Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[GreenBean]

What is really crazy is the insistence of the religious whacks that states adhere to the most offensive of tactics.
Friends of ours got married in NY. One of them was a Delta pilot and former Navy fighter pilot. He got cancer while finally getting to the top over seas routes out of Hartsfield here which is Delta's top hub. And when he died they would not put "married" on his death certificate and checked "never married".
An insult to him, his partner of 17 years and his family.

Another amazingly convenient story , that fits perfectly into the fantasy scenario that the Gay agenda wishes to paint . How convenient

"Gay agenda"
Such a fool you are.
I am a 59 year old straight, southern by the Grace of God, BULLDOG FOR LIFE, redneck, fisnin and huntin white male.
I have no agenda other than knowing I am right and you are wrong.
A Christian loves thy neighbor and treats them as equal.
Something you know nothing about.

Well we have something in common - I consider myself to be a proud redneck as well , a well educated one . I'm only half white -your kind would call me a half breed . And I am certainly not a Christian, but I do study your mythology and admire Christian Morals.

I suggest , that if you really are all you say, than perhaps you should educate yourself on the scope and power of the Gay Agenda and the Gay Mafia learn the facts about the social engineering and societal decay being orchestrated and perpetrated, and learn to distinguish between propaganda and reality, Truth and convenient fiction.

Reality can sometimes be cruel ,it hurts.

Perhaps, if your not just another sock puppet and you truly are as you claim an admirable redneck you might educate yourself a bit more by googling Barry Diller or Killer diller velvet mafia . Good Luck to you brother.

 

[GreenBean]

This is post number who cares. Gays where never the poor little abused babies they made themselves out to be. They make all that molah, they can oh so subtly buy Lawyers, advertisersers and buy our collective conscience, and they are doing a bang up job. But I am not buying it. Neither should any of the rest of you.

Hmmmm, gays don't deserve equal rights because they make money? WTF?

It seems to me you omitted the most important part of the MaryL post... how convenient

...buy our collective conscience, and they are doing a bang up job.

 

[Redfish]

If you believe that there is no compelling state interest in prohibiting Polygamy then gays marrying has nothing to do with it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

What part of, it's your argument, do you not understand!

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

you are so obsessed with calling your gay union a marriage that you are unable to comprehend the logical, legal, and societal implications that will come about from it.

If just for a few minutes you would get off your unicorn and face reality, you might see that the rationale put forth on gay "marriage" and where it will lead is accurate.

Stop considering yourself an affirmative action candidate and get on with life. No one really cares what two women or two men do in private, just don't use the govt to force us to call it normal, because its not and never will be. Your genetic code is scrambled, its not your fault, but its not normal.

 

[GreenBean]

Another amazingly convenient story , that fits perfectly into the fantasy scenario that the Gay agenda wishes to paint . How convenient

"Gay agenda"
Such a fool you are.
I am a 59 year old straight, southern by the Grace of God, BULLDOG FOR LIFE, redneck, fisnin and huntin white male.
I have no agenda other than knowing I am right and you are wrong.
A Christian loves thy neighbor and treats them as equal.
Something you know nothing about.

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

Allthough I find it difficult to argue against Gay Marriage, as I feel it is something that even Mentally disturbed people, which includes homosexuals , should be entitled to but... " to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way."

Lesbian ‘throuple’ proves Scalia right on slippery slopes

 

[Pop23]

"Gay agenda"
Such a fool you are.
I am a 59 year old straight, southern by the Grace of God, BULLDOG FOR LIFE, redneck, fisnin and huntin white male.
I have no agenda other than knowing I am right and you are wrong.
A Christian loves thy neighbor and treats them as equal.
Something you know nothing about.

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

Allthough I find it difficult to argue against Gay Marriage, as I feel it is something that even Mentally disturbed people, which includes homosexuals , should be entitled to but... " to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way."

Lesbian ‘throuple’ proves Scalia right on slippery slopes

The link you provided could not have summed this issue up better.

The slope is steep, the only question is, do we want to slide on it?

 

[Paperman299]

Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way.

That is completely untrue. Those who have civil unions miss out on many of the benefits of marriage, including:

- Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
- The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
- Tax benefits available to married couples only
- Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
- Federal benefits, such as medical and life insurance

A civil union is quite literally a second-class marriage.

 

[Redfish]

Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way.

That is completely untrue. Those who have civil unions miss out on many of the benefits of marriage, including:

- Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
- The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
- Tax benefits available to married couples only
- Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
- Federal benefits, such as medical and life insurance

A civil union is quite literally a second-class marriage.

horseshit, like seabytch you miss the point. We are saying that civil unions for gays SHOULD provide all of the legal benefits that marriage provides to man/woman couples. The laws should provide that TWO men or TWO women could unite in a civil union and that that union would be recognized in all states and would carry all of the legal, tax, inheritence, etc benefits of a man/woman marriage.

It would give you everything you say that you want. But thats not really what its about is it?

