Do gays choose to be gay? How can we refuse equal rights?

[Seawytch]

Yes, this is a refrain I hear over and over and over...but where's the legislation? In 20 years of talking about marriage equality, not once have I seen a state legislature or our Congress introduce a bill that would take the government out of the "marriage business". Why is that I wonder?

I wish someone would , I would vote for it! As long as they change the law that my husband can come see me in the ICU or get Power of Attorney or anything a spouse can get now legally.. If gays want to considered married in their eyes, get married no one is stopping them . They dont even have to do the vows at a church. But if they want it in the church,( which by the way is in the constitution)
doesnt believe in gay marriage they should not be required by the government to have them. Build their own churches. No one is stopping them!

Why can you not issue a Power of Attorney to your "husband"? I know hetero couples who have never married but who have managed to attain legal ability to do many of the things gays claim they cannot. (PS: Alaska does not recognize common law marriage.)

Legal marriage comes with hundreds of benefits and privileges. The whole "gays can just get a lawyer" line is bovine feces.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

[Seawytch]

No stupid - I didn't say this was "the first time". I said the U.S. was not legally bound to do so until now.

It's so sad how disingenuous you become when your having your ass handed to you in a debate. You know exactly what I said - but you can't be a big girl when you're wrong so you have to PRETEND like you didn't understand.

Puppy, this wasn't the first time marriages performed in another country were adjudicated here. You're bringing up some really silly shit. Out of other ludicrous arguments?

And Seabytch continues her disingenuous bullshit, clearly indicating she is getting her ass handed to her by more informed people. This is the tactics she uses when she's defeated.

Again, nobody ever said this was "the first time" for anything. The facts remain (no matter how many times you run from them because you've been thoroughly defeated) that we now have a Supreme Court precedence which forces us to recognize the marriages of other nations.

So you know that polygamy thing you are against? Well thanks to people like your dumb-ass, we are now forced to recognize a muslim marriage of 1 jerk and 13 women.

Want to try your disingenuous bullshit again Seabytch, or are you tired of being humiliated?

We are not "forced", we do. It is law that that the US recognizes the marriages of some counties. The Windsor case didn't change that. Calm down Puppy, you're gonna have another tantrum if you're not careful.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If they successfully petition to have their multi-unit relationship recognized as legal, yes I would support it. Ain't gonna happen, but I would support them.

Why could it not happen? If government recognizes "same sex" unions, why not multi-partnered unions?

Because you can ascribe a societal harm to polygamy.Polygamy is the oldest and most practiced form of marriage in societies. What history has shown is that it usually leads to one man, multiple wives and single, pissed off men.

The problem with polygamy - Slate Magazine

Why Men Gave Up Polygamy | Psychology Today

Except in cultures where many of the eligible males have been killed off due to wars, etc. Are homo Sapiens really monogamous by nature? How about polyandry? Not all cultures are patriarchal in nature, some are matriarchal.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I wish someone would , I would vote for it! As long as they change the law that my husband can come see me in the ICU or get Power of Attorney or anything a spouse can get now legally.. If gays want to considered married in their eyes, get married no one is stopping them . They dont even have to do the vows at a church. But if they want it in the church,( which by the way is in the constitution)
doesnt believe in gay marriage they should not be required by the government to have them. Build their own churches. No one is stopping them!

Why can you not issue a Power of Attorney to your "husband"? I know hetero couples who have never married but who have managed to attain legal ability to do many of the things gays claim they cannot. (PS: Alaska does not recognize common law marriage.)

Legal marriage comes with hundreds of benefits and privileges. The whole "gays can just get a lawyer" line is bovine feces.

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

I actually believe that government should not be involved in marriage at all. But that being said, a contract between two consenting adults, regardless of how they conduct their relationship together, should be honored equally, regardless of the gender or relation between the parties. Wouldn't it be nice if my daughter and her daughters could be included on my health insurance?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It doesn't matter if people choose to be gay or not.

No adult should be barred from entering a property contract which is all marriage is.

My partner and I have several "contracts" involving property. No marriage license needed. But there is paperwork involved.

I found that statement to be revealing (no pun intended). Is it really about marriage for homosexuals? Or is it all about the attainment of wealth? Is marriage just a tool for them? A path to material satisfaction?

