


In his mind, they are barefoot and play footsie.


----------



## Charles_Main

Buford said:


> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties



In My experience it seems the Public is all to willing to Accept the Very Same Discriminatory Practices they hate in others, if it a group the Perceive to be a Minority that is Discriminated against. 

I mean when you talk to them about Blacks who are Racists against whites, It is almost as if they are telling you it's ok Blacks are Racist against whites, They deserve to be.

Guess their Mamma's Never taught them that 2 Wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think g5000's basic belief on this matter is that homos cannot be bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grossly mistaken.
> 
> I believe every category of human contains members who are prejudiced, ignorant, bigoted, or otherwise weak-minded and fearful.
Click to expand...


Great.  Then  its safe to assume that, in your mind, the bar-owner at issue is a bigot.


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> why would you think a homophobe would be afraid of two men examining a document?  Is there any indication that the two men pictured are poofters?  They look like professionals in an office to me.  You do realize that, just because two men examine a document together, it does not make them queer, don't you?  Talk about bigotry...



That's what you are afraid of.  Two men filling out a form.

When you boil it all down, gays are asking for the right to file certain forms they are currently not allowed to file with the government and their employers.

Yeah.

But this scares the living shit out of you.  Too bad all of you collectively are incapable of articulating a good explanation for why that is.


----------



## Buford

Charles_Main said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In My experience it seems the Public is all to willing to Accept the Very Same Discriminatory Practices they hate in others, if it a group the Perceive to be a Minority that is Discriminated against.
> 
> I mean when you talk to them about Blacks who are Racists against whites, It is almost as if they are telling you it's ok Blacks are Racist against whites, They deserve to be.
> 
> Guess their Mamma's Never taught them that 2 Wrongs do not make a right.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  The old double standard.


----------



## Pho_King

Dick Tuck said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you believe you can fight bigotry by being a bigot? why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think g5000's basic belief on this matter is that homos cannot be bigots.  Homos are, to some, above reproach, no matter what they do.  Unless, of course, they happen to be priests enjoying the flesh of young boys.  They hate those kinds of homos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's claiming that a homosexual can't be a bigot?  And the fact is that the homophobes here are using this anecdote to justify their bigotry.
Click to expand...


How is pointing out an act of discrimination by one poofter somehow an effort to justify bigotry?


----------



## MaxCha

I don't know why people are arguing with these people who are against gay marriage. They are a dying ideological belief, the final screams of the intolerant foolishness that causes all our planet's problems. 

And that argument - "penis + vagina = babies. penis + penis/vagina + vagina = no babies. therefore being gay is wrong."

Look it up yourself. Look at logical fallacies and validity. Use some real reasoning and find out yourself why that doesn't mean a damn thing. 

"mouth + mouth (kissing) = no babies. therefore, kissing should be illegal and looked down upon." 

Theres yer reasoning right there.

But again, theres no point arguing. You won't change. You're beliefs will just become less common, and how happy our world will be without it.


----------



## Buford

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you think a homophobe would be afraid of two men examining a document?  Is there any indication that the two men pictured are poofters?  They look like professionals in an office to me.  You do realize that, just because two men examine a document together, it does not make them queer, don't you?  Talk about bigotry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you are afraid of.  Two men filling out a form.
> 
> When you boil it all down, gays are asking for the right to file certain forms they are currently not allowed to file with the government and their employers.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> But this scares the living shit out of you.  Too bad all of you collectively are incapable of articulating a good explanation for why that is.
Click to expand...


Marriage is a man and a woman and has been since the dawn of civilization and billions of people have accepted that.  Grow up and stop playing with other boy's pee pee.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said a lot, but you missed the point.  The point is a person who demands tolerance being intolerant.  That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're using this anecdote to justify your own bigotry?  That's weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used this article to show how those who demand tolerance can be just as intolerant.
Click to expand...


There's a quantum leap of logic.  it's not a denial of equal protection under the law to not allow bachelorette parties in your establishment.  It may be stupid, and even intolerant (I'm not arguing that it is or isn't).  It's certainly not illegal,and comes nowhere close to the blanket ban on equal protection, that you seem to favor.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you think a homophobe would be afraid of two men examining a document?  Is there any indication that the two men pictured are poofters?  They look like professionals in an office to me.  You do realize that, just because two men examine a document together, it does not make them queer, don't you?  Talk about bigotry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you are afraid of.  Two men filling out a form.
> 
> When you boil it all down, gays are asking for the right to file certain forms they are currently not allowed to file with the government and their employers.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> But this scares the living shit out of you.  Too bad all of you collectively are incapable of articulating a good explanation for why that is.
Click to expand...


You are making some tremendous assumptions.  One, that the two men are somehow filling out a form.  Two, that the two men involved are homos.  Three, that I am somehow fearful of two homos filling out a form they are not allowed to file with the government and their employers.  In the absence of any evidence to support even one of those assumptions, i have to conclude that some form of feminine hysteria has overcome you.  Have ye the vapors?


----------



## Buford

MaxCha said:


> I don't know why people are arguing with these people who are against gay marriage. They are a dying ideological belief, the final screams of the intolerant foolishness that causes all our planet's problems.
> 
> And that argument - "penis + vagina = babies. penis + penis/vagina + vagina = no babies. therefore being gay is wrong."
> 
> Look it up yourself. Look at logical fallacies and validity. Use some real reasoning and find out yourself why that doesn't mean a damn thing.
> 
> "mouth + mouth (kissing) = no babies. therefore, kissing should be illegal and looked down upon."
> 
> Theres yer reasoning right there.
> 
> But again, theres no point arguing. You won't change. You're beliefs will just become less common, and how happy our world will be without it.



Yeah, homosexuals have higher rates of drug addiction, alcoholism, ,mental illness and suicide than heteros.  What a wonderful world when perversion is accepted.  Don't even bother telling me it's because of the bigoted heteros.   I've heard it all before.


----------



## del

Buford said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the majority of the population are fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, the majority of the population is stupid.
> 
> oh, wait...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Penis + Vagina = sexual intercourse.
> 
> Penis + Ass Hole = Homosexual intercourse.  I don't think we're the ones confused here, Del.
Click to expand...




i didn't say confused, stupid, i said stupid.

you're both

thanks for proving it


----------



## MaxCha

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think g5000's basic belief on this matter is that homos cannot be bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grossly mistaken.
> 
> I believe every category of human contains members who are prejudiced, ignorant, bigoted, or otherwise weak-minded and fearful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  Then  its safe to assume that, in your mind, the bar-owner at issue is a bigot.
Click to expand...


Is it not you and the other anti-gay people in this thread saying "homos" and "poofters" and all the offensive terminology? Do you think this one bar not allowing bachelor parties somehow indicates you, a heterosexual man, is being discriminated against? Or means anything at all?

Have you ever faced discrimination for being straight? Now, have you ever seen a gay person experience discrimination?

Forget it. Logic will do nothing to you. No point in arguing with the fools that find their way to a computer.


----------



## g5000

Buford said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you think a homophobe would be afraid of two men examining a document?  Is there any indication that the two men pictured are poofters?  They look like professionals in an office to me.  You do realize that, just because two men examine a document together, it does not make them queer, don't you?  Talk about bigotry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you are afraid of.  Two men filling out a form.
> 
> When you boil it all down, gays are asking for the right to file certain forms they are currently not allowed to file with the government and their employers.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> But this scares the living shit out of you.  Too bad all of you collectively are incapable of articulating a good explanation for why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a man and a woman and has been since the dawn of civilization and billions of people have accepted that.
Click to expand...


See?  You can't even explain yourselves.  No rational reason.  Just "it's always been that way".  A justification used throughout history for all kinds of wrongs, and used in the workplace to justify the continuation of inefficient methods.

Sheer ignorance.



Buford said:


> Grow up and stop playing with other boy's pee pee.



It always amuses me that homophobes think calling someone a fag is hurtful to that person.  

Newsflash, Wonder Boy.  Calling someone a fag is hurtful only to people like you!


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're using this anecdote to justify your own bigotry?  That's weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used this article to show how those who demand tolerance can be just as intolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a quantum leap of logic.  it's not a denial of equal protection under the law to not allow bachelorette parties in your establishment.  It may be stupid, and even* intolerant* (I'm not arguing that it is or isn't).  It's certainly not illegal,and comes nowhere close to the blanket ban on equal protection, that you seem to favor.
Click to expand...


Thanks for agreeing with me.


----------



## Pho_King

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're using this anecdote to justify your own bigotry?  That's weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used this article to show how those who demand tolerance can be just as intolerant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a quantum leap of logic.  it's not a denial of equal protection under the law to not allow bachelorette parties in your establishment.  It may be stupid, and even intolerant (I'm not arguing that it is or isn't).  It's certainly not illegal,and comes nowhere close to the blanket ban on equal protection, that you seem to favor.
Click to expand...


So you seem to be saying that you don't care if a homo expresses his own intolerance.  Its only intolerance towards homos that bothers you.  Got it.


----------



## del

koshergrl said:


> I don't care how they file their taxes.
> 
> Change the tax code, I don't give a shit.
> 
> But they make the choice whether or not to participate in marriage...and they can live with that choice. *They aren't going to force me to acknowledge them as a part of a construct they have rejected.*



i'm pretty sure they don't give a shit what you *think*, allie.

did you and buford ride the bus together back in the day?


----------



## g5000

Buford said:


> I've heard it all before.



There's a reason for that.


----------



## Buford

g5000 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you are afraid of.  Two men filling out a form.
> 
> When you boil it all down, gays are asking for the right to file certain forms they are currently not allowed to file with the government and their employers.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> But this scares the living shit out of you.  Too bad all of you collectively are incapable of articulating a good explanation for why that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a man and a woman and has been since the dawn of civilization and billions of people have accepted that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  You can't even explain yourselves.  No rational reason.  Just "it's always been that way".  A justification used throughout history for all kinds of wrongs, and used in the workplace to justify the continuation of inefficient methods.
> 
> Sheer ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up and stop playing with other boy's pee pee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It always amuses me that homophobes think calling someone a fag is hurtful to that person.
> 
> Newsflash, Wonder Boy.  Calling someone a fag is hurtful only to people like you!
Click to expand...


I never used the word "fag".  You did.  Looks like your confusion goes beyond your definition of sex organs.

So all the billions of people who lived through the history of the earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were guilty of being wrong.  Thanks for that pearl of wisdom.  I'm sure it will be on many statues and plaques long after we're all gone.


----------



## g5000

FAG: Hi!  Whatcha doin?

PHOBE: Filling out my taxes.

FAG: A federal married tax return, I see.

PHOBE:  Yep.

FAG: I would like to be able to do that.

PHOBE: JESUS SAYS NO!  You want to fuck me in the ass, don't you?  That's what you are really saying, isn't it, gay boy. SHOW ME IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE A MARRIED TAX RETURN IS, DOG FUCKER!!!!


----------



## Buford

g5000 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard it all before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason for that.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I know the reason.


----------



## WillowTree

The fact is you will never win a war against bigotry by being a bigot. Better deal with it.


----------



## Buford

del said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how they file their taxes.
> 
> Change the tax code, I don't give a shit.
> 
> But they make the choice whether or not to participate in marriage...and they can live with that choice. *They aren't going to force me to acknowledge them as a part of a construct they have rejected.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm pretty sure they don't give a shit what you *think*, allie.
> 
> did you and buford ride the bus together back in the day?
Click to expand...


And we don't give a shit what you think.  Now what?


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you think a homophobe would be afraid of two men examining a document?  Is there any indication that the two men pictured are poofters?  They look like professionals in an office to me.  You do realize that, just because two men examine a document together, it does not make them queer, don't you?  Talk about bigotry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you are afraid of.  Two men filling out a form.
> 
> When you boil it all down, gays are asking for the right to file certain forms they are currently not allowed to file with the government and their employers.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> But this scares the living shit out of you.  Too bad all of you collectively are incapable of articulating a good explanation for why that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is a man and a woman and has been since the dawn of civilization and billions of people have accepted that.  Grow up and stop playing with other boy's pee pee.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  Homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of civilization, and well before that.  Rituals and laws regarding marriage arise in common law.  Even the Catholic Church had same sex rituals.


----------



## g5000

Buford said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a man and a woman and has been since the dawn of civilization and billions of people have accepted that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  You can't even explain yourselves.  No rational reason.  Just "it's always been that way".  A justification used throughout history for all kinds of wrongs, and used in the workplace to justify the continuation of inefficient methods.
> 
> Sheer ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up and stop playing with other boy's pee pee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It always amuses me that homophobes think calling someone a fag is hurtful to that person.
> 
> Newsflash, Wonder Boy.  Calling someone a fag is hurtful only to people like you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never used the word "fag".  You did.  Looks like your confusion goes beyond your definition of sex organs.
> 
> So all the billions of people who lived through the history of the earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were guilty of being wrong.  Thanks for that pearl of wisdom.  I'm sure it will be on many statues and plaques long after we're all gone.
Click to expand...


Still working on why two guys filing a tax return is scary, I see.

While you are working on it, try searching on the word "concubine" in the Bible.

Marriage was not always one man, one woman.

Also, homosexuality was an accepted behavior for nearly two millenia in the Roman Empire.  There were even a few gay emperors.

I know homophobes like to say that was why the empire fell, but gee, it took nearly two thousand years for fags to bring down the Roman Empire?  Really?

Here's another news flash for ya: For thousands of years slavery was legal.  So all the billions of people who lived through the history of the earth who believed slavery was okay were guilty of being wrong.  So there's another pearl of wisdom I'm sure will be on many statues and plaques long after we're all gone.

The wheels are falling off your cart, my friend.


----------



## Pho_King

MaxCha said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are grossly mistaken.
> 
> I believe every category of human contains members who are prejudiced, ignorant, bigoted, or otherwise weak-minded and fearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  Then  its safe to assume that, in your mind, the bar-owner at issue is a bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not you and the other anti-gay people in this thread saying "homos" and "poofters" and all the offensive terminology? Do you think this one bar not allowing bachelor parties somehow indicates you, a heterosexual man, is being discriminated against? Or means anything at all?
> 
> Have you ever faced discrimination for being straight? Now, have you ever seen a gay person experience discrimination?
> 
> Forget it. Logic will do nothing to you. No point in arguing with the fools that find their way to a computer.
Click to expand...


So, now I am anti-gay?  Thats news to me.   And yes, I have been discriminated against for being heterosexual.  Not that it bothered me.  I just asked the lesbians I was with to order my drinks.  

As for this one bar owner's actions.... unless I plan on attending a bachellorette party there then he has not discriminated against me.  But he certainly is discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender.  Which does not seem to bother you.  And that is fine and well.  But that sort of logic is rather infantile, dont you think?  Just because an act of discrimination does not occur to you, does not make it less provocative.  imagine the stink the poofters would make if I stopped letting allowing the celebration of the birthdays in my restaurant if the person being celebrated was gay.  
But forget it.  Logic will do nothing for you.  no point in arguing with fools that cannot control their emotions.


