Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[jillian]

Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.

Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.

Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.

Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.

Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you. Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.

Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.

Most abused people lash out that way. There are very few real homophobes, just people with crappy lives and tons of emotional baggage

I've been married for 22 years to a woman as it should be. I have two children, both of whom are normal heterosexuals. I am the number two person where I work. I support myself and my family while being forced to support freeloaders with what should be staying with me. Lots of other successes. Hardly a crappy life.

who's freeloading. gays are the highest earning demographic group.

the freeloaders are the red states.

you really are a kool aid drinker. lmao...

 

[Conservative65]

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

homos?

that's what you think passes for civil discourse?

Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.

Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.

sad, isn't it? you'd think that at this point everyone would know a friend or family member who's gay and be used to it. *shakes head*

I don't have gay friends and nothing to do with family members that are.

so you're a jackass in real life, too.

thanks.

So now you think you should determine who my friends should be and with which family members I choose to associate? That's your problem. You're an arrogant bitch in real life.

 

[Pop23]

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

What people applied for has nothing to do with how the law was written. The fact is that the law was written with no such restriction. You are not arguing the definition of the law, or the words; you are arguing the actions of the people. Those are two very different things. Guess what? Interracial couples didn't apply for marriage licenses before 50 years ago. However, when the law was attempted to be changed so that there were racial limitations, the people attempting to change the meaning of the words were told, "Sorry, just because no one did it before, doesn't mean that the words don't mean what they mean".

Same here. Just because no one did it before doesn't mean that the words do not mean what they mean. Thus adding a limiting phrase, in order to alter the definition was something you guys did. The rest of us just want the definition changed back to what it was before your meddling.

You guys? Do you mean those of us that support the normal version of marriage not two homos trying to make it as if what they want comes anywhere close to it.

Yes. I mean you moralistic zealots, who feel you have the right to demand, by altering the the law, that people behave according to your personal moral beliefs.

In the end, when us moralistic types turn our heads and walk away from all perversion, the world will be a far far better place?

Rigggghhhhttttttttt

I don't even know what the Hell that means, but okay...

Riggggghhhhhtttttt

 

[Pop23]

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.

Your state's definition is unconstitutional.

Not when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.

Unfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacy

Gays could always marry in all 50 states

What are you babbling about?

 

[Conservative65]

Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.

Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.

Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you. Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.

Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.

Most abused people lash out that way. There are very few real homophobes, just people with crappy lives and tons of emotional baggage

I've been married for 22 years to a woman as it should be. I have two children, both of whom are normal heterosexuals. I am the number two person where I work. I support myself and my family while being forced to support freeloaders with what should be staying with me. Lots of other successes. Hardly a crappy life.

who's freeloading. gays are the highest earning demographic group.

the freeloaders are the red states.

you really are a kool aid drinker. lmao...

In my State, the largest freeloading group is the blue district by far. They, and it was gerrymandered with over 65% black in order to make sure a black was elected, are the poorest. Seems they make the rest of the State look bad.

 

[Conservative65]

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.

Your state's definition is unconstitutional.

Not when the Constitution doesn't give the fedeovernment authority over marriage but reserves it to the State which made it.

Unfortunatly the constitution hasn't been able to prevent certain states from oppressing minorities, and the same chronic abusers seem to make up the old confederacy

Gays could always marry in all 50 states

What are you babbling about?

That's what the same sex supporters don't seem to understand. Not one state has said you can't get married if you're homosexual.

 

[Pop23]

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

Quote for me where I said that. If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.

Puleeeezeeee, you support incest and polygamy, one might make an educated assumption as to why.

Makes you feel better?

 

[Pop23]

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

Thus you can't deny that right to a father/daughter

Freakshow just around the corner

You're not around the corner, you're here.

How cute, a leg humper calling a straight a freak.

Once again proving your delusion

Honestly folks, you can't make this shit up!

Isn't it interesting how those who think being with someone having the same parts is normal but being with someone the manner in which those parts were designed to work is a freak?

I know, that's their delusion after all

 

[Conservative65]

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

Quote for me where I said that. If you cannot debate without fabricating my positions, then you should just shut up, so you don't look stupid.

Puleeeezeeee, you support incest and polygamy, one might make an educated assumption as to why.

Makes you feel better?

Wrong. My argument using those as an example show how the same sex supporters claiming they believe in marriage equality quickly show their argument is for an agenda as they do exactly toward certain types of marriages they say is wrong if done toward same sex ones

 

[toxicmedia]

Wow, civil discourse?......never happen.

Because the same primative hatred that even causes someone to be anti gay, keeps them basically angry about everything. Making them perfect Republicans.

Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.

Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.

Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you. Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.

Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.

Most abused people lash out that way. There are very few real homophobes, just people with crappy lives and tons of emotional baggage

I've been married for 22 years to a woman as it should be. I have two children, both of whom are normal heterosexuals. I am the number two person where I work. I support myself and my family while being forced to support freeloaders with what should be staying with me. Lots of other successes. Hardly a crappy life.

Really?...there is something wrong if you're getting as angry as you are, because a tiny fraction of the dollars you pay in taxes pay for things you don't like.

You're either allowing some righty news agency to outrage you over someone else's battle, or there is more to your anger and hatred than you comprehend.

 

[Czernobog]

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

And I see the 14th amendment that requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. And that right applies to federal, STATE, even local laws. So, while you do get to regulate marriage at a state level, you still have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally.