Interesting proposition is it not?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I dont care if homos chose to be homos or not I just wish they chose to shut the fuck up about it....WE DONT CARE THAT YOU SMOKE POLE ! There is a reason sex is called private .

You and others on the right have a strange way of showing your disinterest.

If that’s the case then simply allow same-sex couples access to marriage law, in accordance with the Constitution; you’ll never hear a peep from gay people again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, this is a refrain I hear over and over and over...but where's the legislation? In 20 years of talking about marriage equality, not once have I seen a state legislature or our Congress introduce a bill that would take the government out of the "marriage business". Why is that I wonder?

I wish someone would , I would vote for it! As long as they change the law that my husband can come see me in the ICU or get Power of Attorney or anything a spouse can get now legally.. If gays want to considered married in their eyes, get married no one is stopping them . They dont even have to do the vows at a church. But if they want it in the church,( which by the way is in the constitution)
doesnt believe in gay marriage they should not be required by the government to have them. Build their own churches. No one is stopping them!

Why can you not issue a Power of Attorney to your "husband"? I know hetero couples who have never married but who have managed to attain legal ability to do many of the things gays claim they cannot. (PS: Alaska does not recognize common law marriage.)

Because that’s not the issue.

The issue concerns states violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law. What you’re advocating is a separate but equal ‘solution’ which is just as illegal and un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If they successfully petition to have their multi-unit relationship recognized as legal, yes I would support it. Ain't gonna happen, but I would support them.

Why could it not happen? If government recognizes "same sex" unions, why not multi-partnered unions?

Because you can ascribe a societal harm to polygamy.Polygamy is the oldest and most practiced form of marriage in societies. What history has shown is that it usually leads to one man, multiple wives and single, pissed off men.

The problem with polygamy - Slate Magazine

Why Men Gave Up Polygamy | Psychology Today

Correct.

Also, laws prohibiting polygamy are Constitutional because they’re applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion.

And no, polygamists do not constitute a ‘class of persons.’

Recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples will in no way lead to allowing polygamy, such an ‘argument’ is a red herring, and fails as a fallacy because it compares to completely different issues.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It doesn't matter if people choose to be gay or not.

No adult should be barred from entering a property contract which is all marriage is.

My partner and I have several "contracts" involving property. No marriage license needed. But there is paperwork involved.

I found that statement to be revealing (no pun intended). Is it really about marriage for homosexuals? Or is it all about the attainment of wealth? Is marriage just a tool for them? A path to material satisfaction?

Interesting proposition is it not?

No, it's not - it’s completely irrelevant.

Citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a Constitutional right to indeed exercise that right.

It makes no difference why a given same-sex couple wishes to marry, as long as they meet the requirements of the contract – which they do – and enter into the contract in good faith.

If a same-sex couple wishes to ‘marry for money,’ they have every right to do so, and such a motive in no way mitigates or undermines that right; it’s not as if no opposite-sex couple has ever married for money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They have equal treatment under the law. Gay men can marry exactly the same people straight men can. How is that discrimination? It is total equality.

I don't see how a same sex married couple is any different from a hetero married couple.

Marriage is a property contract that has been given special standing in society that is all.

It's really no big deal.

That's begging the question. It's different because a man is not a woman.

So?

Why should a hetero couple be allowed to enter a social contract with special rights and privileges that a same sex couple can't?

 

[TemplarKormac]

My partner and I have several "contracts" involving property. No marriage license needed. But there is paperwork involved.

I found that statement to be revealing (no pun intended). Is it really about marriage for homosexuals? Or is it all about the attainment of wealth? Is marriage just a tool for them? A path to material satisfaction?

Interesting proposition is it not?

No, it's not - it’s completely irrelevant.

Citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a Constitutional right to indeed exercise that right.

It makes no difference why a given same-sex couple wishes to marry, as long as they meet the requirements of the contract – which they do – and enter into the contract in good faith.

If a same-sex couple wishes to ‘marry for money,’ they have every right to do so, and such a motive in no way mitigates or undermines that right; it’s not as if no opposite-sex couple has ever married for money.

You completely missed the point. I didn't even mention citizenship. So your argument is a non sequitur off the bat. If you marry for the sake of wealth, the commitment to your partner would be pointless. If you really married for love, then I have no doubt the commitment would be genuine. But to hear the homosexuals side of it, it's all about material wealth and acquisition of property under bonds of matrimony. It makes be doubt with every fiber of my being that gay marriage shares anything in common with the practice, I doubt the commitment as well.

