Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[Tilly]

f you do not want to believe that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, then, have at it. You have the religious freedom to believe what ever you want to believe. You do not have the right to tell the rest of us what to believe, or not to believe.

No one is telling you what to believe. No one is so foolish as to think that they can tell you what to believe . I do not care what you believe What you believe goes on between your two ears and unless someone id accomplished in some sort of advanced mind control , they cant change that.

We know that you wish you could control what others believe. You rather openly expressed that as part of your version of utopian ideal, in this thread about space aliens coming to our planet and imposing on us your version of utopia. Do you remember what the first of many tyrannical condition was that you fantasized about them imposing on us? Here's a reminder…

All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.

He does the same in the thread I linked to where he insists pastors should be banned from discussing gender issues and what the bible has to say about them with gender confused kids - even when they have their parents consent to do so. He also approved of the threats from the alphabet people to harm the pastor, his children and his church.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bob the depraved bigot does it all the time. He is seriously disturbed

That, from someone who openly and unabashedly defends the idea of handing children over to dangerous, morally-depraved sexual perverts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Change ONE little letter to Parriage, give 'em the same rights and you got a deal. Up to you to jigger the other terms like spouse, husband, wife..

Separate but equal ,Bubba? That worked real well in the civil rights era. And don't forget that many of those religious bights were opposed to any form of legal recognition.

Sorry you feel that way.. You got a great marching slogan there, but it does not wash. Same sex marriage does have other implications for the law. And how divorces, domestic violence and "violence against women" statutes get adjudicated.

It's a simple proposition to acknowledge important differences. And actually to the benefit a class that wants to be "special".. Got nothing to do with bigotry. It's got to do with biology and semantics and tolerance of tradition. Wouldn't hurt anyone to simply call it something different.

The differences are minor and not an excuse to treat same sex unions differently, or to call them something else. I have given this a lot of thought. It is time to get over it and move on. Marriage is marriage and now one has been able to explain how allowing same sex couples to call t marriage harms any individual, or the institution of marriage. Save the appeals to tradition fallacy, or the biological aspects unless you are prepared to explain how any of that effects the human, personal, romantic bond between two PEOPLE regardless of what is between their respective legs. I wrote this a while ago and it is still relevant now .

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

You're not listening. I'm beyond "civil unions" here. Although "civil unions"" COULD be legally EQUIVALENT to a "marriage".. Depends on the way the law is re-written. And obviously, here in this case, law NEEDS to be re-written. Depends not on what it's CALLED --- but it depends on the contents of that law.

There ARE very consequential CHANGES to law and legal policy here. The 90s "Violence against women act" is just one example. Laid out changes to "domestic violence". And POLICY on "domestic violence" is very much TRADITIONALLY centered on male/female marriage. So is adoption.

There's a LOT of work to be done to get it right. You would THINK ---- the idea of what you CALL IT is far less important than how it's actually codified. But you're a radical zealot. And DEMANDING that the law ignore the fundamental consequences of how this WRECKS a lot of protective law that already exists. Leaving it to DECADES OF COURT FIGHTS to "get it right"..

Acknowledge that EXISTING law is written with nods to separate men/women couplings. Give a NEW name and WRITE IT CORRECTLY to reflect a newer reality.

Your clan is pushing the buttons on this. You need to do the work of making it right. It's NOT traditional marriage. You could end up seriously COMPROMISING DECADES of protection for women in traditional marriage for instance. Don't be callous. Do the work. Get it right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sorry...but you are in the 21st century now. You are not allowed to treat gay Americans as 2nd class citizens any more.

What century it is is irrelevant.

Male will never be female.

Female will never be male.

marriage will always be between a man and a woman.

And homosexuality will always be a morally-depraved sexual aberration, practiced only by filthy perverts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Change ONE little letter to Parriage, give 'em the same rights and you got a deal. Up to you to jigger the other terms like spouse, husband, wife..

Separate but equal ,Bubba? That worked real well in the civil rights era. And don't forget that many of those religious bights were opposed to any form of legal recognition.

Sorry you feel that way.. You got a great marching slogan there, but it does not wash. Same sex marriage does have other implications for the law. And how divorces, domestic violence and "violence against women" statutes get adjudicated.

It's a simple proposition to acknowledge important differences. And actually to the benefit a class that wants to be "special".. Got nothing to do with bigotry. It's got to do with biology and semantics and tolerance of tradition. Wouldn't hurt anyone to simply call it something different.

