We're Getting Married!

[Redfish]

being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.

Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.

you are so full of shit. tell me, are atheists bigoted against christians, muslims, and jews? or do they simply have different beliefs?

it is not bigotry to hold different beliefs about right and wrong. Its bigoted to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you and to try to force your beliefs on others-----as the gay agenda is doing.

Dude......your bigotry being based in religion doesn't make it any less bigoted. You claim that having a religious, moral, or biological basis for your argument means that you're not bigoted. But you've never been able to explain why that would be. Opponents of interracial marriage for example cited religion, morality and biology as the basis of their claims.

And yet were flaming bigots. Even you admitted as much.

interracial marriage involves one man and woman of different races. a marriage of two men or two women, or three women and six men is not analogous.

until you fools get off this kick, you will never make any progress.

Irrelevant. As you're claiming that a view based in religion, morality or biology can't be bigoted. Yet you've condemned advocates of interracial marriage bans making many of the exact same arguments you have.....basing their arguments in religion, morality and biology as bigots.

Clearly you've carved out special exemptions for yourself in the 'religion, morality, biology means no bigotry' rule. Why do you get a pass.....but they don't? Especially when you're making their arguments almost word for word.

I am done with you. race and sexual orientation are not the same. but since you will never grasp the concept, good bye.

 

[frigidweirdo]

of course not, marriage is a societal creation for the protection and upbringing of children.

yes, overpopulation is a real problem. I wish you libs would focus on that rather than gay marriage and the global warming hoax.

So, your moral of the story is, don't focus on human rights?

Also, you seem to think only straight people should marry because only they can have children, but surely encouraging gay people to marry and be open about being gay might actually help reduce the population problem a little bit seeing as they're not having kids.

Why not prevent anyone from getting married until they're preggers? Surely that would mean it really is about the kids.

As for "global warming hoax" you really are pulling all the right wing punches today.

 

[Redfish]

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

And you could certainly have that you dummy.

It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.

Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.

you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.

Nonsense.
Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to majority rule.

horseshit, civil rights were established by majority vote. WTF is wrong with you libs? do you want to ive in a monarchy? I guess you do as long as the king shares your views, but what if he doesn't?

Guess again, Fishy...

Key Supreme Court Cases for Civil Rights

'

how does SCOTUS decide cases? any idea, sea biscuit? MY MAJORITY VOTE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.

you are so full of shit. tell me, are atheists bigoted against christians, muslims, and jews? or do they simply have different beliefs?

it is not bigotry to hold different beliefs about right and wrong. Its bigoted to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you and to try to force your beliefs on others-----as the gay agenda is doing.

Dude......your bigotry being based in religion doesn't make it any less bigoted. You claim that having a religious, moral, or biological basis for your argument means that you're not bigoted. But you've never been able to explain why that would be. Opponents of interracial marriage for example cited religion, morality and biology as the basis of their claims.

And yet were flaming bigots. Even you admitted as much.

interracial marriage involves one man and woman of different races. a marriage of two men or two women, or three women and six men is not analogous.

until you fools get off this kick, you will never make any progress.

Irrelevant. As you're claiming that a view based in religion, morality or biology can't be bigoted. Yet you've condemned advocates of interracial marriage bans making many of the exact same arguments you have.....basing their arguments in religion, morality and biology as bigots.

Clearly you've carved out special exemptions for yourself in the 'religion, morality, biology means no bigotry' rule. Why do you get a pass.....but they don't? Especially when you're making their arguments almost word for word.

I am done with you. race and sexual orientation are not the same. but since you will never grasp the concept, good bye.

But surely human rights for black people are the same as human rights for gay people, as are human rights for women, as are human rights for Hutus in Rwanda.

 

[deltex1]

Is Howey pregnant? If he is, all this arguing is moot.

