Gay marriage

[Kondor3]

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, the States are now finding ways to neutralize and negate its effects.

I don't support that particular approach but it does serve to illustrate that the American People have a longer memory for Wrongs done to them by the Courts.

And how many abortions has that actually prevented? Making life more difficult for women seeking to end their pregnancies is hardly a moral victory.

I suspect that a more Conservative SCOTUS will overturn this un-Godly victory of the Sodomites and Catamites over Decent, Normal People, soon enough, as history measures time, but only time itself will prove or disprove that speculation.

I half-suspect that this particular fight is actually only beginning, in earnest.

And, we may very well get our first clues along those lines, on January 20, 2017, or thereabouts.

Actually, guy, the GOP wants this issue to go away. You homophobes have outlived your usefulness.

That's why Republican judges have overturned these state bans.

Big Corporations have given their marching orders to the GOP,a nd that order is, "Stop talking about the gay stuff."

Homophobes?

Hardly.

Fear?

Not likely.

More like nausea, disgust and contempt.

 

[JoeB131]

...So please explain to me why homosexuality is evil...

No.

i'm noting this pattern with you, Kon,

"Islam is evil! I know this because I've read the Koran"

"Can you provide a specific verse to back up your point?"

"No!"

Seems that your bigotry against gays and Muslims are your problem, not theirs.

Think what you like.

Your pathetic and sad concession is duly noted.

 

[Kondor3]

...So please explain to me why homosexuality is evil...

No.

i'm noting this pattern with you, Kon,

"Islam is evil! I know this because I've read the Koran"

"Can you provide a specific verse to back up your point?"

"No!"

Seems that your bigotry against gays and Muslims are your problem, not theirs.

Think what you like.

Your pathetic and sad concession is duly noted.

You mistake a declining to waste time arguing with Flaming Liberals, for an inability to properly counterpoint, but... no matter.

 

[JoeB131]

Homophobes?

Hardly.

Fear?

Not likely.

More like nausea, disgust and contempt.

Naw, guy. I'll give you an example.

I really, really don't like broccoli. It makes me physically ill if I eat it.

But I don't want it to be banned, I don't want people who enjoy it to not be able to get it.

I also don't spend hours on here describing broccoli recipes or obsessing over it. Nor do I try to claim that a magic fairy in the sky supports my position.

I just don't like it. But to each his own.

Similarly, now that gay marriage is legal, I'm still not going to ever have sex with another dude. Just not into that.

But I'm not going to get terribly upset someone is doing that. To each his own.

 

[JoeB131]

You mistake a declining to waste time arguing with Flaming Liberals, for an inability to properly counterpoint, but... no matter.

again, your concession is duly noted.

Maybe you should change your tag line to "Run away... run away"

 

[deltex1]

"Wrong" is a dodge. It's abnormal. Don't demand that I accept the abnormal as normal.

 

[Exquisite]

...That's the difference between people that just want equality for everyone and those that are threatened by diversity...

Or, alternatively, that's the difference between people who can distinguish Righteousness from Wickedness (homosexuality).

Because a magic sky fairy said it was wrong.

Because 4,000 years of Judeo-Christian doctrine and policy and teaching and interpretation by some of history's greatest philosophers and religious teachers say it IS wrong.

Good and Evil are not 'trends', nor are they subject to the whim of those who would ridicule the spiritual beliefs of their ancestors and countrymen and fellow denizens of Earth.

Really? So then you still think that women and children are a man's property? You still believe the geocentric theory? Plagues are punishment from God, etc ...?

 

[Exquisite]

"Wrong" is a dodge. It's abnormal. Don't demand that I accept the abnormal as normal.

Actually, it's not even unnatural. It's quite common within the animal kingdom of which we all are a part.

As for what you personally choose to accept, no one cares whether you accept it as "normal" or not provided you don't infringe on other people's rights and that the rights given in the Constitution are actually given to everyone.

 

[bodecea]

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, the States are now finding ways to neutralize and negate its effects.

I don't support that particular approach but it does serve to illustrate that the American People have a longer memory for Wrongs done to them by the Courts.

And how many abortions has that actually prevented? Making life more difficult for women seeking to end their pregnancies is hardly a moral victory.

I suspect that a more Conservative SCOTUS will overturn this un-Godly victory of the Sodomites and Catamites over Decent, Normal People, soon enough, as history measures time, but only time itself will prove or disprove that speculation.

I half-suspect that this particular fight is actually only beginning, in earnest.

And, we may very well get our first clues along those lines, on January 20, 2017, or thereabouts.

Actually, guy, the GOP wants this issue to go away. You homophobes have outlived your usefulness.

That's why Republican judges have overturned these state bans.

Big Corporations have given their marching orders to the GOP,a nd that order is, "Stop talking about the gay stuff."

