Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage should be between a male and a female.
.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

Marriage is between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And that's as it should be.

I notice that the phobes have had nothing to say about the ways in which marriage has changed through the ages. There's nothing "traditional" that needs to be protected. Its the equal rights of all citizens that we should all be working to protect.

Also the 'tradition argument' is legally invalid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage law is about two people only.

Sil and Where were observed catching the last train to Clarkesville.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Bottom line is, its happening.

Doesn't matter if you disagree or have some outdated and inaccurate view of what marriage is. Doesn't matter what you want it to be.

 

[Boss]

It's so funny when Gay Marriage advocates point to "the law" to reject arguments regarding polygamy, pedophilia, beastality and incest.

"We should change the law to allow homosexual marriage!"
"Well what about polygamy, pedophilia, beastality and incest?"
"There's LAWWWS against that!"

Okay, here's a few hypotheticals to play with... just for fun....

What about a gay brother and sister? Should they be allowed to marry?
How about a gay man who is already traditionally married to a straight woman, should he be allowed an 'additional' marriage to a gay man?
What about a bisexual transvestite who sometimes loves a man and sometimes a woman? Should they be allowed two marriages to accommodate their love?

And again.... What is the argument for an established "age of consent" when biology tells us that humans become sexually mature at around 12 or 13?

 

[Boss]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

Nope. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer.

As a gay man myself I couldn't care more. Your post is a flaming load of horse crap. Allowing gay couples to marry has no effect on you or anyone else who hates gays whatsoever. The only people trying to cram anything down society's throat are people like you. You want everyone to fit into your own view of marriage and what it is.

You don't want to give people the freedom to be who they actually are and marry who they actually want to love. Sorry, but nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

Yet this is EXACTLY what you support! My solution REMOVES government from the issue entirely and allows PEOPLE to decide for themselves.

I don't hate gay people. It's offensive to me for you to continue accusing me of hating gay people when you have presented absolutely NO evidence to support that allegation. I am the one who is presenting a reasonable solution to the problem which resolves it forever. My viewpoint comes from an actual gay couple who have been together 30 years and are close personal friends of mine.

YOU are the intolerant bigot who wants to use the courts and government to impose your will on society, and I reject that.

 

[Boss]

Bottom line is, its happening.

Doesn't matter if you disagree or have some outdated and inaccurate view of what marriage is. Doesn't matter what you want it to be.

And this is what really bugs me... You people think, because for the moment you have the 'judicial' upper hand, that this is all perfectly acceptable and society will just have to learn to deal with it. In fact, some of you have grown quite cocky about it.

The issue has not gone away and it won't go away anytime soon. You can only continue exploiting the judicial system so long before the people respond. Marriage will be what the people want it to be in America because the people have the power to make that happen.

Every ballot measure that has been presented to the people has failed miserably. The only places gay marriage stands is where the courts and legislatures overruled the will of the people to make it happen. What's more, you have a rather large and significant evangelical base who can probably ratify a new constitutional amendment, if need be.

It doesn't need to come to that, there is no reason to fight another 30 years for this. I proposed a solution that resolves the matter for gay couples, for religious people, for governments and courts, for everyone but extremist radical bigots who simply need the issue to foment hate. Gay couples could be realizing the benefits within a year, problem solved, issue over... but you fuckwits don't want that because you're emboldened by a few "victories" in activist courts. This is going to bite you in the ass... and not in the good way.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.

I keep hearing that from bigots who keep telling everyone that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that

Actually, you wouldn't know a conservative if you gagged on his cock.

Clearly you know a lot more about sucking off Conservative men, so I bow to your greater knowledge.

Me? As a happily married man, with lots of Conservative friends- I occasionally use hyperbole.

Most Conservatives are good people and not bigots.

I should never use the term Conservative to identify homophobic bigots who just always happen to be more Conservative than John Birch.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

Why two? Who are you to decide? Fags never say, except that "it's traditional".

