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

[kaz]

No I haven't. I said that you treat gays seeking marriage equality contemptuously.

You can oppose marriage, just be equally contemptuous.

WTF? I oppose both, what are you talking about?

Yes, you "oppose" both, we get it. You'd divorce your wife if she'd let you, we get it.

My point is that you can stop asking gays snide questions like "why would anyone need government validation through civil marriage" when you are in a government civil marriage and you can just ask yourself or your spouse all these rhetorical questions.

Actually, I said I don't know why ... wait for it ... anyone needs government validation. I did not ask why gays do. So you can relax and pull the stick out...

 

[kaz]

I can tell you for a FACT that married couples in the military enjoy more benefits than what their single counterparts get. Not only in the form of being able to access Ombudsman services, and BAQ, but married people also get more leeway when it comes to drawing up the watch bill on the holidays.

My position is that government should treat all it's citizens the same. No one should pay the death tax, taxes should be flat, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to paternity and not paper, etc. Therefore, there is zero relevance to your quoting my post tor make this point.

You are arguing for discrimination, I am arguing against discrimination. You just want to change the rules of who is on each side of the line. I want to eliminate the line and have government treat it's citizens, all of them, the same. You need to argue this with someone who supports straight marriage and opposes gay marriage. In other words, someone like you who supports governmental discrimination.

 

[mal]

You still aren't answering my question, but that's okay. I understand you not wanting to be as contemptuous of your own spouse as you are of everyone else, like gays, wanting to be civilly married.

You know...this could be the classic "I've got mine, the hell with you" gambit.

No, in this particular case I don't believe it is. He would reject civil marriage, but is deferring to the wishes of his spouse. He is to be commended for that, putting aside his own wants for those of his spouse.

But the snide contempt of gays seeking marriage equality just comes off as pure mean unless he asks this question a bit closer to home:

"Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me."

You need Societal Validation... And it shows.

Those who are not Defying their Natural Design do not Require the State's Approval of what is...

Approve or not, it is what is.

Man and Woman = Life. Man and Man nor Woman and Woman Equal this.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

You know...this could be the classic "I've got mine, the hell with you" gambit.

No, in this particular case I don't believe it is. He would reject civil marriage, but is deferring to the wishes of his spouse. He is to be commended for that, putting aside his own wants for those of his spouse.



But the snide contempt of gays seeking marriage equality just comes off as pure mean unless he asks this question a bit closer to home:



"Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me."

You need Societal Validation... And it shows.



Those who are not Defying their Natural Design do not Require the State's Approval of what is...



Approve or not, it is what is.



Man and Woman = Life. Man and Man nor Woman and Woman Equal this.







peace...

Nope, just equality under the law. We're getting there.

 

[Pop23]

No, in this particular case I don't believe it is. He would reject civil marriage, but is deferring to the wishes of his spouse. He is to be commended for that, putting aside his own wants for those of his spouse.



But the snide contempt of gays seeking marriage equality just comes off as pure mean unless he asks this question a bit closer to home:



"Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me."

You need Societal Validation... And it shows.



Those who are not Defying their Natural Design do not Require the State's Approval of what is...



Approve or not, it is what is.



Man and Woman = Life. Man and Man nor Woman and Woman Equal this.







peace...

Nope, just equality under the law. We're getting there.

And when we allow the blind to hold drivers licenses we can all hold hands and be as one.

Am I right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You know...this could be the classic "I've got mine, the hell with you" gambit.

No, in this particular case I don't believe it is. He would reject civil marriage, but is deferring to the wishes of his spouse. He is to be commended for that, putting aside his own wants for those of his spouse.

But the snide contempt of gays seeking marriage equality just comes off as pure mean unless he asks this question a bit closer to home:

"Why anyone needs government validation to feel "married" is beyond me."

You need Societal Validation... And it shows.

Those who are not Defying their Natural Design do not Require the State's Approval of what is...

Approve or not, it is what is.

Man and Woman = Life. Man and Man nor Woman and Woman Equal this.



peace...

You’re at liberty to not marry someone of the same sex if you don’t want to.

But you’re not at liberty to seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights as a consequence of your ignorant, hate, and stupidity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You need Societal Validation... And it shows.



Those who are not Defying their Natural Design do not Require the State's Approval of what is...



Approve or not, it is what is.



