Black Republican: Don’t Equate Black Rights And Gay Rights

[mal]

Sort of like when black men wanted to marry white women. There were black women they could marry so they had nothing to complain about

A Black Man and a White Woman CAN Procreate.

Two Men can NOT... Ever.

Two Women can NOT... Ever.

You and yours are Demanding and "Equality" that does NOT Exist Naturally.

My wife and I knew long before the wedding, having children was impossible. By your logic, we shouldn't have been allowed to be married, unless you're going to go circular on us and say it's OK, because we're a man and a woman.

Nope... Not at all and read my post to Sea.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

A Black Man and a White Woman CAN Procreate.

Two Men can NOT... Ever.

Two Women can NOT... Ever.

You and yours are Demanding and "Equality" that does NOT Exist Naturally.



peace...

My grandfather cannot procreate with his girlfriend. Does that mean he cannot get a marriage certificate?

What of sterile couples? My brother had a vasectomy and his wife a hysterectomy...must they divorce in your illogical world?

My partner and I have two children. Do we get to be married?

Nope...

The Possibility only Exists with Opposite Sex Coupling.

There is no Need to Mandate Procreation in Marriage simply because Homosexuals will want to Punish others if their Demands aren't met.

Marriage is a Reflection of our Natural Design.

End of List.

Homosexual Coupling is Physically, Naturally and Facutally NOT Equal to Heterosexual Coupling.



peace...

Won't hold up in court as a valid reason to deny me marriage equality.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why do Republicans care? They don't like either one.

......what 2 posts now.....first one Conservatives were brought up......now Republicans.....you cant help yourself can you Dean?.......seek help....you are obsessed....

 

[konradv]

A Black Man and a White Woman CAN Procreate.

Two Men can NOT... Ever.

Two Women can NOT... Ever.

You and yours are Demanding and "Equality" that does NOT Exist Naturally.



peace...

My grandfather cannot procreate with his girlfriend. Does that mean he cannot get a marriage certificate?

What of sterile couples? My brother had a vasectomy and his wife a hysterectomy...must they divorce in your illogical world?

My partner and I have two children. Do we get to be married?

Nope...

The Possibility only Exists with Opposite Sex Coupling.

There is no Need to Mandate Procreation in Marriage simply because Homosexuals will want to Punish others if their Demands aren't met.

Marriage is a Reflection of our Natural Design.
end of List.

Homosexual Coupling is Physically, Naturally and Facutally NOT Equal to Heterosexual Coupling...

...but ultimately none of your business. End if list!

 

[SillyWabbit]

Anyway, me and my better half

got to go--in-laws coming over

How did you get the sheep to give informed consent so that it could enter into a legal contract?

Hey, she saw the lamb chops getting prepped for dinner and made a quick decision.

I had dinner and dessert that night.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Marriage is spiritual concept. It may have been turned into a legal concept, but is still, essentially, a spiritual one--biology and procreation aside.
Legally, if it's OK for two consenting, adult heterosexuals to acquire a license to be "married," then I think that should be extended to homosexuals as well, to the extent that whatever legal rights hetero's enjoy, homo's should also enjoy the same rights.

That said, the sheep fuckin stays.

We ain't looking for hospital privileges and insurance benefits.
And, you don't have to call us "married."

 

[Nosmo King]

They can't seek what they already have, they can marry just not the special marriage they want, polygamists can have what they want either.

Sort of like when black men wanted to marry white women. There were black women they could marry so they had nothing to complain about

A Black Man and a White Woman CAN Procreate.

Two Men can NOT... Ever.

Two Women can NOT... Ever.

You and yours are Demanding and "Equality" that does NOT Exist Naturally.



peace...

So only those able to procreate should marry? If the outstanding criteria of marriage is procreation, why did my Grandfather re-marry after the death of his wife of 45 years?

I'll tell you something. I'm a straight White man. I have no dog in the fight over 'my struggle is greater than your struggle'. Frankly, I see this argument for what it is: a thin veil concealing even more bigotry. Bigotry from one who you would think would know better, being repressed himself for immutable reasons.

I am a straight White man who was raised by two amazing parents who taught me right from wrong. It's wrong to lie. It's wrong to steal. It's wrong to cheat. And it's wrong to hate before provocation. All worthy virtues. One might say American virtues. All but that last one, I guess.

I know that the way some in society treats homosexual simply because they are homosexuals is the wrong thing to do. It's not indicative of anything close to the sentiments 'Land of the Free' and 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

This bigotry serves no purpose other than to divide, malign, belittle and repress American citizens for being who they are in a supposedly free society. After committing no crime, homosexuals are being discriminated against only for the perverse pleasure of the bigots. It's wrong. It's shameful and it's un-American.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Cornhole at will. Keep it between consenting adults (preferably indoors--the cornholing I mean). It ain't none of my bizness.
In the meantime, there are bigger fish to fry.
The fact that all this is still an issue is a reflection of the bigger fish.

Live and Love.

***Just keep the greasy, naughty bits to yourself.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

This type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”

What were they talking about?

Nobody willing to venture a guess as to what they were talking about in the italicized portion?

It sounds like they are talking about sex and what I find interesting is that the judge seems to be using the type of sex act involved to make a ruling. Personally, I would think the judge’s role would be to only focus on whether marriage is a right or not. And, as I stated earlier, I believe it is not.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

when people are targeted for who they are born to be you have a simular situation.

They are both fighting for their rights to be who they were born to be.

How anyone involved in such a struggle can throw shit bombs at others fighting a simular fight is just silly.

Rights for all of us are tied together.

