It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

Of course she did.

Any gay couple who believe that they are entitled to be married according to their religion who is denied a marriage license by her are having their religious freedom violated.

Why do you believe in protecting her religious freedom- but not the religious freedom of gay couples who want to marry?

Matter of fact- why do you support any state law which violates their religious freedom to marry according to their faith?

First of all, gay marriage is not a religious tenet in any religion. Second, even if it were, Ms. Davis is not denying anyone the right to do anything. If the State of Kentucky says they can't do it without her permission, that's the State of Kentucky, not Ms. Davis. Finally, no right is being denied because the parties can go to any number of other court clerks and obtain the license.

Well then, Mrs. Davis' rights are not being denied because she can go to any number of other employers that don't require her to sign off on same sex marriages.

Do you think separate but equal was a reasonable accommodation?

You see, I have a problem with this solution. If a black man or woman were being discriminated against at work, we could not say... well, they can go work someplace else, so their rights aren't denied.n.

So now you want to compare Ms. Davis being told to do her job- with a black person being told to do his or her job?

Ms. Davis has not been discriminated against- she is being asked to do exactly the same thing as every other employee is asked to do- black or white- Christian or Jew.

If she were refusing however to issue marriage licenses to a black and white couple- or a Jewish couple- claiming that would violate her religious beliefs- she would never have gotten any support except from the Stormfront crowd.

And I know you are going to say 'but there is no religion which says to discriminate against blacks or Jews"- and to that I say- 'says who'?

If you allow someone to discriminate against a person by claiming it would violate their personal religious beliefs- then either you allow any person to make any claim about their personal religious beliefs- or you have the government deciding which are 'legitimate religious beliefs'

Anyone in favor of the government deciding what a genuine religious belief is?

Do you fucking DROOL when you post? For some reason, I imagine you as someone who can't control his drool. No I didn't compare Davis with a black man being asked to do his job and I honestly don't know how you derived such nonsense from what I posted.

You can't be asked to do a job that fundamentally violates your religious or moral principles. It's no different than if SCOTUS ruled it a constitutional right to torch churches and Ms. Davis job was to issue burn permits for said torchings. It's not about denying rights to those who want to burn churches. She shouldn't have to leave her job or else sign her name to something she doesn't condone and which contradicts her fundamental religious beliefs.

Now... I never said ANY religious belief MUST be respected in ALL cases. That is YOU trying to be obtuse and dodge the point. I have repeatedly used the word "fundamental" and it's not because I just like using big words, it means something. Traditional marriage is a fundamental tenant of Christian religion and most organized religions. FUNDAMENTAL...forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.

You're fucking deranged.

When an individual represents the government, they cannot impose their personal religious beliefs on the public. Allowing that is beyond retarded -- which is why you defend Davis' actions while the justice system threw her in jail.

What you are defending would be no different than a religious Jewish state employee denying business licenses to Christians who who want to open a restaurant that serves pork because it violates their personal religious beliefs

If that's the type of government you want, I suggest you move to Iran. That will not be tolerated in the U.S.

 

[Faun]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm going to be blunt, because I'm tired of the bullshit. For years I've listened to Republican's talk about "Freedom" in this country, half the time I think they are right (maybe even more than half the time), but then we get to any religious issue and it goes to complete shit hypocrisy on their side. I'm tired of the lies, I vote you bastards in because I'm a lot Republican, then you stab American freedom in the back with your crosses. I'm sick of it, I'm tired of trying to "pretend" you're doing the right thing, I'm tired of trying to defend the Repub party for what is clearly a blatant violation of our countries foundation...

You Christians better decide if you want to continue to be a part of this /FREE/ country or not, you can either respect that others don't believe in the same crap you do, or you can end up a "minority religion" (like what you did to the Mormon's.) The bottom line for myself, and a lot of non-Christians, is that we don't particularly care if Christianity continues to exist in America or not. We don't believe in your religion, why would we care if it stopped being a "majority" religion here?

