Gay Marriage is a Lie: Honest or Disagree?

[gallantwarrior]

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

You're a GOP voter right? If we pass a law that says we have Americans, who are Democrats, and we have Reprobats, who are Republicans, would that cause you any problem, as long as we treat you the same but you get called different things? It's the same right, just different words, like Puma and Mountain Lion? They're no different so there should be no issues correct?

Now you retreat to semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Good job.

Semantics, and what might be considered pejorative labels by his fellow liberal/progressives.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

Again, that would be un-Constitutional, ‘separate but equal’ is a doctrine offensive to the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). Imagine if you can an employee in the county clerks office responsible for issuing marriage licenses telling a same-sex couple they have to go next door to get their ‘civil union’ license, as they’re not allowed a marriage license.

Telling how you and others on the right endorse and are comfortable with this sort of discrimination in 21st Century America.

The ‘civil union’ solution is not a ‘solution,’ it’s an effort to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this the states cannot do.

but gays ARE different.....fundamentally......so a civil license vs a marriage license is similar to having a men's restroom vs a ladies....

i thought you libs were into 'diversity'.....

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage does not require producing a child.

Producing a child does not require marriage.


And why do you put the word "wife" into "" marks? Shall we put your "marriage" into the same marks?

Producing a well adjusted child does require marriage. Producing juvenile delinquents and future residents of the state pen doesn't require marriage.

And that's always true eh?

Whether it's always true is irrelevant. Antibiotics don't always cure the patient. nevertheless, no one would suggest doing away with antibiotics. A drivers license doesn't always guarantee that the bearer is competent to drive.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You're a GOP voter right? If we pass a law that says we have Americans, who are Democrats, and we have Reprobats, who are Republicans, would that cause you any problem, as long as we treat you the same but you get called different things? It's the same right, just different words, like Puma and Mountain Lion? They're no different so there should be no issues correct?

Now you retreat to semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Good job.

Semantics is the issue when someone says marriage is for straight people and civil unions are for gay people. If they are the same, why do I need two words? And what's more important, a value, equality in this case, or a word? Let's see how honest you, don't play semantics just answer the questions.

Until recently, "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. Now, we are faced with a small minority of deviant individuals who insist on re-defining a traditional institution to suit their own agenda. They insist on disrespecting those who hold their traditional belief that "marriage" is a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN. They refuse to accept an alternate definition that would afford them what they claim to demand, equality under the law for those government benefits awarded to "married" couples. And yet, these deviants insist they be given the respect they refuse to give to others.
Hypocrite much? Compromise much? Compassion much? Respect for others much?

I didn't think so.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well they must have felt something profound wouldn't you say, something they just couldn't ignore even though it put their very lives in grave danger? And they would have known that but done it anyway. Maybe something willed them to be that way?

And yet, folks like you repeatedly piss on religion and religious objection to same-gender "marriages" because of their belief in a "make-believe sky-god". Hypocrite much?

So, you are feeling persecuted because not everyone believes in your god(s)?

Another who pays no attention to anything except their own assumptions.

 

[Iceweasel]

But what if it is part of the "natural" order? Will you accept it then?

It can't be because it takes heterosexuals to create them. They can't reproduce. Accepting it is one thing, I think most people do. But the problem is that we are told it is an alternative that's equally valid. It may be to the individuals but not to society as a whole. Opposite genders is how mankind exists. Homosexuality may be an interesting side note but it adds nothing to man's existence.

So, straight people who can't have children, for whatever reason, or maybe even just don't have children, should be treated like gays? I mean, they aren't adding anything to man's existence now are they?

One could even say that they were worse, at least the ones that could have children but don't, since they are letting the species die right?

I've had friends that thought they were infertile but many years later had kids, so you never know. Also, they can adopt or foster. Yes gays can too but the male/female relationship is what makes the family what it is. I know this is hard...but females and males are different. They bring different things to the table, different strengths and weaknesses, where the two combined make a better sum that the two parts. It's interesting stuff, you should look into it sometime.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

Again, that would be un-Constitutional, ‘separate but equal’ is a doctrine offensive to the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). Imagine if you can an employee in the county clerks office responsible for issuing marriage licenses telling a same-sex couple they have to go next door to get their ‘civil union’ license, as they’re not allowed a marriage license.