 

[Conservative65]

Seems those who think I should respond in a manner they like are the primitive ones.
Thinking I should do it a certain way because you demand it shows a low level of intelligence and a character level of a whiny bitch.

Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.

Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you. Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.

Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.

Most abused people lash out that way. There are very few real homophobes, just people with crappy lives and tons of emotional baggage

I've been married for 22 years to a woman as it should be. I have two children, both of whom are normal heterosexuals. I am the number two person where I work. I support myself and my family while being forced to support freeloaders with what should be staying with me. Lots of other successes. Hardly a crappy life.

Really?...there is something wrong if you're getting as angry as you are, because a tiny fraction of the dollars you pay in taxes pay for things you don't like.

You're either allowing some righty news agency to outrage you over someone else's battle, or there is more to your anger and hatred than you comprehend.

There is something wrong with you if you think a penny of what I've earned should go to any individual other than the ones I want.

 

[Czernobog]

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

That's a flat out lie. I have said, repeatedly, that I also support incestuous marriage, and polygamy. How is it that you have not understood that, every time I've said it? Actually bolding the words was an attempt to help you understand the idiocy of your position. I can see that this may be impossible...

 

[Conservative65]

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

And I see the 14th amendment that requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. And that right applies to federal, STATE, even local laws. So, while you do get to regulate marriage at a state level, you still have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally.

There is no law I know of that says a homosexual can't get married. Since none exists, they are being treated equally.

 

[Conservative65]

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

The only thing you support is two homos marrying not equality.

By the way, bolding words does nothing for you cause.

That's a flat out lie. I have said, repeatedly, that I also support incestuous marriage, and polygamy. How is it that you have not understood that, every time I've said it? Actually bolding the words was an attempt to help you understand the idiocy of your position. I can see that this may be impossible...

You said you support the concept. There's a difference you seem to stupid to grasp. Perhaps it's because you've been cornholed too many times.

 

[Czernobog]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[toxicmedia]

Only someone who is angry about everything would throw that kind of low brow insult around.

Only a puss like you would demand someone express an opinion in a manner that suits you. Only a low brow coward demands someone do it in a manner he/she likes.

Who made you feel helpless during your life? That's probably why you're acting out.

Most abused people lash out that way. There are very few real homophobes, just people with crappy lives and tons of emotional baggage

I've been married for 22 years to a woman as it should be. I have two children, both of whom are normal heterosexuals. I am the number two person where I work. I support myself and my family while being forced to support freeloaders with what should be staying with me. Lots of other successes. Hardly a crappy life.

Really?...there is something wrong if you're getting as angry as you are, because a tiny fraction of the dollars you pay in taxes pay for things you don't like.

You're either allowing some righty news agency to outrage you over someone else's battle, or there is more to your anger and hatred than you comprehend.

There is something wrong with you if you think a penny of what I've earned should go to any individual other than the ones I want.

I'm not sure you understand how things work in our constitutional republic.

A. You vote for someone.
B. You pay taxes.
C. The people who got elected spend the dollars you're taxed.

It isn't carte blanche'. You don't get to decide what tax money goes where if your guy lost the election. Because they should be spending tax dollars using the platform on which they were elected, by a majority.

You can't just get all cranky and say you don't want any tax dollars spent on welfare, or whatever has got your goat

 

[Pop23]

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.

Homosexuality was considered a perversion back when the marriage laws were written. I'm sure the lawmakers never thought perverts would ever consider wanting to marry. They are, after all quite different than opposite sex couples.

Certain states realized the mistake and voted on defining it.

I am sure you realize this.

Correct?

What you are "sure' of carries exactly zero legal weight. The fact still remains that the law said what it said, until you moralists shat yourselves over the fact that "the homos" were taking advantage of the damn law as if they were "real people", and ran off to your state congresses to have the laws altered to fit your personal moral opinions.

Slavery should still be legal?

Wouldn't want to change a law.

Specially not those left to the state aye?

So, you're saying that the law was changed, like with the 14th amendment, in order to expand civil liberties to people that had previously been denied those liberties? No? Then you're right. We wouldn't want to change those laws in the way that you are attempting to change them, because those changes would directly conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

You deflect, the 14th was never intended to address same sex marriage. Homosexuals were considered mentally challenged, perverted.

 

[Pop23]

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?

Yes, the constitution. Obviously you don't believe the constitution. Sad.

I've yet to see the word marriage in the Constitution. It is sad that you think it does.

No you don't see marriage in the constitution. The constitution protects all of our rights, whether the rights are enumerated or not. If you grant a right to two legal adults of the opposite sex then constitutionally you must grant the same right to two legal adults of the same sex.

This isn't rocket science, just basic constitutional law.

What I do see is the 10th Amendment which gives STATES the authority to address what you admit isn't in the Constitution.

Since the Constitutuion says nothing about marriage, claiming the Constitution grants marriage as a right is retarded on your part.

And I see the 14th amendment that requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. And that right applies to federal, STATE, even local laws. So, while you do get to regulate marriage at a state level, you still have to do so in a way that treats everyone equally.

So Real Estate law is the same in all 50 states?

How exciting aye ?

 

[Czernobog]

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

No one is doing that. Show me where I was have claimed that I "disagree" with incestuous, or polygamous marriage. The only claim that I have made is that there is no one demanding the "right" of polygamous, or incestuous marriage in the United States, so there is no one on who's behalf to demand those rights. You are trying to force a fight for rights for people who do not exist.