"Ni**er"...fag....****....'c*nt....all the words used for the same purpose, by the same people.

 

[Iceweasel]

Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.

Incorrect.

No marriage law exists that can accommodate three or more persons, which is not the case with same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as the law is currently written. That's why disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Incorrect. No marriage law permitted two of the same gender to marry. Basing it on traditional marriage while rejecting traditional marriage is hypocritical. FAIL.

 

[Iceweasel]

Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.

I keep hearing that from bigots who keep telling everyone that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other.

The bigotry and hypocrisy is all yours if you deny anyone the right to marry. The only fair thing in the gay marriage states is to let anybody marry in any number.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that

Actually, you wouldn't know a conservative if you gagged on his cock.

Clearly you know a lot more about sucking off Conservative men, so I bow to your greater knowledge.

Me? As a happily married man, with lots of Conservative friends- I occasionally use hyperbole.

Most Conservatives are good people and not bigots.

I should never use the term Conservative to identify homophobic bigots who just always happen to be more Conservative than John Birch.

Oh wow. You have conservative friends. Do you believe in inter-political marriages as well?

 

[Iceweasel]

Also the 'tradition argument' is legally invalid.

...which is why there's no basis for two person marriages in gay states. Try to keep up.

 

[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.

Until then people had the liberty to fuck over people using guns and knives.....

Considering the criminal legal system would still be around under a more libertarian government, I don't know where you are going here.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?

They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that.

Unless of course it is the Conservatives suing business's.

If people of faith weren't being dicks to homosexuals, then this whole issue would be moot.

So you define following one of the major religions on this planet as "being a dick"

Look who is being intolerant here.

 

[JimCamp]

Gay marriage is morally wrong and should not be legalized. It is inappropriate, its not right, its disgusting in every way. It stops kids from being born, gay men relations spread NASTY diseases. I can continue, if you want.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage is morally wrong and should not be legalized. It is inappropriate, its not right, its disgusting in every way. It stops kids from being born, gay men relations spread NASTY diseases. I can continue, if you want.

Yes, please do...you only help the marriage equality argument.

How does it stop kids from being born exactly? Do straights stop fucking their spouses because Adam and Steve got married? Why?

 

[Boss]

Gaybos? Questions are still on the table... any takers?

What about a gay brother and sister? Should they be allowed to marry?

How about a gay man who is already 'traditionally' married to a straight woman, should he be allowed an 'additional' marriage to a gay man?

What about a bisexual transvestite who sometimes loves a man and sometimes a woman? Should they be allowed two marriages to accommodate their love?

And again.... What is the argument for an established "age of consent" when biology tells us that humans become sexually mature at around 12 or 13?

 

[Syriusly]

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that

Actually, you wouldn't know a conservative if you gagged on his cock.

Clearly you know a lot more about sucking off Conservative men, so I bow to your greater knowledge.

Me? As a happily married man, with lots of Conservative friends- I occasionally use hyperbole.

Most Conservatives are good people and not bigots.

I should never use the term Conservative to identify homophobic bigots who just always happen to be more Conservative than John Birch.

Oh wow. You have conservative friends. Do you believe in inter-political marriages as well?

Clearly you know a lot more about sucking off Conservative men, so I bow to your greater knowledge.

Me? As a happily married man, with lots of Conservative friends- I occasionally use hyperbole.

Most Conservatives are good people and not bigots.

I should never use the term Conservative to identify homophobic bigots who just always happen to be more Conservative than John Birch.

 

[Syriusly]

Gaybos? Questions are still on the table... any takers?

What about a gay brother and sister? Should they be allowed to marry?

How about a gay man who is already 'traditionally' married to a straight woman, should he be allowed an 'additional' marriage to a gay man?

What about a bisexual transvestite who sometimes loves a man and sometimes a woman? Should they be allowed two marriages to accommodate their love?

And again.... What is the argument for an established "age of consent" when biology tells us that humans become sexually mature at around 12 or 13?

What is a gaybo?