Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They already had equal rights with their biological equivalents, of course they want to be treated special, I thought you lefties were all about science, seems to me emotion is ruling the day on this one.
Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution
Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'
Here is what homosexuals did not have:
The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.
The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.
Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?
What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.
Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution
Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'
Here is what homosexuals did not have:
The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.
The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.
Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?
What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.
Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
'Changed' and 'Always' aren't really equivalents, OK.
Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, I'm done with you loser.
Laughing......the difference between 'changed' and 'always' isn't semantics. They describe opposites. Gays have not 'always' had the same protections as everyone else. They've been explicitly targeted for most of our nation's history.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
'Changed' and 'Always' aren't really equivalents, OK.
Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, I'm done with you loser.
Laughing......the difference between 'changed' and 'always' isn't semantics. They describe opposites. Gays have not 'always' had the same protections as everyone else. They've been explicitly targeted for most of our nation's history.
Sure they have, you just don't like the rules society set, they were not discriminated against for their gender, race or religion but for violating established laws against their behavior.
Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
Who said that behavior is a 'disability'? Sounds like a strawman to me.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
Who said that behavior is a 'disability'? Sounds like a strawman to me.
You're the one wanting to grant them special privileges based on their behavior because there is no genetic reason to do so.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
Who said that behavior is a 'disability'? Sounds like a strawman to me.
You're the one wanting to grant them special privileges based on their behavior because there is no genetic reason to do so.
Clearly they didn't have 'equal rights'- since they were targeted for legal persecution
Clearly they haven't- and I am glad to point that out again- and frankly you will never 'reconsider your position'
Here is what homosexuals did not have:
The right not to be arrested for agreeing to have private consensual sex with a man? Up until 2013, gay men were still being arrested for that.
The right to serve in the military without being discharged simply because someone found out they are gay? That only changed a few years ago.
Now the discussion is marrying your partner in life- gay couples want to be able to marry exactly as my wife and I are married- what kind of 'special right' is that?
What you call 'special rights' the rest of us call equal rights.
Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
Who said that behavior is a 'disability'? Sounds like a strawman to me.
You're the one wanting to grant them special privileges based on their behavior because there is no genetic reason to do so.
Special privilege as in treating them exactly the same legally.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
'Changed' and 'Always' aren't really equivalents, OK.
Semantics, the last bastion of a loser, I'm done with you loser.
Laughing......the difference between 'changed' and 'always' isn't semantics. They describe opposites. Gays have not 'always' had the same protections as everyone else. They've been explicitly targeted for most of our nation's history.
Sure they have, you just don't like the rules society set, they were not discriminated against for their gender, race or religion but for violating established laws against their behavior.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
Who said that behavior is a 'disability'? Sounds like a strawman to me.
You're the one wanting to grant them special privileges based on their behavior because there is no genetic reason to do so.
Special privilege as in treating them exactly the same legally.
Fuck off, you don't want a discussion so go ahead a spew your leftist talking points.
Get out of the past already, the discussion is today. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that they are biologically no different than any other man or woman and are afforded every right their gender dictates.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
As I have pointed out- laws against homosexuals have not always been based upon 'behavior' but based upon their being identified as homosexuals - as I said- homosexual men and women were discriminated against for being identified as being homosexual.
Exactly what you keep claiming never happened.
As soon as you acknowledge that your statement below was wrong- I would be glad to discuss something else- but as long as you let stand your claim that homosexuals have always been treated the same legally- well I will keep pointing out how false that claim is:
They have always had every protection afforded every other man or woman, they want to be treated special, not because of biology, but by lifestyle choice. You show me proof that there is a biological reason for their claimed condition, I will reconsider my position.
And of course that claim is false- as I have repeatedly shown.
It's not wrong, laws have changed, but even in the past men and women were treated equally under those laws. Now address the biology.
No- they were not treated equally. I really am trying to correct you politely.
Let us focus on one specific example of discrimination- Don't Ask, Don't tell
Prior to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, there was a general policy of discharging homosexuals- for being homosexuals- from the Armed Forces- when it was convenient- and this policy was ignored when it was inconvenient.
Don't Ask Don't tell codified this policy- giving homosexuals some protections from being discharged simply for being gay, but in reality, provided a specific legal language for discharging homosexuals, if they were revealed to be homosexuals.
So tell me- how are women and men- who were gay- treated equally with heterosexuals- under that law?
Where exactly did I say that, I said they were treated equal with their biological equivalents, behavior is not a disability that needs to be protected, in fact many behaviors are against the law, or are you saying we should just accept any behavior if there is a claim that the person is "wired" that way.
As I have pointed out- laws against homosexuals have not always been based upon 'behavior' but based upon their being identified as homosexuals - as I said- homosexual men and women were discriminated against for being identified as being homosexual.
Exactly what you keep claiming never happened.
Tell me, haw were they identified if the exhibited no such behavior?
I hope all the judges fuck each other in their asses.
What disturbs me more about those comments about the Supremes is the Supremes practicing forced shadow-attrition to state laws in violation of their own constitutional findings in Windsor 2013 in order to render a judgment in her favor by citing the supremacy of state laws on marriage to strike down that part of DOMA.I hope all the judges fuck each other in their asses.
Sounds like there might be some Brownbacking involved.
Urban Dictionary Brownback
What disturbs me more about those comments about the Supremes is the Supremes practicing forced shadow-attrition to state laws in violation of their own constitutional findings in Windsor 2013 in order to render a judgment in her favor by citing the supremacy of state laws on marriage to strike down that part of DOMA.
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
Scalia in dissent of Windsor v US
That's an apples and oranges comparison.I would think a gay marriage would be far better for the children of a single gay parent than remaining single. A single parent who has to raise children without a helpmate and work 40 hours a week is often a disaster for the children particular young children. Two parents are better than one even if they are of the same sex. .
Well, the survey of over 2,000 young adults self-reporting says that what you would think isn't correct.
It found that the lack of the child's same gender as a role model means they are left with a harrowing lack of belonging to society. Any gay person of the opposite gender as the child will be imparting a daily message to that child "your gender NEVER matters". Adults process things differently. The formative mind of a child sees it that way and forms its self-esteem accordingly.
That's why a single hetero parent would be better than gay parents because at least that parent is reaching out in subtle or overt ways to the same gender that child is, if they are opposite of the parent. Then in the child's mind at least he sees "I still matter to mother...I still have a place in the world".. Never so in a gay household.
Page 8 (the left side on the green background) http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.
The Daily Mail article from the Prince's Trust study... Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail OnlineYoung people without a role model of the same gender in their lives
Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.
By refusing the stays, are they saying Edith Windsor needs to return the money they awarded her?
Either states get to define marriage or they don't. Either Windsor keeps the money or she gives it back. Can't have it both ways.By refusing the stays, are they saying Edith Windsor needs to return the money they awarded her?
No- it is a secret message from the Supreme Court to those of us 'in the know'- this is their way to tell us that Silhouette is a total nutcase
Either states get to define marriage or they don't. Either Windsor keeps the money or she gives it back. Can't have it both ways.By refusing the stays, are they saying Edith Windsor needs to return the money they awarded her?
No- it is a secret message from the Supreme Court to those of us 'in the know'- this is their way to tell us that Silhouette is a total nutcase