You folks had better get a grip and realize that even those of us who believe that religion is "good" for people, are getting sick of the games you folks are playing. Why would I possibly want to "defend" Christianity's continued existence or power in the US when you regularly and intentionally use your religion to discriminate against "non-believers"? And it's not just LGBT either, it's Mormon's, Islam, Paganism (witchcraft), basically /any/ other religion, plus atheists, agnostics; you attack /all/ of them using /our/ fucking government as a blunt instrument tool to achieve your religious domination. It baffles me that you folks can look at something from like running a business; if half your fucking clients are saying your food is to damn salty, then to stay in business you put in less fucking salt. DUH. When half the country is saying we're okay with SSM, then you fuckheads should prob. go... hmmm maybe we should stop attacking and trying to stop SSM? You were able to do so about non-arranged marriages, about women becoming equal partners rather than property, and even about divorces; despite your religious dogma.

But no, instead you dipshits let a bunch of asshole leaders destroy what was truly a good idea for a society; corrupting freedom in order to gain a religious control - a theocracy... This is Christian religion today, and it's not because of anything anyone else said about Christian's, but because of what /Christian's/ have done to fellow American's from the very beginning of this country despite the very CLEAR edict that church and state MUST BE SEPERATE. (And frankly even before America too) And worse, instead of taking a stand against your religious leaders and saying, 'ya know... this isn't right and this isn't what America was founded on,' you weak minded fools follow your moron leaders into oblivion and proclaim the exact fucking opposite - like they just added that religious separation thing in the founding documents by mistake or some shit.

It becomes more and more clear to me that a good deal of Christians are not mentally capable of separating their religious beliefs from their government position duties. IF you folks do not learn to do so, in accordance with our constitution, then I will have no qualms backing a movement to have overly religious folks completely barred from government positions (anywhere religion can be used to cause harm to fellow American's freedoms - and that includes President.) I'm sure you bitches will cry that's an "attack" on your religion, but I submit that your religion becomes more and more apparent as an attack on individual freedom in America.

I'll be one of those saying "good fucking riddance," not because I disagree with the foundation of Christianity, or because I believe Christian's are bad, or even that I don't see the value of American's being Christians - but because the /people/ who follow Christianity are apparently idiots who are unable, or unwilling, to think for themselves - which I must say I find rather ironic since it's usually Repubs accusing Dems of that shit.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm going to be blunt, because I'm tired of the bullshit. For years I've listened to Republican's talk about "Freedom" in this country, half the time I think they are right (maybe even more than half the time), but then we get to any religious issue and it goes to complete shit hypocrisy on their side. I'm tired of the lies, I vote you bastards in because I'm a lot Republican, then you stab American freedom in the back with your crosses. I'm sick of it, I'm tired of trying to "pretend" you're doing the right thing, I'm tired of trying to defend the Repub party for what is clearly a blatant violation of our countries foundation...

You Christians better decide if you want to continue to be a part of this /FREE/ country or not, you can either respect that others don't believe in the same crap you do, or you can end up a "minority religion" (like what you did to the Mormon's.) The bottom line for myself, and a lot of non-Christians, is that we don't particularly care if Christianity continues to exist in America or not. We don't believe in your religion, why would we care if it stopped being a "majority" religion here?

You folks had better get a grip and realize that even those of us who believe that religion is "good" for people, are getting sick of the games you folks are playing. Why would I possibly want to "defend" Christianity's continued existence or power in the US when you regularly and intentionally use your religion to discriminate against "non-believers"? And it's not just LGBT either, it's Mormon's, Islam, Paganism (witchcraft), basically /any/ other religion, plus atheists, agnostics; you attack /all/ of them using /our/ fucking government as a blunt instrument tool to achieve your religious domination. It baffles me that you folks can look at something from like running a business; if half your fucking clients are saying your food is to damn salty, then to stay in business you put in less fucking salt. DUH. When half the country is saying we're okay with SSM, then you fuckheads should prob. go... hmmm maybe we should stop attacking and trying to stop SSM? You were able to do so about non-arranged marriages, about women becoming equal partners rather than property, and even about divorces; despite your religious dogma.