 

[Seawytch]

No and I never have, but you made the claim that opposition to same sex marriage wasn't anti gay bigotry. It is...just as opposition to interracial marriage is also bigotry. Fine company...

continuing to repeat a lie does not convert it to truth. race and homosexuality are not analogous, no matter how many times you try to make that claim.

The bigotry and discrimination is...no matter how much you try to deny the parallels.

being opposed to gay marriage on religious, moral, or biological grounds is neither bigotry or discrimination.

Nope, sorry...you don't get a "I'm religious and therefore can't be a bigot" exemption...especially since folks tried to justify their racist bigotry with their religiousosity too.

you are so full of shit. tell me, are atheists bigoted against christians, muslims, and jews? or do they simply have different beliefs?

it is not bigotry to hold different beliefs about right and wrong. Its bigoted to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you and to try to force your beliefs on others-----as the gay agenda is doing.

Justifying bigotry with your religion does not make you less of a bigot. Seeking to deny gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage is discrimination no matter what excuse you hide behind.

People opposed to interracial marriage, even when they justify it with the bible, are bigots...you said so...anti gay bigotry is no different.

 

[Seawytch]

And you could certainly have that you dummy.

It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.

Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.

you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.

Nonsense.
Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to majority rule.

horseshit, civil rights were established by majority vote. WTF is wrong with you libs? do you want to ive in a monarchy? I guess you do as long as the king shares your views, but what if he doesn't?

Guess again, Fishy...

Key Supreme Court Cases for Civil Rights

'

how does SCOTUS decide cases? any idea, sea biscuit? MY MAJORITY VOTE.

Okay, so what are you whining about? Gay marriage cases are being decided the same way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And you could certainly have that you dummy.

It took a constitional amendment to give women the vote.

Call your fellow bigots to arms and get the votes necessary for a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal; that is a legal tool available to you, and if you get the votes gay marriage is out.

you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.

Nonsense.
Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to majority rule.

horseshit, civil rights were established by majority vote. WTF is wrong with you libs? do you want to ive in a monarchy? I guess you do as long as the king shares your views, but what if he doesn't?

Guess again, Fishy...

Key Supreme Court Cases for Civil Rights

'

how does SCOTUS decide cases? any idea, sea biscuit? MY MAJORITY VOTE.

So? You seem obsessed with majority vote. Take 5 white guys in a bar who are deciding what happens in the world, and they vote on it, and all of a sudden it seems good to you.

Before it was the majority of the people, but since it's been pointed out to you so many times that the majority will of the people hardly ever matters, you go around playing this stupid game of "as long as people vote on something then it's okay" sort of thing.

So Dred Scott was a good decision because it was voted on 7-2 in favor right?

 

[Redfish]

of course not, marriage is a societal creation for the protection and upbringing of children.

yes, overpopulation is a real problem. I wish you libs would focus on that rather than gay marriage and the global warming hoax.

So, your moral of the story is, don't focus on human rights?

Also, you seem to think only straight people should marry because only they can have children, but surely encouraging gay people to marry and be open about being gay might actually help reduce the population problem a little bit seeing as they're not having kids.

Why not prevent anyone from getting married until they're preggers? Surely that would mean it really is about the kids.

As for "global warming hoax" you really are pulling all the right wing punches today.

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The early US government did not allow women to vote. Was the government forcing those people to accept that ? of course it was. A majority of americans demanded that that be changed and it was.

All I want on the gay marriage issue, is for the people to have a say in it. I want the will of the majority to prevail, just as it did on women voting.

So we make a panel of three gay people and get them to vote on it, right?

 

[Skylar]

you are missing the point. our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes. The people of the USA decided what rights the citizens were to be granted. They did that by consensus, not govt dictate.

Not of the people. Not a single state ratified the constitution with a majority vote. All of them did it at the legislative level. Worse for your argument, the founders believed that rights preceded the government. Meaning that no rights were established with the creation of the constitution. The constitution simple enumerated rights that already existed.