Man and Woman = Life. Man and Man nor Woman and Woman Equal this.







peace...

Nope, just equality under the law. We're getting there.

And when we allow the blind to hold drivers licenses we can all hold hands and be as one.

Am I right?

You are wrong.

There is no Constitutional right to be issued a driver’s license, there is a Constitutional right to be allowed equal protection of the law.

 

[Paperman299]

I can tell you for a FACT that married couples in the military enjoy more benefits than what their single counterparts get. Not only in the form of being able to access Ombudsman services, and BAQ, but married people also get more leeway when it comes to drawing up the watch bill on the holidays.

My position is that government should treat all it's citizens the same. No one should pay the death tax, taxes should be flat, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to paternity and not paper, etc. Therefore, there is zero relevance to your quoting my post tor make this point.

You are arguing for discrimination, I am arguing against discrimination. You just want to change the rules of who is on each side of the line. I want to eliminate the line and have government treat it's citizens, all of them, the same. You need to argue this with someone who supports straight marriage and opposes gay marriage. In other words, someone like you who supports governmental discrimination.

Kaz, you believe marriage creates a kind of discrimination, I get it and I won't argue with you. But that's getting far afield of the real issue.

Do you or do you not believe that homosexuals should be second-class citizens under the law, with access to second-class benefits?

 

[Seawytch]

You need Societal Validation... And it shows.



Those who are not Defying their Natural Design do not Require the State's Approval of what is...



Approve or not, it is what is.



Man and Woman = Life. Man and Man nor Woman and Woman Equal this.







peace...

Nope, just equality under the law. We're getting there.

And when we allow the blind to hold drivers licenses we can all hold hands and be as one.

Am I right?

Why ‘Marriage Equality’ Arguments are Either Question-Begging or False

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I can tell you for a FACT that married couples in the military enjoy more benefits than what their single counterparts get. Not only in the form of being able to access Ombudsman services, and BAQ, but married people also get more leeway when it comes to drawing up the watch bill on the holidays.

My position is that government should treat all it's citizens the same. No one should pay the death tax, taxes should be flat, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to paternity and not paper, etc. Therefore, there is zero relevance to your quoting my post tor make this point.

You are arguing for discrimination, I am arguing against discrimination. You just want to change the rules of who is on each side of the line. I want to eliminate the line and have government treat it's citizens, all of them, the same. You need to argue this with someone who supports straight marriage and opposes gay marriage. In other words, someone like you who supports governmental discrimination.

Better yet, he needs to address the issue with someone who understands the issue, as you clearly do not.

 

[Pop23]

Gender should not be an issue, so if I want to go into the women's shower locker room, the sex that I'm attracted to and am arrested because I'm a male in a female gym shower room, my civil rights are being denied?

Interesting

 

[bodecea]

Gender should not be an issue, so if I want to go into the women's shower locker room, the sex that I'm attracted to and am arrested because I'm a male in a female gym shower room, my civil rights are being denied?

Interesting

Go for it, Pops.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gender should not be an issue, so if I want to go into the women's shower locker room, the sex that I'm attracted to and am arrested because I'm a male in a female gym shower room, my civil rights are being denied?

Interesting

What’s interesting is you’re at least consistent at being wrong.

Same-sex couples’ relationships are consensual, you accosting women in the shower is not.

But you’re fast becoming the master of the false analogy fallacy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gender should not be an issue, so if I want to go into the women's shower locker room, the sex that I'm attracted to and am arrested because I'm a male in a female gym shower room, my civil rights are being denied?

Interesting

What’s interesting is you’re at least consistent at being wrong.

Same-sex couples’ relationships are consensual, you accosting women in the shower is not.

But you’re fast becoming the master of the false analogy fallacy.

We've already created the fork in the rabbit hole for that analogy to work.. BI-sexuals are capable of accosting in either bathroom.. In fact -- California is cool with HS kids making a declaration of which facilities they prefer.. Waaaaay beyond those choices at this point.

So Pops -- remember --- if you're caught in there --- you are the B in the LGBT sandwich.. And on Tues/Thurs -- you are no threat to women.

 

[Gadawg73]

WTF? I oppose both, what are you talking about?

Yes, you "oppose" both, we get it. You'd divorce your wife if she'd let you, we get it.