----------



## Buford

Dick Tuck said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you are afraid of.  Two men filling out a form.
> 
> When you boil it all down, gays are asking for the right to file certain forms they are currently not allowed to file with the government and their employers.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> But this scares the living shit out of you.  Too bad all of you collectively are incapable of articulating a good explanation for why that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a man and a woman and has been since the dawn of civilization and billions of people have accepted that.  Grow up and stop playing with other boy's pee pee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of civilization, and well before that.  Rituals and laws regarding marriage arise in common law.  Even the Catholic Church had same sex rituals.
Click to expand...


I never denied the existance of homosexuality.  If you have to be dishonest to make a point, then go play by yourself.


----------



## MaxCha

Overall, this thread shows how desperate anti-gay conservatives are to find "evidence" supporting any of their theories. A freekin article about one bar owner not allowing bachelorette parties until marriage is equal for all - that's your "proof" that gay people are bigots, that being gay is wrong and harmful?

Show some more evidence - I dare you. Not what is "common sense" to you, as the majority of people are morons. Why not one single article, scientific paper, research study, anything?

And yes, gay people can't produce, though they can raise children who have no families. Have fun using evidence to explain the 'wrong' and harm that comes from it.

Again, I know I'm wasting my time. Like a forum of Islamic terrorists discussing the virgins awaiting them, I can't help but think reasoning might appeal to one of them, but wrong I likely am.


----------



## WillowTree

Plasmaball said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if two people in a marriage are allowed to file a joint federal tax return? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to claim their spouse's Social Security death benefit? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to visit their spouse in the ICU? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it undermines the traditional family. Just as no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution did. And we are paying today for those things. Enough is enough. If they were actually being denied anything, that would be different. But they can participate, they choose not to, end of story. They can live with their choice, or opt to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i hope they sewed up your hole a long time ago.
Click to expand...


Still a PIG I see. don't you bother asking for tolerance you don't deserve any tolerance.. asswipe.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  You can't even explain yourselves.  No rational reason.  Just "it's always been that way".  A justification used throughout history for all kinds of wrongs, and used in the workplace to justify the continuation of inefficient methods.
> 
> Sheer ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> It always amuses me that homophobes think calling someone a fag is hurtful to that person.
> 
> Newsflash, Wonder Boy.  Calling someone a fag is hurtful only to people like you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never used the word "fag".  You did.  Looks like your confusion goes beyond your definition of sex organs.
> 
> So all the billions of people who lived through the history of the earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were guilty of being wrong.  Thanks for that pearl of wisdom.  I'm sure it will be on many statues and plaques long after we're all gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still working on why two guys filing a tax return is scary, I see.
> 
> While you are working on it, try searching on the word "concubine" in the Bible.
> 
> Marriage was not always one man, one woman.
> 
> Also, homosexuality was an accepted behavior for nearly two millenia in the Roman Empire.
> 
> Here's another news flash for ya: For thousands of years slavery was legal.  So all the billions of people who lived through the history of the earth who believed slavery was okay were guilty of being wrong.  So there's another pearl of wisdom I'm sure will be on many statues and plaques long after we're all gone.
> 
> The wheels are falling off your cart, my friend.
Click to expand...


Of perhaps more pertinence is why, in an ambiguous picture of two well-dressed gentleman looking at a piece of paper, you conclude that the two are poofters examining tax forms.


----------



## WillowTree

MaxCha said:


> Overall, this thread shows how desperate anti-gay conservatives are to find "evidence" supporting any of their theories. A freekin article about one bar owner not allowing bachelorette parties until marriage is equal for all - that's your "proof" that gay people are bigots, that being gay is wrong and harmful?
> 
> Show some more evidence - I dare you. Not what is "common sense" to you, as the majority of people are morons. Why not one single article, scientific paper, research study, anything?
> 
> And yes, gay people can't produce, though they can raise children who have no families. Have fun using evidence to explain the 'wrong' and harm that comes from it.
> 
> Again, I know I'm wasting my time. Like a forum of Islamic terrorists discussing the virgins awaiting them, I can't help but think reasoning might appeal to one of them, but wrong I likely am.



Tissue?


----------



## Pho_King

Plasmaball said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if two people in a marriage are allowed to file a joint federal tax return? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to claim their spouse's Social Security death benefit? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to visit their spouse in the ICU? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it undermines the traditional family. Just as no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution did. And we are paying today for those things. Enough is enough. If they were actually being denied anything, that would be different. But they can participate, they choose not to, end of story. They can live with their choice, or opt to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i hope they sewed up your hole a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Such tolerance from the "HOORAY GAY" crowd.


----------



## Buford

g5000 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  You can't even explain yourselves.  No rational reason.  Just "it's always been that way".  A justification used throughout history for all kinds of wrongs, and used in the workplace to justify the continuation of inefficient methods.
> 
> Sheer ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> It always amuses me that homophobes think calling someone a fag is hurtful to that person.
> 
> Newsflash, Wonder Boy.  Calling someone a fag is hurtful only to people like you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never used the word "fag".  You did.  Looks like your confusion goes beyond your definition of sex organs.
> 
> So all the billions of people who lived through the history of the earth who believed marriage is a man and a woman were guilty of being wrong.  Thanks for that pearl of wisdom.  I'm sure it will be on many statues and plaques long after we're all gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still working on why two guys filing a tax return is scary, I see.
> 
> While you are working on it, try searching on the word "concubine" in the Bible.
> 
> Marriage was not always one man, one woman.
> 
> Also, homosexuality was an accepted behavior for nearly two millenia in the Roman Empire.  There were even a few gay emperors.
> 
> I know homophobes like to say that was why the empire fell, but gee, it took nearly two thousand years for fags to bring down the Roman Empire?  Really?
> 
> Here's another news flash for ya: For thousands of years slavery was legal.  So all the billions of people who lived through the history of the earth who believed slavery was okay were guilty of being wrong.  So there's another pearl of wisdom I'm sure will be on many statues and plaques long after we're all gone.
> 
> The wheels are falling off your cart, my friend.
Click to expand...


Another dishonest post.  I said marriage is a man and a woman throughout history.  If you want to include polygamy then go ahead.  It's still male and female.  You're deliberately confusing the fact that homosexuality existed throughout history with marriage.  

HOMOSEXUAL MARRIGE has never been a standard in the history of civilization.  Deal with it.


----------



## Buford

Plasmaball said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if two people in a marriage are allowed to file a joint federal tax return? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to claim their spouse's Social Security death benefit? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> Why do you feel threatened if someone is able to visit their spouse in the ICU? Why does that scare the bejeesus out of you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it undermines the traditional family. Just as no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution did. And we are paying today for those things. Enough is enough. If they were actually being denied anything, that would be different. But they can participate, they choose not to, end of story. They can live with their choice, or opt to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i hope they sewed up your hole a long time ago.
Click to expand...


A frustrated homo.


----------



## Buford

Plasmaball said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clamped your hands over your eyes when you read it, didn't you.
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating you haven't a clue what the Constitution contains or its meanings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You all are the ones who claim that we're "walking all over the constitution" when we refuse to re-define marriage, to include those who have opted out of participating in the original.....despite the fact that they're free to participate, if they so desire...
> 
> Then when asked "what part of the constitution guarantees the right to marry anyone you like?" you cry "LOGICAL FALLACY"!
> 
> It's pretty typical of the dishonesty and stupidity of progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stating marriage is between one man and woman and redefining the word stupid.
Click to expand...


So how many billions of stupid people have lived on earth do you think?


----------



## Buford

They're starting to wind down now that they see they aren't getting anywhere.


----------



## Buford

Plasmaball said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how they file their taxes.
> 
> Change the tax code, I don't give a shit.
> 
> But they make the choice whether or not to participate in marriage...and they can live with that choice. They aren't going to force me to acknowledge them as a part of a construct they have rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i reject you as a human being and therefore whatever happens happens.....
Click to expand...


Why don't you stick a banana up your ass and squawk like a chicken and we'll call it "gay fun".


----------



## Buford

Plasmaball said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> i hope they sewed up your hole a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a PIG I see. don't you bother asking for tolerance you don't deserve any tolerance.. asswipe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i dont expect any from Bigots. You people should be wiped from the earth. You are a mistake of nature. If there was a god it should of wiped you out the way of evolution. You literally serve no purpose.
Click to expand...


The homo owner of the gay bar is an intolerant bigot.  You need to go talk to him so he gets right.  The rest of your post is just a typical homo hateful rant.


----------



## Pho_King

Plasmaball said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> i hope they sewed up your hole a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still a PIG I see. don't you bother asking for tolerance you don't deserve any tolerance.. asswipe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i dont expect any from Bigots. You people should be wiped from the earth. You are a mistake of nature. If there was a god it should of wiped you out the way of evolution. You literally serve no purpose.
Click to expand...


The tolerance of people like you is astounding.  When someone believes that "you (insert demographic) should be wiped from the earth", no statement from them concerning the need for tolerance should ever be taken seriously.


----------



## Buford

Plasmaball said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> stating marriage is between one man and woman and redefining the word stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many billions of stupid people have lived on earth do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> about 6 billion..
Click to expand...


Thank God all you enlightened homos are here to make things right.  It's been terrible.


----------



## Buford

Plasmaball said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> i dont expect any from Bigots. You people should be wiped from the earth. You are a mistake of nature. If there was a god it should of wiped you out the way of evolution. You literally serve no purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The homo owner of the gay bar is an intolerant bigot.  You need to go talk to him so he gets right.  The rest of your post is just a typical homo hateful rant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hush troll, we have enough of you on here already.
Click to expand...


The hateful homo calls me a troll.  Isn't that cute.


----------



## Pho_King

Plasmaball said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> i dont expect any from Bigots. You people should be wiped from the earth. You are a mistake of nature. If there was a god it should of wiped you out the way of evolution. You literally serve no purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tolerance of people like you is astounding.  When someone believes that "you (insert demographic) should be wiped from the earth", no statement from them concerning the need for tolerance should ever be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> doesn't bother me in the least. I am just treating you like you treat others.
Click to expand...


Actually, in all my life I have never believed in wiping large numbers of people off the planet.  I have never even approached such intolerance, not even towards pederasts.  That is simply not how I treat others.  What is standard fare at your table is simply never served at mine.  But, I am a tolerant person.  Even with those that I have strong disagreements with.  I am even tolerant of people that are so intolerant they want entire bloodlines to disappear.


----------



## Buford

So far as I've seen there have not been any heteros in this thread who want to wipe out millions of people.  Good thing there is no hate and bigotry among the homos.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
Click to expand...


The Masters doesn't accept women into their membership and it's perfectly legal.


----------



## Trajan

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
Click to expand...


because the decor is ...uhmmm, friendly and malleable?


----------



## Cecilie1200

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us it was illegal.   Name the law or statute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
Click to expand...


What an utter, disingenuous fucktard.  I stand in awe of your massive fucktardedness.


----------



## Cecilie1200

JosefK said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so fun to stir up the homo nest.  I need to bet a beer and some popcorn.  This is getting fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for anybody else; but I'm not gay. I just think that gay people should have equal rights. Freedom is funny like that; it has no boundaries. When are you freedom-loving "patriots" in the GOP going to catch on?
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're so in favor of "equal rights" that you're in here defending something that'd have you screaming if anyone else did it.  You're not in favor of "equal rights"; you're in favor of LEFTIST rights, ie. the ability to whine and piss and cry about what a victim you are, while oppressing everyone else and bludgeoning all opposition into silence.

Keep talking, pusbag.  Leftists are always the best argument against themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Seawytch said:


> If y'all really want him to keep hosting bachelorette parties, the solution is simple...legalize gay marriage.



Yes, I'm sure that same logic would work in reverse.  "If you want us to allow gays in our restaurants, the solution is simple . . . make them pretend they're hetero."  I'm certain you would accept that.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Buford said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a man and a woman and has been since the dawn of civilization and billions of people have accepted that.  Grow up and stop playing with other boy's pee pee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of civilization, and well before that.  Rituals and laws regarding marriage arise in common law.  Even the Catholic Church had same sex rituals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied the existance of homosexuality.  If you have to be dishonest to make a point, then go play by yourself.
Click to expand...


What you did do, liarboy, is to claim that same sex marriage was never recognized.  That's pure bullshit.  But if you want to justify your bigotry, based on what ONE bar owner did, your value system must be very weak.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Buford said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to hear about a few of those businesses, so i can be sure not to patronize them.  link, plz....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now the bachelorettes will have to go someplace else because of this homo bigot.
Click to expand...


I think they should go out in his parking lot and host a big, media-heavy protest against what a hypocritical piece of shit he is.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If y'all really want him to keep hosting bachelorette parties, the solution is simple...legalize gay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that same logic would work in reverse.  "If you want us to allow gays in our restaurants, the solution is simple . . . make them pretend they're hetero."  I'm certain you would accept that.
Click to expand...


That is about the stupidest logic that I've heard from you wingnuts all day.  Who know's you might even be on the two day leaderboard.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knights of Columbus.....the local VFW post....and the Freemasons in the next town over.   We've had gay friends denied their halls for wedding receptions...gay wedding receptions.
> 
> Not to worry.   They went elsewhere without the whining we're hearing here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now the bachelorettes will have to go someplace else because of this homo bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they should go out in his parking lot and host a big, media-heavy protest against what a hypocritical piece of shit he is.
Click to expand...


Good idea.  Women who are about to get married, really would love the media attention of protesting not being able to get all crazy in a gay bar.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.....the worthlessness of anecdotes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked, I answered.   If you didn't want to hear about a few of those businesses in the first place, why did you ask?   Did you think I wouldn't have an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was hoping you would be able to point to private establishments that maintain a policy of prohibiting celebrations based on gender.  Something I could verify.  Because I have been to gay wedding receptions hosted by the VFW, the KOC, and the Freemasons.  Do my anecdotes trump yours?
Click to expand...


I wonder if people would think it's okay for a divorced person to refuse to host a gay reception because they're "flaunting" their marriage at him?  How dare they be happy when he's not, and all that?


----------



## Dick Tuck

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked, I answered.   If you didn't want to hear about a few of those businesses in the first place, why did you ask?   Did you think I wouldn't have an answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you would be able to point to private establishments that maintain a policy of prohibiting celebrations based on gender.  Something I could verify.  Because I have been to gay wedding receptions hosted by the VFW, the KOC, and the Freemasons.  Do my anecdotes trump yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if people would think it's okay for a divorced person to refuse to host a gay reception because they're "flaunting" their marriage at him?  How dare they be happy when he's not, and all that?
Click to expand...


Was Newt married in a Catholic ritual?  I really don't know.  If he was, I wonder how much that cost him.


----------



## g5000

Buford said:


> They're starting to wind down now that they see they aren't getting anywhere.



Arguing with people dense as wood is futile.  Your extreme ignorance has been exposed.  My work is done here.


----------



## J.E.D

Cecilie1200 said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't any homos get married in the first 200 years of our history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it certainly was not because there was a law banning it -- as you've proven with your inability to cite one after you claimed they existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an utter, disingenuous fucktard.  I stand in awe of your massive fucktardedness.
Click to expand...


