Rightwingers, of whom I'm one, let the gay shit go

[Iceman]

Boo-hoo-hoo..... Whatever shall Redfish do....?

Your bitter whining is getting you nowhere.

The momentum is set. The SCOTUS ruled. Lawsuits are being filed everywhere and before you know it, gay marriage will be the law of the land.

Momentum towards the end of Western Society. Wherever homosexuality is normalized, given the same social value as heterosexual relations, or celebrated in the culture, collapse follows.

Yeah, just look at the Netherlands .... they made same-sex marriage legal more than a dozen years ago and they've since been destroyed in a molten shower of fire and brimstone.

Well, not exactly that, but yeah, the Netherlands are done, between the celebration and normalization of homosexuality, their below replacement birthrates(1.78), and mass non-european/islamic immigration(which will make them a minority in a few decades). That secular libertine lifestyle is on the outs. Enjoy the gay weddings and parades while you can, the Muslims will introduce an element of sanity back into society and curb such things.
Total Fertility Rate (Children Born Per Woman) | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[Faun]

For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, then abortion is murder no matter when it takes place. Partial birth abortion (voted for by Obama) is clearly infanticide even by your definition.

Why is abortion as birth control such a big issue with you libs? What is it about destroying life (or potential life) that you find so necessary?

This is yet another example of how fucked in the head you rightwingnuts are.

Words have meaning. You don't simply get to redefine words because you don't like their actual definitions.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder. And it does not become murder just because you rightards call it "murder."

Same thing with infanticide. Infantice is the killing of infants. [Legal] abortion does not kill infants; therefore, abortion is not infanticide. And it does not become infanticide just because you rightards call it "infanticide."

removing the brain of a partially born child by sucking it out is murder, or infanticide if you prefer that term.

So the unborn child in the womb, who is moving, smiling, and ALIVE does not have the right to life if the mother decides it would be too much trouble to carry it to term?

I'm sorry, but EVIL is the only word that describes the left position on this.

Here's an idea for you Conservatives .... invent a new language all your own and define the words any way you like. Then you can rationally call abortion anything you like. Until then, the English language does not equate abortion with either murder or infanticide, which are illegal while abortion is not. Using words how you wish they were defined does not actually change their meaning ... it only makes you appear retarded like you don't know what words mean.

 

[bodecea]

Rather than let it go, gays might end up with more opposition than they bargained for. All the laws in the world won't help either.

Ah...here's Katz with her subtle hints of violence against gays again.

 

[bodecea]

there is nothing to change, the constitution is silent on marriage.

If the founders had anticipated the gay marriage issue, I am sure they would have included something on it.

But, back at you. If you want gay marriage to be legal, you need to get a constitutional change processed.

and while you are at it, you better address bigamy and polygamy, because those people are currently being discriminated against.

Gooooing to the Chapel and we're
Goooona get maaaarrried!


Goooing to the Chapel and we're
Goooona get maaaarried!

Going to the Chapel of Gay Love!!!

are you taking Abdul and his 5 wives with you? how about jack and tom and mary and sue? How about Amy, Julie, and Cindy? Bill, Bob, and Joe?

if you and your partner cannot be discriminated against, then neither should any of those people.

Well, if that's what you want....you should fight for it.

 

[bodecea]

This is yet another example of how fucked in the head you rightwingnuts are.

Words have meaning. You don't simply get to redefine words because you don't like their actual definitions.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder. And it does not become murder just because you rightards call it "murder."

Same thing with infanticide. Infantice is the killing of infants. [Legal] abortion does not kill infants; therefore, abortion is not infanticide. And it does not become infanticide just because you rightards call it "infanticide."

removing the brain of a partially born child by sucking it out is murder, or infanticide if you prefer that term.

So the unborn child in the womb, who is moving, smiling, and ALIVE does not have the right to life if the mother decides it would be too much trouble to carry it to term?

I'm sorry, but EVIL is the only word that describes the left position on this.

Here's an idea for you Conservatives .... invent a new language all your own and define the words any way you like. Then you can rationally call abortion anything you like. Until then, the English language does not equate abortion with either murder or infanticide, which are illegal while abortion is not. Using words how you wish they were defined does not actually change their meaning ... it only makes you appear retarded like you don't know what words mean.

