We're Getting Married!

[Redfish]

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

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

 

[Mertex]

Within certain constitutional guarantees, yes it is. If, however, a State violates these constitutional guarantees with its marriage laws, the 14th amendment more than authorizes the feds to step in an prevent the States from abrogating the rights of federal citizens.

As Loving demonstrated so elegantly. The State doesn't have the authority to strip federal citizens of their rights.

If you're going to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, you need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

Gays and lesbians can of course marry a person of the opposite sex there is no inequality there, and if you can show me were the discussion and ratification of the 14th amendment they spoke about gay "marriage" I'd like you to point that out to me, ok? These judges have no authority to overturn the state constitutions. There inequality there.

Gay Americans cannot marry someone of the same sex, however, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, where same-sex couples are indeed eligible to enter into marriage contracts.

As for the Framers of the 14th Amendment:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

And Federal courts may in fact invalidate state measures repugnant to the Founding Document, as authorized by Article VI of the Constitution.

Such a statement is laughable and probably came from the biggest bastard the court ever knew: William O. Douglas.

To assume he somehow spoke with knowledge, much less a dispassionate POV, is to ignore reality.

"Greater Freedom".....

Tell me again why I can't own a nuclear bomb ? That would be greater freedom.

Oh wow! I guess next you're going to tell us you're a Christian.....

You look pretty stupid even when you've not been drinking.

Sorry that such a reminder upsets you so much......I guess I must be wrong....you sure don't act like one....

 

[Redfish]

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.

and you want the government to force society to accept your lesbian lifestyle as "normal". You want a totalitarian dictatorship wherein citizens are only allowed to think what the government tells them to think. Orwell would be proud of you, you validate his fictional future.

 

[Mertex]

So how did the honeymoon go?

Got aids yet?

-Geaux

Are you an example of right-wing? Sure have a lot of hate for people that in no way affect you.....must suck to be right-wing?

 

[Mertex]

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

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

The legal arguments for mixed race marriage are the same? You are opposed to mixed race marriages? Who put you all in charge of who can and can't get married?

 

[Redfish]

Question for all:

Are citizens of the USA allowed to hold beliefs that are contrary to the current politically correct list of beliefs?

Should they be punished for not being politically correct in their speech and beliefs?

The gay marriage issue is but a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue----loss of freedom.

 

[Redfish]

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

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

The legal arguments for mixed race marriage are the same? You are opposed to mixed race marriages? Who put you all in charge of who can and can't get married?

No, they are not the same. interracial marriage involves one man and one woman of different races.

It is not analogous to two women, two men, or multiples of both sexes.

You defend gay marriage on discrimination and equality arguments--------exactly the same ones can, and will, be made for all forms of polygamy.

 

[Mertex]

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

He's got circles around his right eye from too much glory hole viewing. And a stiff jaw.

who else around here made their own thread to announce their marriage: ?

asshole

Another angry right-winger? Many members make threads announcing the birth of a child, their children's graduation, engagements, etc.....why do you have such a sour attitude?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Question for all:

Are citizens of the USA allowed to hold beliefs that are contrary to the current politically correct list of beliefs?

Should they be punished for not being politically correct in their speech and beliefs?

The gay marriage issue is but a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue----loss of freedom.

Hilarious that you bellow about freedom as you seek to deny someone elses LOL

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Proving that your a fucking idiotic militant who doesn't even bother reading what other people write.

I have from my very first post on the topic said I'm okay with gay marriage

I only said that you're an idiot for wanting to force churches to accept them

Thank you for conceding that you can no more prove you were born gay than I can prove I was born a Christian by deflecting though.

So blacks were idiots for wanting the Mormons to accept them? You're welcome to your opinion but I don't think they were stupid at all...and they won. Gays are winning this battle too.

New study finds a greater church acceptance of gays and lesbians Pew Research Center

I was born with same sex attractions and you certainly can't prove I wasn't. There is considerably more evidence of a genetic predisposition than there is proof sexual orientation is a choice.

