Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.
No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.
You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.
Wrong, the issues are EXACTLY related.
Either you are for the government not being allowed to define marriage, or you are for the government defining marriage.
You want it both ways, you want the government to define marriage, a little
Not possible
That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.
No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.
You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.
By the way- the opponents of mixed race marriage also argued that repealing those laws would lead to legalized polygamy.
Anyway- enjoy your strawman.
I am for treating same gender couples legally exactly as my wife and I have been treated.
You are either for treating them equally- or against treating them equally.
Then you don't understand the breadth of the issue
The issue is "Should the government be allowed to define marriage?"
If the answer is no then it is no
That is your issue- not mine- nor is it the issue being argued in court.
Same gender couples are not arguing that governments cannot 'define' marriage- i.e. regulate who can get married- what they are arguing is that laws which prevent same gender couples from marrying violate their Constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law, and that states cannot articulate a compelling state interest in restricting their right to marry.
LOL and you don't think polygamists would have the SAME argument?
I think you KNOW they would, but admitting that would open your argument up to Redfish's slippery slope argument
2008? You know it's almost 2015 now, right?
Elections are the real polls not some stupid, bias, polls somebody comes up with . I work for black people almost everyday. Only one supports gay marriage and if it were Bush supporting gay marriage more black people would be against it because he is not Obama. Even Obama was against it before he wanted their money. He is not a principled person in that regard
Their alleged support or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether gays are deserving of equal rights.
Prop 8 would not pass today, which is just one of the many reasons we don't vote on civil rights.
Obama had "their money" even before his stance on marriage equality evolved. There have been more advanced under this president than all the previous combined.
Advance? there's more division this president divide people for political gain and people like you cheer him on. this country is weaker because of Obama not stronger.
The only reason there is more division is due to all the racist people who can't stand a black man being the most powerful man in the world and decided to crawl out of the woodwork and cause a stink. Obama has done more good for the country than any Republican president in the past.....GWBush did the most to destroy this country, he should have been prosecuted for allowing the use of torture, unfortunately, Obama is not as full of hate and anger as most Republican/conservatives are, or he would have opted for that.
wow, what a bunch of bullshit libtardian talking points. not a shread of truth in your post.
BTW, obama is NOT black. he is half white/half black. Why do you focus on his black half?
Marriage equality is the opposite of wanting "special rights".
Its wanting the same right as everyone else enjoys.
This is just one more example of the right wanting bigger and bigger government and laws that control our most personal and private activities.
RWs really do need to being Peeping Tom's, get out of other people's bedrooms and MYOB.
Sorry, but the people who voted against prop 8 in california were not all rightwingers. They were from all demographics, races, and sexes. A majority of voting californians voted against gay marriage TWICE.
But when it comes to gayness, the will of the people means nothing, because liberals (like Gruber) know more than the rest of us and can sit in their academic towers and dictate how the rest of us must live.
Fuck liberalism. Liberalism is the downfall of humanity.
It doesn't matter "what" they were. They were wrong and the law was unconstitutional. Deal...
ya know, wytchey, we are never going to agree on this topic. But I respect your right to hold your beliefs and argue for them. Do you likewise respect mine?
its a yes or no question.
I don't care enough about your beliefs to respect them. As long as your "beliefs" don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights, have them to your hearts content.
exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.
We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?
You're at liberty to express your ignorance and hate, you are not at liberty to seek to codify your ignorance and hate, where separate but equal is still repugnant to the Constitution.You don't understand.You say it and keep saying it race and behavior is not the same and blacks Americans are 60% against gay marriageI'm not ranting, but you are lying. It's not about "a word" for gays, it's about equality. For YOU it's about the word...a word you don't want gays to use. Fine, change it. What you don't get is marriage for straights and civil unions for gays. Either we all get civil marriage or we all get civil unions. Sorry if you won't feel special anymore as a result.
You had the same rights as any other women..... Equal
equal·i·ty
noun \i-ˈkwä-lə-tē\
: the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights,
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." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.Link
Our protected liberties are more than just race or religion, the Constitution also protects the right to express oneself as an individual, to make life decisions as free and independent persons absent unwarranted interference by the state:
“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Consequently your 'race/behavior' argument fails, it is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.
Do we have freedom of thought and belief? Are we allowed to hold beliefs contrary to those dictated by the government? Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is one man and one woman.
Gives gays a legal vehicle to commit to each other with all the rights and priviledges of a man/woman marriage, Fine, do it. But it will never be a marriage.
Again, the will of the people means squat when it violates the US Constitution. Was it not the will of the people; via their elected representatives, to place idiotic restrictions on guns in DC? Their will conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore found null and void by the courts.
gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, no kind of marriage is mentioned in the constitution.
it is not a constitutional issue, it is a societal issue and as such, society should decide it.
Correct, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution and if society is going to decide theses issues then they cannot violate the US Constitution. Denying gays access to marriage violates the 14th Amendment.
how does the use of a word violate the 14th? civil unions for gays are in full compliance with the 14th. But thats not what the gay agenda is about. its about forcing societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a vast majority of humans find wrong.