Homophobes?

Hardly.

Fear?

Not likely.

More like nausea, disgust and contempt.

You know that those three feelings stem from fear, right?

 

[Exquisite]

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, the States are now finding ways to neutralize and negate its effects.

I don't support that particular approach but it does serve to illustrate that the American People have a longer memory for Wrongs done to them by the Courts.

And how many abortions has that actually prevented? Making life more difficult for women seeking to end their pregnancies is hardly a moral victory.

I suspect that a more Conservative SCOTUS will overturn this un-Godly victory of the Sodomites and Catamites over Decent, Normal People, soon enough, as history measures time, but only time itself will prove or disprove that speculation.

I half-suspect that this particular fight is actually only beginning, in earnest.

And, we may very well get our first clues along those lines, on January 20, 2017, or thereabouts.

Actually, guy, the GOP wants this issue to go away. You homophobes have outlived your usefulness.

That's why Republican judges have overturned these state bans.

Big Corporations have given their marching orders to the GOP,a nd that order is, "Stop talking about the gay stuff."

Homophobes?

Hardly.

Fear?

Not likely.

More like nausea, disgust and contempt.

You know that those three feelings stem from fear, right?

I think I love you!

 

[Exquisite]

...That's the difference between people that just want equality for everyone and those that are threatened by diversity...

Or, alternatively, that's the difference between people who can distinguish Righteousness from Wickedness (homosexuality).

"Righteousness" and "wickedness" are religious constructs that are meaningless to anyone that doesn't believe in it and have no place in secular laws.

 

[bendog]

I can understand why some object to same sex "marriage" on traditional and customary grounds. If a church doesn't want to have same sex marriage, the First Amendment allows them to do that.

But, I just don't find it acceptable that anyone would want to committed same sex partners from having the same rights they and their different sex partner have in taxes, healthcare, estate planning, child care, and all the rest of that stuff that different sex couples get "extra."

 

[Exquisite]

I can understand why some object to same sex "marriage" on traditional and customary grounds. If a church doesn't want to have same sex marriage, the First Amendment allows them to do that.

But, I just don't find it acceptable that anyone would want to committed same sex partners from having the same rights they and their different sex partner have in taxes, healthcare, estate planning, child care, and all the rest of that stuff that different sex couples get "extra."

I totally understand that side of it. I just disagree with religious beliefs interfering with what are supposed to be secular laws.

Churches are not going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples so, aside from it being against their personal beliefs, it's really not their concern.

 

[bendog]

I can understand why some object to same sex "marriage" on traditional and customary grounds. If a church doesn't want to have same sex marriage, the First Amendment allows them to do that.

But, I just don't find it acceptable that anyone would want to committed same sex partners from having the same rights they and their different sex partner have in taxes, healthcare, estate planning, child care, and all the rest of that stuff that different sex couples get "extra."

I totally understand that side of it. I just disagree with religious beliefs interfering with what are supposed to be secular laws.

Churches are not going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples so, aside from it being against their personal beliefs, it's really not their concern.

I can understand the neighers wanting civil partnerships to be called something other than marriage, but that can be accomplished easily by simply amending laws so that the govt does not "marry" anyone. If two people want to enter into a civil domestic union that conveys various rights, and can carry various economic consequences like lowered tax rates and having to pay child support, they can be accommodated.

My church is now considering whether to just have one "marriage" service applicable to everyone. Frankly, I'm not in favor of that, but I expect the church to go ahead with it. I'm not leaving, but I'm not "buying in" either.

 

[Exquisite]

I can understand why some object to same sex "marriage" on traditional and customary grounds. If a church doesn't want to have same sex marriage, the First Amendment allows them to do that.

But, I just don't find it acceptable that anyone would want to committed same sex partners from having the same rights they and their different sex partner have in taxes, healthcare, estate planning, child care, and all the rest of that stuff that different sex couples get "extra."

I totally understand that side of it. I just disagree with religious beliefs interfering with what are supposed to be secular laws.

Churches are not going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples so, aside from it being against their personal beliefs, it's really not their concern.

I can understand the neighers wanting civil partnerships to be called something other than marriage, but that can be accomplished easily by simply amending laws so that the govt does not "marry" anyone. If two people want to enter into a civil domestic union that conveys various rights, and can carry various economic consequences like lowered tax rates and having to pay child support, they can be accommodated.

My church is now considering whether to just have one "marriage" service applicable to everyone. Frankly, I'm not in favor of that, but I expect the church to go ahead with it. I'm not leaving, but I'm not "buying in" either.

Except legally there are differences between marriage and a civil union. Those would need to change if the federal government were to issue only civil unions.

