Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Boss]

Maybe you do just plain think it's icky

Let me be perfectly blunt, I would never let another man stick his penis in my anus. Nor am I interested in sticking my penis in another man's anus. These things do not arouse me sexualy in the least. It doesn't matter if I think they are "iky" they just don't crank my tractor.

I like curvy women with nice tits. I might even like doing some 'deviant' things with them, but unless I am really drunk and they are really hot, it won't involve anything going up my ass.

But hey... I understand if that's your thing, I don't have a problem with it. I would never support a law that said you couldn't do that. Likewise, if you want to have a domestic partnership with someone of your same gender, I don't have a problem with it. I'm only opposed to it being defined as marriage from the perspective of government. If you want to call it marriage, I don't have a problem with that either, but I shouldn't be forced to accept your beliefs any more than you should be forced to accept mine. And that is what you seek to do.

 

[Boss]

Why would you worry that gay marriage would ultimately lead to other sexual behaviors lobbying for legitimacy through marriage on the same basis?....if you don't care what kind of sex other people have?

How is guessing you'll be close to giving up on opposition to gay marriage an attack?

Because I don't want the government sanctioning all kinds of deviant sexual behaviors. I don't care what you do behind closed doors, that's your business as long as no one is harmed and everyone consents. I just don't want government in the position of saying this sex is okay but that sex is not, and then be told by SCOTUS that equal protection applies and if this sex is okay then that sex has to also be okay. I'd rather leave what kind of sex is okay or not up to the individual and leave government the hell out of it. It's not their place to legitimize your sexual behaviors.

And ya didn't guess correctly, I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.

The Rude Pundit

Sorry, not going to read a blog that calls me a bigot.

 

[toxicmedia]

You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?

If you don't care what kind of sex other people have...why do you care if it's deviant?

It deviates from the norm, therefore it is deviant. Again... don't care if you have deviant sex.

Then why did you bring it up at all?

I'm pretty sure you think it's icky, and won't admit it.

You don't care what kind of sex people have, but you want to stop some of them from marrying, based on what kind they have?

Doesn't add up.

 

[toxicmedia]

Maybe you do just plain think it's icky

Let me be perfectly blunt, I would never let another man stick his penis in my anus. Nor am I interested in sticking my penis in another man's anus. These things do not arouse me sexualy in the least. It doesn't matter if I think they are "iky" they just don't crank my tractor.

I like curvy women with nice tits. I might even like doing some 'deviant' things with them, but unless I am really drunk and they are really hot, it won't involve anything going up my ass.

But hey... I understand if that's your thing, I don't have a problem with it. I would never support a law that said you couldn't do that. Likewise, if you want to have a domestic partnership with someone of your same gender, I don't have a problem with it. I'm only opposed to it being defined as marriage from the perspective of government. If you want to call it marriage, I don't have a problem with that either, but I shouldn't be forced to accept your beliefs any more than you should be forced to accept mine. And that is what you seek to do.

Blunt - honesty.

It makes you feel icky

 

[Ellipsis]

It's not marriage equality. It's marriage extinction.

SSM certanly isn't fixing any of the root causes of divorce, that's for sure. Inviting more people to join the 50%+ divorce rate isn't an improvement at all.

 

[Ellipsis]

So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.

I think anything that igores the problem is part of the problem.

We need a federal marriage amendment defining the right, who can and cannot marry, and requiring pre-marital counseling.

Short of federal action, laws are only valid when they come from the legislature, not the courts. Sure a court can strike down a ban, but telling a state it has to honor certain kinds of couples runs against the 10th Amendment. If you want SSM legal in your state you're supposed to vote in Representatives who will do that and vote out Representatives who won't.

That's why Loving is an unconstitutional ruling, lead to SSM, and is why SSM is unethical. It has nothing to do with rather or not a same sex couple should have legal marriage and everything to do with following Due Process to adress it so you don't brake the systom.

 

[Judicial review]

Why get married at all? Stay single and sleep around a bunch. This way you prevent her from divorcing your ass and stealing your shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.

I think anything that igores the problem is part of the problem.

We need a federal marriage amendment defigning the right, who can and cannot marry, and requiring pre-marital counselling.

Short of federal action, laws are only valid when they come from the legislature, not the courts. Sure a court can strike down a ban, but telling a state it has to honor certain kinds of couples runs against the 10th Amendment. If you want SSM legal in your state you're supposed to vote in Representatives who will do that and vote out Representatives who won't.

That's why Loving is an unconstitutional ruling, lead to SSM, and is why SSM is unethical. It has nothing to do with rather or not a same sex couple should have legal marriage and everything to do with following Due Process to adress it so you don't brake the systom.

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[Ellipsis]

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

You're just a troll, and not a very good one at that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Boss said:

“I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.”

And you're at liberty to express your beliefs, no one is trying to change that.

But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

 

[Ellipsis]

But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Yes he is. That's how the systom works: anyone can try and make any silly 'oll rule they want. That doesn't mean they'll get their way, but the 1st Amendment entitles them to have the government redress any grievance they want.