It is odd....some RWrs here are so much against what they perceive as a redefining of the term "marriage"....but they willy nilly redefine "murder" and "baby" and "infant".

 

[Faun]

For those of us who believe that life begins at conception, then abortion is murder no matter when it takes place. Partial birth abortion (voted for by Obama) is clearly infanticide even by your definition.

Why is abortion as birth control such a big issue with you libs? What is it about destroying life (or potential life) that you find so necessary?

This is yet another example of how fucked in the head you rightwingnuts are.

Words have meaning. You don't simply get to redefine words because you don't like their actual definitions.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder. And it does not become murder just because you rightards call it "murder."

Same thing with infanticide. Infantice is the killing of infants. [Legal] abortion does not kill infants; therefore, abortion is not infanticide. And it does not become infanticide just because you rightards call it "infanticide."

You're right. So for god's sake abort any kids you might start to keep from producing more like you, will ya? I couldn't care less WHAT you do. Just DON'T REPRODUCE!!!

You're too late, I've already spawned.

 

[ItsOnlyMe]

This is yet another example of how fucked in the head you rightwingnuts are.

Words have meaning. You don't simply get to redefine words because you don't like their actual definitions.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder. And it does not become murder just because you rightards call it "murder."

Same thing with infanticide. Infantice is the killing of infants. [Legal] abortion does not kill infants; therefore, abortion is not infanticide. And it does not become infanticide just because you rightards call it "infanticide."

You're right. So for god's sake abort any kids you might start to keep from producing more like you, will ya? I couldn't care less WHAT you do. Just DON'T REPRODUCE!!!

You're too late, I've already spawned.

Well then encourage birth control, abortion in your "spawnings" then.

 

[Fishlore]

I can sympathize with libertarian and economic conservatives for whom core social conservative issues are a dangerous distraction, but the religious conservatives, who are the biggest single block in the conservative movement cannot simply set aside their commitment to traditional marriage and right-to-life for mere political expediency.

These are folks who are Christians before they are citizens; in fact, preservation of traditional Christian values in the civil legal code is, for many of them, the principal reason they are active in politics at all.

What is more, a voter who deeply believes that gay marriage and abortion are violations of divine law and therefore an existential threat to American society, is unable to look away from these issues now in hopes of electing a more congenial government for future action. Murder is murder. If you think abortion is murder, you can't ignore it and you can't compromise.

This was the situation which the GOP risked in letting the religious right sit at the political table. Reagan was deeply apprehensive about such a move. He spoke warmly of the religious right and expressed sympathy with their agenda, but he did not propose any of the laws which he believed would be inexpedient for the Republican Party. This was not cynicism, it was a practical politician viewing the religious right as a voting block to be weighed in the context of a larger coalition that was the GOP.

Subsequent developments gave the religious right a formal seat at the policy table. This has been a major component of Republican success. Now, however, the political winds are shifting and what was once a precious asset is rapidly becoming a national liability.

The problem is not easily resolved. As one Israeli commentator observed (and Likud has had a similar issue with the haredim) "you invite the religious conservatives into the tent on Monday and on Friday they are asking 'what are you doing in my tent'".

I want you to first put aside every personal belief that you have all of them then tell me why the f*** we should?

tapatalk post

I think you misunderstand my post. I don't think you should put aside your beliefs. My point was that politicians can make such tactical moves but religious believers cannot. From that viewpoint, it is better to lose voting for something you believe in than to win voting for something that you do not. Good luck

 

[Redfish]

Gooooing to the Chapel and we're
Goooona get maaaarrried!


Goooing to the Chapel and we're
Goooona get maaaarried!

Going to the Chapel of Gay Love!!!

are you taking Abdul and his 5 wives with you? how about jack and tom and mary and sue? How about Amy, Julie, and Cindy? Bill, Bob, and Joe?

if you and your partner cannot be discriminated against, then neither should any of those people.

Well, if that's what you want....you should fight for it.

its the logical next step after gay marriage. you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

are you for or against bigamy and polygamy?

 

[Redfish]

It's not just a word. The state issues a "marriage license." The state cannot provide a marriage license to some but not others, based on nothing other than the genders of the applicants, and then call that equal protection of the law. The law does not get to differentiate based on gender.