Drop the hate and look for ways to come together.

I think you are assuming marriage is a right under the federal constitution and I don’t believe that has been decided yet. And, since you need a license to get married (similar to driving); I see no problem with keeping exclusions in the pact.

Also, the left seems to want to claim the moral high ground by using the “rights” argument in this issue but, let’s face it, nobody is campaigning for "Rights for all of us" or everyone’s right to marry anyone they choose. Nope, as far as I can tell, all we have is one very well-funded special interest group seeking inclusion in something that has always been exclusive.

And I see plenty of hate from both sides on this issue.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

The issue is whether universal marriage is a human right.

It is not.

I agree.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

Gay males have been known to have promiscuous sex (well, men in general, but that is neither here nor there). So, what better way to work towards curbing that behavior than.............................KEEPING THEM FROM ESTABLISHING LIFELONG MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS THRU LEGAL BONDING!




Idiots.

I’m replying to this because I have never thought about this from the promiscuous sex side and how men just naturally seem to be a lot more promiscuous then women. The reason I find this interesting is because it naturally seems to follow that, two men in a relationship, would double the problem. And I am not sure what that means, it just seemed interesting.

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

So, gays can't have lifelong, monogamous relationships unless they are legally bound?



That says a lot about gays... you may want to rethink that one.

The bottom line is that gays believe a couple of fuck buddies should get government benefits for the sole reason that they are sleeping together.

No, actually they believe that people who love each other should be allowed to marry

This is the kind of broad language I have a problem with.

My daughter and I love each other but we are also being denied the so-called “right” to marry.

So which is it, a fight for everyone’s right to marry whomever they choose or a fight to include a well-funded special interest group into a historically exclusive contract?

 

[mal]

So only those able to procreate should marry?...

You guys just repeat the same talking points and none of them Counter our Design by Nature or the Reality of our Exisence...

A Black Man and a White Woman CAN Procreate.

Two Men can NOT... Ever.

Two Women can NOT... Ever.

You and yours are Demanding and "Equality" that does NOT Exist Naturally.



peace...

My grandfather cannot procreate with his girlfriend. Does that mean he cannot get a marriage certificate?

What of sterile couples? My brother had a vasectomy and his wife a hysterectomy...must they divorce in your illogical world?

My partner and I have two children. Do we get to be married?

Nope...

The Possibility only Exists with Opposite Sex Coupling.

There is no Need to Mandate Procreation in Marriage simply because Homosexuals will want to Punish others if their Demands aren't met.

Marriage is a Reflection of our Natural Design.

End of List.

Homosexual Coupling is Physically, Naturally and Facutally NOT Equal to Heterosexual Coupling.



peace...

Boring...

Is the goal to just keep repeating the same talking points until Society Caves?...



peace...

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

That's the ONLY qualifier?...



peace...

it was the only qualifier when I married my wife.
What makes you think it would be any different with 2 men or 2 women who love each other?

Or two Sisters?... There are many Siblings who Care for Children together and Love each other and could Benefit from what Marriage Affords.

Why be Exclusionary when Expanding "Rights"?



peace...

Exactly.

 

[G.T.]

Our natural design doesnt need to be reflected by law, instinct does that - - - - - - and if it were, Gays would be included anyways because they occur in nature (obviously).

 

[Seawytch]

This type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”

What were they talking about?

Nobody willing to venture a guess as to what they were talking about in the italicized portion?

It sounds like they are talking about sex and what I find interesting is that the judge seems to be using the type of sex act involved to make a ruling. Personally, I would think the judge’s role would be to only focus on whether marriage is a right or not. And, as I stated earlier, I believe it is not.

They were referring to interracial marriage. Easy to think it's about gay marriage...hence the parallels between interracial marriage bans and gay marriage bans.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you as to whether or not it is a right. They've declared it a fundamental right on numerous occasions.

What reasonable person standard will you use to justify denying me a fundamental right? You must provide a societal harm in allowing same sex marriage. We'll wait.

 

[Seawytch]

Also, I don’t believe anyone is stopping anyone else from entering into the type of monogamous relationship you describe because there are other ways to accomplish legal bonding besides marriage.

So I should have to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to get a fraction of the protections you can get with a $50 marriage license? The fact that I have to pay more in taxes isn't enough for you?

 

[grunt11b]

Michael Steele Says Gay Rights And Black Rights Not The Same | News One


Steele occasionally gets it right.

Noone gives a rats ass what black republicans think. We real republicans dont see skin color, we only see americans and those who are against america. So dont lump us into demographics fucker. We dont like it nor do we approve it.

 

[Gadawg73]

when people are targeted for who they are born to be you have a simular situation.

They are both fighting for their rights to be who they were born to be.

How anyone involved in such a struggle can throw shit bombs at others fighting a simular fight is just silly.

Rights for all of us are tied together.

Drop the hate and look for ways to come together.

I think you are assuming marriage is a right under the federal constitution and I don’t believe that has been decided yet. And, since you need a license to get married (similar to driving); I see no problem with keeping exclusions in the pact.

Also, the left seems to want to claim the moral high ground by using the “rights” argument in this issue but, let’s face it, nobody is campaigning for "Rights for all of us" or everyone’s right to marry anyone they choose. Nope, as far as I can tell, all we have is one very well-funded special interest group seeking inclusion in something that has always been exclusive.

And I see plenty of hate from both sides on this issue.

You have to have a legal reason to exclude. For driving they exclude blind folk.
What legal reason is there to exclude gay folk?
None, as the Constitution does not address it.
You can not just make it up as you go.