But no, instead you dipshits let a bunch of asshole leaders destroy what was truly a good idea for a society; corrupting freedom in order to gain a religious control - a theocracy... This is Christian religion today, and it's not because of anything anyone else said about Christian's, but because of what /Christian's/ have done to fellow American's from the very beginning of this country despite the very CLEAR edict that church and state MUST BE SEPERATE. (And frankly even before America too) And worse, instead of taking a stand against your religious leaders and saying, 'ya know... this isn't right and this isn't what America was founded on,' you weak minded fools follow your moron leaders into oblivion and proclaim the exact fucking opposite - like they just added that religious separation thing in the founding documents by mistake or some shit.

It becomes more and more clear to me that a good deal of Christians are not mentally capable of separating their religious beliefs from their government position duties. IF you folks do not learn to do so, in accordance with our constitution, then I will have no qualms backing a movement to have overly religious folks completely barred from government positions (anywhere religion can be used to cause harm to fellow American's freedoms - and that includes President.) I'm sure you bitches will cry that's an "attack" on your religion, but I submit that your religion becomes more and more apparent as an attack on individual freedom in America.

I'll be one of those saying "good fucking riddance," not because I disagree with the foundation of Christianity, or because I believe Christian's are bad, or even that I don't see the value of American's being Christians - but because the /people/ who follow Christianity are apparently idiots who are unable, or unwilling, to think for themselves - which I must say I find rather ironic since it's usually Repubs accusing Dems of that shit.

Why your post reminds me a great deal of the OP.

 

[EverCurious]

Yea I realize it does come off that way, but it's the truth and I'm tired of sugar coating it. I've admitted (I think in this thread even) that I have issues with organized religion (which is where a lot of the above stems from.) My folks are Christian's, which is why I also understand the "benefits" of religious belief. However, the bottom line is that I just can't get past the fact that their use of the bible as a tool to circumvent the religious freedoms that are allowed in America. Basically if they can't stop doing that, then I believe the "harm" they do outweighs the "good."

My folks don't seem to have any trouble separating their religious beliefs from the rights of LGBT's (we have many homosexuals in our family and circle which is why I've tried to just ignore the bullshit from the far right for many years,) but there's a point where I'm just done, my patience runs out. I do not think I'm alone in being "fed up" with the right's political pushing of their religious beliefs. If I am "the only one", that's fine too, I use my one vote and follow whatever the rest of the country decides even when I disagree with it because that is what America is about - compromise. It's not like I'll be on a war path to get rid of Christianity or anything, but if it gets voted out, I'm not going to shed any tears either.

 

[Boss]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation.

The truth is, you are a HETEROPHOBE-- You have an irrational fear of straight people! You are also a CHRISTAPHOBE-- A total and complete religious bigot! And when the perverts come out of the woodwork and want to wank off in the public and call it "Love in the Park" you'll be on the side of the perverts because it's something the heteros and Christians oppose.

 

[Boss]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It has been that for 5k years or as long as western culture has existed. You want to change marriage to include homosexual behavior, which is NOT marriage. The way you want to try and change it is by stubbornly insisting it has already been changed. Pedophiles are denied the right to "marry the person they love." An incestuous brother is denied the right to marry his sister, aka: the person he loves. A polygamist is denied the right to marry the people they love. Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse. Lot of legitimate examples there of people being denied their right to "marry the person they love!"

Also... I love Kate Upton! Would give my left nut to have a go on those wonderful tits! But despite my eternal burning passion and love for Katie, I don't have the right to "marry the person I love" because A) she has no idea who I am, B) She is already in a relationship and C) Her consent is required. We don't CHANGE the definition of words to enable me to marry Kate Upton! I don't have that right!

 

[EverCurious]

Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.

The brother and sister thing, I personally think it's a little odd in modern times, but it's actually historically a 'normal' practice (usually to protect family wealth/name/land ownership etc.) Other than physical/medical issues with them making kids together who cares really?

And no, adulterers end up marrying their lovers all the time... like daily, (hell didn't the "traditional marriage defender" Kim Davis marry a guy she had kids with while married to another man?) If we look at history, it was common practice for married folks to have lovers and there wasn't much of an issue with it until the Christian's decided that was a "problem" for them and forced everyone else to comply with /their/ religious beliefs.