Jump head first off of the nearest, tallest building. You're a waste of oxygen.


----------



## J.E.D

Cecilie1200 said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buford said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's so fun to stir up the homo nest.  I need to bet a beer and some popcorn.  This is getting fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for anybody else; but I'm not gay. I just think that gay people should have equal rights. Freedom is funny like that; it has no boundaries. When are you freedom-loving "patriots" in the GOP going to catch on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're so in favor of "equal rights" that you're in here defending something that'd have you screaming if anyone else did it.  You're not in favor of "equal rights"; you're in favor of LEFTIST rights, ie. the ability to whine and piss and cry about what a victim you are, while oppressing everyone else and bludgeoning all opposition into silence.
> 
> Keep talking, pusbag.  Leftists are always the best argument against themselves.
Click to expand...


You're the best argument against intelligent design. If there is a god, he/she/it surely wouldn't create an utter failure of a human being such as yourself.


----------



## koshergrl

Progressives make me nauseous.


----------



## starcraftzzz

Buford said:


> Now this is very revealing.  What do you think?
> 
> 'Best Gay Bar' Bans Bachelorette Parties



I dont tihnk I know you are a retard


----------



## J.E.D

koshergrl said:


> Progressives make me nauseous.



It's probably a result of you mixing your anti-psychotic medication with alcohol.


----------



## koshergrl

No, it's because you're disgusting.


----------



## Bigfoot

koshergrl said:


> No, it's because you're disgusting.



He is a real  fucktard.


----------



## auditor0007

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
Click to expand...


They can refuse to serve pretty much anyone they want if their patrons do not follow set rules of the establishment.


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
Click to expand...


You have Civil Rights... As an Individual.

You don't have Special Civil Rights when you Choose to Defy your Natural Design and Equipment and Couple outside of what Creates us.

Your Coupling is not _"Fundamental to your very Existence and Survival"._

Fact not Fiction. 



peace...


----------



## J.E.D

koshergrl said:


> No, it's because you're disgusting.



Nope. I'm fairly certain it has something to do with your meds.


----------



## J.E.D

mal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have Civil Rights... As an Individual.
> 
> You don't have Special Civil Rights when you Choose to Defy your Natural Design and Equipment and Couple outside of what Creates us.
> 
> Your Coupling is not _"Fundamental to your very Existence and Survival"._
> 
> Fact not Fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Does that apply to people of limited mental capacity? You know - ahem - people like you.


----------



## mal

JosefK said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have Civil Rights... As an Individual.
> 
> You don't have Special Civil Rights when you Choose to Defy your Natural Design and Equipment and Couple outside of what Creates us.
> 
> Your Coupling is not _"Fundamental to your very Existence and Survival"._
> 
> Fact not Fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that apply to people of limited mental capacity? You know - ahem - people like you.
Click to expand...


^What People on the Left do when they don't have an Argument. 



peace...


----------



## J.E.D

mal said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have Civil Rights... As an Individual.
> 
> You don't have Special Civil Rights when you Choose to Defy your Natural Design and Equipment and Couple outside of what Creates us.
> 
> Your Coupling is not _"Fundamental to your very Existence and Survival"._
> 
> Fact not Fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that apply to people of limited mental capacity? You know - ahem - people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^What People on the Left do when they don't have an Argument.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Argument? I thought we were just spewing hate here. Oh and ignorance. You have that in spades.


----------



## mal

JosefK said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that apply to people of limited mental capacity? You know - ahem - people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^What People on the Left do when they don't have an Argument.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argument? I thought we were just spewing hate here. Oh and ignorance. You have that in spades.
Click to expand...


And again...



peace...


----------



## mal

mal said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to align yourself with people who struggled against the very real human rights violations that sprung from racism.
> 
> You have the same rights as everybody else at this juncture in our nation's history. Quit pissing and moaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights are civil rights...whether it is based on skin color, religion, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
> 
> This fact seems to escape some so-called Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have Civil Rights... As an Individual.
> 
> You don't have Special Civil Rights when you Choose to Defy your Natural Design and Equipment and Couple outside of what Creates us.
> 
> Your Coupling is not _"Fundamental to your very Existence and Survival"._
> 
> Fact not Fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


^It's right there Jose.



peace...


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You all are the ones who claim that we're "walking all over the constitution" when we refuse to re-define marriage, to include those who have opted out of participating in the original.....despite the fact that they're free to participate, if they so desire...
> 
> Then when asked "what part of the constitution guarantees the right to marry anyone you like?" you cry "LOGICAL FALLACY"!
> 
> It's pretty typical of the dishonesty and stupidity of progressives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will use small words. Just for you.
> 
> When you file a married tax return, you do so because there is _a law_ which allows you to do so. You could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which _created_ the married tax return.
> 
> When two gay people get married, they are not allowed to do so under that _same law_.
> 
> This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws".
> 
> Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. I know you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true! There are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it. You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason. A _rational_ reason.
> 
> "I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from filing a joint tax return that is in the law.
> 
> Are there any words that were too big for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage. Just like single people choose not to be married, and people who just live together for years choose not to be married.
Click to expand...


How can you ignore what is right in front of your face? We ARE denied equal protection. I AM legally married and yet my partner and I must file separate Federal taxes. How is that equal? If you were legally married in your state, you would automatically be married in mine or any of the other 49 states. I'm not. My actual rights vary from state to state. In some states I have none and in others I have some, but in no state do I have all the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. How is that equal? I am legally married in the State of California and yet because there is NO EQUAL PROTECTION, I get taxed more for my partners health insurance than a heterosexual couple because the Federal government considers health care for an opposite sex spouse as a benefit, but the health care costs of a same sex spouse is considered income. Income gets taxed, benefits do not. You call that equal? 

Now, perhaps you can tell me why my 17 year relationship with my partner, a person who I am legally married to, isn't worthy of the same rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage. When your done, perhaps you can explain it to my kids because they don't get it. Of course, they weren't raised learning bigotry and homophobia like you were...


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will use small words. Just for you.
> 
> When you file a married tax return, you do so because there is _a law_ which allows you to do so. You could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which _created_ the married tax return.
> 
> When two gay people get married, they are not allowed to do so under that _same law_.
> 
> This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws".
> 
> Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. I know you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true! There are!
> 
> 
> 
> So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it. You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason. A _rational_ reason.
> 
> "I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from filing a joint tax return that is in the law.
> 
> Are there any words that were too big for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage. Just like single people choose not to be married, and people who just live together for years choose not to be married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you ignore what is right in front of your face? We ARE denied equal protection. I AM legally married and yet my partner and I must file separate Federal taxes. How is that equal? If you were legally married in your state, you would automatically be married in mine or any of the other 49 states. I'm not. My actual rights vary from state to state. In some states I have none and in others I have some, but in no state do I have all the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. How is that equal? I am legally married in the State of California and yet because there is NO EQUAL PROTECTION, I get taxed more for my partners health insurance than a heterosexual couple because the Federal government considers health care for an opposite sex spouse as a benefit, but the health care costs of a same sex spouse is considered income. Income gets taxed, benefits do not. You call that equal?
> 
> Now, perhaps you can tell me why my 17 year relationship with my partner, a person who I am legally married to, isn't worthy of the same rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage. When your done, perhaps you can explain it to my kids because they don't get it. Of course, they weren't raised learning bigotry and homophobia like you were...
Click to expand...


It's not Equal because Homosexual Coupling and Heteroseuxal Coupling are not Naturally Equal.

Your Choice to Couple outside of your Natural Design and Equipment is not Society's Burden. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will use small words. Just for you.
> 
> When you file a married tax return, you do so because there is _a law_ which allows you to do so. You could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which _created_ the married tax return.
> 
> When two gay people get married, they are not allowed to do so under that _same law_.
> 
> This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws".
> 
> Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. I know you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true! There are!
> 
> 
> 
> So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it. You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason. A _rational_ reason.
> 
> "I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from filing a joint tax return that is in the law.
> 
> Are there any words that were too big for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. And gays aren't denied equal protection of the law. They choose not to participate in marriage. Just like single people choose not to be married, and people who just live together for years choose not to be married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you ignore what is right in front of your face? We ARE denied equal protection. I AM legally married and yet my partner and I must file separate Federal taxes. How is that equal? If you were legally married in your state, you would automatically be married in mine or any of the other 49 states. I'm not. My actual rights vary from state to state. In some states I have none and in others I have some, but in no state do I have all the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. How is that equal? I am legally married in the State of California and yet because there is NO EQUAL PROTECTION, I get taxed more for my partners health insurance than a heterosexual couple because the Federal government considers health care for an opposite sex spouse as a benefit, but the health care costs of a same sex spouse is considered income. Income gets taxed, benefits do not. You call that equal?
> 
> Now, perhaps you can tell me why my 17 year relationship with my partner, a person who I am legally married to, isn't worthy of the same rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage. When your done, perhaps you can explain it to my kids because they don't get it. Of course, they weren't raised learning bigotry and homophobia like you were...
Click to expand...


There IS no good reason that can be provided legally, Seawytch.   We all know it.   And it's only a matter of time before we gain the equal rights we've been working for.  I just look back since Stonewall and we have come a long way and will not stop until we are treated equally under the law federally and locally.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution states that we all have the *right* to marry any person we so desire.



The SCOTUS was able to see the right to marry:

Loving v Virginia (1967)

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)

Turner v Safley (1987) 

The way this works is YOU have to come up with a valid reason to deny gays and lesbians this fundamental right. You must have an *overriding societal harm* in allowing non-familial consenting adult couples the fundamental right to marry. In court, no one has been able to which is why Federal judges keep ruling DOMA unconstitutional.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution states that we all have the *right* to marry any person we so desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was able to see the right to marry:
> 
> Loving v Virginia (1967)
> 
> Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
> 
> Turner v Safley (1987)
> 
> The way this works is YOU have to come up with a valid reason to deny gays and lesbians this fundamental right. You must have an *overriding societal harm* in allowing non-familial consenting adult couples the fundamental right to marry. In court, no one has been able to which is why Federal judges keep ruling DOMA unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


And let us keep in mind, simplistic mantras that one uses whenever the urge to visit the gay bathhouses become overwhelming are NOT valid legal arguments against legalized equality in civil marriage.


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> The SCOTUS was able to see the right to marry:
> 
> Loving v Virginia (1967)



How is Homosexual Coupling *"Fundemental to our very Existence and Survival"?...*

And there is NO Supreme Court Ruling that Deals with Homosexual Marriage and Supposed Rights.

Trying to Transfer Race to Defiance of Natural Design is Weak.

Win your own SCOTUS Ruling. 



peace...


----------



## Seawytch

Buford said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a PIG I see. don't you bother asking for tolerance you don't deserve any tolerance.. asswipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont expect any from Bigots. You people should be wiped from the earth. You are a mistake of nature. If there was a god it should of wiped you out the way of evolution. You literally serve no purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homo owner of the gay bar is an intolerant bigot.  You need to go talk to him so he gets right.  The rest of your post is just a typical homo hateful rant.
Click to expand...


How can the bar owner be an intolerant bigot if he had been hosting these parties. An intolerant bigot would never have hosted them at all. Oops, I am so sorry...did I employ logical reasoning?  I should never have done that to YOU. I apologize.


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution states that we all have the *right* to marry any person we so desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was able to see the right to marry:
> 
> Loving v Virginia (1967)
> 
> Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
> 
> Turner v Safley (1987)
> 
> The way this works is YOU have to come up with a valid reason to deny gays and lesbians this fundamental right. You must have an *overriding societal harm* in allowing non-familial consenting adult couples the fundamental right to marry. In court, no one has been able to which is why Federal judges keep ruling DOMA unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let us keep in mind, simplistic mantras that one uses whenever the urge to visit the gay bathhouses become overwhelming are NOT valid legal arguments against legalized equality in civil marriage.
Click to expand...


I wonder who this Respectable Moderator would be Directing that at?... 

You could really use a New Script Dumptruck.

Using your Defiance of your Natural Design as a Weapon to try to Silence those who Disargree with you is Weak.

Why not have Courage to Address those you Disagree with instead of calling them Fags?

Because you are a Coward. 



peace...


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for someone to show me where the constitution states that we all have the *right* to marry any person we so desire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was able to see the right to marry:
> 
> Loving v Virginia (1967)
> 
> Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
> 
> Turner v Safley (1987)
> 
> The way this works is YOU have to come up with a valid reason to deny gays and lesbians this fundamental right. You must have an *overriding societal harm* in allowing non-familial consenting adult couples the fundamental right to marry. In court, no one has been able to which is why Federal judges keep ruling DOMA unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let us keep in mind, simplistic mantras that one uses whenever the urge to visit the gay bathhouses become overwhelming are NOT valid legal arguments against legalized equality in civil marriage.
Click to expand...


LOL...no, it certainly isn't. 

There are no valid legal arguments. That was obvious in the Prop 8 trial. The proponents of Prop 8 actually had documents of testimony from George "Rent Boy" Rekers.


----------



## bodecea

Keep Your Bachelorette Party Out of My Gay Bar

Some gay guy friends I know have complained about this very thing....would a bar owner be bigoted if they are trying to protect their regular clientele from becoming "props" as the article says?


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS was able to see the right to marry:
> 
> Loving v Virginia (1967)
> 
> Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
> 
> Turner v Safley (1987)
> 
> The way this works is YOU have to come up with a valid reason to deny gays and lesbians this fundamental right. You must have an *overriding societal harm* in allowing non-familial consenting adult couples the fundamental right to marry. In court, no one has been able to which is why Federal judges keep ruling DOMA unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let us keep in mind, simplistic mantras that one uses whenever the urge to visit the gay bathhouses become overwhelming are NOT valid legal arguments against legalized equality in civil marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...no, it certainly isn't.
> 
> There are no valid legal arguments. That was obvious in the Prop 8 trial. The proponents of Prop 8 actually had documents of testimony from George "Rent Boy" Rekers.
Click to expand...


None that you will Acknowledge...

Enjoy your Echo Chamber.

When you can make the Legal Argument that Homosexual Coupling is Equal to Heterosexual Coupling without Leaning on Court Rulings Regarding Race and making that False Analogy, let me know.

Make your Coupling Stand on it's own. 



peace...


----------



## Seawytch

Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Keep Your Bachelorette Party Out of My Gay Bar
> 
> Some gay guy friends I know have complained about this very thing....would a bar owner be bigoted if they are trying to protect their regular clientele from becoming "props" as the article says?



Exactly. He was getting complaints from his regular paying customers, his "bread and butter". It was a business decision couched in a protest against marriage inequality.


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?



The same Argument can be made for Consenting Aged Same Sex Siblings.

Make the Case FOR Homosexual Coupling being Equal to Heterosexual Coupling in Law.



peace...


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep Your Bachelorette Party Out of My Gay Bar
> 
> Some gay guy friends I know have complained about this very thing....would a bar owner be bigoted if they are trying to protect their regular clientele from becoming "props" as the article says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. He was getting complaints from his regular paying customers, his "bread and butter". It was a business decision couched in a protest against marriage inequality.
Click to expand...