 

[bendog]

I can understand why some object to same sex "marriage" on traditional and customary grounds. If a church doesn't want to have same sex marriage, the First Amendment allows them to do that.

But, I just don't find it acceptable that anyone would want to committed same sex partners from having the same rights they and their different sex partner have in taxes, healthcare, estate planning, child care, and all the rest of that stuff that different sex couples get "extra."

I totally understand that side of it. I just disagree with religious beliefs interfering with what are supposed to be secular laws.

Churches are not going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples so, aside from it being against their personal beliefs, it's really not their concern.

I can understand the neighers wanting civil partnerships to be called something other than marriage, but that can be accomplished easily by simply amending laws so that the govt does not "marry" anyone. If two people want to enter into a civil domestic union that conveys various rights, and can carry various economic consequences like lowered tax rates and having to pay child support, they can be accommodated.

My church is now considering whether to just have one "marriage" service applicable to everyone. Frankly, I'm not in favor of that, but I expect the church to go ahead with it. I'm not leaving, but I'm not "buying in" either.

Except legally there are differences between marriage and a civil union. Those would need to change if the federal government were to issue only civil unions.

Well yes. Just make civil unions = to what marriage is, and everyone gets a civil union. And churches can call marriage whatever they want. The supreme court decision did not mandate what states call domestic unions, it just said there can't be two different classes of them.

 

[Kondor3]

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, the States are now finding ways to neutralize and negate its effects.

I don't support that particular approach but it does serve to illustrate that the American People have a longer memory for Wrongs done to them by the Courts.

And how many abortions has that actually prevented? Making life more difficult for women seeking to end their pregnancies is hardly a moral victory.

I suspect that a more Conservative SCOTUS will overturn this un-Godly victory of the Sodomites and Catamites over Decent, Normal People, soon enough, as history measures time, but only time itself will prove or disprove that speculation.

I half-suspect that this particular fight is actually only beginning, in earnest.

And, we may very well get our first clues along those lines, on January 20, 2017, or thereabouts.

Actually, guy, the GOP wants this issue to go away. You homophobes have outlived your usefulness.

That's why Republican judges have overturned these state bans.

Big Corporations have given their marching orders to the GOP,a nd that order is, "Stop talking about the gay stuff."

Homophobes?

Hardly.

Fear?

Not likely.

More like nausea, disgust and contempt.

You know that those three feelings stem from fear, right?

I know that you would like us to believe that is the case...

 

[Kondor3]

...That's the difference between people that just want equality for everyone and those that are threatened by diversity...

Or, alternatively, that's the difference between people who can distinguish Righteousness from Wickedness (homosexuality).

"Righteousness" and "wickedness" are religious constructs that are meaningless to anyone that doesn't believe in it and have no place in secular laws.

Yes, we understand that Righteousness and Wickedness are meaningless to you and those who think like you.

That is what the Battle for the Soul of the Nation is likely to be all about in coming years.

It should be especially easy to blast (metaphorically, legally, politically) through those who have no souls.

The 3% cannot lord it over the 97% for much longer.

 

[Skylar]

I can understand why some object to same sex "marriage" on traditional and customary grounds. If a church doesn't want to have same sex marriage, the First Amendment allows them to do that.

But, I just don't find it acceptable that anyone would want to committed same sex partners from having the same rights they and their different sex partner have in taxes, healthcare, estate planning, child care, and all the rest of that stuff that different sex couples get "extra."

The thing to remember for most of the folks arguing for 'separate but equal' aren't proposing it because they believe these two things are actually equal. But because they believe they're not.

The separation is to keep gays in a subordinate, lesser status. With less rights and more scorn.

And if not bound by the constitution, to criminalize homosexual unions.

 

[Skylar]

...That's the difference between people that just want equality for everyone and those that are threatened by diversity...

Or, alternatively, that's the difference between people who can distinguish Righteousness from Wickedness (homosexuality).

"Righteousness" and "wickedness" are religious constructs that are meaningless to anyone that doesn't believe in it and have no place in secular laws.

Yes, we understand that Righteousness and Wickedness are meaningless to you and those who think like you.

That is what the Battle for the Soul of the Nation is likely to be all about in coming years.

On gay marriage? Support for gay marriage is approaching 2 to 1 over opposition. And growing in every demo.

Even among the religious 'its wrong because we say so' isn't cutting it like it used to. Gays and Lesbians are far more open, which means that more people know them. And they're tediously ordinary. Their weddings are unremarkable. Their kids shit their pants just like all the other toddlers.

Its the same shit.

So on the one hand we have a wealth of direct personal experience of a growing number of Americans where gays are generically ordinary, generally nice folks....just like everyone else. And on the hand we have religious head jobs screaming 'God HATES Fags!' and 'It should be especially easy to blast through those who have no souls.'

And the weight of experience doesn't back your story.