Similar could be said for polygamists as well. I think they /should/ be able to marry more than one person, so long as all parties are alright with it who gives a shit; plus /that/ would be respectful to the religious freedom's of [some] Mormon sects. Of course the reality is that Christian's as a whole have zero interest in actual religious freedom, only enforcing /their/ proclaimed religious freedoms.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It has been that for 5k years or as long as western culture has existed. You want to change marriage to include homosexual behavior, which is NOT marriage. The way you want to try and change it is by stubbornly insisting it has already been changed.

Marriage was a union of a man and many women for thousands of years. It's not anymore in most cultures. The "tradition" of marriage changed. Marriage was an institution where the woman was property and could own no property herself for thousands of years. That "tradition" changed. Marriage "traditionally" used to be really old men marrying really young girls. That "tradition" changed.

Here's how your "tradition" argument went in court:

Samuelson: “Well, I think there’s several reasons. I think tradition is one of the reasons.”
Posner: “How can tradition be a reason for anything? I don’t get that. That’s again the Loving case, right? The tradition of forbidding interracial marriage went back to colonial times. It was two hundred years old by the time Loving came along.”
Samuelson: “I think Loving was a deviation from the common law, rather than a codifying of…”
Judge David Hamilton: “WHAT?”
Posner: “Oh no, no… [laughs, scoffs] ‘It’s the common law’! Look, interracial marriage had been forbidden in the colonies and in many, many states–not just southern, but western–for literally, well, more than 100 years, so why wasn’t that a tradition?”
Samuelson: “It’s distinguishable, it’s a different tradition.”
Posner: [laughs] “Well, of course it’s a different tradition! So in other words, tradition per se is not a grounds for continuing. We’ve been doing this stupid thing for 100 years, 1000 years, we’ll keep doing it, because it’s tradition. You wouldn’t make that argument.”
Samuelson: “Well we’re not making that argument.”
Posner: “Don’t you have to have some empirical, or practical, or common-sense basis for barring these marriages? I mean, what’s the basis? I didn’t get anything out of your brief that sounded like a reason for doing this.”
Samuelson: “Our position is that tradition is based on experience.”
Posner: “That’s Loving. Tradition. Hundreds of years no interracial marriage. They would make the same arguments you would make: ‘It’s tradition. We don’t want to change it because we don’t know what would happen, right, changing tradition, that’s terrible.‘ What if men stopped shaking hands? That’d be the end of the nation, right?”

Samuelson had no response
​

Pedophiles are denied the right to "marry the person they love." An incestuous brother is denied the right to marry his sister, aka: the person he loves. A polygamist is denied the right to marry the people they love. Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse. Lot of legitimate examples there of people being denied their right to "marry the person they love!"

And if you believe there is no societal harm in allowing polygamist, incestuous or underage marriage...you can do exactly like divorced couples, imprisoned couples, interracial couples and gay couples did. Good luck. You've got a few obstacles to overcome first...like making all of those things LEGAL.

Also... I love Kate Upton! Would give my left nut to have a go on those wonderful tits! But despite my eternal burning passion and love for Katie, I don't have the right to "marry the person I love" because A) she has no idea who I am, B) She is already in a relationship and C) Her consent is required. We don't CHANGE the definition of words to enable me to marry Kate Upton! I don't have that right!

Wow...a phobe that almost understands consent. I'm shocked.

 

[Faun]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It has been that for 5k years or as long as western culture has existed. You want to change marriage to include homosexual behavior, which is NOT marriage. The way you want to try and change it is by stubbornly insisting it has already been changed. Pedophiles are denied the right to "marry the person they love." An incestuous brother is denied the right to marry his sister, aka: the person he loves. A polygamist is denied the right to marry the people they love. Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse. Lot of legitimate examples there of people being denied their right to "marry the person they love!"