A man and a woman go into the courthouse, they get a marriage license

two men go into the courthouse, they get a civil union license

Both licenses convey exactly the same rights and obligations, THEY ARE EQUAL IN EVERY WAY. BOTH COUPLES HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME STANDING UNDER THE LAW. BOTH COUPLES HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME TAX STATUS.

Is it not about equality is it? its about forced social acceptance via the use of the word 'marriage'.

Social tolerance should be the rule, social acceptance cannot be legislated.

you are wanting to pass laws that mandate how people are allowed to think and what they are allowed to believe. Do you really think that is good for a society?

Denying a marriage license to some, but not others, based on nothing but the gender of the applicants, violates the 14th Amendment. You cannot escape that by continuing to deny same-sex couples a marriage license.

did you read my post? your license conveys exactly the same rights and priviledges as the hetero marriage license. What does the word 'marriage' give you that the license does not?




Answer: forced social acceptance. Thats your issue, not equality, not fairness, not legality. Admit it and then we can go on with a meaningful discussion, until you admit your real agenda, this is a waste of time.

 

[BillyZane]

And here we go again: your "perspective" on the ruling means jack shit.

Gay men and women are getting married in California again. Precedent has been set and future lawsuits in other states will be based on the Supreme Court allowing the judgment of the lower court to stand.

You can split hairs all you want loser but the plain fact remains: gay marriage is here to stay.

You lost. Game over.

Wrong.

Texas , or Louisiana, or Florida, or whatever is not bound by precedent set in CA.

lower federal courts have no jurisdiction over state courts. Well actually the SCOTUS itself doesn't even have such.

More hair splitting.

You're forgetting: SCOTUS struck down DOMA.

Face it. Gay marriage is here to stay. It's only a matter of time before backwater states like Texas and Louisiana start recognizing gay marriages too.

Once again, striking down a FEDERAL law does not necessarily violate a state law.If the feds have overstepped, that doesn't necessarily mean the states overstep if they do the same thing. You DO understand that don't you?

Oh, and I'm for the complete removal of the federal government from marriage. Let consenting people do what they want.

But I am entirely 100% against this idea of FORCING people to call gays married if they don't believe in gay marriage. And yes, that is exactly what you are doing if you are FORCING people to pay money via tax deductions and credits that goes towards gay marriage.

If SCOTUS had ANY balls. They would take a case and make it real simple.

Tell everyone to go back to their corners and shut up.

No more mention of marriage in government purposes. And each individual may do as they please. IF 12 midget men want to get "married" so be it. Doesn't hurt me, because they are getting no tax breaks for doing so.

If 2 gays get mad b/c some Christians laugh at them saying they are "married" so be it, we have freedom of speech in this country .

If you go into a business and they don't want your money, go somewhere that does.

And that's how far we've fallen as a country, two groups of people NEITHER can just live and let live. Nope , gotta tell other people how to live. It's despicable.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong.

Texas , or Louisiana, or Florida, or whatever is not bound by precedent set in CA.

lower federal courts have no jurisdiction over state courts. Well actually the SCOTUS itself doesn't even have such.

More hair splitting.

You're forgetting: SCOTUS struck down DOMA.

Face it. Gay marriage is here to stay. It's only a matter of time before backwater states like Texas and Louisiana start recognizing gay marriages too.

Once again, striking down a FEDERAL law does not necessarily violate a state law.If the feds have overstepped, that doesn't necessarily mean the states overstep if they do the same thing. You DO understand that don't you?

Oh, and I'm for the complete removal of the federal government from marriage. Let consenting people do what they want.

But I am entirely 100% against this idea of FORCING people to call gays married if they don't believe in gay marriage. And yes, that is exactly what you are doing if you are FORCING people to pay money via tax deductions and credits that goes towards gay marriage.

If SCOTUS had ANY balls. They would take a case and make it real simple.

Tell everyone to go back to their corners and shut up.

No more mention of marriage in government purposes. And each individual may do as they please. IF 12 midget men want to get "married" so be it. Doesn't hurt me, because they are getting no tax breaks for doing so.

