It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon

You have never actually been with a woman- have you?

And you certainly have never been married.

As someone who has been married to my wife for over 20 years, I can say with great certainty that our 'romantic union' took place long before our wedding- and continues to this day.

And since i have actual real homosexual friends who actually are married- from all appearances their marriage is based upon the same things as my marriage is- mutual respect, love, admiration or as one Justice said:

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions

 

[bodecea]

Clean bloodlines? Wow, you really do sound like the racist of yesteryear.

Pops, if sibling marriages ever come to pass, I'll happily concede that you were right all along and the slippery slope exists.

I'm 100% positive that you will never get that concession.

Marriage IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right you simpleton. It's your argument that almost insures it.

Congratulations

You don't care if it happens or not. You've made that incredibly clear.

Name one other constitutionally protected civil right that excluded nearly everyone from full participation?

Your arguments seem to have been a fraud from the beginning.

Marriage excluded nearly everyone from full participation?

Yes, thanks. No one could marry a family member. Now go back to correcting grammar. It's what you do best.

Ah, so full participation means completely unregulated? If that's so, I can certainly name other rights which exclude everyone from full participation. Speech, gun ownership, religious practice, all are regulated.

Getting butthurt on behalf of Boss now? :LOL:

So the state gets to choose which Gods are worshiped? The state can determine which words can be used? Can they also tell you that you must speak?

One can't yell fire in a crowded theater - but only when they yell it to inflict terror, if there is a fire, it's not restricted.

So? Please tell me the compelling state interest to deny entrance into a contracted partnership, by family members into a relationship that does not make sex a qualification

No....unless you want to do something like human sacrifice. Thank goodness for separation of church and state.

 

[bodecea]

Are you saying that ...

I'm saying what nature said when it designed the human species:

MARRIAGE is: THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!​

That's sex. Not marriage. Marriage is not natural....it is a human construct and as such has gone under multiple changes by multiple cultures over the millennium.

 

[bodecea]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Well, I would imagine in some cases that is true.

 

[bodecea]

Well, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I'm curious as to, besides the right to marry and not be fired for who they are, what "special rights" the gay community just won't stop until they get. Yanno, besides the power to rape whomever they please, legally. You've already covered that slippery slope.

Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo.

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

You are no different that those who called white people who supported civil rights in the 50s & 60s "N***** lovers."

 

[bodecea]

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Well, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I'm curious as to, besides the right to marry and not be fired for who they are, what "special rights" the gay community just won't stop until they get. Yanno, besides the power to rape whomever they please, legally. You've already covered that slippery slope.

Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo.

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.

I will have been married to my partner of 20 years for seven years on Halloween. We have not once been treated differently by society since we got married. We're treated exactly like other married couples by society.

You silly, silly, silly bigot. Gay people in a neighborhood improves your property value. Everyone who isn't a bigot knows that.

Your Gay Neighbors Really Are Raising Your Real Estate Values

Same here...we have been friends with our neighbors since we moved in back in 96. They all know we are gay and we even had our legal wedding ceremony in the gazebo at our cul-de-sac park before Prop H8 kicked in. You don't see to live in the real world if you think that the majority of people reject gay couples.

 

[Kobie]

Well, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I'm curious as to, besides the right to marry and not be fired for who they are, what "special rights" the gay community just won't stop until they get. Yanno, besides the power to rape whomever they please, legally. You've already covered that slippery slope.

Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo.

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I'm curious as to, besides the right to marry and not be fired for who they are, what "special rights" the gay community just won't stop until they get. Yanno, besides the power to rape whomever they please, legally. You've already covered that slippery slope.

Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo.

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

You are funny.

I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with.

 

[Montrovant]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

 

[Kobie]

I'm still waitin

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

He appears to be claming that two people of the same gender are incapable of having the same level of love, trust and commitment as a man and woman, because he says so.

 

[Seawytch]

This could almost have been said by Pops on this message board...instead of 50 years ago...

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.~ R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general

You understand the only non arbitrary requirements are consent, a signed document and payment of a fee, right?

Your heads stuck in tradition, which when you think about it is funny as hell.

Nope. We once restricted marriage based on race. That was wrong and we changed it. We also once restricted marriage based on gender. That was wrong and we changed it.

Marriage still remains non familial consenting adults. That didn't change when we allowed races to mix and it's not going to happen now that genders can marry each other. Marriage remains non familial consenting adult couples.

R. D. McIlwaine III thought EXACTLY as you do Pops. How'd that turn out for him?

It remains, for no particular reason, non familial.

Same argument made by Virginia

Bigot.

It remains, for the same reasons, non familial.

When are you filing your challenge?

 

[Boss]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

Again, has nothing to do with the definition.

