Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Seawytch]

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.

Okay...listen to this preacher instead.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You say you're not a bigot...but your argument sure do mirror those of the bigots that have come before you...

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

I would advise against entering into one then.

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

I would advise against entering into one then.

And I would demand that others can't.

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

I would advise against entering into one then.

And I would demand that others can't.

-Geaux

You can demand all you want to...like a toddler in Walmart. Will you throw a temper tantrum in the parking lot when the world ignores you and marries anyway?

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

I would advise against entering into one then.

And I would demand that others can't.

-Geaux

You can demand all you want to...like a toddler in Walmart. Will you throw a temper tantrum in the parking lot when the world ignores you and marries anyway?

Meh, probably not. I realize like in the election, I'm in the minority of opinion. However, that does not change my position. But I get what you're saying, it will pass and become an acceptable form of society and culture. If I'm lucky, I should only have ~26 good years left. Hopefully I miss the grand finale gay parade march on inauguration day. Just a matter of time. I predict 3 'historic' elections. We have already seen the first black, and likely a woman next. Then comes the 2 guys named Bob. And its not oral Roberts. :-0

-Geaux

 

[Seawytch]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

I would advise against entering into one then.

And I would demand that others can't.

-Geaux

You can demand all you want to...like a toddler in Walmart. Will you throw a temper tantrum in the parking lot when the world ignores you and marries anyway?

Meh, probably not. I realize like in the election, I'm in the minority of opinion. However, that does not change my position. But I get what you're saying, it will pass and become an acceptable form of society and culture. If I'm lucky, I should only have ~26 good years left. Hopefully I miss the grand finale gay parade march on inauguration day. Just a matter of time. I predict 3 'historic' elections. We have already seen the first black, and likely a woman next. Then comes the 2 guys named Bob. And its not oral Roberts. :-0

-Geaux

Yeah, I think you'll live to see the first gay President. I hope you do

 

[Boss]

I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!

 

[Seawytch]

I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!

Bill Clinton isn't gay...but you should watch this video.

 

[Boss]

You say you're not a bigot...but your argument sure do mirror those of the bigots that have come before you...

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."

You say you want to help gay couples obtain the benefits of other married couples too... but you continue to reject my proposal which resolves the issue forever. Instead, you'd rather continue calling me a bigot and insulting me.

We've been through your 'protest' comparing this to interracial marriage, countless times now. People were being denied something based on the color of their skin which other people got to do. That was racial discrimination and against the law. Homosexuality is not race, there is nothing in the constitution which protects your sexual behavior or prevents discrimination based on it. You can't change the definition of marriage to include your sexual lifestyle.

When the debate was had about interracial marriage, people warned this might lead to homosexuals wanting same-sex marriage, and they were dismissed as being ridiculous. Today, people are warning that same-sex marriage will lead to other sexual behaviors becoming legitimized through marriage, and they are being laughed at again. In 20 years, we will be debating multiple-partner marriage, adult-child marriage and/or human-animal marriage. Because your argument never ends, there is never enough immorality made acceptable.

The ONLY solution to this is removing government from the role of determining what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to marriage. It's none of their damn business. You using government to impose your will on society is no different than me doing the same. But as we can see, when you are offered an olive branch and a way we can all be happy together, you promptly take the olive branch and beat me with it. The last thing in the world you want is to get along, to find common ground, to resolve our problems together.

 

[Seawytch]

You say you're not a bigot...but your argument sure do mirror those of the bigots that have come before you...

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally."

You say you want to help gay couples obtain the benefits of other married couples too... but you continue to reject my proposal which resolves the issue forever. Instead, you'd rather continue calling me a bigot and insulting me.

We've been through your 'protest' comparing this to interracial marriage, countless times now. People were being denied something based on the color of their skin which other people got to do. That was racial discrimination and against the law. Homosexuality is not race, there is nothing in the constitution which protects your sexual behavior or prevents discrimination based on it. You can't change the definition of marriage to include your sexual lifestyle.

When the debate was had about interracial marriage, people warned this might lead to homosexuals wanting same-sex marriage, and they were dismissed as being ridiculous. Today, people are warning that same-sex marriage will lead to other sexual behaviors becoming legitimized through marriage, and they are being laughed at again. In 20 years, we will be debating multiple-partner marriage, adult-child marriage and/or human-animal marriage. Because your argument never ends, there is never enough immorality made acceptable.

The ONLY solution to this is removing government from the role of determining what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to marriage. It's none of their damn business. You using government to impose your will on society is no different than me doing the same. But as we can see, when you are offered an olive branch and a way we can all be happy together, you promptly take the olive branch and beat me with it. The last thing in the world you want is to get along, to find common ground, to resolve our problems together.

Your proposal is fine. Get on it. Civil unions for all, I'm onboard. Of course, since you have a problem with my marriage license, the onus is on you to get the work done. I don't care what it's called as long as it's the same for all non familial adult couples.

 

[toxicmedia]

I'm against gay marriage and think its disgusting.

-Geaux

Thank you, now there is a person who will admit where they're at.

 

[toxicmedia]

I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!

Wow....being gay, black, or a woman is all bad huh?.......Sure you don't hate gays......yeah right.

 

[Boss]

Your proposal is fine. Get on it. Civil unions for all, I'm onboard. Of course, since you have a problem with my marriage license, the onus is on you to get the work done. I don't care what it's called as long as it's the same for all non familial adult couples.