The differences are minor and not an excuse to treat same sex unions differently, or to call them something else. I have given this a lot of thought. It is time to get over it and move on. Marriage is marriage and now one has been able to explain how allowing same sex couples to call t marriage harms any individual, or the institution of marriage. Save the appeals to tradition fallacy, or the biological aspects unless you are prepared to explain how any of that effects the human, personal, romantic bond between two PEOPLE regardless of what is between their respective legs. I wrote this a while ago and it is still relevant now .

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

Marriage is between a man and a woman - go find your own words and stop hijacking and changing their meanings.
Garriage would do, along with Gedding
You’re welcome.

Sorry...but you are in the 21st century now. You are not allowed to treat gay Americans as 2nd class citizens any more.

Nobody needs to be 2nd class. But nobody needs to end their version of marriage in the eyes of the law to try to squeeze into that "terminology" a coupling that is scientifically and legally different. That's foolish and provocative. This whole dust-up would be settled and done if law that needed to be RE-written was ADDED to describe a new normal set of relationships with very different contingencies and requirements.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He does the same in the thread I linked to where he insists pastors should be banned from discussing gender issues and what the bible has to say about them with gender confused kids - even when they have their parents consent to do so. He also approved of the threats from the alphabet people to harm the pastor, his children and his church.

Evil is as evil does.

Madness is as madness does.

Is there any room to doubt what TheRegressivePervert is?

 

[flacaltenn]

Women are stone stupid on this. If you try and cram gay marriage into traditional marriage --- the WOMEN of America are BIG LOSERS. No longer preferences in child custody or domestic violence. DECADES of court favorship of women in family law goes by the wayside eventually as the 2 separate institutions BATTLE for equity under the title of marriage. Think ahead ladies. It's all gonna get "equalized" in ways you never expected if "Marriage" has to accommodate all possible couplings of sexes..

Better law results without so much dislocation if gay marriage advocates simply adopt a new name for their couplings.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry...but you are in the 21st century now. You are not allowed to treat gay Americans as 2nd class citizens any more.

What century it is is irrelevant.

Male will never be female.

Female will never be male.

marriage will always be between a man and a woman.

And homosexuality will always be a morally-depraved sexual aberration, practiced only by filthy perverts.

Nope...marriage is between two consenting adults now.

 

[bodecea]

Women are stone stupid on this. If you try and cram gay marriage into traditional marriage --- the WOMEN of America are BIG LOSERS. No longer preferences in child custody or domestic violence. DECADES of court favorship of women in family law goes by the wayside eventually as the 2 separate institutions BATTLE for equity under the title of marriage. Think ahead ladies. It's all gonna get "equalized" in ways you never expected if "Marriage" has to accommodate all possible couplings of sexes..

Better law results without so much dislocation if gay marriage advocates simply adopt a new name for their couplings.

Nope.....not at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Women are stone stupid on this. If you try and cram gay marriage into traditional marriage --- the WOMEN of America are BIG LOSERS. No longer preferences in child custody or domestic violence. DECADES of court favorship of women in family law goes by the wayside eventually as the 2 separate institutions BATTLE for equity under the title of marriage. Think ahead ladies. It's all gonna get "equalized" in ways you never expected if "Marriage" has to accommodate all possible couplings of sexes..

Better law results without so much dislocation if gay marriage advocates simply adopt a new name for their couplings.

Nope.....not at all.

How so? Do women enjoy current court preference for child custody? Alimony? Assumptions on Domestic violence? Custody of frozen eggs?

You can't just sit there and DENY that women in straight marriages are gonna take it in the panties if you try to cram all of this upheaval under the single word "marriage"

 

[Moonglow]

Bob the depraved bigot does it all the time. He is seriously disturbed

That, from someone who openly and unabashedly defends the idea of handing children over to dangerous, morally-depraved sexual perverts.

Catholic priest?

 

[bodecea]

Bob the depraved bigot does it all the time. He is seriously disturbed

That, from someone who openly and unabashedly defends the idea of handing children over to dangerous, morally-depraved sexual perverts.

You sound like you are accusing him of being a pedophile...are you?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage will always be between a man and a woman.

Nope...marriage is between two consenting adults now.

Unless those two consenting adults are of opposite sexes, it is not, and never will be a marriage.

Calling it a “marriage” doesn't make it so. Even passing a law to support that claim, doesn't make it so.

2+2=4, even if you claim that 2+2=10; even if you pass a law that declares that 2+2=10.

Law cannot change biology any more than it can change basic math.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You sound like you are accusing him of being a pedophile...are you?

That would be against the rules on this forum.

Let his own words and his own position speak for themselves. The truth is obvious enough, even if I'm not allowed to speak it.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage will always be between a man and a woman.