 

[GreenBean]

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

Allthough I find it difficult to argue against Gay Marriage, as I feel it is something that even Mentally disturbed people, which includes homosexuals , should be entitled to but... " to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way."

Lesbian ‘throuple’ proves Scalia right on slippery slopes

The link you provided could not have summed this issue up better.

The slope is steep, the only question is, do we want to slide on it?

In the direction society is being manipulated - I think it's more like a cliff we are being pushed over , rather than a slimy slope.

 

[GreenBean]

Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way.

That is completely untrue. Those who have civil unions miss out on many of the benefits of marriage, including:

- Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
- The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
- Tax benefits available to married couples only
- Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
- Federal benefits, such as medical and life insurance

A civil union is quite literally a second-class marriage.

I would think that is somewhat appropriate as homosexuals due to their sexual dysphoria are somewhat subhuman, which in effect is second class .

 

[Paperman299]

Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way.

That is completely untrue. Those who have civil unions miss out on many of the benefits of marriage, including:

- Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
- The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
- Tax benefits available to married couples only
- Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
- Federal benefits, such as medical and life insurance

A civil union is quite literally a second-class marriage.

horseshit, like seabytch you miss the point. We are saying that civil unions for gays SHOULD provide all of the legal benefits that marriage provides to man/woman couples. The laws should provide that TWO men or TWO women could unite in a civil union and that that union would be recognized in all states and would carry all of the legal, tax, inheritence, etc benefits of a man/woman marriage.

It would give you everything you say that you want. But thats not really what its about is it?

That demonstrably is not what you said in the post in I quoted, but okay. Let's talk about this now.

Show me the example in our history where two different groups of people truly had "separate but equal" considerations. It's a myth, one debunked since 1954. You can claim that we'll put heterosexual unions in one category and homosexual unions in another and the institutions will be "separate but equal," but history shows us that would never happen.

Separate is never equal, whether it's marriages or drinking fountains.

 

[GreenBean]

What part of, it's your argument, do you not understand!

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional. In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box.

Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional. In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box.

Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional

So what? It's Biblical so relax. That should make you happy.

 

[KNB]

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

A judge from Mormon Utah tried to get rid of a ban on polygamy?

Same-sex marriage is nothing like polygamy because same-sex marriage only involves two people.

 

[Seawytch]

I've shown you they are related. You posed the question of compelling state interests and then refuse to answer the questions? Your care means nothing, you understand that right? Of course you do. You simply can't answer the questions because of how it reflects on your argument.

No, actually you didn't. Again, I don't care. Good luck. I hope you hurry...the wife and I would LOVE to bring in a third, but unless I can get her on my healthcare, it just wouldn't be worth the trouble, ya know?

Thanks, now marriage is simply a healthcare concern

You've bolstered my argument.

Wrong again...still mocking, but thanks for playing along!

 

[Seawytch]

What part of, it's your argument, do you not understand!

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

you are so obsessed with calling your gay union a marriage that you are unable to comprehend the logical, legal, and societal implications that will come about from it.

If just for a few minutes you would get off your unicorn and face reality, you might see that the rationale put forth on gay "marriage" and where it will lead is accurate.

Stop considering yourself an affirmative action candidate and get on with life. No one really cares what two women or two men do in private, just don't use the govt to force us to call it normal, because its not and never will be. Your genetic code is scrambled, its not your fault, but its not normal.

Hang...gotta run upstairs to the lock box....

Yup, my license says "marriage". Do I care? Not a bit. If it said "Civil Union", I'd be perfectly okay with that...if yours did too.

My genetic code is fine...and has been passed on to the next generation.

 

[Gadawg73]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

 

[Pop23]

JUDGE CITES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN DECLARING POLYGAMY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

A judge from Mormon Utah tried to get rid of a ban on polygamy?

Same-sex marriage is nothing like polygamy because same-sex marriage only involves two people.

You discount throuple that's been all over the news lately

Shame on you

 

[Pop23]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

Happy for you

I'll bet they come up to you and tell you that, don't they?

Lmao

 

[Pop23]

No, actually you didn't. Again, I don't care. Good luck. I hope you hurry...the wife and I would LOVE to bring in a third, but unless I can get her on my healthcare, it just wouldn't be worth the trouble, ya know?

Thanks, now marriage is simply a healthcare concern

You've bolstered my argument.

Wrong again...still mocking, but thanks for playing along!

Nope, right again. You mock yourself, but too OCD to realize it

 

[Redfish]

Most all the folks I know that are anti gay this and that are really just ashamed and embarrassed of the gay folk they have in their own families.
Sad. People will not even accept as equals their own kin.

Here's what you don't get. being anti gay marriage is not equivalent to be anti gay or anti gay rights.

I have gay friends and relatives and love and respect every one of them. Some are in relationships, some are not. One couple got "married" in DC and they think its a sham just like the rest of us.

Only zealots like wytch think this is a big deal