Why must they make a show of it? Homosexuality is an inherent aberration in the human species. I don't discriminate against them, I don't hate them, but I do oppose their way of life.

 

[P@triot]

No, I'm not "dead set" against it, I'm saying that I simply don't see it working from a legal standpoint because there are more than two parties involved. Nothing more than a word or two on a license has to change for gays to have equal access to civil marriage. That would not be true of Polygamy.

The DOMA ruling means nothing of the sort.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

Sadly, it does (and sadly, you don't even know that despite supporting it). The DOMA suit was brought by a gay woman who was not even married in the U.S. - she was married in Canada. Thus the ruling now creates the precedence that we MUST recognize the marriage of foreigners, including muslims with 52 wives.

So glad that you forge ahead supporting things that you are ill-informed on. Any wonder why this nation is on the verge of collapse when we have Dumbocrats like this running around screaming support for things they don't understand?

Now that is an interesting question. If a muslim with multiple wives wishes to immigrate to the US, must we also acknowledge his multiple wives? Are each of the wives eligible for benefits, or will benefits be limited on a per-family basis?

It's not a question - it's a sad reality as a result of the bullshit libtard DOMA ruling supported by selfish parasites like Seabytch.

But what does she care? She's not the host and never will be - she's the parasite

 

[P@triot]

I wish someone would , I would vote for it! As long as they change the law that my husband can come see me in the ICU or get Power of Attorney or anything a spouse can get now legally.. If gays want to considered married in their eyes, get married no one is stopping them . They dont even have to do the vows at a church. But if they want it in the church,( which by the way is in the constitution)
doesnt believe in gay marriage they should not be required by the government to have them. Build their own churches. No one is stopping them!

Why can you not issue a Power of Attorney to your "husband"? I know hetero couples who have never married but who have managed to attain legal ability to do many of the things gays claim they cannot. (PS: Alaska does not recognize common law marriage.)

Because that’s not the issue.

The issue concerns states violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law. What you’re advocating is a separate but equal ‘solution’ which is just as illegal and un-Constitutional.

It's not "separate" and your LIES are just as pathetic as your arguments. Gays ALWAYS had the same marriage rights as everyone else. But they wanted special rights.

 

[P@triot]

This is what pisses me off.

Most mainstream Americans do not give a rats ass if Homos want to fuck each other.

Most mainstream americans dont give a rats ass if homos want to marry.

What does bother most non gay americans is the fact that these homos gotta shove thier lifestyle in everyones face, force it into day to day life, force into the schools, force it into the media, force into law.
Everyone knows they are a small fraction of the population and they want to make thier way of life acceptable to everyone wether you like it or not.

Tell me, bodey & seawytch, when you get the national legal marriage (all 50 states) will you be happy and shut the fuck up? ...NOPE

next in line....school will have to teach a homo history and sensivtitity class.

Free sex changes for transgenders

ect ect ect ect ect ect . This crap will never ever fucking end.

And you wonder why so many people hate your fucking guts

Bootlicker sure likes to talk about "fucking", doesn't he?

Interesting response here. He's got a point - he's 100% dead on. Rather than address his point, you pull you're usual troll bullshit.

 

[P@triot]

I don't see how a same sex married couple is any different from a hetero married couple.

Marriage is a property contract that has been given special standing in society that is all.

It's really no big deal.

are you OK with bigamy and polygamy as well? after all, those "marriages" are nothing but property contracts between a group of people.

If they successfully petition to have their multi-unit relationship recognized as legal, yes I would support it. Ain't gonna happen, but I would support them.

And here we see Ms. Disingenuous rear her ugly head again. The question is would you support their plight to help make it legal (you know, the same way you supported the DOMA plight despite not having a fucking clue what you were supporting)?

Now give us more of your disingenuous bullshit so you can *think* you're masking your extreme and repulsive hypocrisy.

 

[P@triot]

I don't see how a same sex married couple is any different from a hetero married couple.

Marriage is a property contract that has been given special standing in society that is all.

It's really no big deal.

That's begging the question. It's different because a man is not a woman.

So?

Why should a hetero couple be allowed to enter a social contract with special rights and privileges that a same sex couple can't?

Why are you even weighing in when you have no fucking clue what marriage even is? You actually believe marriage is a "social contract"?