Well, he also says that he doesn't feel like he should be providing a service for people who get a legal advantage over himself and his regular clientele due to discrimination.   I agree with him.  Open to bachelorette parties when marriage equality finally comes....if he wants to.


----------



## koshergrl

They don't get a legal advantage over him. *Lie*.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep Your Bachelorette Party Out of My Gay Bar
> 
> Some gay guy friends I know have complained about this very thing....would a bar owner be bigoted if they are trying to protect their regular clientele from becoming "props" as the article says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. He was getting complaints from his regular paying customers, his "bread and butter". It was a business decision couched in a protest against marriage inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, he also says that he doesn't feel like he should be providing a service for people who get a legal advantage over himself and his regular clientele due to discrimination.   I agree with him.  Open to bachelorette parties when marriage equality finally comes....if he wants to.
Click to expand...


I agree with him as well and it has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with equality.


----------



## koshergrl

It's only bigotry if people do it to homos.


----------



## mal

mal said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same Argument can be made for Consenting Aged Same Sex Siblings.
> 
> Make the Case FOR Homosexual Coupling being Equal to Heterosexual Coupling in Law.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


That's what I Thought. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> It's only bigotry if people do it to homos.



How so?


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> They don't get a legal advantage over him. *Lie*.



Really?   They don't get to legally marry either?   Who knew.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?



They aren't denied it, any more than single people are denied it. When they choose to participate, they can reap the benefits.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get a legal advantage over him. *Lie*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   They don't get to legally marry either?   Who knew.
Click to expand...


Gays can legally marry, just like everybody else.

They choose not to. Their choice.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get a legal advantage over him. *Lie*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   They don't get to legally marry either?   Who knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gays can legally marry, just like everybody else.
> 
> They choose not to. Their choice.
Click to expand...


Gays cannot legally marry (except in some states), those they love and are attracted to.  Apparently, you were unaware of that distinction.


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't get a legal advantage over him. *Lie*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   They don't get to legally marry either?   Who knew.
Click to expand...


No Consenting Adult is Denied Marriage in Law in this Country as long as they don't Deny their Natural Design and Equipment and of course as long as they aren't Related.

Fact not Fiction. 



peace...


----------



## NoNukes

Katzndogz said:


> Just as bars catering to a straight clientele should not be forced to serve gays.  It's called business practice.



Many gays spoke out against this move.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't denied it, any more than single people are denied it. When they choose to participate, they can reap the benefits.
Click to expand...


Do you know how tired and old that argument is? It goes back to the 60s when interracial marriage was the "issue du jour". It was argued that interracial marriage bans didn't discriminate because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That failed too...


----------



## bodecea

NoNukes said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as bars catering to a straight clientele should not be forced to serve gays.  It's called business practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many gays spoke out against this move.
Click to expand...


Yep, as is their right.   We are not some monolithic being....we are made up of individuals across the political and social board.


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't denied it, any more than single people are denied it. When they choose to participate, they can reap the benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how tired and old that argument is? It goes back to the 60s when interracial marriage was the "issue du jour". It was argued that interracial marriage bans didn't discriminate because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That failed too...
Click to expand...


Speaking of Tired and Dishonest...

A Black Man and a White Woman can Reflect Marriage and ProCreate.

Homosexuals can NOT... Ever.

The Possibility only lies with Heteroseuxal Coupling... Ever.

Stop Molesting an Honest Civil Rights Struggle and Stand on your own for once. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't denied it, any more than single people are denied it. When they choose to participate, they can reap the benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how tired and old that argument is? It goes back to the 60s when interracial marriage was the "issue du jour". It was argued that interracial marriage bans didn't discriminate because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That failed too...
Click to expand...


Sometimes it puzzles me how people such as Allie can lightly talk of marrying those we are not attracted to.   It makes me wonder about how that solution may have worked for them.


----------



## koshergrl

So are you saying people are prevented from getting married to the opposite sex because they're gay?

Because you know that's a lie. Which sort of takes the wind out of your false argument that gays are being denied anything.

Or are you saying that we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry anybody we want? Because of course that's also a lie.

I guess you're the ones lying here, but everybody already knows that. Just because you encourage each other to do it doesn't make you any more truthful.


----------



## bodecea

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't denied it, any more than single people are denied it. When they choose to participate, they can reap the benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how tired and old that argument is? It goes back to the 60s when interracial marriage was the "issue du jour". It was argued that interracial marriage bans didn't discriminate because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That failed too...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes it puzzles me how people such as Allie can lightly talk of marrying those we are not attracted to.   It makes me wonder about how that solution may have worked for them.
Click to expand...


The thing is tho, if I may add one thing, when gay people marry heterosexually, that almost never works out in the end.   There comes a time when they can no longer live a lie.  And if there are children involved....it is crushing for the straight spouse and the children.   I've seen this a few times.   They look back and agree that living the lie was NOT the thing to do....just to keep a homophobic society happy.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> So are you saying people are prevented from getting married to the opposite sex because they're gay?
> 
> Because you know that's a lie. Which sort of takes the wind out of your false argument that gays are being denied anything.
> 
> Or are you saying that we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry anybody we want? Because of course that's also a lie.
> 
> I guess you're the ones lying here, but everybody already knows that. Just because you encourage each other to do it doesn't make you any more truthful.



Of course they are not prevented....but you apparently think that living a lie and marrying someone you are not attracted to is an OK thing.   What is it about your own experiences that lead you to believe it is acceptable?


----------



## koshergrl

When homos marry each other, it almost never works out in the end, either.

Sounds like it's just a gay thing. Meh.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying people are prevented from getting married to the opposite sex because they're gay?
> 
> Because you know that's a lie. Which sort of takes the wind out of your false argument that gays are being denied anything.
> 
> Or are you saying that we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry anybody we want? Because of course that's also a lie.
> 
> I guess you're the ones lying here, but everybody already knows that. Just because you encourage each other to do it doesn't make you any more truthful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are not prevented....but you apparently think that living a lie and marrying someone you are not attracted to is an OK thing.   What is it about your own experiences that lead you to believe it is acceptable?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think anyone should get married if they don't want to. Your choice, you live with it.

I just don't think it's the government's responsibility to pretend you're doing something you aren't, just because you don't like the choice you have made.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> When homos marry each other,* it almost never works out in the end, either.*
> Sounds like it's just a gay thing. Meh.



1. Where is your evidence of that?

2.  Since legalized gay marriage is a fairly new thing, how would you even know?

3.  50% success rate for hetero on hetero marriage isn't all that great a comparison now, is it?


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying people are prevented from getting married to the opposite sex because they're gay?
> 
> Because you know that's a lie. Which sort of takes the wind out of your false argument that gays are being denied anything.
> 
> Or are you saying that we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to marry anybody we want? Because of course that's also a lie.
> 
> I guess you're the ones lying here, but everybody already knows that. Just because you encourage each other to do it doesn't make you any more truthful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are not prevented....but you apparently think that living a lie and marrying someone you are not attracted to is an OK thing.   What is it about your own experiences that lead you to believe it is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think anyone should get married if they don't want to. Your choice, you live with it.
> 
> I just don't think it's the government's responsibility to pretend you're doing something you aren't, just because you don't like the choice you have made.
Click to expand...


So tell us again....what are the valid reasons for denying civil marriage to law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens because of their gender?


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are not prevented....but you apparently think that living a lie and marrying someone you are not attracted to is an OK thing.   What is it about your own experiences that lead you to believe it is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think anyone should get married if they don't want to. Your choice, you live with it.
> 
> I just don't think it's the government's responsibility to pretend you're doing something you aren't, just because you don't like the choice you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell us again....what are the valid reasons for denying civil marriage to law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens because of their gender?
Click to expand...


^Pro Siblings Marrying. 



peace...


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they are not prevented....but you apparently think that living a lie and marrying someone you are not attracted to is an OK thing.   What is it about your own experiences that lead you to believe it is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think anyone should get married if they don't want to. Your choice, you live with it.
> 
> I just don't think it's the government's responsibility to pretend you're doing something you aren't, just because you don't like the choice you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell us again....what are the valid reasons for denying civil marriage to law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens because of their gender?
Click to expand...


The same reason we deny civil marriage to single people because they're single, or parent/child couples because they're too closely related, or people and their cars...

Marriage to anyone you want to marry isn't a constitutional right.

If you want to get married, you marry a person of the opposite sex who isn't closely related and who isn't already married. That's what marriage is.

If you want something else, go for it. But we aren't obligated to pretend you're married when you aren't.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think anyone should get married if they don't want to. Your choice, you live with it.
> 
> I just don't think it's the government's responsibility to pretend you're doing something you aren't, just because you don't like the choice you have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us again....what are the valid reasons for denying civil marriage to law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens because of their gender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The same reason *we deny civil marriage to single people because they're single, or parent/child couples because they're too closely related, or people and their cars...
Click to expand...


Really?   And those reasons would be.....?  (BTW...sorry to see that you cannot tell the difference between a person marrying themself,  a person marrying a child who cannot legally consent, and a person marrying their car that cannot legally consent......were you born that dense or did some disease or accident take away your mental capacity to discern obvious differences?)



> Marriage to anyone you want to marry isn't a constitutional right.



Correct.   But the government must have valid legal reasons for denying equal rights to law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens.

Citizens A & B are allowed civil marriage.   

Citizens A & C are NOT allowed civil marriage.

Why not?   Give us valid legal reasons.



> If you want to get married, you marry a person of the opposite sex who isn't closely related and who isn't already married. That's what marriage is.



Ah...so, to you, marriage is marrying someone you are NOT attracted to.   Gotcha.   Are you planning on enforcing your "Marry people you are not attracted to" requirements on all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens?   Did it work for you?  Or are you pointing out WHY we have such a high divorce rate?



> If you want something else, go for it. But we aren't obligated to pretend you're married when you aren't.



Actually, I AM married.   Legally too.   Just waiting for the sands of time to blow away the bigots like yourself.


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how tired and old that argument is? It goes back to the 60s when interracial marriage was the "issue du jour". It was argued that interracial marriage bans didn't discriminate because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. That failed too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it puzzles me how people such as Allie can lightly talk of marrying those we are not attracted to.   It makes me wonder about how that solution may have worked for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is tho, if I may add one thing, when gay people marry heterosexually, that almost never works out in the end.   There comes a time when they can no longer live a lie.  And if there are children involved....it is crushing for the straight spouse and the children.   I've seen this a few times.   They look back and agree that living the lie was NOT the thing to do....just to keep a homophobic society happy.
Click to expand...


Oh, but there are success stories too. Just look at Michelle Bachman.


----------



## Pho_King

Seawytch said:


> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?



Homos are not denied the right to marry any more than a mother and son are.  But there are limits-which may or may not be Consitutional, to say nothing of moral-on the relationships that qualify for marriage.  Get your arguments straight, poofter.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> When homos marry each other, it almost never works out in the end, either.
> 
> Sounds like it's just a gay thing. Meh.



Not true. Turns out our divorce rates are the same as y'alls.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   They don't get to legally marry either?   Who knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays can legally marry, just like everybody else.
> 
> They choose not to. Their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Gays cannot legally marry (except in some states), those they love and are attracted to.*  Apparently, you were unaware of that distinction.
Click to expand...


In many cases, neither can heteros.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it puzzles me how people such as Allie can lightly talk of marrying those we are not attracted to.   It makes me wonder about how that solution may have worked for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is tho, if I may add one thing, when gay people marry heterosexually, that almost never works out in the end.   There comes a time when they can no longer live a lie.  And if there are children involved....it is crushing for the straight spouse and the children.   I've seen this a few times.   They look back and agree that living the lie was NOT the thing to do....just to keep a homophobic society happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but there are success stories too. Just look at Michelle Bachman.
Click to expand...


That story's not over yet.  I bet her husband has some anti-gay mantra he says over and over again too whenever he is struggling with his true nature.


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homos are not denied the right to marry any more than a mother and son are.  *But there are limits-which may or may not be Consitutional, to say nothing of moral-on the relationships that qualify for marriage.*  Get your arguments straight, poofter.
Click to expand...


And those limits are?   (Keep in mind, those "limits" must be compelling enough for government to withhold civil marriage and its benefits, rights, etc. from ONE group of law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens, while giving civil marriage and its benefits, rights, etc. to ANOTHER group of law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens.)


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When homos marry each other, it almost never works out in the end, either.
> 
> Sounds like it's just a gay thing. Meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Turns out our divorce rates are the same as y'alls.
Click to expand...

 
Link?


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gays can legally marry, just like everybody else.
> 
> They choose not to. Their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gays cannot legally marry (except in some states), those they love and are attracted to.*  Apparently, you were unaware of that distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In many cases, neither can heteros.
Click to expand...


How do you figure that?


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the *compelling state reason* to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homos are not denied the right to marry any more than a mother and son are.  *But there are limits-which may or may not be Consitutional, to say nothing of moral-on the relationships that qualify for marriage.*  Get your arguments straight, poofter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those limits are?   (Keep in mind, those "limits" must be compelling enough for government to withhold civil marriage and its benefits, rights, etc. from ONE group of law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens, while giving civil marriage and its benefits, rights, etc. to ANOTHER group of law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens.)
Click to expand...


There are lots of them.  There are age restrictions, restrictions on plural marriages, restrictions on bigamy, restrictions on incestuous marrigaes, restrictions on marriages between members of the same sex, restrictions on the ability to marry certain foreign nationals.  There are all kinds of limits placed on the relationships that can be legally constructed as a marriage.  The belief that so many homos have that anyone should be able to marry anyone, as long as both are law-abiding, taxpaying consenting adfult citizens is incredibly simplistic.  Way to simplistic for a consitutional scholar such as yourself.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us again....what are the valid reasons for denying civil marriage to law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens because of their gender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The same reason *we deny civil marriage to single people because they're single, or parent/child couples because they're too closely related, or people and their cars...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? And those reasons would be.....? (BTW...sorry to see that you cannot tell the difference between a person marrying themself, a person marrying a child who cannot legally consent, and a person marrying their car that cannot legally consent......were you born that dense or did some disease or accident take away your mental capacity to discern obvious differences?)
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. But the government must have valid legal reasons for denying equal rights to law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens.
> 
> Citizens A & B are allowed civil marriage.
> 
> Citizens A & C are NOT allowed civil marriage.
> 
> Why not? Give us valid legal reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to get married, you marry a person of the opposite sex who isn't closely related and who isn't already married. That's what marriage is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...so, to you, marriage is marrying someone you are NOT attracted to. Gotcha. Are you planning on enforcing your "Marry people you are not attracted to" requirements on all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens? Did it work for you? Or are you pointing out WHY we have such a high divorce rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want something else, go for it. But we aren't obligated to pretend you're married when you aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I AM married. Legally too. Just waiting for the sands of time to blow away the bigots like yourself.
Click to expand...

