how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[kaz]

I do care when social authoritarians want to use the law to prevent citizens from equal access to fair treatment by the government because they find the lawful actions of other citizens objectionable.

If this is actually true then like me you should oppose all government marriage not just gay marriage because all government marriage meets your criteria of what government should not do. I oppose gay marriage only because it extends the divide of unequal treatment among citizens. I see no reason if George is single that he and I should be in any way treated differently by government.

I will start a thread on my proposal for how marriage should work from a government perspective over the holidays when things slow down. But the short answer is I would say there should be no difference in government treatment and it should be a matter of private contracts between citizens. I look forward to debating it with you then.

 

[grunt11b]

In Oklahoma we have a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between one man and one woman. It also says that the state of Oklahoma will not recognize same-sex marriages performed in any other state. It has already survived three attempts to overturn it AND the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled it is constitutional. I helped pass that amendment. I gave money to the effort to pass the amendment and I believe it is the right thing for Oklahoma.

That is not the case in California and other states. And quite frankly, I believe that this is a state's rights issue. If any state in this union believes that same-sex marriage is something they want to acknowledge, then I say that they are absolutely, 100% within their right to do so.

Any other arguement is crap soup...

It IS a states rights issue, but you cannot explain the truth to truth matters. The truth to her is what SHE believes it to be no matter what is reality and what is not.

 

[grunt11b]

Thanks for posting this TM, I didn't know suckin' a dick was a "Civil Right".

"All we are saying, is take cocks in ass!"

"I have a dream, that one day all Americans will take a cock in the ass!"

"Truth, Justice, and a Cock in the Ass!"

"Baseball, Hotdogs, Apple Pie and Dicks in Ass!"

"I regret that I have only One Dick to stick in someones ass!"

If a man is not allowed to take a dick (or a fist) in his ass is that man truly free? I think not. It's all so clear to me now!

how long have you been obsessed with anal sex?

not that there's anything wrong...

TM made it all clear to me that Gay Sex is a Civil Right through her post that wasn't the least bit insulting, but really instructive.

I used to think that gay sex was the quickest way to a slow, painful AIDS death but I see the error in my thinking.

I realize now that America was founded on the idea that Gay Men should be able to marry and that Gay Sex is a cornerstone of our Democracy.

Thank you TM, thank you! You should thank her too Del.

I agree 100%, thank you TM, because had George Washington not been buttfucking his soldiers before they crossed the Hudson, god only knows what the end result would have been, or how about the time that Abe Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address while naked from the waste down with his penis stuck through a glory hole. TM, thank you for reminding us how this countries democracy was supposed to work, had our forefathers not been gay, this country would not have turned out to be the greatest in the world.

 

[syrenn]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

think about explaining gay rights to yourself....and you will have the winning combination on how to explain it to an idiot.

 

[bodecea]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

The only people screaming gay rights are morons like you. Of course gays have rights, just like anybody else in America. But being that marriage is not in the constitution it is left up to the states to decide,

So, you're against DOMA too.

so no...you are wrong in any type of assertion that gays have a right to marry in any state that they want to. Also, there right to be gay coincides with my right to be free from them, and to be free from having to pay for any disease they may spread.

Then don't have gay sex, or at least have protection while having gay sex. Simple solution...glad to have helped.

Gays have no more rights than anybody else in this country and in my opinion are not a protected class. They are free to smoke poles and ram each other in the ass all they want in my opinion, just dont throw it up in our faces when you do.

Once again, another hetero who talks about gay sex more than gays do. How odd.

 

[grunt11b]

The term civil rights does not trump the united states constitution, if you are gay and want to get married to another gay then you either need to do one of two things, elect officials into your state that will change the marriage laws, or go to a state that allows gay marriage, civil rights is only a term used to strip everyone else away from there own rights to decide whether they will tolerate such things.
You can also get enough signatures on a ballot to have it put up for a vote during election time, even though that happened twice in California and the people voted hell no on it the liberals there circumvented the peoples choice and tried to legislate gay marriage from the bench, just as leftists always do when they cant get what they want.

I would suggest not posting while intoxicated. It's better to post while intoxicated than to drive that way, certainly, and will endanger no lives, but it's still not really a good idea.

Translation: I have no argument that will defeat yours, because the constitution is the law of the land and some things are left to the states, I hate this, and must chastise you for speaking the truth because it does not fit my liberal agenda.

 

[kaz]

1. A "contractual arrangement" does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. On Civil Marriage does that.

- There should be no death tax

2. A "contractual arrangement" does not allow for exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

- There should be no death tax

3. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

- Sure it could. The existence of any private marriage contract could be used as the standard.

4. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

- Sure it could, see #3.

5. A "contractual arrangement" does not convey parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

- A marriage contract doesn't prove paternity either. If there is a divorce then parents have to fight about custody. Marriage solves little here anyway.

6. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

- Nor should it. Why should that be a marriage function? We should be able to have anyone we want do this. Our spouse, a relative. We could make it easier to establish who we want to speak for us legally.

7. A "contractual arrangement" cannot waive the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

- Irrelevant. Private employers should offer the benefits they chose, not the benefits government choses.

8. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

- No one has a right to taxpayer money, BFD.

9. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

- Of course it could.

10. Even with a "contractual arrangement" and a will, not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.​

- So clarify probate laws. There is no need for "marriage" for this.

That being said their are currently hundreds if not thousands more elements on the law dependent on Civil Marriage to define "rights, responsibilities, and benefits" associated with that situation that cannot be duplicated with a "contractual arrangement".

Abominations all - government's unequal treatment of citizens. These should be eliminated and it should be made easier for all citizens to say who they want to have what rights based on themselves.

 

[bodecea]

The term civil rights does not trump the united states constitution, if you are gay and want to get married to another gay then you either need to do one of two things, elect officials into your state that will change the marriage laws, or go to a state that allows gay marriage, civil rights is only a term used to strip everyone else away from there own rights to decide whether they will tolerate such things.
You can also get enough signatures on a ballot to have it put up for a vote during election time, even though that happened twice in California and the people voted hell no on it the liberals there circumvented the peoples choice and tried to legislate gay marriage from the bench, just as leftists always do when they cant get what they want.

I would suggest not posting while intoxicated. It's better to post while intoxicated than to drive that way, certainly, and will endanger no lives, but it's still not really a good idea.

Translation: I have no argument that will defeat yours, because the constitution is the law of the land and some things are left to the states, I hate this, and must chastise you for speaking the truth because it does not fit my liberal agenda.

As I said before, you must hate DOMA.

And what about that pesky "Full Faith & Credit" Clause in Article IV of the Constitution? How do you propose we handle that one when one state allows gay marriage and another doesn't?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How odd that you could not answer yes or no to my question.

How odd....as a Lefie i thot u didn't believe in "yes or no".....or "right or wrong".....or "black or white".....everything with u Lefties always appears to be a wavy gray line....

So, you answer my question with a "wavy gray line" like a "Lefie"? Or was that ANOTHER deflection? Why yes, I believe it was.

Are you afraid to answer my question? Seems so.

you asked a real question....? ....i thought it was just more demonstration of your warped mind....

 

[grunt11b]

How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot

The only people screaming gay rights are morons like you. Of course gays have rights, just like anybody else in America. But being that marriage is not in the constitution it is left up to the states to decide,

So, you're against DOMA too.

I am all for the defense of marriage act, it is between a man and a woman, but until the left figure out that they have to have it amended into there states constitution we will all always have to explain this shit to you.

so no...you are wrong in any type of assertion that gays have a right to marry in any state that they want to. Also, there right to be gay coincides with my right to be free from them, and to be free from having to pay for any disease they may spread.

Then don't have gay sex, or at least have protection while having gay sex. Simple solution...glad to have helped.

I dont, but that does not mean a should be saddled with the bill because others do.

Gays have no more rights than anybody else in this country and in my opinion are not a protected class. They are free to smoke poles and ram each other in the ass all they want in my opinion, just dont throw it up in our faces when you do.

Once again, another hetero who talks about gay sex more than gays do. How odd.

It's kind of hard not to talk about it being that this thread was based on it dipshit. Apparently civil rights means you can throw this shit up in hetero's face any time you lefties feel like it and you expect us not to throw the law back into yours, sorry budd. I will remind you every chance I get about how this works under the constitution and state laws.

 

[bodecea]

Screw the "civil union" crap. Those are just weasel words. A "civil union" is a marriage in everything but name. It makes more sense simply to abolish the institution of marriage than to extend it to homosexuals.

I learned that that is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"....and makes about as much sense......to an adult.

All you're saying is that its stupid to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals. I agree.

Why is it stupid? Are you not in favor of the State supporting and encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones?

 

[grunt11b]

Have to go now, some of us adults are responsible tax payers and have to go to work to pay for you leftists "free" shit. Later all.