Also... I love Kate Upton! Would give my left nut to have a go on those wonderful tits! But despite my eternal burning passion and love for Katie, I don't have the right to "marry the person I love" because A) she has no idea who I am, B) She is already in a relationship and C) Her consent is required. We don't CHANGE the definition of words to enable me to marry Kate Upton! I don't have that right!

Don't be so fucking stupid. Oh, wait, you can't help it. You have the legal right to marry Kate Upton. Of course, she would have to agree to marry you too. Marriage also requires consent from both parties; leaving your point, as always, DOA.

And your idiocy that marriage is only between a man and a woman is also DOA as we are a nation where our Constitution trumps tradition. Being there is no compelling interest to deny two people of the same gender the same right to marriage that heterosexuals have, the Constitution demands they be treated equal under the law. No matter how insane that drives you Neanderthal conservatives.

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It has been that for 5k years or as long as western culture has existed. You want to change marriage to include homosexual behavior, which is NOT marriage. The way you want to try and change it is by stubbornly insisting it has already been changed. Pedophiles are denied the right to "marry the person they love." An incestuous brother is denied the right to marry his sister, aka: the person he loves. A polygamist is denied the right to marry the people they love. Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse. Lot of legitimate examples there of people being denied their right to "marry the person they love!"

Also... I love Kate Upton! Would give my left nut to have a go on those wonderful tits! But despite my eternal burning passion and love for Katie, I don't have the right to "marry the person I love" because A) she has no idea who I am, B) She is already in a relationship and C) Her consent is required. We don't CHANGE the definition of words to enable me to marry Kate Upton! I don't have that right!

That 'stubborn insistence' may be because marriage has been changed, multiple times. Moreover, although it may have been in a different thread (I don't remember for certain) I provided you a link to some instances of homosexual marriages in the ancient world. The vast majority of marriages have been men and women but the idea of homosexual marriage is not new.

 

[Boss]

Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.

The brother and sister thing, I personally think it's a little odd in modern times, but it's actually historically a 'normal' practice (usually to protect family wealth/name/land ownership etc.) Other than physical/medical issues with them making kids together who cares really?

And no, adulterers end up marrying their lovers all the time... like daily, (hell didn't the "traditional marriage defender" Kim Davis marry a guy she had kids with while married to another man?) If we look at history, it was common practice for married folks to have lovers and there wasn't much of an issue with it until the Christian's decided that was a "problem" for them and forced everyone else to comply with /their/ religious beliefs.

Similar could be said for polygamists as well. I think they /should/ be able to marry more than one person, so long as all parties are alright with it who gives a shit; plus /that/ would be respectful to the religious freedom's of [some] Mormon sects. Of course the reality is that Christian's as a whole have zero interest in actual religious freedom, only enforcing /their/ proclaimed religious freedoms.

Again, what you are giving me is a list of the things you approve of and the things you don't, as if we live in a society where YOU are the king and get to decide what everyone else lives with. Guess what? You're not the king!

Seems your viewpoint when it comes to morality in society is summed up in one quote: "who gives a shit?" ...Except for, curiously enough, this thing called "consent" which you seem to think is somehow "sacred" and can't be touched. It's funny because "consent" has probably been altered more in US history than any other legal term.

But since you seem to have so much of a moral attachment to "consent" let me put this to you in a way you may understand... I do not consent to what you are doing to my country! I don't consent to you changing the definition of marriage to include your sexual behavior. I don't consent to you trying to force Christians to accept your immoral behavior against their religious values. And since we live in a democratic society where my opinion and viewpoint is equal to yours, then you're going to respect my opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

See, this is the problem. I continue to try and have a conversation using analogies to illustrate how absurd your position is and you want to take whatever I say and turn it into paranoid homophobia. In essence your only counter-argument to anything I say is, "Bigot!", "Homophobe!" Yes... because that is easier than having an intelligent conversation..

"your analogies" are always with an analogy with some variation of comparing homosexuals or homosexual marriage to some form of non-consensual sex- i.e rape or your latest- public lewdity (another form of non-consensual sex).

If every analogy I made of you involved pedophiles raping children I hardly think you would feel like those were just neutral analogies intended merely to illustrate your moral standing.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe you are not understanding the non-religious American's perspective...