Telling how you and others on the right endorse and are comfortable with this sort of discrimination in 21st Century America.

The ‘civil union’ solution is not a ‘solution,’ it’s an effort to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this the states cannot do.

I am not opposed to the forms issued by government agencies that give people permission to cohabit with and support one another to be called "civil union" certificates, regardless of the composition of the contracted unit of individuals. Perhaps I should be clear, marriage should be allowed to reside as a religious institution, as it has been traditionally. Because the male-female composition of such a union has not been in question until quite recently, perhaps the government might be compelled in its infinite wisdom to redefine the contract and issue permits that endow the holders of such permits with equal protections under government sanction.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

Again, that would be un-Constitutional, ‘separate but equal’ is a doctrine offensive to the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). Imagine if you can an employee in the county clerks office responsible for issuing marriage licenses telling a same-sex couple they have to go next door to get their ‘civil union’ license, as they’re not llowed a marriage license.

Telling how you and others on the right endorse and are comfortable with this sort of discrimination in 21st Century America.

The ‘civil union’ solution is not a ‘solution,’ it’s an effort to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this the states cannot do.

Though you're utterly unawares, your assertion necessarily entails an underlying metaphysical presupposition: that homosexuality is a legitimate activity, a legitimate basis for marriage. Homosexuality is inarguably contrary to nature, physiologically and biologically, so you can't possibly be appealing to any absolute universal authority other than something metaphysical.

(Leftists never get beyond first principles. They never get beyond the hysterics of ad hominem and their self-righteous delusions.)

But if you must have your religion and its rituals officially recognized by the state, if you just can't help being such a sissy, ruffled by every slight, both real and imagined, in a free and open society, then get your filthy ass out of the way of universal school choice and stop trying to overthrow established natural, constitutional and case law in the name of public accommodation, you hypocritical fascist pig.

You want to make hay with those who refuse to support your construct of equality. Fine. But you have no grounds whatsoever to accuse this proponent of Lockean natural law, the founding ethos of this Republic, do you?

The now well-documented legal fallacies and historical fantasies of the statist bootlick Jones: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ry-have-the-right-to-deny-32.html#post8700263

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...us-freedom-laws-are-doomed-5.html#post8704684

 

[Antares]

Gay marriage is allowing two gay adults the same equality before the law that my wife and I had, when we paid $25 for a License from the State, a Marriage License, that changed our lives forever and so far, until death.

a civil union would do exactly the same thing, for you or a gay couple. The word "marriage" applies only to the union of one man and one woman.

The gay agenda is not about equality or justice. Its about forcing the acceptance of the word marriage to describe a homosexual union.

That's just dumb. You are hung up on a word while missing a key American value, Equality. What matters more, the word or the value?

e·qual·i·ty

the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities

It is not now and NEVER has been about equality, it is now and ALWAYS has been about shoving their beliefs down the throats of those who disagree with them.

Thinking people understand that if they give you the "rights" accorded to married people and YOU give them an inch by calling it a "Civil Union" everybody wins.

You people are just too stupid to get it.

 

[Gadawg73]

a civil union would do exactly the same thing, for you or a gay couple. The word "marriage" applies only to the union of one man and one woman.

The gay agenda is not about equality or justice. Its about forcing the acceptance of the word marriage to describe a homosexual union.

That's just dumb. You are hung up on a word while missing a key American value, Equality. What matters more, the word or the value?

e·qual·i·ty

the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities

It is not now and NEVER has been about equality, it is now and ALWAYS has been about shoving their beliefs down the throats of those who disagree with them.

Thinking people understand that if they give you the "rights" accorded to married people and YOU give them an inch by calling it a "Civil Union" everybody wins.

You people are just too stupid to get it.

What are their beliefs other than they are equal to you and I?