Can't happen as long as Gay Marriage is being sought. It's akin to saying you want peace but without a ceasefire... doesn't work. There is no onus on me, I'm not a gay couple or religious person, the issue means nothing whatsoever from where I sit. I am just proposing an amicable solution to the problem which gives all sides what they claim to want. And oh by the way, my solution doesn't only apply to "non-familial" couples, there is no discrimination, it applies to any two people who are of legal age, who want to enter into a civil contract. This could apply to someone who is caring for an aging parent, two spinster sisters, whatever. The paramount thing about what I am proposing has to be the absence of appearing to be marriage by another name. I'm not interested in 'back-dooring' gay marriage into law. ...Pardon the pun.

 

[Boss]

I think we've already seen him. He was the first black president too!

Wow....being gay, black, or a woman is all bad huh?.......Sure you don't hate gays......yeah right.

No one said anything was bad. You continue to infer absolute lies about me and attempt to impugn my character. And that's really the bottom line here, that's what you are after. It means more to you than a resolution we can all agree on. Your nickname suits you to a tee. You're toxic, plain and simple. All you seem to want to do is agitate and denigrate, like the sorry piece of shit you are. That being said, we are done conversing, I will not feed your toxicity.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Your claim about no one demanding one of those types of marriages is false. If, as you say, those people don't exists, why are there laws prohibiting something you say no one wants? Governmental bodies didn't just think of writing them out of the blue.

Cite them. Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse. No? that would be because you are full of shit.

he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.

The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers. argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do. If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.

The point you bigots argue when you argue against equal protection is that you are arguing that Big Brother should be telling Americans how we can have sex in the privacy of our homes with consenting adults.

The problem I have with the homos and their supporters on this issue is that you claim you don't want Big Brother telling you who you can marry because it's no one else's business then support the concept of that same "Brother" being able to limit certain types of marriage YOU don't like then trying to justify it as if you're actually doing something different than those who oppose same sex marriage. If two first cousins that are consenting adults want to marry or consenting adults that happen to want to marry more than one person , who the hell are you to tell them they shouldn't? In other words, since it doesn't harm you, you have no say

 

[Syriusly]

Your claim about no one demanding one of those types of marriages is false. If, as you say, those people don't exists, why are there laws prohibiting something you say no one wants? Governmental bodies didn't just think of writing them out of the blue.

Cite them. Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse. No? that would be because you are full of shit.

he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.

The point you peter puffers or carpet munchers. argue when you claim equal protection is that you get to do what normal male/female couples do. If your argument is equality and all those multiple partners are consenting adults, it's the same whether you're capable of understanding that simple concept or not.

The point you bigots argue when you argue against equal protection is that you are arguing that Big Brother should be telling Americans how we can have sex in the privacy of our homes with consenting adults.

The problem I have with the homos and their supporters on this issue is that you claim you don't want Big Brother telling you who you can marry because it's no one else's business then support the concept of that same "Brother" being able to limit certain types of marriage YOU don't like then trying to justify it as if you're actually doing something different than those who oppose same sex marriage. If two first cousins that are consenting adults want to marry or consenting adults that happen to want to marry more than one person , who the hell are you to tell them they shouldn't? In other words, since it doesn't harm you, you have no say

The problem I have with anti-homosexual homophobic posters on this issue is that you bring up strawmen to justify your opposition to marriage equality for homosexuals.

As a friend- and supporter of homosexuals who would like to marry- I think that there is no reason that they should not be treated any differently than my wife and I were treated when we got married. They want to marry for the exact same reasons that my wife and I wanted to get married- because we loved each other- and wanted to legally commit to each other for the rest of our lives in the way our legal system provides for.

It is homophobic posters like yourself that tell homosexuals that they only get to do what 'normal male/female couples' get to do. You think that the government should be ensuring that people only have the kind of sex that you approve of people having- you disapprove of 'peter puffers' and 'carpet munchers'- and think the government shouldn't allow allow oral sex between adults.

It is homophobic posters who bring up first cousins marrying(legal and has been legal in 11 states longer than same gender marriage) and then try to label homosexuals as being hypocrites for disapproving of first cousin marriages.

Even though homosexuals- and myself- aren't arguing for- or against- first cousin marriages. You are.

I have a problem with the hypocrisy of homophobes whose argument is so shallow that they can't argue their case without pretending like homosexuals have taken any position other than arguing to be treated just like any other couple who is exactly the same as they are- other than gender.

Bob and Bill want to be treated just like Bob and Jill in marriage- assuming the only difference between Bill and Jill is gender.

Yes- that is marriage equality.

 

[Syriusly]

Your proposal is fine. Get on it. Civil unions for all, I'm onboard. Of course, since you have a problem with my marriage license, the onus is on you to get the work done. I don't care what it's called as long as it's the same for all non familial adult couples.

Can't happen as long as Gay Marriage is being sought..

Gay Marriage is going to be sought unless you campaign for an alternative and convince people that they would be better off with your proposal.

Since at this moment same gender marriage is legal in 31 states, and is likely to be legal in most states within the next year or two, there is no more incentive for gay couples to support your proposal- than there is any incentive for me to support it.

 

[Syriusly]

When the debate was had about interracial marriage, people warned this might lead to homosexuals wanting same-sex marriage, and they were dismissed as being ridiculous. .

No- they made the same kinds of dire warnings then that opponents to same gender marriage make now- that allowing mixed race marriages would lead to polygamy and incestuous marriage.

That hasn't happened.