 

[bodecea]

The only people screaming gay rights are morons like you. Of course gays have rights, just like anybody else in America. But being that marriage is not in the constitution it is left up to the states to decide,

I am all for the defense of marriage act, it is between a man and a woman, but until the left figure out that they have to have it amended into there states constitution we will all always have to explain this shit to you.




I dont, but that does not mean a should be saddled with the bill because others do.

Once again, another hetero who talks about gay sex more than gays do. How odd.

It's kind of hard not to talk about it being that this thread was based on it dipshit. Apparently civil rights means you can throw this shit up in hetero's face any time you lefties feel like it and you expect us not to throw the law back into yours, sorry budd. I will remind you every chance I get about how this works under the constitution and state laws.

Oh, you are a mod now? Congrats.


BTW, this thread is on gay rights and gay marriage.....but it appears that to people like you, that translates to nothing but images of gay sex, gay sex, and more gay sex.

That's odd....When I think of heteros, their rights, and their marriages, my thoughts don't automatically default to images of straight sex, straight sex, and more straight sex.

Am I alone in not thinking about the sex of other orientations as much as people like you do?

 

[bodecea]

How odd....as a Lefie i thot u didn't believe in "yes or no".....or "right or wrong".....or "black or white".....everything with u Lefties always appears to be a wavy gray line....

So, you answer my question with a "wavy gray line" like a "Lefie"? Or was that ANOTHER deflection? Why yes, I believe it was.

Are you afraid to answer my question? Seems so.

you asked a real question....? ....i thought it was just more demonstration of your warped mind....

I did....as you continue the Saga of Deflection from answering yes or no. You seem very afraid to answer.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

i learned that that is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face"....and makes about as much sense......to an adult.

all you're saying is that its stupid to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals. I agree.

why is it stupid? Are you not in favor of the state supporting and encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones?

no

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So, you answer my question with a "wavy gray line" like a "Lefie"? Or was that ANOTHER deflection? Why yes, I believe it was.

Are you afraid to answer my question? Seems so.

you asked a real question....? ....i thought it was just more demonstration of your warped mind....

I did....as you continue the Saga of Deflection from answering yes or no. You seem very afraid to answer.

answer what....? pls restate your question....

 

[Jarhead]

I am all for the defense of marriage act, it is between a man and a woman, but until the left figure out that they have to have it amended into there states constitution we will all always have to explain this shit to you.




I dont, but that does not mean a should be saddled with the bill because others do.

It's kind of hard not to talk about it being that this thread was based on it dipshit. Apparently civil rights means you can throw this shit up in hetero's face any time you lefties feel like it and you expect us not to throw the law back into yours, sorry budd. I will remind you every chance I get about how this works under the constitution and state laws.

Oh, you are a mod now? Congrats.


BTW, this thread is on gay rights and gay marriage.....but it appears that to people like you, that translates to nothing but images of gay sex, gay sex, and more gay sex.

That's odd....When I think of heteros, their rights, and their marriages, my thoughts don't automatically default to images of straight sex, straight sex, and more straight sex.

Am I alone in not thinking about the sex of other orientations as much as people like you do?

Sex?
Are we talking about sex?
I'm in.
Hey Bodecea...what are you wearing?

 

[bodecea]

you asked a real question....? ....i thought it was just more demonstration of your warped mind....

I did....as you continue the Saga of Deflection from answering yes or no. You seem very afraid to answer.

answer what....? pls restate your question....

Sure.

Wait. By legalizing gay marriage, the government would be telling you that you have to live a gay life?

 

[bodecea]

all you're saying is that its stupid to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals. I agree.

why is it stupid? Are you not in favor of the state supporting and encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones?

no

OK, so we can put you down as NOT being in favor of the government encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones.

 

[bodecea]

It's kind of hard not to talk about it being that this thread was based on it dipshit. Apparently civil rights means you can throw this shit up in hetero's face any time you lefties feel like it and you expect us not to throw the law back into yours, sorry budd. I will remind you every chance I get about how this works under the constitution and state laws.

Oh, you are a mod now? Congrats.


BTW, this thread is on gay rights and gay marriage.....but it appears that to people like you, that translates to nothing but images of gay sex, gay sex, and more gay sex.

That's odd....When I think of heteros, their rights, and their marriages, my thoughts don't automatically default to images of straight sex, straight sex, and more straight sex.

Am I alone in not thinking about the sex of other orientations as much as people like you do?

Sex?
Are we talking about sex?
I'm in.
Hey Bodecea...what are you wearing?

My gold "Navy" sweatshirt....does that excite you?