 

[Antares]

That's just dumb. You are hung up on a word while missing a key American value, Equality. What matters more, the word or the value?

e·qual·i·ty

the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities

It is not now and NEVER has been about equality, it is now and ALWAYS has been about shoving their beliefs down the throats of those who disagree with them.

Thinking people understand that if they give you the "rights" accorded to married people and YOU give them an inch by calling it a "Civil Union" everybody wins.

You people are just too stupid to get it.

What are their beliefs other than they are equal to you and I?

Equality means they get the same insurance coverage I get.
They get the same tax deductions I do.

THAT is equality.

 

[bodecea]

can two XY's produce a child? Can Rosie O'Donnel and her "wife" produce a child?

can a woman with XY chromosomes conceive? Be careful with your answer

Marriage does not require producing a child.

Producing a child does not require marriage.


And why do you put the word "wife" into "" marks? Shall we put your "marriage" into the same marks?

Producing a well adjusted child does require marriage. Producing juvenile delinquents and future residents of the state pen doesn't require marriage.

So....all children that were not born with in a marriage are NOT well-adjusted? And all children born within a marriage are well-adjusted?

 

[bodecea]

e·qual·i·ty

the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities

It is not now and NEVER has been about equality, it is now and ALWAYS has been about shoving their beliefs down the throats of those who disagree with them.

Thinking people understand that if they give you the "rights" accorded to married people and YOU give them an inch by calling it a "Civil Union" everybody wins.

You people are just too stupid to get it.

What are their beliefs other than they are equal to you and I?

Equality means they get the same insurance coverage I get.
They get the same tax deductions I do.

THAT is equality.

And, thank the gods...it's getting that way soon enough.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

Again, that would be un-Constitutional, ‘separate but equal’ is a doctrine offensive to the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). Imagine if you can an employee in the county clerks office responsible for issuing marriage licenses telling a same-sex couple they have to go next door to get their ‘civil union’ license, as they’re not allowed a marriage license.

Telling how you and others on the right endorse and are comfortable with this sort of discrimination in 21st Century America.

The ‘civil union’ solution is not a ‘solution,’ it’s an effort to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this the states cannot do.

I am not opposed to the forms issued by government agencies that give people permission to cohabit with and support one another to be called "civil union" certificates, regardless of the composition of the contracted unit of individuals. Perhaps I should be clear, marriage should be allowed to reside as a religious institution, as it has been traditionally. Because the male-female composition of such a union has not been in question until quite recently, perhaps the government might be compelled in its infinite wisdom to redefine the contract and issue permits that endow the holders of such permits with equal protections under government sanction.

Excellent, sensible, tolerant, sane.

The only problem with trying to be reasonable or accommodating with lefty is that he will have none of it. He is petrified by the manly virtues of unfretted liberty. He soils his panties over every little boo-boo. You can't reason with cowards. You can't make nice with bullies. Sissies are the bane of liberty in an evil, fallen world. They will go along with every perversion, every atrocity, every tyranny. They talk about winning--the stuff of big brother government suppressing the natural rights of their freedom-living antagonists. The leftist is a sniveling puddle of urine crying for his mommy. The state is his security blanket.

Mob rule is his agenda; domination, his irrepressible creed.

 

[Antares]

What are their beliefs other than they are equal to you and I?

Equality means they get the same insurance coverage I get.
They get the same tax deductions I do.

THAT is equality.

And, thank the gods...it's getting that way soon enough.

I agree.

My sister is "married" to her partner, I have made these same points to her.

 

[bodecea]

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

Again, that would be un-Constitutional, ‘separate but equal’ is a doctrine offensive to the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). Imagine if you can an employee in the county clerks office responsible for issuing marriage licenses telling a same-sex couple they have to go next door to get their ‘civil union’ license, as they’re not allowed a marriage license.

Telling how you and others on the right endorse and are comfortable with this sort of discrimination in 21st Century America.