/I/, like a lot of folks, do not believe in your book, I don't believe in it's teachings, I don't believe in it's "traditional values". It is not an "affront" for people to be gay in my world and I have no issue with "legitimizing homosexual behavior." I see /nothing/ wrong with being gay. Thus when it comes to consenting adults I could care less who's shagging whom, who loves whom, and I don't care about the gender identity or sexual orientation of two American's who want to get "married." As an AMERICAN I believe that LGBT's deserve the same rights as everyone else in America; which includes the legal status of marriage. It's really that simple.

Now... let's have an analogy... I'm going to invent something called "love in the park" ...sounds nice, doesn't it? Surely, we can see where "Love in the Park" is a right we should all have and enjoy equally. But I am going to call MY version of this, "going to the park wearing only my trench-coat and masturbating while adoring the young girls in the park wearing their little shorts and whatnot." Id.

Yeah- in this thread- your 'analogies' and comparisons to 'gay marriage' have included pedophiles marrying children, gay men being able to force straight men to have sex with them- and now masturbating in a park in front of chiildren.

Does anyone actually still believe you have 'gay friends'?

The truth is, you are a HETEROPHOBE-- You have an irrational fear of straight people! You are also a CHRISTAPHOBE-- A total and complete religious bigot! And when the perverts come out of the woodwork and want to wank off in the public and call it "Love in the Park" you'll be on the side of the perverts because it's something the heteros and Christians oppose.

The truth is, you are both an idiot- and an asshole. As a straight man who has been married for over 20 years and who has a lovely child with my wonderful wife, your claim is just another example of your ignorance- and willingness to attack those who disagree with you.

I am an atheist indeed- but the vast majority of my friends are Christians. However, none of my Christian friends have your violently anti-homosexual position. I am opposed to individuals who cherry pick their faith in order to discriminate against homosexuals- like the 4 time divorced Ms. Davis. I am opposed to the history of Christian discrimination against homosexuals in the United States- real discrimination- not just being told to treat everyone equally. But other than that there is great wisdom to be found in the Bible, which is one of the reasons I know that Ms. Davis violates her own faith by refusing to obey the judges orders.

And what makes you think that the perverts haven't come out of the woodwork? There are children being molested, women being raped, men masturbating in public- and all of that happened before and after Obergefell with no relation to it.

If I saw a man masturbating in public, I would call the police. I have no problem with public nudity, but public displays of sex are illegal here, and I would generally report them also (unless I stumbled across them in a semi-private area as I have a few times with hetero couples).

The truth is that this entire thread is just your anti-homosexual rant- your call for America to stop the homosexuals before they force you to have sex with them in public. Such is your paranoia. Such is your anger that homosexuals can now get legally married.

And that is all your problem.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It has been that for 5k years or as long as western culture has existed. You want to change marriage to include homosexual behavior, which is NOT marriage. The way you want to try and change it is by stubbornly insisting it has already been changed.

You are just in denial. Marriage has changed. Marriage has changed frequently. You just want to deny that the change has happened.

Why?

From your OP it appears to be that homosexuals make you really, really uncomfortable- since you believe homosexuals will eventually want to force you to have non-consensual sex in public.

 

[Montrovant]

Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.

The brother and sister thing, I personally think it's a little odd in modern times, but it's actually historically a 'normal' practice (usually to protect family wealth/name/land ownership etc.) Other than physical/medical issues with them making kids together who cares really?

And no, adulterers end up marrying their lovers all the time... like daily, (hell didn't the "traditional marriage defender" Kim Davis marry a guy she had kids with while married to another man?) If we look at history, it was common practice for married folks to have lovers and there wasn't much of an issue with it until the Christian's decided that was a "problem" for them and forced everyone else to comply with /their/ religious beliefs.

Similar could be said for polygamists as well. I think they /should/ be able to marry more than one person, so long as all parties are alright with it who gives a shit; plus /that/ would be respectful to the religious freedom's of [some] Mormon sects. Of course the reality is that Christian's as a whole have zero interest in actual religious freedom, only enforcing /their/ proclaimed religious freedoms.