Nope...marriage is between two consenting adults now.

Unless those two consenting adults are of opposite sexes, it is not, and never will be a marriage.

Calling it a “marriage” doesn't make it so. Even passing a law to support that claim, doesn't make it so.

2+2=4, even if you claim that 2+2=10; even if you pass a law that declares that 2+2=10.

Law cannot change biology any more than it can change basic math.

Nope...no longer true. Gays can legally marry now.

 

[bodecea]

You sound like you are accusing him of being a pedophile...are you?

That would be against the rules on this forum.

Let his own words and his own position speak for themselves. The truth is obvious enough, even if I'm not allowed to speak it.

You are right...it would be....so you are just trolling. Ok.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just be honest Bode and tell me you are FINE with overturning the key provisions of Billy Jeff's masterpiece of protection for married women.. There are ALWAYS "unintended side effects" of something this disruptive. I'm only trying to AVOID decades of court battles and law revisions by handling these side by side and not as the same.


Violence Against Women Act | Marriage.com

Benefits of VAWA
One of the major milestones achieved by VAWA is its highlights on coordinated response of the community on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This has made it possible for courts; law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, victim services, and private bar associations to work jointly with each other in a coordinated fashion to assist victims as opposed to what existed before enactment at the state and local levels.
VAWA as well provides support for community-based services and organizations engaged in working towards ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; especially organizations engaged in cultural and linguistic services.

Criticisms against the Act
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) initially were concerned that the Act resulted to increased rash penalties which included detention of accused persons before trial which was “repulsive” to the constitution of U.S.

The ACLU, in a 2005 letter to senate, nevertheless, supported reauthorization of VAWA on the ground that unconstitutional DNA provision is not included in the Act.

The letter stated that VAWA is one of the most efficient law enacted against domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and has considerably enhanced the law enforcement response to violence against women.

Programs and services
The programs and services supported by the Violence Against Women laws include the following; the federal rape shield law, prevention of violence, support for evicted victims of domestic violence, provision of funds for victim assistance services such as rape services, establishment and management of crisis centers, hotlines and a lot more.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

[ Calling it a “marriage” doesn't make it so. Even passing a law to support that claim, doesn't make it so.

2+2=4, even if you claim that 2+2=10; even if you pass a law that declares that 2+2=10.

Law cannot change biology any more than it can change basic math.

Nope...no longer true. Gays can legally marry now.

A law cannot make that mockery a genuine marriage any more than a law can compel two plus two to equal ten.

 

[bodecea]

[ Calling it a “marriage” doesn't make it so. Even passing a law to support that claim, doesn't make it so.

2+2=4, even if you claim that 2+2=10; even if you pass a law that declares that 2+2=10.

Law cannot change biology any more than it can change basic math.

Nope...no longer true. Gays can legally marry now.

A law cannot make that mockery a genuine marriage any more than a law can compel two plus two to equal ten.

Marriage is legal for gay couples.

 

[bodecea]

Just be honest Bode and tell me you are FINE with overturning the key provisions of Billy Jeff's masterpiece of protection for married women.. There are ALWAYS "unintended side effects" of something this disruptive. I'm only trying to AVOID decades of court battles and law revisions by handling these side by side and not as the same.


Violence Against Women Act | Marriage.com

Benefits of VAWA
One of the major milestones achieved by VAWA is its highlights on coordinated response of the community on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This has made it possible for courts; law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, victim services, and private bar associations to work jointly with each other in a coordinated fashion to assist victims as opposed to what existed before enactment at the state and local levels.
VAWA as well provides support for community-based services and organizations engaged in working towards ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; especially organizations engaged in cultural and linguistic services.

Criticisms against the Act
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) initially were concerned that the Act resulted to increased rash penalties which included detention of accused persons before trial which was “repulsive” to the constitution of U.S.

The ACLU, in a 2005 letter to senate, nevertheless, supported reauthorization of VAWA on the ground that unconstitutional DNA provision is not included in the Act.

The letter stated that VAWA is one of the most efficient law enacted against domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and has considerably enhanced the law enforcement response to violence against women.

Programs and services
The programs and services supported by the Violence Against Women laws include the following; the federal rape shield law, prevention of violence, support for evicted victims of domestic violence, provision of funds for victim assistance services such as rape services, establishment and management of crisis centers, hotlines and a lot more.

You know what's ironic with what you posted? Before gay marriage was legal, I was listening to a radio station and they were interviewing the President of the Concerned Women of America....and this president stated that if gay marriage became legal, women would divorce their husbands in droves in order to marry each other.