The definition of "union" is "to join together" as well as a couple of alternative definitions, like a type of pearl. The "meaning" of the word can vary depending on context. Definition and meaning are two different things. You seem to not be able to comprehend that.

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. (They can be gay or straight) Same sex partners can't marry the same reason they can't procreate. It takes a male and female... a union. They can pretend. We can all pretend. In fact, we can redefine dogs and cats to mean "children" and gay couples can pretend to have all "children" they please. Does that make it the same?

Like I've said, if you want to argue same sex couples deserve tax breaks and benefit of contract in personal property matters, I have no problem with that. If you want to call their relationship a "civil union" ...again, not a problem. But marriage is the union of a male and female, and as such, there has been NO DISCRIMINATION.

 

[Boss]

Okay, okay.....

I will happily withdraw all my objections to gay marriage if you hypocrites will simply stand up for my fundamental constitutional right to marry these big dirty milkers!

You have every right to marry Kate Upton. Of course, neither of you can be married to someone else at the time, and you both must consent, but your right to marry her should you both wish it and be single is certainly unchanged by Obergefell.

Oh you misunderstood... I don't care about marrying Kate. She is way too young for me. We probably have nothing in common and it would be a terrible relationship. I just want to marry her titties. I promise to forsake all other titties and to love, honor and cherish them until death do us part.

And hey, Einstein, I didn't need to you point out that we can't be married to someone else... I'd like for you to explain why but you can't explain it using your morality anymore, it has to be a compelling state interest. And the same goes for consent and other malleable terms we change all the time in law. Your morality doesn't apply when we're talking about my fundamental constitutional rights. I'm entitled to those regardless of your moral standards.

 

[Syriusly]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. .

So you keep saying.

But that hasn't been entirely true in the United States for over 12 years.

 

[Syriusly]

Okay, okay.....

I will happily withdraw all my objections to gay marriage if you hypocrites will simply stand up for my fundamental constitutional right to marry these big dirty milkers!

You have every right to marry Kate Upton. Of course, neither of you can be married to someone else at the time, and you both must consent, but your right to marry her should you both wish it and be single is certainly unchanged by Obergefell.

Oh you misunderstood... I don't care about marrying Kate. She is way too young for me. We probably have nothing in common and it would be a terrible relationship. I just want to marry her titties.

So Boss so dehumanizes women- that he only wants to marry 'titties'?

Not surprising really eh?

 

[Boss]

I'm still waitin

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

He appears to be claming that two people of the same gender are incapable of having the same level of love, trust and commitment as a man and woman, because he says so.

No, I am saying that marriage is the union of a male and female in matrimony. This involves more than love, trust and commitment. I love my mother... can't marry her. I trust my sister... can't marry her. I am committed to my cell phone provider... can't marry it. Now... I did not need marriage to fulfill my love, trust and commitment.. so marriage is obviously not required for those things. It's also not a "level" for those things. If so, no one would ever get a divorce.

I am simply saying that a "marital union" between a man and woman is something completely different in context than a "marital union" between same sex couples. With a man and woman, marriage is the joining of two genders in matrimony. With same sex partners there is no union of genders because they are the same. Their "marital union" can only be one of sexual behavior.

So we have "real" marriage, and we have "gay" marriage.... like real crab and imitation crab. The SCOTUS can rule they are the same thing but we all know the difference.

 

[Syriusly]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. (They can be gay or straight) Same sex partners can't marry the same reason they can't procreate. It takes a male and female...

How bizarre- Boss equates the physical facts of biology (the mixing of sperm and ovum) with marriage.

Apparently Boss thinks a male and female dog are capable of marriage- since they can procreate- but not a woman and a woman.

The bigotry runs deep with Boss.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm still waitin

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

He appears to be claming that two people of the same gender are incapable of having the same level of love, trust and commitment as a man and woman, because he says so.

Oh he goes beyond that- he is so terrified of gays that he predicts that gays will be trying to pass laws requiring him to have sex with him- from the OP

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

 

[Seawytch]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

Again, has nothing to do with the definition.

The definition of "union" is "to join together" as well as a couple of alternative definitions, like a type of pearl. The "meaning" of the word can vary depending on context. Definition and meaning are two different things. You seem to not be able to comprehend that.

Marriage is the joining together of a male and female in matrimony. (They can be gay or straight) Same sex partners can't marry the same reason they can't procreate. It takes a male and female... a union. They can pretend. We can all pretend. In fact, we can redefine dogs and cats to mean "children" and gay couples can pretend to have all "children" they please. Does that make it the same?

Like I've said, if you want to argue same sex couples deserve tax breaks and benefit of contract in personal property matters, I have no problem with that. If you want to call their relationship a "civil union" ...again, not a problem. But marriage is the union of a male and female, and as such, there has been NO DISCRIMINATION.

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

 

[Boss]

Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo.

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.