Again, what you are giving me is a list of the things you approve of and the things you don't, as if we live in a society where YOU are the king and get to decide what everyone else lives with. Guess what? You're not the king!

Seems your viewpoint when it comes to morality in society is summed up in one quote: "who gives a shit?" ...Except for, curiously enough, this thing called "consent" which you seem to think is somehow "sacred" and can't be touched. It's funny because "consent" has probably been altered more in US history than any other legal term.

But since you seem to have so much of a moral attachment to "consent" let me put this to you in a way you may understand... I do not consent to what you are doing to my country! I don't consent to you changing the definition of marriage to include your sexual behavior. I don't consent to you trying to force Christians to accept your immoral behavior against their religious values. And since we live in a democratic society where my opinion and viewpoint is equal to yours, then you're going to respect my opinion.

Most of his post seemed to be responding to things you brought up. He talked about history, about the fact that adulterers do marry, that polygamy could be said to be a matter of religious freedom for some. Sure, he also said what his own opinions are. So what? That's what you've been doing this entire thread, and doing so in such a way as to make it sound as though your opinions are fact. Guess what? You're not the king, either.

You did not consent to same sex marriage, but it's still the law that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. There are always some people who disagree with laws and court rulings; there is no issue on which everyone will agree. Of course, that is a different sort of consent, as you well know. Well, I assume you do. It can sometimes be hard to tell just what you do and don't understand about consent.

I'm also pretty sure that EverCurious isn't doing much to the country, didn't change the definition of marriage, and I have no idea what his/her sexual behaviors might be. I don't see EverCurious trying to force Christians to accept any opinion. You like to project everything you see as wrong onto whatever poster you happen to be arguing with as though they are personally responsible for the ills you see in the country. Perhaps you find an us/them dynamic the only way to view the world?

Yes, your opinion can be said to be equal as far as each of you having one vote. That doesn't mean that each person's opinion is somehow codified into law or that each person's opinion will have equal weight in society or that anyone needs to respect your opinion (or vice versa).

You are so back and forth in the things you say.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

. Pedophiles are denied the right to "marry the person they love." An incestuous brother is denied the right to marry his sister, aka: the person he loves. A polygamist is denied the right to marry the people they love. Adulterers are denied the right to marry the person they are having an extramarital affair with, whom they may love more than their legal spouse. Lot of legitimate examples there of people being denied their right to "marry the person they love!"!

Yes.

And clearly you just will never understand why it is legitimate for states to have some restrictions on marriage, but that some restrictions on marriage may be unconstitutional.

Read the Loving v. Virginia decision for that discussion. I mean if you are interested in more than just spouting off the same old, same old claims of yours- once again comparing homosexual couples to a pedophile and his 4 year old victim.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah I hear that from some whiny Christians...

Okay, but "whiny Christians" have the same equal right to free speech as you have, there is no difference.

No- gay couples did not have equal rights- no more than mixed race couples had equal rights- when it came to marriage.

Yes, gay couples had the same equal rights as everyone else... there were no heterosexual same sex marriages and traditional marriage did not exclude homosexuals or require heterosexuality.

"Mixed-race" couples WERE being denied something others could do on the basis of race, and not even JUST race but specific race. As I said earlier, all four of my great grandparents were "mixed-race" couples who were married legally under the law, long before interracial marriage was made Constitutional. We only discriminated against blacks marrying whites and it stemmed from 100 years of segregated society.

You're trying to call something "marriage" that isn't marriage, then claim you're being denied the right to marry. It's no different than if we tried to redefine "procreation." I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that we have a fundamental right to procreate... but procreation doesn't mean something that it's not. Someone could argue, in mother nature, the male hunts down a fertile female and mates with it... so therefore, if a man stalks a woman and basically rapes her, that is okay because that's "natural procreation" and should be upheld as a right. You see, we don't allow people to alter what things mean in order to make their behavior fit and then claim a right.

You're still fucking deranged.

No, gays did not have equal rights to marriage.