 
No, you aren't married. Legally, meh, who cares. 

But a marriage it isn't. Regardless of what the law says.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gays cannot legally marry (except in some states), those they love and are attracted to.*  Apparently, you were unaware of that distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, neither can heteros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?
Click to expand...


I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, neither can heteros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
Click to expand...


Ok I get what you mean.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok I get what you mean.
Click to expand...


Im impressed.  Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else.  You must be a rarity on this site.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I get what you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im impressed.  Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else.  You must be a rarity on this site.
Click to expand...


Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I get what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im impressed.  Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else.  You must be a rarity on this site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.
Click to expand...


i understand that notion.  And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos.  And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im impressed.  Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else.  You must be a rarity on this site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i understand that notion.  And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos.  And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.
Click to expand...


Besides even if the country outright banned gay marriages across the board that wouldn't stop 2 women from living together as wife and wife if thats what they wanted, thats already going on with people who marry multiple partners, as long as you only have 1 marriage certificate you can shack up with as many people as you want, polygamists and Muslims do this here.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i understand that notion.  And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos.  And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides even if the country outright banned gay marriages across the board that wouldn't stop 2 women from living together as wife and wife if thats what they wanted, thats already going on with people who marry multiple partners, as long as you only have 1 marriage certificate you can shack up with as many people as you want, polygamists and Muslims do this here.
Click to expand...


Sure, that happens.  But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.


----------



## Katzndogz

The major success story of a homosexual man who finally got the courage to come out to his family has to be the father of John Walker Lindh.  He came home in a dress and announced he was leaving his family for a man.  Soon after that son Johnny became Jihad Johnny.  But, dad was finally happy.


----------



## mal

koshergrl said:


> But a marriage it isn't. Regardless of what the law says.



Marriage itself Exists because of the Marriage of the Flesh which each and every Person is Capable of...

Hell, Bodecea is only posting on this Forum because of it.

Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal and the Law can't make something that's not Equal Equal to something it Factually is not.

The Constitution could be Amended to say that all Gays are Less than Human and not Deserving of Rights Afforded EVERY Individual...

And in that, it would be Constitutional.

It would not be Right.

The Agendists Know that they have the Courts Leaning their way with Deliberately Appointed Liberals over the years.

It's why Liberal Californians who Voted AGAINST Gay Marriage were Overruled by the Tyranny of the Despotic Branch of that State.

Ultimately Homosexual Coupling is NOT* "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" *and if you Observe the Fact that EACH AND EVERYONE of them is Designed by Nature to Couple with the Opposite Sex, their Choice to Defy that Design and Equipment is not Society's Burden.

Bodey and Sea can NOT Take Issue with this and that is why they Avoid it. 



peace...


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, neither can heteros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Again.

The point is that a same sex marriage filing a married tax return is as harmless as an opposite sex marriage filing a married tax return.   You are just tossing out red herrings about things that ARE harmful.  Working your ass off to make gay marriage equal to some guy boning his dog or his sister.  Obvious dickhead is obvious.

You can't explain what makes gay marriage harmful, and so you try to equate it to things that are.  What a lame tactic. Impotent dick is impotent.

Oh, look!  There's two men married to each other filling out a form together!  Booga booga booga!


----------



## g5000

mal said:


> Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal



Please Explain Why.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When homos marry each other, it almost never works out in the end, either.
> 
> Sounds like it's just a gay thing. Meh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Turns out our divorce rates are the same as y'alls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


http://m.columbian.com/news/2012/jan/23/gays-divorce-rates-may-hew-close-to-heterosexuals/


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That takes nothing away from the point that a same sex marriage filing a married tax return is as harmless as an opposite sex marriage filing a married tax return.  You are just tossing out red herrings.
Click to expand...


Had I ever even intimated that I believe anything at all about the harmful or harmless nature of diffent relationships filing tax returns, you would have a point.  But I haven't, and you don't.  You are just droppin shits.


----------



## Seawytch

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, neither can heteros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
Click to expand...


If you wish to advocate for bigamy or incest, nobody is stopping you. The law would also have to supply a valid legal reason for preventing your marriage. They would have to provide an overriding harm in allowing them.

An argument can surely be made to prevent incest. Bigamy, not so much.


----------



## Seawytch

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand that notion.  And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos.  And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides even if the country outright banned gay marriages across the board that wouldn't stop 2 women from living together as wife and wife if thats what they wanted, thats already going on with people who marry multiple partners, as long as you only have 1 marriage certificate you can shack up with as many people as you want, polygamists and Muslims do this here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, that happens.  But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.
Click to expand...


No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.


----------



## Pho_King

Seawytch said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wish to advocate for bigamy or incest, nobody is stopping you. The law would also have to supply a valid legal reason for preventing your marriage. They would have to provide an overriding harm in allowing them.
> 
> An argument can surely be made to prevent incest. Bigamy, not so much.
Click to expand...


I respect your honesty, Seawytch.  I however, am not a marriage advocate, except for my own.


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> Sure, that happens.  But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.



And yet you have not given a single sound reason for banning gay marriage.

Hmmmm...

Instead, you use the conjurer's trick of misdirection and bring up all kinds of other relationships that have nothing to do with gay marriage.  But we can all see what you are doing. What a pathetic failure.  Don't quit your day job.


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Turns out our divorce rates are the same as y'alls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Columbian.Com
Click to expand...


Funny... After 3 Decades, the HIV Rate isn't. 

95% of the Population just can't seem to Dominate the Rate for the Disease in the First World where Homosexuals are the Most Educated and Wealthiest of the "Minorities".

Why is that?



peace...


----------



## Pho_King

Seawytch said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides even if the country outright banned gay marriages across the board that wouldn't stop 2 women from living together as wife and wife if thats what they wanted, thats already going on with people who marry multiple partners, as long as you only have 1 marriage certificate you can shack up with as many people as you want, polygamists and Muslims do this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that happens.  But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.
Click to expand...


What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner?  Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong.  And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy.   And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships.  Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.


----------



## g5000

mal said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Columbian.Com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny... After 3 Decades, the HIV Rate isn't.
> 
> 95% of the Population just can't seem to Dominate the Rate for the Disease in the First World where Homosexuals are the Most Educated and Wealthiest of the "Minorities".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Wow!  Look how fast those goalposts moved!

You are so predictable, I made a list for you: Please see Number 4.


----------



## koshergrl

Shuddup, troll.


----------



## Seawytch

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a heterosexual man.  Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her.   Because I am married.  Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so.  Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so.  Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner.  They have nothing to do with legal requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to advocate for bigamy or incest, nobody is stopping you. The law would also have to supply a valid legal reason for preventing your marriage. They would have to provide an overriding harm in allowing them.
> 
> An argument can surely be made to prevent incest. Bigamy, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respect your honesty, Seawytch.  I however, am not a marriage advocate, except for my own.
Click to expand...


Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that happens.  But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you have not given a single sound reason for banning gay marriage.
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> Instead, you use the conjurer's trick of misdirection and bring up all kinds of other relationships that have nothing to do with gay marriage.  But we can all see what you are doing. What a pathetic failure.  Don't quit your day job.
Click to expand...


You seem to assume that I take issue with the marriag of poofters.  Why is that?  

I have never stated that one type of relationship has anything to do with any other.  

but what legal argument in favor of gay marriage does not also apply to other rrelationships that do not currently receive the legal benefits of marriage?  What gives gay relationships more of a legal basis for marriage than an incestuous one, or a bigamous, or a polygamous one?   What is your basis for conferring marital rights on any relationship at all?

As with most overly-emotional types, you have a tremendous capacity for passion.  But try using your reason and logic a bit more.


----------



## koshergrl

Their compassion is limited to people who think exactly like they do...and isn't extended to infants or women.


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that happens.  But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you have not given a single sound reason for banning gay marriage.
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> Instead, you use the conjurer's trick of misdirection and bring up all kinds of other relationships that have nothing to do with gay marriage.  But we can all see what you are doing. What a pathetic failure.  Don't quit your day job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that I take issue with the marriag of poofters.  Why is that?
> 
> I have never stated that one type of relationship has anything to do with any other.
> 
> but what legal argument in favor of gay marriage does not also apply to other rrelationships that do not currently receive the legal benefits of marriage?  What gives gay relationships more of a legal basis for marriage than an incestuous one, or a bigamous, or a polygamous one?   What is your basis for conferring marital rights on any relationship at all?
> 
> As with most overly-emotional types, you have a tremendous capacity for passion.  But try using your reason and logic a bit more.
Click to expand...


I have explained why many times over.  So I guess you need tiny words.

Gay marriage = harmless

Incest = harmful


Get it?

Your sick attempts to place gay marriage on the same level as incest are transparent as vodka, pal.

You claim to be a genius, but I have not seen it.  But if you are, please give a rational reason to ban gay marriage.  Now.


----------



## Pho_King

Seawytch said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to advocate for bigamy or incest, nobody is stopping you. The law would also have to supply a valid legal reason for preventing your marriage. They would have to provide an overriding harm in allowing them.
> 
> An argument can surely be made to prevent incest. Bigamy, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your honesty, Seawytch.  I however, am not a marriage advocate, except for my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.
Click to expand...


Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships?  To a man who wants to marry two different women that do not know about each other?  Or that do?   Is your basis really that any two consenting adults should have the right to marry?  That is a very broad basis.  But not an unworthy one.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you have not given a single sound reason for banning gay marriage.
> 
> Hmmmm...
> 
> Instead, you use the conjurer's trick of misdirection and bring up all kinds of other relationships that have nothing to do with gay marriage.  But we can all see what you are doing. What a pathetic failure.  Don't quit your day job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that I take issue with the marriag of poofters.  Why is that?
> 
> I have never stated that one type of relationship has anything to do with any other.
> 
> but what legal argument in favor of gay marriage does not also apply to other rrelationships that do not currently receive the legal benefits of marriage?  What gives gay relationships more of a legal basis for marriage than an incestuous one, or a bigamous, or a polygamous one?   What is your basis for conferring marital rights on any relationship at all?
> 
> As with most overly-emotional types, you have a tremendous capacity for passion.  But try using your reason and logic a bit more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have explained why many times over.  So I guess you need tiny words.
> 
> Gay marriage = harmless
> 
> Incest = harmful
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Your sick attempts to place gay marriage on the same level as incest are transparent as vodka, pal.
Click to expand...


I have not equated gay marriage and incestuous except for examining how the legal basis for one applies to the legal basis for another.  Have ye the vapors?

How is an incestuous relationship harmful?  What if it is an incestuous relationship between octegenarians?   How would that be harmful?   Why does the prospect of two 80 year old brothers filing a joint tax return terrify you so?


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your honesty, Seawytch.  I however, am not a marriage advocate, except for my own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships?
Click to expand...


You really can't stop yourself, can you.  You just keep throwing out those red herrings.  Obvious homophobe is obvious.

It is obvious you cannot come up with a rational reason to ban gay marriage.  So like some really bizarre broken record, you talk about other kinds of relationships that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.


----------



## Pho_King

*You claim to be a genius, but I have not seen it. But if you are, please give a rational reason to ban gay marriage. Now. *

Perhaps you can point specifically, or even generally, to my claim to genius status.....

And while you are at it, can you please formulate an explanation as to why you think I even believe there is a rational basis for banning poofter marriage?  Now.


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to assume that I take issue with the marriag of poofters.  Why is that?
> 
> I have never stated that one type of relationship has anything to do with any other.
> 
> but what legal argument in favor of gay marriage does not also apply to other rrelationships that do not currently receive the legal benefits of marriage?  What gives gay relationships more of a legal basis for marriage than an incestuous one, or a bigamous, or a polygamous one?   What is your basis for conferring marital rights on any relationship at all?
> 
> As with most overly-emotional types, you have a tremendous capacity for passion.  But try using your reason and logic a bit more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained why many times over.  So I guess you need tiny words.
> 
> Gay marriage = harmless
> 
> Incest = harmful
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Your sick attempts to place gay marriage on the same level as incest are transparent as vodka, pal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not equated gay marriage and incestuous except for examining how the legal basis for one applies to the legal basis for another.  Have ye the vapors?
> 
> How is an incestuous relationship harmful?  What if it is an incestuous relationship between octegenarians?   How would that be harmful?   Why does the prospect of two 80 year old brothers filing a joint tax return terrify you so?
Click to expand...


Please provide a rational reason for banning gay marraige.  Now.


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> *You claim to be a genius, but I have not seen it. But if you are, please give a rational reason to ban gay marriage. Now. *
> 
> Perhaps you can point specifically, or even generally, to my claim to genius status.....
> 
> And while you are at it, can you please formulate an explanation as to why you think I even believe there is a rational basis for banning poofter marriage?  Now.



It is obvious.  You keep throwing out bizarre things like incest.  

So answer the obvious question, are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marraiges?

Yes or no question.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really can't stop yourself, can you.  You just keep throwing out those red herrings.  Obvious homophobe is obvious.
> 
> It is obvious you cannot come up with a rational reason to ban gay marriage.  So like some really bizarre broken record, you talk about other kinds of relationships that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Click to expand...


Can you come up with a rational reason to ban two 80 year old brothers from marrying?  
Why do you hate 80 year old brothers so?

For all you know, I myself am a poofter that advocates for homo marriage and I am trying to get my like minded friends on more of a solid basis for our position than "but we love each other and we are consenting adults".


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't stop yourself, can you.  You just keep throwing out those red herrings.  Obvious homophobe is obvious.
> 
> It is obvious you cannot come up with a rational reason to ban gay marriage.  So like some really bizarre broken record, you talk about other kinds of relationships that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you come up with a rational reason to ban two 80 year old brothers from marrying?
> Why do you hate 80 year old brothers so?
> 
> For all you know, I myself am a poofter that advocates for homo marriage and I am trying to get my like minded friends on more of a solid basis for our position than "but we love each other and we are consenting adults".
Click to expand...


Going the obtuse route now, eh?  

Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.


----------



## mal

g5000 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Columbian.Com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... After 3 Decades, the HIV Rate isn't.
> 
> 95% of the Population just can't seem to Dominate the Rate for the Disease in the First World where Homosexuals are the Most Educated and Wealthiest of the "Minorities".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  Look how fast those goalposts moved!
> 
> You are so predictable, I made a list for you: Please see Number 4.
Click to expand...


Where were the Goalposts at when I first placed them?... 



peace...


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have explained why many times over.  So I guess you need tiny words.
> 
> Gay marriage = harmless
> 
> Incest = harmful
> 
> 
> Get it?
> 
> Your sick attempts to place gay marriage on the same level as incest are transparent as vodka, pal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not equated gay marriage and incestuous except for examining how the legal basis for one applies to the legal basis for another.  Have ye the vapors?
> 
> How is an incestuous relationship harmful?  What if it is an incestuous relationship between octegenarians?   How would that be harmful?   Why does the prospect of two 80 year old brothers filing a joint tax return terrify you so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide a rational reason for banning gay marraige.  Now.
Click to expand...


What if I don't believe there is one?  Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it?  Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?