Which is one of the reasons rights trump powers. The rights were here first. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

if you want minority rule and govt dictate, move to north korea.

Damn, I cannot understand the liberal brain, there is absolutely no logic to your arguments.

Says the fella that believes that rights are established by majority vote. That's not the view of the founders. Check out the 9th amendment if you'd like a brief lesson in your misconception about constitutional enumeration establishing rights.

And of course, interpreting the constitution was the job the judiciary by design. Read the federalist papers. Hamilton lays it out, where if a law that was passed conflicts with the constitution, deference should be given by the judiciary to the constitution. Not the law. And its the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

So much for your 'minority rule government'. The judiciary is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect rights and interpret the constitution.

I think the part of the 'liberal mind' you have the hardest time understanding is the 'informed' part. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Redfish]

you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.

Nonsense.
Citizens' civil rights aren't subject to majority rule.

horseshit, civil rights were established by majority vote. WTF is wrong with you libs? do you want to ive in a monarchy? I guess you do as long as the king shares your views, but what if he doesn't?

Guess again, Fishy...

Key Supreme Court Cases for Civil Rights

'

how does SCOTUS decide cases? any idea, sea biscuit? MY MAJORITY VOTE.

Okay, so what are you whining about? Gay marriage cases are being decided the same way.

you claimed that they were not decided by majority vote. I merely proved you wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

you are missing my point. I am personally opposed to gay marriage because I think its wrong. But I am fully willing to accept the will of the people, if that will is expressed in a democratic way, not by governmental dictate.

How is the govt elected?

 

[Seawytch]

Come on...I like Fishy's national referendum idea.

Americans Want To Tax The Rich And Spread the Wealth Gallup Poll Says Fox News Latino

Americans Wanted Gun Background Checks to Pass Senate

59 Favor Assault Weapons Ban 18 Want Handgun Ban Too - Rasmussen Reports trade

 

[frigidweirdo]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

 

[Redfish]

you are missing the point. our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes. The people of the USA decided what rights the citizens were to be granted. They did that by consensus, not govt dictate.

Not of the people. Not a single state ratified the constitution with a majority vote. All of them did it at the legislative level. Worse for your argument, the founders believed that rights preceded the government. Meaning that no rights were established with the creation of the constitution. The constitution simple enumerated rights that already existed.

Which is one of the reasons rights trump powers. The rights were here first. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

if you want minority rule and govt dictate, move to north korea.

Damn, I cannot understand the liberal brain, there is absolutely no logic to your arguments.

Says the fella that believes that rights are established by majority vote. That's not the view of the founders. Check out the 9th amendment if you'd like a brief lesson in your misconception about constitutional enumeration establishing rights.

And of course, interpreting the constitution was the job the judiciary by design. Read the federalist papers. Hamilton lays it out, where if a law that was passed conflicts with the constitution, deference should be given by the judiciary to the constitution. Not the law. And its the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

So much for your 'minority rule government'. The judiciary is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect rights and interpret the constitution.

I think the part of the 'liberal mind' you have the hardest time understanding is the 'informed' part. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I feel like I am discussing this with a frog. legislatures pass laws and ratify by majority vote. majority votes of the people put legislators in their positions. The judiciary decides cases by majority vote of a jury or panel of judges.

everything in our constitution and our statutes was put in place by majority vote at some level.

just because we are a republic does not mean we do not decide things by majority vote.

 

[Seawytch]

of course not, marriage is a societal creation for the protection and upbringing of children.

yes, overpopulation is a real problem. I wish you libs would focus on that rather than gay marriage and the global warming hoax.

So, your moral of the story is, don't focus on human rights?

Also, you seem to think only straight people should marry because only they can have children, but surely encouraging gay people to marry and be open about being gay might actually help reduce the population problem a little bit seeing as they're not having kids.

Why not prevent anyone from getting married until they're preggers? Surely that would mean it really is about the kids.