If 2 gays get mad b/c some Christians laugh at them saying they are "married" so be it, we have freedom of speech in this country .

If you go into a business and they don't want your money, go somewhere that does.

And that's how far we've fallen as a country, two groups of people NEITHER can just live and let live. Nope , gotta tell other people how to live. It's despicable.

 

[sfcalifornia]

More hair splitting.

You're forgetting: SCOTUS struck down DOMA.

Face it. Gay marriage is here to stay. It's only a matter of time before backwater states like Texas and Louisiana start recognizing gay marriages too.

Once again, striking down a FEDERAL law does not necessarily violate a state law.If the feds have overstepped, that doesn't necessarily mean the states overstep if they do the same thing. You DO understand that don't you?

Oh, and I'm for the complete removal of the federal government from marriage. Let consenting people do what they want.

But I am entirely 100% against this idea of FORCING people to call gays married if they don't believe in gay marriage. And yes, that is exactly what you are doing if you are FORCING people to pay money via tax deductions and credits that goes towards gay marriage.

If SCOTUS had ANY balls. They would take a case and make it real simple.

Tell everyone to go back to their corners and shut up.

No more mention of marriage in government purposes. And each individual may do as they please. IF 12 midget men want to get "married" so be it. Doesn't hurt me, because they are getting no tax breaks for doing so.

If 2 gays get mad b/c some Christians laugh at them saying they are "married" so be it, we have freedom of speech in this country .

If you go into a business and they don't want your money, go somewhere that does.

And that's how far we've fallen as a country, two groups of people NEITHER can just live and let live. Nope , gotta tell other people how to live. It's despicable.

What color tux should I wear at our wedding? I'm a Winter, so I'm thinking a dark charcoal grey pinstripe? My future husband is thinking of sticking with basic black but I wanted to jazz it up a little!

 

[P@triot]

This is yet another example of how fucked in the head you rightwingnuts are.

Words have meaning. You don't simply get to redefine words because you don't like their actual definitions.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Abortion is not unlawful; therefore, abortion is not murder. And it does not become murder just because you rightards call it "murder."

Same thing with infanticide. Infantice is the killing of infants. [Legal] abortion does not kill infants; therefore, abortion is not infanticide. And it does not become infanticide just because you rightards call it "infanticide."

You're right. So for god's sake abort any kids you might start to keep from producing more like you, will ya? I couldn't care less WHAT you do. Just DON'T REPRODUCE!!!

You're too late, I've already spawned.

Boy, is Fauny the poster-child for the modern day Dumbocrat or what? An immature, uneducated, high school drop out bisexual who has already spawned a bastard-child out of wedlock.

No wonder she demands giant government providing freebies. She sure as hell isn't going to provide for the child.

 

[P@triot]

I look forward to my wife and I filing joint federal tax returns this year as well as joint state returns like we've been doing for 5 years. Gay couples all over the US will be doing the same.

Do you look forward to a muslim man and his 30 wives filing joint federal taxes this year? Do you look forward to losing your job because your employer has to provide health insurance to the spouse (yep, all 30 of them) of this muslim man? Do you look forward to having 30 women crammed into one little tiny bay of an ICU, battling fiercely over whether or not to pull the plug, to the point where they disrupt the patient care for your loved one in the adjoining bay?

Because these are all of the results (along with many more to come) that are the result of your gay marriage which you're crowing about. And you want to know the best part? You're going to shit a brick when you find out that your gay marriage actually ends up costing you MORE money to the government.

Trust me sweetie, as someone whose accountant has instructed him and his wife to FILE SEPARATELY for the past 8 years because filing jointly actually caused us to have higher taxes - you are in for a huge surprise. Liberals just never learn.

 

[bodecea]

are you taking Abdul and his 5 wives with you? how about jack and tom and mary and sue? How about Amy, Julie, and Cindy? Bill, Bob, and Joe?

if you and your partner cannot be discriminated against, then neither should any of those people.

Well, if that's what you want....you should fight for it.

its the logical next step after gay marriage. you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

are you for or against bigamy and polygamy?

It is NO MORE a logical next step after gay marriage than it was when inter-racial marriage was allowed.

It is NO MORE a logical next step after gay marriage than it was when civil straight marriage was allowed.