I had the right to marry the person I love. As a straight man, that person is a woman.

Unlike myself and millions of others like me, gays were denied their right to marry the person they love.

Also... I love Kate Upton! Would give my left nut to have a go on those wonderful tits! But despite my eternal burning passion and love for Katie, I don't have the right to "marry the person I love" because A) she has no idea who I am, B) She is already in a relationship and C) Her consent is required. We don't CHANGE the definition of words to enable me to marry Kate Upton! I don't have that right!

You actually mentioned the only word that is essential there- a word with a meaning that seems to escape your understanding.

Consent.

If Kate Upton agreed to marry you after you chopped off your left nut- then nothing would prevent you two from marrying.

If Kate Upton didn't agree to marry you, your right to marriage and her right to marriage are still intact- you can still marry another adult- who is willing to consent to marrying you.

 

[Syriusly]

Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.

The brother and sister thing, I personally think it's a little odd in modern times, but it's actually historically a 'normal' practice (usually to protect family wealth/name/land ownership etc.) Other than physical/medical issues with them making kids together who cares really?

And no, adulterers end up marrying their lovers all the time... like daily, (hell didn't the "traditional marriage defender" Kim Davis marry a guy she had kids with while married to another man?) If we look at history, it was common practice for married folks to have lovers and there wasn't much of an issue with it until the Christian's decided that was a "problem" for them and forced everyone else to comply with /their/ religious beliefs.

Similar could be said for polygamists as well. I think they /should/ be able to marry more than one person, so long as all parties are alright with it who gives a shit; plus /that/ would be respectful to the religious freedom's of [some] Mormon sects. Of course the reality is that Christian's as a whole have zero interest in actual religious freedom, only enforcing /their/ proclaimed religious freedoms.

Again, what you are giving me is a list of the things you approve of and the things you don't, as if we live in a society where YOU are the king and get to decide what everyone else lives with. Guess what? You're not the king!.

LOL- yet here you are in this thread telling us marriage between two men doesn't exist- as if we live in a society where YOU are the king and get to decide what everyone else lives with. Guess what? You're not the king.

Americans have the right to marriage- regardless of the gender of their spouse .You don't get to be king and tell us which legal marriages are not marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

Consent, as you mentioned in your latter argument, is why pedophiles will never be allowed to marry kids.

The brother and sister thing, I personally think it's a little odd in modern times, but it's actually historically a 'normal' practice (usually to protect family wealth/name/land ownership etc.) Other than physical/medical issues with them making kids together who cares really?

And no, adulterers end up marrying their lovers all the time... like daily, (hell didn't the "traditional marriage defender" Kim Davis marry a guy she had kids with while married to another man?) If we look at history, it was common practice for married folks to have lovers and there wasn't much of an issue with it until the Christian's decided that was a "problem" for them and forced everyone else to comply with /their/ religious beliefs.

Similar could be said for polygamists as well. I think they /should/ be able to marry more than one person, so long as all parties are alright with it who gives a shit; plus /that/ would be respectful to the religious freedom's of [some] Mormon sects. Of course the reality is that Christian's as a whole have zero interest in actual religious freedom, only enforcing /their/ proclaimed religious freedoms.

But since you seem to have so much of a moral attachment to "consent" let me put this to you in a way you may understand... I do not consent to what you are doing to my country! I don't consent to you changing the definition of marriage to include your sexual behavior. I don't consent to you trying to force Christians to accept your immoral behavior against their religious values. And since we live in a democratic society where my opinion and viewpoint is equal to yours, then you're going to respect my opinion.

Oh I get that you do not 'consent' but luckily you have the right to express your opinion, you can vote, and you can even lie about how marriage has been changed to include a sexual behavior.

You can express your opinion, you can use your vote all to advocate for discrimination against homosexuals.

But while you have the right of free speech- that doesn't mean anyone has to respect any bigoted thing you say. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

This entire thread has just been your rant against homosexuals- your paranoia about homosexuals, and some really oddly sexual fears.

No- I don't think anyone respects your opinion in this thread. No need to respect a cry for bigotry.