Its way more fun to allow you to live in your narrow, simplistic, and utterly self-righteous confines in which anyone that is not as similarly simple-minded as you is a homophobe.


----------



## g5000

mal said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... After 3 Decades, the HIV Rate isn't.
> 
> 95% of the Population just can't seem to Dominate the Rate for the Disease in the First World where Homosexuals are the Most Educated and Wealthiest of the "Minorities".
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Look how fast those goalposts moved!
> 
> You are so predictable, I made a list for you: Please see Number 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where were the Goalposts at when I first placed them?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


The discussion was about gay divorce rates.  As soon as SeaWytch debunked the homophbe meme that gays have the same divorce rates as straights, you rushed in and helpfully moved the goalposts to AIDS.

But I was there ahead of you.  Did you read number 4?


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> What if I don't believe there is one?  Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it?  Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?



It is blindingly obvious where you stand.  Which is why you avoid answering the question: Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really can't stop yourself, can you.  You just keep throwing out those red herrings.  Obvious homophobe is obvious.
> 
> It is obvious you cannot come up with a rational reason to ban gay marriage.  So like some really bizarre broken record, you talk about other kinds of relationships that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you come up with a rational reason to ban two 80 year old brothers from marrying?
> Why do you hate 80 year old brothers so?
> 
> For all you know, I myself am a poofter that advocates for homo marriage and I am trying to get my like minded friends on more of a solid basis for our position than "but we love each other and we are consenting adults".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Going the obtuse route now, eh?
> 
> Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?
> 
> Yes or no question.
Click to expand...


If I were to say yes to that question I would have NO grounds for arguing against any relationship between consenting adults.  Which is what you (possibly us) poofters need to come to grips with.  Either that, or refine our position to only include ourselves in the struggle for marriage equality, which smells of rank hypocrisy and self-interest.


----------



## Ravi

g5000 said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Look how fast those goalposts moved!
> 
> You are so predictable, I made a list for you: Please see Number 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where were the Goalposts at when I first placed them?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion was about gay divorce rates.  As soon as SeaWytch debunked the homophbe meme that gays have the same divorce rates as straights, you rushed in and helpfully moved the goalposts to AIDS.
> 
> But I was there ahead of you.  Did you read number 4?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you here. Pretending _AIDS_ is an answer to the question, _why shouldn't gays be allowed to be married,_ is beyond stupid.


----------



## koshergrl

Nobody pretended that.

Except you..just now...


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your honesty, Seawytch.  I however, am not a marriage advocate, except for my own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships?  To a man who wants to marry two different women that do not know about each other?  Or that do?   Is your basis really that any two consenting adults should have the right to marry?  That is a very broad basis.  But not an unworthy one.
Click to expand...


Well incest can be harmful because if they create children they can have all kinds of problems from the inbreeding.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I don't believe there is one?  Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it?  Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious where you stand.  Which is why you avoid answering the question: Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?
> 
> Yes or no question.
Click to expand...


I am sure that, to a simple mind, nearly everything "blindingly obvious".

Perhaps you should provide a basis for prohibiting two gay 80 year brothers from marrying that should not apply to two 80 year old unrelated men.  Why would you exclude certain gay relationships?


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> What if I don't believe there is one?  Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it?  Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?



Too late.  Marriage was federalized the day the federal government gave married couples a break in the federal tax laws.  And the day the federal government gave a spouse the privilege to collect their spouse's Social Security death benefits.  And the day the federal government extended all kinds of other protections to married people.

Therefore, gay marriage will never be just a state-level issue.  It is a federal one.  They cannot be equal until they receive all the same privileges and benefits received at both state and federal levels.

You are way over your head.


----------



## Ravi

koshergrl said:


> Nobody pretended that.
> 
> Except you..just now...


Oh, right, it was just a random attack on gay people by a troll.


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I don't believe there is one?  Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it?  Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is blindingly obvious where you stand.  Which is why you avoid answering the question: Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?
> 
> Yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that, to a simple mind, nearly everything "blindingly obvious".
> 
> Perhaps you should provide a basis for prohibiting two gay 80 year brothers from marrying that should not apply to two 80 year old unrelated men.  Why would you exclude certain gay relationships?
Click to expand...


Incest is a separate topic.  Perhaps you should start one since you seem obsessed with it.

Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships?  To a man who wants to marry two different women that do not know about each other?  Or that do?   Is your basis really that any two consenting adults should have the right to marry?  That is a very broad basis.  But not an unworthy one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well incest can be harmful because if they create children they can have all kinds of problems from the inbreeding.
Click to expand...


Is that the basis for denying incestuous relationships?  Because of potential harm to children?  That seems like a very dangerous argument to make for proponents of gay marriage.  WHat if childbirth isn't a possibility- as between 80 year old relatives?  Or same-sex relatives?


----------



## koshergrl

Actually, incest is not just harmful because of the offspring. It's harmful because it creates an environment where children are abused from a very young age.

I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.

I'd say the union issue is a lot more relevant than the dna one.


----------



## g5000

When a married couple files a married tax return, they do so because there is _a law_ which allows them to do so.  They could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which _created_ the married tax return.

When two _gay_ people get married, they are not allowed to file a married tax return.   For some reason, it scares the living bejeesus out of some people if they were to file a married tax return.

This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws". 

Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  I know some of you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true!  There are!



> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.



So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it.  You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason.   You must have a _rational_ reason for denying that protection to them.

"I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from entering into a matrimonial contract and filing a joint tax return.

All of the above was established in precedent by _Loving v. Virginia_.  Read it.  Learn it.  Because when gay marriage finally comes before the Supreme Court, it will be cited as the precedent for legalizing gay marriage all the way up to the federal level.  This will result in the interesting paradox of some ignorant blacks screaming about using the struggle for black equality to achieve gay equality.  The idea that gays should be treated like everyone else just does not compute with some blacks who believe blacks should be treated like everyone else.

Go figure.

I would hope the people on the opposing legal team would bring up the incest and bestiality red herring when that day comes in court, just for the incredibly hilarious yucks it would bring watching them get bitch-slapped by all nine justices, but they could not be lawyers who made it all the way to arguing before the Supreme Court if they were that profoundly stupid.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if I don't believe there is one?  Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it?  Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too late.  Marriage was federalized the day the federal government gave married couples a break in the federal tax laws.  And the day the federal government gave a spouse the privilege to collect their spouse's Social Security death benefits.  And the day the federal government extended all kinds of other protections to married people.
> 
> Therefore, gay marriage will never be just a state-level issue.  It is a federal one.  They cannot be equal until they receive all the same privileges and benefits received at both state and federal levels.
> 
> You are way over your head.
Click to expand...


Talk about being way in over your head....
Family and marital relations law is a matter of state jurisdiction.  What you have described are benefits that flow from marriage. In short, you are greatly confusing the issues.  Marriage has not been federalized.  Even heterosexaul couples cannot march down to the federal courthouse and receive the blessings of marriage.  Why?  Because the regulation of domestic affairs is purely a state's issue.


----------



## Pho_King

koshergrl said:


> Actually, incest is not just harmful because of the offspring.* It's harmful because it creates an environment where children are abused from a very young age.*
> I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.
> 
> I'd say the union issue is a lot more relevant than the dna one.



How so?


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> When a married couple files a married tax return, they do so because there is _a law_ which allows them to do so.  They could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which _created_ the married tax return.
> 
> When two _gay_ people get married, they are not allowed to file a married tax return.   For some reason, it scares the living bejeesus out of some people if they were to file a married tax return.
> 
> This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws".
> 
> Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  I know some of you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true!  There are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it.  You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason.   You must have a _rational_ reason for denying that protection to them.
> 
> "I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from entering into a matrimonial contract and filing a joint tax return.
> 
> All of the above was established in precedent by _Loving v. Virginia_.  Read it.  Learn it.  Because when gay marriage finally comes before the Supreme Court, it will be cited as the precedent for legalizing gay marriage all the way up to the federal level.  This will result in the interesting paradox of some ignorant blacks screaming about using the struggle for black equality to achieve gay equality.
> 
> I would hope the people on the opposing legal team would bring up the incest and bestiality red herring when that day comes in court, just for the yucks it would bring, but they could not be lawyers if they were that profoundly stupid.
Click to expand...


"I hate incestuous octegenarians", is, like "I hate fags"  not a rational reason to prevent two people from entering into a matrimonial contract and filing a joint tax return.  Luckily, its only the very simple-minded like yourself that operate on such an unsophisticated level.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.



Of course you do.  It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless).  It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).

Completely rational person, you are...


----------



## g5000

Pho_King said:


> What you have described are benefits that flow from marriage. In short, you are greatly confusing the issues.



You dumb shit.  Those benefits ARE the issue.

That is all gays want.  To be extended the same protections of the laws as everyone else.

It is as simple as that.  You got so wrapped up in your own smoke and mirrors that you are the one who has become confused.

Before you speak again, just sit and think about that.  

"Huh.  Gays just want to be legally protected the EXACT SAME same as everyone else!"

What a concept!

You are going to need one giant fuck of a red herring now, to cover that up.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless).  It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).
> 
> Completely rational person, you are...
Click to expand...


How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not equated gay marriage and incestuous except for examining how the legal basis for one applies to the legal basis for another.  Have ye the vapors?
> 
> How is an incestuous relationship harmful?  What if it is an incestuous relationship between octegenarians?   How would that be harmful?   Why does the prospect of two 80 year old brothers filing a joint tax return terrify you so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a rational reason for banning gay marraige.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if I don't believe there is one?  Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it?  *Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?*
> 
> Its way more fun to allow you to live in your narrow, simplistic, and utterly self-righteous confines in which anyone that is not as similarly simple-minded as you is a homophobe.
Click to expand...


What have YOU actively done to get that changed?


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships?  To a man who wants to marry two different women that do not know about each other?  Or that do?   Is your basis really that any two consenting adults should have the right to marry?  That is a very broad basis.  But not an unworthy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well incest can be harmful because if they create children they can have all kinds of problems from the inbreeding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the basis for denying incestuous relationships?  Because of potential harm to children?  That seems like a very dangerous argument to make for proponents of gay marriage.  WHat if childbirth isn't a possibility- as between 80 year old relatives?  Or same-sex relatives?
Click to expand...


I guess if they don't have kids I'd be fine with it, if some dude wants to fuck his sister thats no hair off my nose.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless).  It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).
> 
> Completely rational person, you are...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?
Click to expand...


If they have kids it can be, definently.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well incest can be harmful because if they create children they can have all kinds of problems from the inbreeding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the basis for denying incestuous relationships?  Because of potential harm to children?  That seems like a very dangerous argument to make for proponents of gay marriage.  WHat if childbirth isn't a possibility- as between 80 year old relatives?  Or same-sex relatives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess if they don't have kids I'd be fine with it, if some dude wants to fuck his sister thats no hair off my nose.
Click to expand...


But we are not talking about fuckin.  That has nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage.  Indeed, I can think of very compelling reasons siblings might want to get married that has nothing to do with sex.  But rather with the benefits.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless).  It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).
> 
> Completely rational person, you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have kids it can be, definently.
Click to expand...


Any relationship can be harmful to the kids produced.   If you are referring to the biological issues associated with such offspring, there are lots of other couples that pose similar risks.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the basis for denying incestuous relationships?  Because of potential harm to children?  That seems like a very dangerous argument to make for proponents of gay marriage.  WHat if childbirth isn't a possibility- as between 80 year old relatives?  Or same-sex relatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if they don't have kids I'd be fine with it, if some dude wants to fuck his sister thats no hair off my nose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we are not talking about fuckin.  That has nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage.  Indeed, I can think of very compelling reasons siblings might want to get married that has nothing to do with sex.  But rather with the benefits.
Click to expand...


What would the benefits be? tax breaks?


----------



## mal

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if they don't have kids I'd be fine with it, if some dude wants to fuck his sister thats no hair off my nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we are not talking about fuckin.  That has nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage.  Indeed, I can think of very compelling reasons siblings might want to get married that has nothing to do with sex.  But rather with the benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would the benefits be? tax breaks?
Click to expand...


Tax Breaks and when Caring for a Child... Which happens. 



peace...


----------



## mal

Pho_King said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless).  It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).
> 
> Completely rational person, you are...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?
Click to expand...


Well, one could say the the Fall of the Crown was partly due to Inbreeding... 

If Marriage isn't about ProCreation then those for Homosexual Marriage shouldn't Concern themselves with the Relationship or Number of those in other "Marriages" if they Intend on Expanding this "Right" they have Created.

^Bodecea and Sea will NOT Address that. 



peace...


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if they don't have kids I'd be fine with it, if some dude wants to fuck his sister thats no hair off my nose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we are not talking about fuckin.  That has nothing to do with the legal aspects of marriage.  Indeed, I can think of very compelling reasons siblings might want to get married that has nothing to do with sex.  But rather with the benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would the benefits be? tax breaks?
Click to expand...


Tax breaks, the succession of wealth, ss benefits, credit-worthiness, the list goes on and on.


----------



## Pho_King

mal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.  It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless).  It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).
> 
> Completely rational person, you are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, one could say the the Fall of the Crown was partly due to Inbreeding...
> 
> If Marriage isn't about ProCreation then those for Homosexual Marriage shouldn't Concern themselves with the Relationship or Number of those in other "Marriages" if they Intend on Expanding this "Right" they have Created.
> 
> ^Bodecea and Sea will NOT Address that.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one could say the the Fall of the Crown was partly due to Inbreeding...
> 
> If Marriage isn't about ProCreation then those for Homosexual Marriage shouldn't Concern themselves with the Relationship or Number of those in other "Marriages" if they Intend on Expanding this "Right" they have Created.
> 
> ^Bodecea and Sea will NOT Address that.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
Click to expand...


Isn't that the whole reason they are illegal in the first place though? I know theres more to this than brothers and sisters marrying is icky.


----------



## Katzndogz

If gays have a problem with protection of the law, then they need to change the law they don't need to disturb the tradition of marriage.  Unless the whole point is to disturb the tradition of marriage, then no matter how many legal protections they have it won't be enough.


----------



## mal

Pho_King said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one could say the the Fall of the Crown was partly due to Inbreeding...
> 
> If Marriage isn't about ProCreation then those for Homosexual Marriage shouldn't Concern themselves with the Relationship or Number of those in other "Marriages" if they Intend on Expanding this "Right" they have Created.
> 
> ^Bodecea and Sea will NOT Address that.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
Click to expand...


And on top of that, those Seeking "Homosexual Marriage" say that ProCreation is Irrelevant...

They can't Expand "Rights" in a Exclustionary way...

At least not Honestly.

They would also need to show Proof that Incest is Producing an Abnormally High Rate of Issues at and after Birth.

I'm not sure that they have that Data because Incestuous Births have always occured and are almost never talked about yet the Species carries on.

If Sea or Bodey have the Data that would Compel the Court to Disallow ProCreation amongst Siblings, I'd Love to see it.

And even then, 2 Lesbian Sisters Raising Child Harms NOBODY nor would their Marriage and "Rights" that would come from it.



peace...