I know you want it to be, but it is not. It is a dead end argument.....just like the old "no states have approved gay marriage and none will" argument.

 

[bodecea]

A man and a woman go into the courthouse, they get a marriage license

two men go into the courthouse, they get a civil union license

Both licenses convey exactly the same rights and obligations, THEY ARE EQUAL IN EVERY WAY. BOTH COUPLES HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME STANDING UNDER THE LAW. BOTH COUPLES HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME TAX STATUS.

Is it not about equality is it? its about forced social acceptance via the use of the word 'marriage'.

Social tolerance should be the rule, social acceptance cannot be legislated.

you are wanting to pass laws that mandate how people are allowed to think and what they are allowed to believe. Do you really think that is good for a society?

Denying a marriage license to some, but not others, based on nothing but the gender of the applicants, violates the 14th Amendment. You cannot escape that by continuing to deny same-sex couples a marriage license.

did you read my post? your license conveys exactly the same rights and priviledges as the hetero marriage license. What does the word 'marriage' give you that the license does not?




Answer: forced social acceptance. Thats your issue, not equality, not fairness, not legality. Admit it and then we can go on with a meaningful discussion, until you admit your real agenda, this is a waste of time.

It does now.

 

[bodecea]

I look forward to my wife and I filing joint federal tax returns this year as well as joint state returns like we've been doing for 5 years. Gay couples all over the US will be doing the same.

Do you look forward to a muslim man and his 30 wives filing joint federal taxes this year? Do you look forward to losing your job because your employer has to provide health insurance to the spouse (yep, all 30 of them) of this muslim man? Do you look forward to having 30 women crammed into one little tiny bay of an ICU, battling fiercely over whether or not to pull the plug, to the point where they disrupt the patient care for your loved one in the adjoining bay?

Because these are all of the results (along with many more to come) that are the result of your gay marriage which you're crowing about. And you want to know the best part? You're going to shit a brick when you find out that your gay marriage actually ends up costing you MORE money to the government.

Trust me sweetie, as someone whose accountant has instructed him and his wife to FILE SEPARATELY for the past 8 years because filing jointly actually caused us to have higher taxes - you are in for a huge surprise. Liberals just never learn.

You don't know much about Islam do you? At least I know a Muslim is only allowed 4 wives....in a country that allows such a thing....It's the Mormons who were allowed as many wives as possible......how many wives did Brigham Young have?


Oh, and our joint taxes are going to be less than single..... Our accountant has told us over the last few years that as soon as we can file joint federal, it will help out immensely for reasons that are really none of your business.

 

[Samson]

Oh, and our joint taxes are going to be less than single..... Our accountant has told us over the last few years that as soon as we can file joint federal, it will help out immensely for reasons that are really none of your business.

Hm...as soon as you can "file joint federal," huh?



Obama workin' on that is he?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A man and a woman go into the courthouse, they get a marriage license

two men go into the courthouse, they get a civil union license

Both licenses convey exactly the same rights and obligations, THEY ARE EQUAL IN EVERY WAY. BOTH COUPLES HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME STANDING UNDER THE LAW. BOTH COUPLES HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME TAX STATUS.

Is it not about equality is it? its about forced social acceptance via the use of the word 'marriage'.

Social tolerance should be the rule, social acceptance cannot be legislated.

you are wanting to pass laws that mandate how people are allowed to think and what they are allowed to believe. Do you really think that is good for a society?

Denying a marriage license to some, but not others, based on nothing but the gender of the applicants, violates the 14th Amendment. You cannot escape that by continuing to deny same-sex couples a marriage license.

did you read my post? your license conveys exactly the same rights and priviledges as the hetero marriage license. What does the word 'marriage' give you that the license does not?




Answer: forced social acceptance. Thats your issue, not equality, not fairness, not legality. Admit it and then we can go on with a meaningful discussion, until you admit your real agenda, this is a waste of time.

Wrong answer.

There is no ‘forced social acceptance’ because same-sex couples are already eligible to enter into marriage contracts; the issue is some states refusing to allow those eligible same-sex couples access to that contract law, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Elements of society that wish to remain hostile to homosexuals are at liberty to do so, no one is being ‘forced’ to accept anything.