You're really taking ignorance to new heights with your comments in this thread...

 

[Edgetho]

We could get nuked by Martians and a Gay thread would draw attention away from it.

Unreal.

Gay threads need to just go away.

Besides, nobody has ever denied Gays the right to marry.

A gay man could always get married any time he wanted to.

Just not to another man. Or his dog. Or his pet Iguana.

As is usual, minorities don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, this is a refrain I hear over and over and over...but where's the legislation? In 20 years of talking about marriage equality, not once have I seen a state legislature or our Congress introduce a bill that would take the government out of the "marriage business". Why is that I wonder?

Where is the legislation?!? Did you seriously just say that?!? Dumbocrtas just like you who think everything should be owned & controlled by the federal government (ie communism) and who hate the church, are working around the clock to block tax reform and stop small government conservatives from restoring constitutional government to the U.S., want to know "where" the legislation is?!?

Un-fucking-believable...

Yes Puppy, where is the legislation. It doesn't have to be Federal legislation, Pupster. Republicans control a lot of state houses. Where's the bill that would end legal marriage in those states?

I'll answer your question again:

Where is the legislation?!? Did you seriously just say that?!? Dumbocrtas just like you who think everything should be owned & controlled by the federal government (ie communism) and who hate the church, are working around the clock to block tax reform and stop small government conservatives.

It's Dumbocrats just like you who are blocking it at the state levels. It's Dumbocrats just like you who work every day to achieve voter fraud to prevent small government conservatives from getting into office (yes at the state and local levels) because you fear the gravy train that you mooch off of might end.

You want gay marriage for the benefits, then turn around and ask where is the legislation to take government "out of the marriage business"

 

[Seawytch]

I found that statement to be revealing (no pun intended). Is it really about marriage for homosexuals? Or is it all about the attainment of wealth? Is marriage just a tool for them? A path to material satisfaction?

Interesting proposition is it not?

No, it's not - it’s completely irrelevant.

Citizens are not required to justify the exercising of a Constitutional right to indeed exercise that right.

It makes no difference why a given same-sex couple wishes to marry, as long as they meet the requirements of the contract – which they do – and enter into the contract in good faith.

If a same-sex couple wishes to ‘marry for money,’ they have every right to do so, and such a motive in no way mitigates or undermines that right; it’s not as if no opposite-sex couple has ever married for money.

You completely missed the point. I didn't even mention citizenship. So your argument is a non sequitur off the bat. If you marry for the sake of wealth, the commitment to your partner would be pointless. If you really married for love, then I have no doubt the commitment would be genuine. But to hear the homosexuals side of it, it's all about material wealth and acquisition of property under bonds of matrimony. It makes be doubt with every fiber of my being that gay marriage shares anything in common with the practice, I doubt the commitment as well.

Why must they make a show of it? Homosexuality is an inherent aberration in the human species. I don't discriminate against them, I don't hate them, but I do oppose their way of life.

You obviously haven't been listening to the gay and lesbian "side" of it if that's the conclusion you came to.

It's about being treated equally period. There are certain rights, benefits and protections that are associated with civil marriage. We want those same rights, benefits and protections for our families that heterosexual families have. If you wish to limit those rights, benefits and protections for everyone, go right ahead, but then it just looks like you're filling the pool so the black kids can't swim.

Yes, you do wish to discriminate against "them" if you wish to deny us marriage equality. That is, by definition, discrimination.

 

[P@triot]

This is what pisses me off.

Most mainstream Americans do not give a rats ass if Homos want to fuck each other.

Most mainstream americans dont give a rats ass if homos want to marry.

What does bother most non gay americans is the fact that these homos gotta shove thier lifestyle in everyones face, force it into day to day life, force into the schools, force it into the media, force into law.
Everyone knows they are a small fraction of the population and they want to make thier way of life acceptable to everyone wether you like it or not.

Tell me, bodey & seawytch, when you get the national legal marriage (all 50 states) will you be happy and shut the fuck up? ...NOPE

next in line....school will have to teach a homo history and sensivtitity class.

Free sex changes for transgenders

ect ect ect ect ect ect . This crap will never ever fucking end.

And you wonder why so many people hate your fucking guts

Don't forget NLT, they will want to force young people to experience homosexuality - but only because they "care" that young people are able to figure out if they are gay are not