Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Pop23]

Bullshit. you start with punishing religious people for their beliefs, and you will move on to the organizations sooner or later.

Again, if a state wants to change the marriage contract via legislation I have no issue with it, if they don't they should be able to define it how they want to.

Again, acceptance. You keep trying to deny it, but it comes through more and more the more you post.

No Marty, true shit. We want to be civilly married. We have always had equal access to religious marriage, it is not the issue. It is not us that has a problem with the religious, it is the religious that have a problem with us. Civil unions for all would be perfectly acceptable to gays and lesbians. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays is not.

I don't care what you have a problem with, I'm glad I live in a county where we can address our grievances through the judicial system.

Still looking for that acceptance you so desperately desire. Its almost Freudian.

Repeating a lie does not make it true. We want equality. If you get civil unions, they're fine for us. If you get civil marriage, that's what we get too. Why do you insist we meed to create something separate for gays?

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Pervert, a father should never marry his daughter

 

[JakeStarkey]

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

Why do you seek to force people to accept your lifestyle or go out of business?

Since your silly libertarian views are never going to be part of our society, your question is meaningless.

They were what founded our society, until assholes like you figured out a way to fuck over people using the courts and government.

Not at all. Most libertarians, like you, are fairly poor at socializing, so you enter fields to maximize your skills and minimize your weaknesses,, which is smart in a vastly interconnect global community.

Folks like you have to adapt, not the society as a whole to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet another fallacy of false comparison by Pop.

 

[martybegan]

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

Why do you seek to force people to accept your lifestyle or go out of business?

Since your silly libertarian views are never going to be part of our society, your question is meaningless.

They were what founded our society, until assholes like you figured out a way to fuck over people using the courts and government.

Not at all. Most libertarians, like you, are fairly poor at socializing, so you enter fields to maximize your skills and minimize your weaknesses,, which is smart in a vastly interconnect global community.

Folks like you have to adapt, not the society as a whole to you.

Socialization and not wanting government to fuck you over are two unrelated items. Being a sucker for oligarchs, however, seems to be a progressive trait.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whatever, Marty.

 

[Pop23]

Yet another fallacy of false comparison by Pop.

Thanks for ignoring me. Yet another delusional post by delusional boy

 

[martybegan]

Whatever, Marty.

Congrats on giving up, now, as for the other thread, get your ass back there and tell me what I lied about.

 

[Czernobog]

And they can still claim all of the benefits that come with being married? What must gays do to claim those benefits? I told you I'm not going to quit asking his question until you answer it.

Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella

So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?

Go with that Mr. Spock

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with biology, dumdass. It's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you think anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

 

[Pop23]

Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella

So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?

Go with that Mr. Spock

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

 

[Czernobog]

So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?

Go with that Mr. Spock

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

 

[Seawytch]

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the fucking problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

And you are not recognizing a muslim person's religious beliefs that your lifestyle is sinful. Why does your religious beliefs trump that muslim's? Or a Jew's? Or a Hindu's? Or a pagan's? Or an atheist's?

And what makes ANY religious person's beliefs trump the Constitution and secular law?

These people in general are not going to government agencies to force others to accept or go out of business. You assholes are.

Oh, so you're back to PA laws...that have nothing to do with marriage equality.

Can't stay on topic? You do realize all those groups are protected by PA laws, don't you?

 

[Seawytch]

Marty, maybe you can explain how you believe my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.

Bakers, cakes, force, government. gays.

Marriage, not related. There was no civil marriage for gays in the states where the PA cases were brought. Argument fail.

 

[Seawytch]

Marty, maybe you can explain how you believe my civil marriage forces acceptance? Be specific.

It won't dummy

According to Marty it does, bigot.

 

[R.D.]

Go with that Mr. Spock

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

 

[Czernobog]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

We have that. You guys handed it to us. in fact, we have several:

Women - "fetal personhood", and the end run around women's right to vote, pay equality, the delay in re-authorizing the "Violence Against Women" act.
Latino - Republican refusal to move on immigration reform
Homosexuals - Marriage Equality.
Everyone - Minimum Wage increase.

Progressives don't need to "create" polarizing issues. You guys are doing a great job of that, all on your own. Thanks for that.

 

[Pop23]

Go with that Mr. Spock

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

Are you gonna want me to pinky swear?

God you are pathetic

Swear him in judge!

 

[Pop23]

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!

 

[Czernobog]

What do you know? The cowardly bigot doesn't want to admit his own position, and so keep equivocating in order not to have to say it.

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

It is a simple question to Pop that he keeps refusing to answer with a clear statement: Should homosexuals who want to get married be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

 

[Czernobog]

Biology can't be bigoted dumbass

Do you not know what "go with that" means?

My position has been made quite clear. Your delusions are also quite clear.

Your failure to indoctrinate me as one of your enablers is Chrystal clear.

If you have a damn point, I wish you'd make it.

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!

Case in point. The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.

 

[R.D.]

What I asked had nothing to do with iology, dum ass. it's not my fault you are too cowardly to answer a simple question.

Yes or no: Is it your contention that in order to access the benefits of being married, homosexuals should be required to marry people of the opposite sex?

Now, before you bother wasting time with deflection, again, allow me to be clear. I am not asking if you thing anyone should be forced to marry against their will. I am asking what specific requirements are necessary in order to access the benefits of marriage. Now, since I was quite clear about being specific, "being married" is not a complete answer. Who can marry whom? Can homosexuals marry people of the same sex to access those benefits, or, in your opinion, must the person they marry be of the opposite sex.

Go ahead. Equivocate again, coward.

Are you that friggen delusional that you can't understand anything in simple terms.

Marriage should be between a male and a female.

I think I've been a bit more than completely clear on this subject.

Oh, since I can hear you lil head blowing the fuck up, I will be even clearer......,

Both must be human.

You can call me whatever you want. I want you on the record saying that you believe homosexuals should have to marry people of the oppsite sex, if they want to get married. That way you can't back-pedal, and claim you "never said that", when, what comes next comes. So let's try it again:

Do you think that homosexuals who want to get married should have to marry people of the opposite sex?

I know right

The least he could do is read me my rights first!

Case in point. The cowardly bigot refuses to simply answer the question, because he knows that answering honestly proves that he has no respect for the institution of marriage.

Um, no.

He has answered it over and over, and in no way is it bigoted. It is in fact the utmost in respect for the institution of marriage.