My point is that you can stop asking gays snide questions like "why would anyone need government validation through civil marriage" when you are in a government civil marriage and you can just ask yourself or your spouse all these rhetorical questions.

Actually, I said I don't know why ... wait for it ... anyone needs government validation. I did not ask why gays do. So you can relax and pull the stick out...

Why do straight folks get a marriage license?

 

[Gadawg73]

I can tell you for a FACT that married couples in the military enjoy more benefits than what their single counterparts get. Not only in the form of being able to access Ombudsman services, and BAQ, but married people also get more leeway when it comes to drawing up the watch bill on the holidays.

My position is that government should treat all it's citizens the same. No one should pay the death tax, taxes should be flat, parental rights and responsibilities should be related to paternity and not paper, etc. Therefore, there is zero relevance to your quoting my post tor make this point.

You are arguing for discrimination, I am arguing against discrimination. You just want to change the rules of who is on each side of the line. I want to eliminate the line and have government treat it's citizens, all of them, the same. You need to argue this with someone who supports straight marriage and opposes gay marriage. In other words, someone like you who supports governmental discrimination.

Kaz, you believe marriage creates a kind of discrimination, I get it and I won't argue with you. But that's getting far afield of the real issue.

Do you or do you not believe that homosexuals should be second-class citizens under the law, with access to second-class benefits?

That is the way I see it.
As well as a growing number of older southern straight white male red necks.

 

[Pop23]

Gender should not be an issue, so if I want to go into the women's shower locker room, the sex that I'm attracted to and am arrested because I'm a male in a female gym shower room, my civil rights are being denied?

Interesting

What’s interesting is you’re at least consistent at being wrong.

Same-sex couples’ relationships are consensual, you accosting women in the shower is not.

But you’re fast becoming the master of the false analogy fallacy.

How is my entering a shower room with women any different than gays entering shower rooms with members of the same sex?

Interesting

 

[Redfish]

Yes, you "oppose" both, we get it. You'd divorce your wife if she'd let you, we get it.

My point is that you can stop asking gays snide questions like "why would anyone need government validation through civil marriage" when you are in a government civil marriage and you can just ask yourself or your spouse all these rhetorical questions.

Actually, I said I don't know why ... wait for it ... anyone needs government validation. I did not ask why gays do. So you can relax and pull the stick out...

Why do straight folks get a marriage license?

This whole debate centers on one thing---------the word "marriage". The current gay agenda is not about equality and rights, they get those things with a civil union or a mutual support contract, the IRS should recognize gay civil unions as equal to a man/woman marriage for tax purposes and inheritence rights.

The gay agenda is an attempt to gain societal validation of gayness as a normal human condition, even though it defies biology and is not normal.

Unless they call their union a marriage, they cannot get the government mandated thought control that they seek.

So, lets recognize this for what it is---------its not about civil rights or equality

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually, I said I don't know why ... wait for it ... anyone needs government validation. I did not ask why gays do. So you can relax and pull the stick out...

Why do straight folks get a marriage license?

This whole debate centers on one thing---------the word "marriage". The current gay agenda is not about equality and rights, they get those things with a civil union or a mutual support contract, the IRS should recognize gay civil unions as equal to a man/woman marriage for tax purposes and inheritence rights.

The gay agenda is an attempt to gain societal validation of gayness as a normal human condition, even though it defies biology and is not normal.

Unless they call their union a marriage, they cannot get the government mandated thought control that they seek.

So, lets recognize this for what it is---------its not about civil rights or equality

How come straight folk do not get civil unions then?
Bring gay is normal to them.
Why can't you just be happy who you are and leave them the hell alone?
That is what Dick Cheney asks. How come we can not respect that these folks want joy and happiness?
Why do you care if they get married or not?
Why do you care if they are considered normal or not? That is just crazy. Of course it is not normal to straight folks. So what. How does any of that affect you?
Is your life so out of whack it gets tilted by gay folks wanting to get married?
Wow, just does not make sense dude. Get over it. Why you get upset over this is incredible.
Go do some volunteer work for the veterans in need in your community. Gay folks are equals to everyone. Get over it.

 

[Gadawg73]

"gay agenda" is bull shit.
Many straight folks support gay rights and we have no fucking agenda, gay or otherwise.
We see it as a NON ISSUE.