The ‘civil union’ solution is not a ‘solution,’ it’s an effort to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this the states cannot do.

but gays ARE different.....fundamentally......so a civil license vs a marriage license is similar to having a men's restroom vs a ladies....

i thought you libs were into 'diversity'.....

How are we different in what a legal marriage license provides for us? Be specific please.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Again, that would be un-Constitutional, ‘separate but equal’ is a doctrine offensive to the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). Imagine if you can an employee in the county clerks office responsible for issuing marriage licenses telling a same-sex couple they have to go next door to get their ‘civil union’ license, as they’re not allowed a marriage license.

Telling how you and others on the right endorse and are comfortable with this sort of discrimination in 21st Century America.

The ‘civil union’ solution is not a ‘solution,’ it’s an effort to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this the states cannot do.

I am not opposed to the forms issued by government agencies that give people permission to cohabit with and support one another to be called "civil union" certificates, regardless of the composition of the contracted unit of individuals. Perhaps I should be clear, marriage should be allowed to reside as a religious institution, as it has been traditionally. Because the male-female composition of such a union has not been in question until quite recently, perhaps the government might be compelled in its infinite wisdom to redefine the contract and issue permits that endow the holders of such permits with equal protections under government sanction.

Excellent, sensible, tolerant, sane.

The only problem with trying to be reasonable or accommodating with lefty is that he will have none of it. He is petrified by the manly virtues of unfretted liberty. He soils his panties over every little boo-boo. You can't reason with cowards. You can't make nice with bullies. Sissies are the bane of liberty in an evil, fallen world. They will go along with every perversion, every atrocity, every tyranny. They talk about winning--the stuff of big brother government suppressing the natural rights of their freedom-living antagonists. The leftist is a sniveling puddle urine crying for his mommy. The state is his security blanket.

Mob rule is his agenda; domination, his irrepressible creed.

And therein lies the problem. The leftist definition of "compromise" is capitulation by the opponent. The leftist definition of "tolerance" is "my way, or nothing". You are wrong, they are right because they are motivated by "equality".

 

[TemplarKormac]

I can understand the religious aspect if that's your faith. For those that are upset because they may get benefits that married couples get? That should not be a factor.

They say "age is just a number." I say marriage is just a title. How insecure must you be, to want a word, a title, to define your relationship with someone else?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Equality means they get the same insurance coverage I get.
They get the same tax deductions I do.

THAT is equality.

And, thank the gods...it's getting that way soon enough.

I agree.

My sister is "married" to her partner, I have made these same points to her.

My PM was satire.

The only ones trying to shove their values down the throats of others are leftists. Why you can't see that is appalling. You want "equality" for homosexuals in terms of marriage and benefits and taxation. It's not necessary to empower the state at the expense of natural and constitutional rights to accomplish that! How is that equality? You're stupidly and unwittingly trading one supposed oppression for another that is very real in the most fundamental sense of all. But you self-absorbed, self-centered children of impulse and expediency can't get beyond yourselves long enough to see that.

The elites have fed you a line of crap and you just can't get enough of it. Sane people are trying to reason with you before they have to take up arms against you for the sake of their children, for the sake of their families, for the sake of the Republic.

 

[Antares]

And, thank the gods...it's getting that way soon enough.

I agree.

My sister is "married" to her partner, I have made these same points to her.

My PM was satire.

The only ones trying to shove their values down the throats of others are leftists. Why you can't see that is appalling. You want "equality" for homosexuals in terms of marriage and benefits and taxation. It's not necessary to empower the state at the expense of natural and constitutional rights to accomplish that! How is that equality? You're stupidly and unwittingly trading one supposed oppression for another that is very real in the most fundamental sense of all. But you self-absorbed, self-centered children of impulse and expediency can't get beyond yourselves long enough to see that.

The elites have fed you a line of crap and you just can't get enough of it. Sane people are trying to reason with you before they have to take up arms against you for the sake of their children, for the sake of their families, for the sake of the Republic.

Near as I can tell your entire life is satire friend.

I am a Conservative Republican, you go ahead and take up arms....my face will be the last thing you see.

Omaha Nebraska, say when.