As for "global warming hoax" you really are pulling all the right wing punches today.

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

No Fishy, it's about a word for you. You don't want gays to use the same word. Gays don't care what word you use, it just has to be the same. Change it for everyone and quit lying.

 

[Redfish]

man made global warming is a hoax, but thats another thread.

I want gays to be able to make a legal binding mutual support contract with each other. I want that contract to be legally the same as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is NOT a marriage.

But the gay agenda is all about the word, not equality, rights, or discrimination--------------its all about the word.

until you admit that your real goal is for the govt to mandate societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, then you will never understand the opposition.

the basic issue is not gay marriage, or gay civil unions. The basic issue is freedom of belief and thought without punishment for beliefs and thoughts that are not PC or in line with govt dictates.

Read Orwell and Rand, you might learn something.

You're wrong in so many ways.

Gay marriage is marriage in most of the English as a first language speaking world. So.... what?

The gay agenda is about the word huh? How did you convince yourself of that? So, I assume when black people wanted to be equal it was all about a word?
How does a gay person go about fighting for their equality then?

You talk about freedom of belief, you can believe what you like, you come on this board spouting your nonsense all the time, yet gay people are getting married. Both live side by side. Or am I wrong?

If a gay person can't get married, then they DON'T live side by side. So, then freedom is being infringed upon.

Orwell? Like Big Brother watching him in the bedroom? Isn't that what a lot of people on the right would love? To spy on gay people and possible tuck themselves a little bit then moan about how wrong it is?

how does calling a legal union of two gays a civil union give you less rights that calling it a marriage.

it is all about the word with you, admit that and then we can move forward.

 

[Seawytch]

you are missing the point. our rights were established and our constitution enacted by MAJORITY votes. The people of the USA decided what rights the citizens were to be granted. They did that by consensus, not govt dictate.

Not of the people. Not a single state ratified the constitution with a majority vote. All of them did it at the legislative level. Worse for your argument, the founders believed that rights preceded the government. Meaning that no rights were established with the creation of the constitution. The constitution simple enumerated rights that already existed.

Which is one of the reasons rights trump powers. The rights were here first. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

if you want minority rule and govt dictate, move to north korea.

Damn, I cannot understand the liberal brain, there is absolutely no logic to your arguments.

Says the fella that believes that rights are established by majority vote. That's not the view of the founders. Check out the 9th amendment if you'd like a brief lesson in your misconception about constitutional enumeration establishing rights.

And of course, interpreting the constitution was the job the judiciary by design. Read the federalist papers. Hamilton lays it out, where if a law that was passed conflicts with the constitution, deference should be given by the judiciary to the constitution. Not the law. And its the job of the judiciary to interpret the constitution.

So much for your 'minority rule government'. The judiciary is doing exactly what it was designed to do; protect rights and interpret the constitution.

I think the part of the 'liberal mind' you have the hardest time understanding is the 'informed' part. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I feel like I am discussing this with a frog. legislatures pass laws and ratify by majority vote. majority votes of the people put legislators in their positions. The judiciary decides cases by majority vote of a jury or panel of judges.

everything in our constitution and our statutes was put in place by majority vote at some level.

just because we are a republic does not mean we do not decide things by majority vote.

So what are you complaining about? Judicial rulings are occurring in the way you describe. Gays are marrying in a MAJORITY of states.

 

[Redfish]

Great news!

You'll be able to marry your palm!

Only, he must first extricate it from his incredibly tight sphincter.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

spoken like a true buttfucker

Did you know that some of the most vocal homophobes turned out to be closet homosexuals? Your disgust may be a form of disguise?

Top 5 homophobes who turned out to be gay City Pages

nope, not a chance. but continue the fantasy if it somehow helps you to justify your anormality.

Yep....that's what Craig kept insisting, when caught red handed.....

is Craig the poster boy for gay marriage? a men's room toe tapper, you should be so proud.