----------



## High_Gravity

mal said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one could say the the Fall of the Crown was partly due to Inbreeding...
> 
> If Marriage isn't about ProCreation then those for Homosexual Marriage shouldn't Concern themselves with the Relationship or Number of those in other "Marriages" if they Intend on Expanding this "Right" they have Created.
> 
> ^Bodecea and Sea will NOT Address that.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And on top of that, those Seeking "Homosexual Marriage" say that ProCreation is Irrelevant...
> 
> They can't Expand "Rights" in a Exclustionary way...
> 
> At least not Honestly.
> 
> They would also need to show Proof that Incest is Producing an Abnormally High Rate of Issues at and after Birth.
> 
> I'm not sure that they have that Data because Incestuous Births have always occured and are almost never talked about yet the Species carries on.
> 
> If Sea or Bodey have the Data that would Compel the Court to Disallow ProCreation amongst Siblings, I'd Love to see it.
> 
> And even then, 2 Lesbian Sisters Raising Child Harms NOBODY nor would their Marriage and "Rights" that would come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


I don't know about stats but I have seen a brother and sister that were produced from an incestous marriage before, and they were all kinds of wrong physically, wish I had pics to show you.


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.



The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.


----------



## mal

High_Gravity said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, those Seeking "Homosexual Marriage" say that ProCreation is Irrelevant...
> 
> They can't Expand "Rights" in a Exclustionary way...
> 
> At least not Honestly.
> 
> They would also need to show Proof that Incest is Producing an Abnormally High Rate of Issues at and after Birth.
> 
> I'm not sure that they have that Data because Incestuous Births have always occured and are almost never talked about yet the Species carries on.
> 
> If Sea or Bodey have the Data that would Compel the Court to Disallow ProCreation amongst Siblings, I'd Love to see it.
> 
> And even then, 2 Lesbian Sisters Raising Child Harms NOBODY nor would their Marriage and "Rights" that would come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about stats but I have seen a brother and sister that were produced from an incestous marriage before, and they were all kinds of wrong physically, wish I had pics to show you.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.

Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.

With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.

It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.

Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.

Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.

Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.

When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.



peace...


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Unoriginal Dumptruck. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea

Katzndogz said:


> If gays have a problem with protection of the law, then they need to change the law they don't need to disturb the tradition of marriage.  Unless the whole point is to disturb the tradition of marriage, then no matter how many legal protections they have it won't be enough.



What makes you think that you own civil marriage and can deny other law-abiding, tax-paying consenting, adult citizens without good legal reasons for doing so?


----------



## High_Gravity

mal said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And on top of that, those Seeking "Homosexual Marriage" say that ProCreation is Irrelevant...
> 
> They can't Expand "Rights" in a Exclustionary way...
> 
> At least not Honestly.
> 
> They would also need to show Proof that Incest is Producing an Abnormally High Rate of Issues at and after Birth.
> 
> I'm not sure that they have that Data because Incestuous Births have always occured and are almost never talked about yet the Species carries on.
> 
> If Sea or Bodey have the Data that would Compel the Court to Disallow ProCreation amongst Siblings, I'd Love to see it.
> 
> And even then, 2 Lesbian Sisters Raising Child Harms NOBODY nor would their Marriage and "Rights" that would come from it.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about stats but I have seen a brother and sister that were produced from an incestous marriage before, and they were all kinds of wrong physically, wish I had pics to show you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.
> 
> Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.
> 
> With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.
> 
> It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.
> 
> Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.
> 
> Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.
> 
> Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.
> 
> When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations.  The relationships were not the problem.  The biological issues were.  Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects.  Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though.  Or of having kids.


----------



## mal

And the simple Answer to Siblings who get Pregnant while Married is for them to Exercise that Wonderful "Right" to Abortion...

What good is a "Right" if you don't use it? 

I would Accurately Assume that Most Homosexuals are Pro-Choice, so they would have to Support this as the Answer to any Concern they had for Birth Defects in Siblings.

God is Cruel... He Allows Siblings to ProCreate but not Homosexuals. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.



The backwoods of Appalachia and the South would disagree with you.


----------



## mal

High_Gravity said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about stats but I have seen a brother and sister that were produced from an incestous marriage before, and they were all kinds of wrong physically, wish I had pics to show you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.
> 
> Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.
> 
> With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.
> 
> It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.
> 
> Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.
> 
> Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.
> 
> Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.
> 
> When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.
Click to expand...


Definitely because of Offspring...

But hey, Homosexuals can't ProCreate but they can Adopt...

Why would they want to Deny (2) Siblings that same Choice and "Right" to Marriage?

What if the Siblings Offered to get Sterilized if they were Opposite Sex?...

Or if they are in their 70's or 80's?...

Why are people trying to Expand "Rights" to the Exclusion of some in this Society based on Bigotry?... 



peace...


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The backwoods of Appalachia and the South would disagree with you.
Click to expand...


^Feel the Hate... 



peace...


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations.  The relationships were not the problem.  The biological issues were.  Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects.  Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though.  Or of having kids.
Click to expand...


And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about stats but I have seen a brother and sister that were produced from an incestous marriage before, and they were all kinds of wrong physically, wish I had pics to show you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.
> 
> Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.
> 
> With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.
> 
> It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.
> 
> Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.
> 
> Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.
> 
> Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.
> 
> When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.
Click to expand...


The issues with offspring are the foundation of the proscriptions.  However many states also define incest as between unrelated persons within a marriage.  

my point is, proponents of gay marriage undercut their arguments by labeling incestuous relationships as harmful, and therefore undeserving of marital status.  An incestuous relationship need not involve child-bearing.  Two parents genetically dispossessed to osteoarthritis have an elevated risk of having kids that suffer terribly from it.  So what?


----------



## mal

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations.  The relationships were not the problem.  The biological issues were.  Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects.  Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though.  Or of having kids.
Click to expand...


Age of the Female is one.

Yet there is no Denying Women the "Right" to try to get Pregnant at any point in their Lives.



peace...


----------



## mal

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.
> 
> Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.
> 
> With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.
> 
> It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.
> 
> Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.
> 
> Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.
> 
> Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.
> 
> When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issues with offspring are the foundation of the proscriptions.  However many states also define incest as between unrelated persons within a marriage.
> 
> my point is, proponents of gay marriage undercut their arguments by labeling incestuous relationships as harmful, and therefore undeserving of marital status.  An incestuous relationship need not involve child-bearing.  Two parents genetically dispossessed to osteoarthritis have an elevated risk of having kids that suffer terribly from it.  So what?
Click to expand...


It's Obvious that they don't want their Deviation Compared to others... Doesn't help the Agenda. 



peace...


----------



## High_Gravity

mal said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it... But from what I remember when this Debate happened at another Site, the Data is Difficult to pin down because of the Secrecy about the Incest in the first place.
> 
> Many people give birth at Home, especially in Poor areas.
> 
> With the Data that I did see from the CDC I believe, Incest doesn't even Mostly cause issues in the Offspring.
> 
> It's pretty Rare but it appears Higher than non-Incestous Births on the Surface.
> 
> Without the Ability to Verify the Secret Incestuous Births, that Data will never be Solid.
> 
> Having said that, keeping Siblings from Marrying can't be Predicated on the Assumption that they will have Sex.
> 
> Sisters can't Reproduce... Brothers can't Reproduce.
> 
> When Caring for a Child they are being Denied ALL of the same "Rights" that the Homosexual Community is Demanding in their Choice.
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely because of Offspring...
> 
> But hey, Homosexuals can't ProCreate but they can Adopt...
> 
> Why would they want to Deny (2) Siblings that same Choice and "Right" to Marriage?
> 
> What if the Siblings Offered to get Sterilized if they were Opposite Sex?...
> 
> Or if they are in their 70's or 80's?...
> 
> Why are people trying to Expand "Rights" to the Exclusion of some in this Society based on Bigotry?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...


If the siblings were not to have kids I would be ok with it I guess.


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations.  The relationships were not the problem.  The biological issues were.  Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects.  Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though.  Or of having kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.
Click to expand...


Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they want to be precise with their reasoning, which is required when analyzing an issue for its legal foundations.  The relationships were not the problem.  The biological issues were.  Plenty of unrelated couples have elevated risks of birth defects.  Thats not really a reason to prevent them from marrying, though.  Or of having kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.
Click to expand...


That's interesting.   Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws?   TIA


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's interesting.   Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws?   TIA
Click to expand...


I will not do a state-by-state analysis for you, but in Alabama relations between a step-parent and step-child. adopted siblings, and half-blood relatives are prohibited under section 13A-13-3 of the criminal code.


----------



## Katzndogz

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biological issues with generation are not evidence that incestuous relationships are in and of themselves harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British Royal Family of the late 1800s might disagree with you.
Click to expand...


No since royal brothers did not marry royal sisters.  However the pharonic dynasties of Egypt would agree right away.

Children of incestuous marraiges are expected to be aborted anyway!  Of more concern than the childen of incestuous marriage should be the many children born in insular inner cities where children generally have no idea who their fathers are, and in some cases mothers either.  There are no reliable birth records and no marriage records at all.


----------



## mal

Age is the other Issue...

Back in the Stonewall Days the Gays not only Allowed NAMBLA to March with them in thier "Rights" Parades, they were so Directly Associated with them up until 1994 that they finally had to cut all ties after being removed from World Conference on Disease and Population.

At the time, that was the ILGA, the foremost group of the Agenda.

It was front page News when it happened.

Since then they haven't been outwardly Supportive of their Brothers and Sisters in Arms as they were in the 70's and 80's.

They like to Act as if they don't Support it these days because a Child can't Consent, but you can see more than a few Liberals in our Higher Institutions of Learning who argue FOR "Adult/Child Sex".

Harmful to Minors

Here is a purged Story that WAS in the Star Tribune:

*University of Minnesota Press book challenges anxiety about pedophilia *

Mark O'Keefe Newhouse News Service
Published Mar 26, 2002 

Source: StarTribune.com: News, weather, sports from Minneapolis, St. Paul and Minnesota 

Sex between adults and children has been a societal taboo so strong that it's considered one of our few unquestioned moral principles. But arguments have emerged in academic journals, books and online that at least some such sex should be acceptable, especially when children consent to it. 

Those making the case aren't just fringe groups, such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, but a handful of academics at mainstream universities. 

Members of this school of thought stress that they don't condone coercing children into sex, and that they are not pro-pedophilia, as the term is commonly understood. But several contend that minors are capable of agreeing to and even initiating sex with adults. 

These academics seek to change the language, moving away from "pedophilia," which often evokes a charged negative response, particularly in light of the priest-pedophile cases challenging the Roman Catholic Church. In its place would be more neutral terms such as "intergenerational sex" or "adult-child sex." 

With more research, some scholars say, it may be only a matter of time before modern society accepts adult-child sex, just as it has learned to accept premarital sex and homosexual sex. 

"Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality," wrote one of the trailblazers for this view, Harris Mirkin, an associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. 

*Edited, read entire article using the link-Meister*
© Copyright 2002 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. 


^Every Professor in mentioned in that Article are Unapologetic Liberals.



peace...


----------



## Pho_King

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because of that, I do not believe there are legal restrictions for brothers/sisters to marry if they are not biologically linked....i.e. adopted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's interesting.   Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws?   TIA
Click to expand...


Here is a link to a state-by state analysis of incest laws.  Hopefully, when you are asked to support your oft-bizarre statements, you will be likewise generous.

statelaws


----------



## Katzndogz

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting.   Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws?   TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not do a state-by-state analysis for you, but in Alabama relations between a step-parent and step-child. adopted siblings, and half-blood relatives are prohibited under section 13A-13-3 of the criminal code.
Click to expand...


Somehow, the name Woody Allen comes to mind.


----------



## mal

High_Gravity said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the reason for incestous marriages being illegal in the first place? I thought it was because of the off spring? I do agree about the data on this being hard to find though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely because of Offspring...
> 
> But hey, Homosexuals can't ProCreate but they can Adopt...
> 
> Why would they want to Deny (2) Siblings that same Choice and "Right" to Marriage?
> 
> What if the Siblings Offered to get Sterilized if they were Opposite Sex?...
> 
> Or if they are in their 70's or 80's?...
> 
> Why are people trying to Expand "Rights" to the Exclusion of some in this Society based on Bigotry?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the siblings were not to have kids I would be ok with it I guess.
Click to expand...


It's the only Honest and Logical Conclusion that anyone who Supports Gay Marriage can come to.

I Support Civil Unions by the way. 



peace...


----------



## Seawytch

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that happens.  But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner?  Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong.  And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy.   And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships.  Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.
Click to expand...


Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right. 

When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?


----------



## bodecea

Pho_King said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many states do proscribe sexual or marital relationships between non-biological relatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting.   Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws?   TIA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is a link to a state-by state analysis of incest laws.  Hopefully, when you are asked to support your oft-bizarre statements, you will be likewise generous.
> 
> statelaws
Click to expand...


Thank you...and whenever anyone has asked for links from me, I've always been happy to oblige.


----------



## bodecea

Katzndogz said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting.   Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws?   TIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will not do a state-by-state analysis for you, but in Alabama relations between a step-parent and step-child. adopted siblings, and half-blood relatives are prohibited under section 13A-13-3 of the criminal code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow, the name Woody Allen comes to mind.
Click to expand...


Interestingly enough...that was totally legal.


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner?  Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong.  And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy.   And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships.  Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
> 
> When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
Click to expand...


It's not Tradition... It's the FACT that Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal. 



peace...


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting.   Tell me more....What states and can we see links to said laws?   TIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to a state-by state analysis of incest laws.  Hopefully, when you are asked to support your oft-bizarre statements, you will be likewise generous.
> 
> statelaws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you...and whenever anyone has asked for links from me, I've always been happy to oblige.
Click to expand...


You mentioned Incest at least in passing... How about the Stats on Birth Defects from it. 



peace...


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner? Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong. And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy. And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships. Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
> 
> When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
Click to expand...

 
You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.

For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land. 

I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.

I'm so sick of the whole attitude that we have to give assholes like you anything you ask for, or be labeled as "bigots". I want a million dollars. Give it to me, now! No? Well then, you're a bigot! I have as much right to a million dollars as anyone who has a million dollars, after all. It's no FAIR that I be required to work for it. Some people inherit it, so therefore I must be able to get a million dollars too! Otherwise, you're violating my civil rights!

How asinine can you get. Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.


----------



## Ravi

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner? Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong. And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy. And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships. Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
> 
> When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.*
> 
> For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
> 
> I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
> 
> I'm so sick of the whole attitude that we have to give assholes like you anything you ask for, or be labeled as "bigots". I want a million dollars. Give it to me, now! No? Well then, you're a bigot! I have as much right to a million dollars as anyone who has a million dollars, after all. It's no FAIR that I be required to work for it. Some people inherit it, so therefore I must be able to get a million dollars too! Otherwise, you're violating my civil rights!
> 
> How asinine can you get. Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
Click to expand...

How exactly would one be pretending if they were married?


----------



## J.E.D

mal said:


> Enjoy your Echo Chamber.