 

[toxicmedia]

But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Yes he is. That's how the systom works: anyone can try and make any silly 'oll rule they want. That doesn't mean they'll get their way, but the 1st Amendment entitles them to have the government redress any grievance they want.

Key word..."try"

Making laws that prohibit gay marriage have an impending show down with the constitution via the SCOTUS.

Not sure why people fight it, it's a lost cause thank God.

 

[Ellipsis]

But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Yes he is. That's how the systom works: anyone can try and make any silly 'oll rule they want. That doesn't mean they'll get their way, but the 1st Amendment entitles them to have the government redress any grievance they want.

Key word..."try"

Making laws that prohibit gay marriage have an impending show down with the constitution via the SCOTUS.

Not sure why people fight it, it's a lost cause thank God.

You're saying that following due process is a lost cause and you're involving religion.

How long have you been a member of ISIS?

 

[Boss]

You don't think gay people having sex is icky...but you think it's deviant behavior?

If you don't care what kind of sex other people have...why do you care if it's deviant?

It deviates from the norm, therefore it is deviant. Again... don't care if you have deviant sex.

Then why did you bring it up at all?

I'm pretty sure you think it's icky, and won't admit it.

You don't care what kind of sex people have, but you want to stop some of them from marrying, based on what kind they have?

Doesn't add up.

I didn't bring it up, it was brought up and I addressed it. I don't want to stop anyone from marrying. But marrying is the union of a man and woman. I want to stop government from redefining marriage. I presented a reasonable solution that gives everyone what they want, and you're still not satisfied. You still need to call me names and ridicule me for what I believe, then try to force what you believe down my throat. I'm intolerant of THAT.

 

[Ellipsis]

I didn't bring it up, it was brought up and I addressed it. I don't want to stop anyone from marrying. But marrying is the union of a man and woman. I want to stop government from redefining marriage. I presented a reasonable solution that gives everyone what they want, and you're still not satisfied. You still need to call me names and ridicule me for what I believe, then try to force what you believe down my throat. I'm intolerant of THAT.

If this were truly a Christian nation then SSM wouldn't be an issue. Neither would abortion. Just convert more people to Christianity and the problem will solve itself.

 

[Boss]

Boss said:

“I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.”

And you're at liberty to express your beliefs, no one is trying to change that.

But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

No one has been denied access to marriage law. Homosexuals are eligible to marry someone of the opposite sex in any state they please. You're not at liberty to redefine marriage, unless you can pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.

 

[Ellipsis]

Boss said:

“I am strongly opposed to gay marriage and always will be. Nothing is going to ever change that. I'm not a bigot or homophobe, I just believe that marriage is a sacred union between a man and woman and nothing else. You're free to believe otherwise, but you're not going to force me to change my beliefs.”

And you're at liberty to express your beliefs, no one is trying to change that.

But you're not at liberty to seek to codify those beliefs by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

No one has been denied access to marriage law. Homosexuals are eligible to marry someone of the opposite sex in any state they please. You're not at liberty to redefine marriage, unless you can pass and ratify a constitutional amendment.

Pro-SSM never counter that argument. Watch as the 2 standard diversions surface: 1. the refrence to Loving and Blacks marrying Blacks, just not Whites, and 2. the sugestion that the right is to marry whomever you choose.

There is a counter to your point, but let's see if pro-SSM on this thread can fogure it out.

 

[Boss]

Pro-SSM never counter that argument. Watch as the 2 standard diversions surface: 1. the refrence to Loving and Blacks marrying Blacks, just not Whites, and 2. the sugestion that the right is to marry whomever you choose.

There is a counter to your point, but let's see if pro-SSM on this thread can fogure it out.

Yes, they've already raised both #1 and #2 in this thread. What they can't do is find reasonable objection to my solution of civil unions and getting government out of the business of marriage or telling us what can or can't be marriage. They continue to dismiss my suggestion as "something that will never work" while continuing to hurl insults and denigrate anyone who rejects their gay marriage agenda.

I think their dirty little secret is, they'd rather have the issue than to resolve it. This isn't about gay couples obtaining rights or benefits, it's about partisan left-wing ideologues having a vehicle to pound conservatives and Christians over the head with.

 

[Judicial review]

I've decided I'm going to write a book.

 

[Ellipsis]

Yes, they've already raised both #1 and #2 in this thread. What they can't do is find reasonable objection to my solution of civil unions and getting government out of the business of marriage or telling us what can or can't be marriage. They continue to dismiss my suggestion as "something that will never work" while continuing to hurl insults and denigrate anyone who rejects their gay marriage agenda.

I think their dirty little secret is, they'd rather have the issue than to resolve it. This isn't about gay couples obtaining rights or benefits, it's about partisan left-wing ideologues having a vehicle to pound conservatives and Christians over the head with.

Civil marriage is keeping government in marriage. If you want to remove government from marriage then there can be no legal acknowledgement of the relationship at all.