LOL...what civil unions would that be exactly? The ones that states specifically wrote language to prevent recognition of?
Edith Windsor was legally married to her wife- and she was denied her equal rights by DOMA- because the Federal government refused to recognize same gender marriage- AND civil unions.
Even today the Federal government does not treat civil unions legally in the same way as marriage.
Gay couples want to be treated legally exactly the same way as my wife and I are treated- which is marriage- and I see no reason why they shouldn't be- other than prejudice and bigotry.
civil unions SHOULD be treated equally with man/woman marriages. a gay union is not a marriage. two lesbians are not wives, two gay men are not husbands.
Sorry, but the people who voted against prop 8 in california were not all rightwingers. They were from all demographics, races, and sexes. A majority of voting californians voted against gay marriage TWICE.
But when it comes to gayness, the will of the people means nothing, because liberals (like Gruber) know more than the rest of us and can sit in their academic towers and dictate how the rest of us must live.
Fuck liberalism. Liberalism is the downfall of humanity.
It doesn't matter "what" they were. They were wrong and the law was unconstitutional. Deal...
ya know, wytchey, we are never going to agree on this topic. But I respect your right to hold your beliefs and argue for them. Do you likewise respect mine?
its a yes or no question.
I don't care enough about your beliefs to respect them. As long as your "beliefs" don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights, have them to your hearts content.
exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.
We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?
SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.
She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays
But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.
It doesn't matter "what" they were. They were wrong and the law was unconstitutional. Deal...
ya know, wytchey, we are never going to agree on this topic. But I respect your right to hold your beliefs and argue for them. Do you likewise respect mine?
its a yes or no question.
I don't care enough about your beliefs to respect them. As long as your "beliefs" don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights, have them to your hearts content.
exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.
We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?
SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.
She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays
But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.
Yes, I'd force it through public opinion, just like all "militant" minorities.
How did the Mormons come to accept the "mud people"? "Forced" public opinion.
Do we have freedom of thought and belief? Are we allowed to hold beliefs contrary to those dictated by the government? Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is one man and one woman.
Gives gays a legal vehicle to commit to each other with all the rights and priviledges of a man/woman marriage, Fine, do it. But it will never be a marriage.
I will accept the will of the people, will you?
ya know, wytchey, we are never going to agree on this topic. But I respect your right to hold your beliefs and argue for them. Do you likewise respect mine?
its a yes or no question.
I don't care enough about your beliefs to respect them. As long as your "beliefs" don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights, have them to your hearts content.
exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.
We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?
SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.
She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays
But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.
Yes, I'd force it through public opinion, just like all "militant" minorities.
How did the Mormons come to accept the "mud people"? "Forced" public opinion.
And yet, how do you feel about Redfish forcing you, through public opinion of course, to stop being gay?
I don't care enough about your beliefs to respect them. As long as your "beliefs" don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights, have them to your hearts content.
exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.
We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?
SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.
She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays
But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.
Yes, I'd force it through public opinion, just like all "militant" minorities.
How did the Mormons come to accept the "mud people"? "Forced" public opinion.
And yet, how do you feel about Redfish forcing you, through public opinion of course, to stop being gay?
Gosh, you just described life for gays up until a decade ago.
exactly what I expected, intolerance of any views or beliefs other than yours.
We know what you are. Can we now dispense with your pretend agenda of equality?
SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.
She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays
But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.
Yes, I'd force it through public opinion, just like all "militant" minorities.
How did the Mormons come to accept the "mud people"? "Forced" public opinion.
And yet, how do you feel about Redfish forcing you, through public opinion of course, to stop being gay?
Gosh, you just described life for gays up until a decade ago.
And did you like it?
SeaBytch is certainly what we would call a militant gay.
She'd force (by public opinion of course) your church to accept gays
But of course screams bloody murder at the idea of anyone using public opinion to make anyone straight.
Yes, I'd force it through public opinion, just like all "militant" minorities.
How did the Mormons come to accept the "mud people"? "Forced" public opinion.
And yet, how do you feel about Redfish forcing you, through public opinion of course, to stop being gay?
Gosh, you just described life for gays up until a decade ago.
And did you like it?
Did the Mormon church like it when they started accepting blacks due to being "forced" by public opinion?
Apples and oranges comparisons. You can't compare public opinion and acceptance between public opinion and homophobia.
Yes, I'd force it through public opinion, just like all "militant" minorities.
How did the Mormons come to accept the "mud people"? "Forced" public opinion.
And yet, how do you feel about Redfish forcing you, through public opinion of course, to stop being gay?
Gosh, you just described life for gays up until a decade ago.
And did you like it?
Did the Mormon church like it when they started accepting blacks due to being "forced" by public opinion?
Apples and oranges comparisons. You can't compare public opinion and acceptance between public opinion and homophobia.