Is that what you're calling your gaping ass these days?


----------



## koshergrl

Ravi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
> 
> When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.*
> 
> For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
> 
> I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
> 
> I'm so sick of the whole attitude that we have to give assholes like you anything you ask for, or be labeled as "bigots". I want a million dollars. Give it to me, now! No? Well then, you're a bigot! I have as much right to a million dollars as anyone who has a million dollars, after all. It's no FAIR that I be required to work for it. Some people inherit it, so therefore I must be able to get a million dollars too! Otherwise, you're violating my civil rights!
> 
> How asinine can you get. Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly would one be pretending if they were married?
Click to expand...

 
If you have to change the laws and the definition to accomodate, you're pretending.


----------



## J.E.D

koshergrl said:


> So are you saying people are prevented from getting married to the opposite sex because they're gay?
> 
> Because you know that's a lie. Which sort of takes the wind out of your false argument that gays are being denied anything.



You know exactly what the argument is. Gay people aren't protesting because they can't marry straight people. They're protesting because they can't marry other gay people.


----------



## koshergrl

That's their choice. I can't marry the same sex, either.


----------



## Luissa

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.



Plus I have a friend who works at a gay bar, I guess they are quite annoying to deal with other than the marriage issue. This is a win win situation for them, most likely. They get to make a point, and not deal with them anymore.


----------



## Luissa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
Click to expand...


The women are still allowed to come in the bar.


----------



## J.E.D

koshergrl said:


> That's their choice. I can't marry the same sex, either.



You have failed at life.


----------



## koshergrl

No, I really haven't, lol.


----------



## Pho_King

JosefK said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's their choice. I can't marry the same sex, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have failed at life.
Click to expand...


Then you'd expect her to start embracing the liberal philosophies of rewarding such failures, right?


----------



## bodecea

Ravi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
> 
> When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.*
> 
> For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
> 
> I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
> 
> I'm so sick of the whole attitude that we have to give assholes like you anything you ask for, or be labeled as "bigots". I want a million dollars. Give it to me, now! No? Well then, you're a bigot! I have as much right to a million dollars as anyone who has a million dollars, after all. It's no FAIR that I be required to work for it. Some people inherit it, so therefore I must be able to get a million dollars too! Otherwise, you're violating my civil rights!
> 
> How asinine can you get. Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly would one be pretending if they were married?
Click to expand...


It seems to me that Allie has some very very interesting viewpoints on marriage.   Doesn't she?


----------



## g5000

I imagine this on a FAQ page of a homophobe talking points web site somewhere:

_Q: Why are  you opposed to same sex marriage?_

A: Because incest!


----------



## Ravi

bodecea said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.*
> 
> For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
> 
> I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
> 
> I'm so sick of the whole attitude that we have to give assholes like you anything you ask for, or be labeled as "bigots". I want a million dollars. Give it to me, now! No? Well then, you're a bigot! I have as much right to a million dollars as anyone who has a million dollars, after all. It's no FAIR that I be required to work for it. Some people inherit it, so therefore I must be able to get a million dollars too! Otherwise, you're violating my civil rights!
> 
> How asinine can you get. Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly would one be pretending if they were married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Allie has some very very interesting viewpoints on marriage.   Doesn't she?
Click to expand...


I believe she thinks marriage is a fraud if you don't engage only in the missionary position and have children ever 9 months or so.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly would one be pretending if they were married?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Allie has some very very interesting viewpoints on marriage.   Doesn't she?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe she thinks marriage is a fraud if you don't engage only in the missionary position and have children ever 9 months or so.
Click to expand...


Awe... When one can't Debate...

Did Bodecea put some Peanut Butter out for you?... 



peace...


----------



## Ravi

mal said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Allie has some very very interesting viewpoints on marriage.   Doesn't she?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe she thinks marriage is a fraud if you don't engage only in the missionary position and have children ever 9 months or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awe... When one can't Debate...
> 
> Did Bodecea put some Peanut Butter out for you?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
Click to expand...

You're style of debate:

but, but, AIDS!

but, but, pedophiles!

but, but, unnatural!

Conservatives everywhere are ashamed you call yourself one.


----------



## koshergrl

Try to maintain coherence, progressive idiots.

It's hard, but at least make an effort.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> Try to maintain coherence, progressive idiots.
> 
> It's hard, but at least make an effort.



Yes...your legal reasoning for denying equal rights to your fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens is SOOOO coherent.


----------



## Pho_King

g5000 said:


> I imagine this on a FAQ page of a homophobe talking points web site somewhere:
> 
> _Q: Why are  you opposed to same sex marriage?_
> 
> A: Because incest!



you really are dim.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Gay Bar Owner Shows Intolerance



As with most conservatives, the OP is at least consistent in being wrong.


----------



## mal

Ravi said:


> mal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe she thinks marriage is a fraud if you don't engage only in the missionary position and have children ever 9 months or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awe... When one can't Debate...
> 
> Did Bodecea put some Peanut Butter out for you?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're style of debate:
> 
> but, but, AIDS!
> 
> but, but, pedophiles!
> 
> but, but, unnatural!
> 
> Conservatives everywhere are ashamed you call yourself one.
Click to expand...


Ravi speaks for Conservatives everywhere?... 



peace...


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to maintain coherence, progressive idiots.
> 
> It's hard, but at least make an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...your legal reasoning for denying equal rights to your fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens is SOOOO coherent.
Click to expand...

 
There's no legal reasoning required because the premise is faulty.
You aren't being denied shit.

But don't let that stop you.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to maintain coherence, progressive idiots.
> 
> It's hard, but at least make an effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...your legal reasoning for denying equal rights to your fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens is SOOOO coherent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no legal reasoning required because the premise is faulty.
> You aren't being denied shit.
> 
> But don't let that stop you.
Click to expand...


Why is the premise of law-abiding tax-paying adult citizens faulty?   Explain that one, plz.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner? Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong. And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy. And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships. Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
> 
> When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.
> 
> For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
> 
> I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
Click to expand...


First off, WTF are you talking about? Second of all, I'm *legally *married. I have the same exact legal marriage certificate as millions of other people married in this state. Finally, WTF are you talking about? 

As an aside...since it has already been established that civil marriage is a legal contract, requiring a courts ruling to dissolve it, what other legal contracts do you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to? 



> I'm so sick of the whole attitude that we have to give assholes like you anything you ask for, or be labeled as "bigots". I want a million dollars. Give it to me, now! No? Well then, you're a bigot! I have as much right to a million dollars as anyone who has a million dollars, after all. It's no FAIR that I be required to work for it. Some people inherit it, so therefore I must be able to get a million dollars too! Otherwise, you're violating my civil rights!



Well, I'm certainly not sick of people like you making utterly ridiculous analogies that have absolutely no bearing in reality.  Please keep posting your convoluted thinking. 



> How asinine can you get.



Good question. Just when I think you can't get any more asinine...you do.



> Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.



I'm sure Jesus is so proud of you...


----------



## Seawytch

g5000 said:


> I imagine this on a FAQ page of a homophobe talking points web site somewhere:
> 
> _Q: Why are  you opposed to same sex marriage?_
> 
> A: Because incest!


----------



## J.E.D

koshergrl said:
			
		

> Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.



Wow. You need professional help.


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine this on a FAQ page of a homophobe talking points web site somewhere:
> 
> _Q: Why are  you opposed to same sex marriage?_
> 
> A: Because incest!
Click to expand...


Terrible Analogy is Terrible. 

Tell me again how Homosexuality happens in Nature...

Your Selective Comparisons of yourself to Animalistic Behaviours is Entertaining.



peace...


----------



## mal

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
> 
> When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.
> 
> For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
> 
> I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, WTF are you talking about? Second of all, I'm *legally *married. I have the same exact legal marriage certificate as millions of other people married in this state. Finally, WTF are you talking about?
> 
> As an aside...since it has already been established that civil marriage is a legal contract, requiring a courts ruling to dissolve it, what other legal contracts do you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm certainly not sick of people like you making utterly ridiculous analogies that have absolutely no bearing in reality.  Please keep posting your convoluted thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How asinine can you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question. Just when I think you can't get any more asinine...you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure Jesus is so proud of you...
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/226317-jesus-on-marriage.html

^I'll be over there if you feel Courageous enough to join in the Discussion of just how Absurd your Insinuations about Jesus are. 



peace...


----------



## bodecea

JosefK said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You need professional help.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  Allie's that kind of "Christian" that uses her religion and her god to "get even" with people she doesn't like.


----------



## mal

bodecea said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You need professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Allie's that kind of "Christian" that uses her religion and her god to "get even" with people she doesn't like.
Click to expand...


And you use your Sexual Deviation as a Pejorative Weapon to Silence those that Disagree with your Agenda...

You are Soulmates. 



peace...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Seawytch said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc.  As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
> 
> Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
Click to expand...


Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.

Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .


----------



## Katzndogz

The bar owner should have every right to ban straight women, or bachelorette parties or anything he wants to ban.  Just like another bar owner should have the right to ban gays, and Inns should have the right to ban gay couples.  

A gay bar in Denmark bans "offensive kissing" by heterosexual couples.

Gay bar bans straight couples from kissing - Times Of India

In Australia gay bar owners have the right to ban heterosexuals completely.

Heterosexuals Are Banned at a Gay Pub in Australia - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Establishments who cater to heterosexuals should have that same right.


----------



## bodecea

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
Click to expand...


Well, you are welcome to join some kind of lawsuit against this bar if you think they are taking away anyone's rights.   Let us know how it goes, eh?


----------



## bodecea

Katzndogz said:


> The bar owner should have every right to ban straight women, or bachelorette parties or anything he wants to ban.  Just like another bar owner should have the right to ban gays, and Inns should have the right to ban gay couples.
> 
> A gay bar in Denmark bans "offensive kissing" by heterosexual couples.
> 
> Gay bar bans straight couples from kissing - Times Of India
> 
> In Australia gay bar owners have the right to ban heterosexuals completely.
> 
> Heterosexuals Are Banned at a Gay Pub in Australia - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
> 
> Establishments who cater to heterosexuals should have that same right.



Last I checked...India and Australia are not part of the U.S.   Has something changed in that regard lately?


----------



## koshergrl

We're now a world culture. We're continually told to model ourselves after Europe, and admonished to care what other countries think of us. So we will reference other countries when it comes to these issues, you've made them relevant. Congrats.


----------



## Seawytch

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
> 
> This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
Click to expand...


The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations.


----------



## Pho_King

Seawytch said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. *that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations*.
Click to expand...


so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.

or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.


----------



## koshergrl

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also. That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. *that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.
Click to expand...

 
Who's stopping celebrations of gay birthdays?

That's almost the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and indicative of the inflammatory, and dishonest, bullshit that the homosexual lobby engages in to force us to accomodate their every idiotic whim.


----------



## koshergrl

"You WILL acknowledge us as married and you WILL celebrate our birthdays...OR ELSE!"


----------



## Pho_King

koshergrl said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. *that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's stopping celebrations of gay birthdays?
> 
> That's almost the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and indicative of the inflammatory, and dishonest, bullshit that the homosexual lobby engages in to force us to accomodate their every idiotic whim.
Click to expand...


Nobody, to my knowledge.  But such a ban would apply equally to both orientations, and the statement is thus on all fours with the post i responded to.


----------



## Pho_King

koshergrl said:


> "You WILL acknowledge us as married and you WILL celebrate our birthdays...OR ELSE!"



thats what the bachellorettes should be saying.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You WILL acknowledge us as married and you WILL celebrate our birthdays...OR ELSE!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the bachellorettes should be saying.
Click to expand...


Why should you have to celebrate someone elses birthday?


----------



## Pho_King

High_Gravity said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You WILL acknowledge us as married and you WILL celebrate our birthdays...OR ELSE!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the bachellorettes should be saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should you have to celebrate someone elses birthday?
Click to expand...


Excellent point, High Gravity.  I stand humbled by you.


----------



## High_Gravity

Pho_King said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the bachellorettes should be saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you have to celebrate someone elses birthday?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point, High Gravity.  I stand humbled by you.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

I hereby insist that everybody celebrate my awesomeness.


----------



## koshergrl

If you don't, you're a bigot and squelching my right to be awesome.


----------



## Sky Dancer

The first gay bar in Eugene Oregon was rumored to be run by the Mafia.  I don't think they discriminate on sin industry.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

bodecea said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are welcome to join some kind of lawsuit against this bar if you think they are taking away anyone's rights.   Let us know how it goes, eh?
Click to expand...


Translation:  Damn pilgrim is right, he made a good point, I'm not mature enough to acknowledge it so I'll make some snide comment instead


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Seawytch said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations.
Click to expand...


What is his reasoning to deny batchelorette parties again?    Ahem....i'll wait for you to try and dance around that landmine of a question.


----------



## Buford

JosefK said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You need professional help.
Click to expand...


If she's wrong, she's lost nothing.  If she's right, you've lost everything.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> If you don't, you're a bigot and squelching my right to be awesome.



Ok, Caligula.


----------



## Seawytch

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. *that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


Religions are free to say that, the government is not.



> or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.



Not the same. It WOULD be the same if you said no birthday parties, period.


----------



## J.E.D

koshergrl said:


> We're now a world culture. We're continually told to model ourselves after Europe, and admonished to care what other countries think of us. So we will reference other countries when it comes to these issues, you've made them relevant. Congrats.


----------



## J.E.D

Buford said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You need professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she's wrong, she's lost nothing.
Click to expand...


Just any appearance of being a sane and rational person.



> If she's right, you've lost everything.



If heaven is a place that excludes people for their political views, then I'm not interested in gaining entry.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also.   That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
> 
> Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is his reasoning to deny batchelorette parties again?    Ahem....i'll wait for you to try and dance around that landmine of a question.
Click to expand...


Or you could just pretend no one asked 



Seawytch said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. *that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions are free to say that, the government is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same. It WOULD be the same if you said no birthday parties, period.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pho_King

Seawytch said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. *that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions are free to say that, the government is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same. It WOULD be the same if you said no birthday parties, period.
Click to expand...


What is so special about gay birthdays, that a business could not prevent their celebration, that is not also special about bachelorette parties?  Why are homos more special to you than straight, engaged women?


----------



## koshergrl

Any excuse for a cake and drinks works for me.

I'd be willing to celebrate the anniversary of the release of Spartacus, if it meant cake.


----------



## Seawytch

Pho_King said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> 
> so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions are free to say that, the government is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same. It WOULD be the same if you said no birthday parties, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is so special about gay birthdays, that a business could not prevent their celebration, that is not also special about bachelorette parties?  Why are homos more special to you than straight, engaged women?
Click to expand...


If you don't see the difference between saying no birthdays compared to no gay birthdays, none of us can help you.


----------



## Katzndogz

Gays find that women flaunt their sexuality reminding gay men that they don't really have pussies.


----------



## Cenotaph

Katzndogz said:


> Gays find that women flaunt their sexuality reminding gay men that they don't really have pussies.



I'm sorry... What?


----------