In other words you're a dishonest **** who won't admit that you want to do the same thing to others that they have done to you
Got it, ****
And yet, how do you feel about Redfish forcing you, through public opinion of course, to stop being gay?
Gosh, you just described life for gays up until a decade ago.
And did you like it?
Did the Mormon church like it when they started accepting blacks due to being "forced" by public opinion?
Apples and oranges comparisons. You can't compare public opinion and acceptance between public opinion and homophobia.
In other words you're a dishonest **** who won't admit that you want to do the same thing to others that they have done to you
Got it, ****
Yes, we're doing the same thing blacks did with the Mormon church. It is a different thing than trying to force someone to act contrary to how they were born....but you're a homophobic bigot that wants to conflate unrelated issues.
Gosh, you just described life for gays up until a decade ago.
And did you like it?
Did the Mormon church like it when they started accepting blacks due to being "forced" by public opinion?
Apples and oranges comparisons. You can't compare public opinion and acceptance between public opinion and homophobia.
In other words you're a dishonest **** who won't admit that you want to do the same thing to others that they have done to you
Got it, ****
Yes, we're doing the same thing blacks did with the Mormon church. It is a different thing than trying to force someone to act contrary to how they were born....but you're a homophobic bigot that wants to conflate unrelated issues.
People are born Christians stupid.
And did you like it?
Did the Mormon church like it when they started accepting blacks due to being "forced" by public opinion?
Apples and oranges comparisons. You can't compare public opinion and acceptance between public opinion and homophobia.
In other words you're a dishonest **** who won't admit that you want to do the same thing to others that they have done to you
Got it, ****
Yes, we're doing the same thing blacks did with the Mormon church. It is a different thing than trying to force someone to act contrary to how they were born....but you're a homophobic bigot that wants to conflate unrelated issues.
People are born Christians stupid.
Religion is not an immutable trait.
Yes, I want churches to be more accepting of gays and lesbians. It will happen through public opinion...just like it ALWAYS has. That's not militant and it's not fascism, it's life in a community.
Did the Mormon church like it when they started accepting blacks due to being "forced" by public opinion?
Apples and oranges comparisons. You can't compare public opinion and acceptance between public opinion and homophobia.
In other words you're a dishonest **** who won't admit that you want to do the same thing to others that they have done to you
Got it, ****
Yes, we're doing the same thing blacks did with the Mormon church. It is a different thing than trying to force someone to act contrary to how they were born....but you're a homophobic bigot that wants to conflate unrelated issues.
People are born Christians stupid.
Religion is not an immutable trait.
Yes, I want churches to be more accepting of gays and lesbians. It will happen through public opinion...just like it ALWAYS has. That's not militant and it's not fascism, it's life in a community.
Of course it is The Christian gene is located exactly perpendicular to the gay gene.
Those who are Chistians were born Christians and simply hid their beliefs until safe to come out.
In other words you're a dishonest **** who won't admit that you want to do the same thing to others that they have done to you
Got it, ****
Yes, we're doing the same thing blacks did with the Mormon church. It is a different thing than trying to force someone to act contrary to how they were born....but you're a homophobic bigot that wants to conflate unrelated issues.
People are born Christians stupid.
Religion is not an immutable trait.
Yes, I want churches to be more accepting of gays and lesbians. It will happen through public opinion...just like it ALWAYS has. That's not militant and it's not fascism, it's life in a community.
Of course it is The Christian gene is located exactly perpendicular to the gay gene.
Those who are Chistians were born Christians and simply hid their beliefs until safe to come out.
Well, obviously you've conceded this discussion since you're attempting to distract with an unrelated topic.
Yes, I support churches accepting their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters..,and they will eventually. History shows that to be true.
The right to marry the same gender is a special right, which has never before been in this country, and like i said, i could give a shit about some politician (AKA Judges) personal opinion. Gays are are "separate class" bullshit. your'e not special because your a women who likes other women sexually
Luckily no one gives a shit about your personal opinion either.
Americans have the right to marry- you would deny that to same gender couples- the courts- and more and more states disagree with you.
And they have legal weight- and you don't.
OK, then what argument do you put forward to prevent polygamists from marring the people they love? Why do you want to deprive them of their constitutional rights? its a serious question.
That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.
No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.
You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.
you want the courts to sanction gay marriage using a discrimination and equal rights argument. Those who want polygamy will use those same arguments and will cite gay marriage as a precedent.
What argument will you use to deny them the same rights as two gays?
Not sure why you think asking the same question again will result in a different answer
That is an easy one- the only ones raising that argument are those who oppose same gender marriage- it is a strawman raised by those who oppose marriage equality for same gender couples.
I don't put any argument at all forward about polygamy because it has nothing to do with same gender marriage.
No more than polygamy had anything to do with mixed race marriage bans, or bans on men marrying who owed child support or bans on prisoners marrying.
You want to push to legalize polygamy- go start a thread about legalizing polygamy. Not my issue.