 

[Seawytch]

Question for all:

Are citizens of the USA allowed to hold beliefs that are contrary to the current politically correct list of beliefs?

Should they be punished for not being politically correct in their speech and beliefs?

The gay marriage issue is but a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue----loss of freedom.

You're not being punished drama queen. Free speech runs two directions.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

and you want the government to force society to accept your lesbian lifestyle as "normal". You want a totalitarian dictatorship wherein citizens are only allowed to think what the government tells them to think. Orwell would be proud of you, you validate his fictional future.

The government isnt forcing anything, queenie.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Proving that your a fucking idiotic militant who doesn't even bother reading what other people write.

I have from my very first post on the topic said I'm okay with gay marriage

I only said that you're an idiot for wanting to force churches to accept them

Thank you for conceding that you can no more prove you were born gay than I can prove I was born a Christian by deflecting though.

So blacks were idiots for wanting the Mormons to accept them? You're welcome to your opinion but I don't think they were stupid at all...and they won. Gays are winning this battle too.

New study finds a greater church acceptance of gays and lesbians Pew Research Center

I was born with same sex attractions and you certainly can't prove I wasn't. There is considerably more evidence of a genetic predisposition than there is proof sexual orientation is a choice.

And likewise you can't prove I wasnt born a Christian who believes being gay is a sin

 

[WorldWatcher]

Question for all:

Are citizens of the USA allowed to hold beliefs that are contrary to the current politically correct list of beliefs?

Yes

Should they be punished for not being politically correct in their speech and beliefs?

No.

However they may be found in violation of certain laws of that speech and beliefs translate into action that violate the law.

The gay marriage issue is but a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue----loss of freedom.

I support maximum freedom:

1. Government entities recognizing the rights of two law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adults to enter into Civil Marriage if they choose to do so.

2. The repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities.

>>>>​

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Question for all:

Are citizens of the USA allowed to hold beliefs that are contrary to the current politically correct list of beliefs?

Yes

Should they be punished for not being politically correct in their speech and beliefs?

No.

However they may be found in violation of certain laws of that speech and beliefs translate into action that violate the law.

The gay marriage issue is but a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue----loss of freedom.

I support maximum freedom:

1. Government entities recognizing the rights of two law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adults to enter into Civil Marriage if they choose to do so.

2. The repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities.

>>>>​

maximum freedom would not care about how many people got married.

 

[Mertex]

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

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

The legal arguments for mixed race marriage are the same? You are opposed to mixed race marriages? Who put you all in charge of who can and can't get married?

No, they are not the same. interracial marriage involves one man and one woman of different races.

It is not analogous to two women, two men, or multiples of both sexes.

You defend gay marriage on discrimination and equality arguments--------exactly the same ones can, and will, be made for all forms of polygamy.

Aren't these your very own words? It seems you were responding to Syriusly and his last statement was
"just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages".

Interracial marriages involve one man and one woman of different races, but not too long ago there were some who didn't think they should be allowed.....same bigoted and unwarranted fear exhibited as there is with your idea that polygamy will become a trend. And if the problem of polygamy starts cropping up, we will deal with it at the time.....if there are more people who are against it, which I'm sure there will be, it won't be a problem.

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

I don't care what you think about polygamy- you can go file suit tomorrow arguing that you should be able to marry your wife- and her sister and her brother- and I would applaud your right to file suit.

But it has nothing to do with wanting a same gender couple to have the same legal ability to marry as my wife and I had.

Just a strawman created by those who oppose same gender marriage- just as it was used as a strawman to support bans on mixed race marriages.

the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same. Thats what you fools cannot seem to grasp.

 

[Mertex]

Thank you for conceding that you can no more prove you were born gay than I can prove I was born a Christian by deflecting though.

I can prove that you are not born a Christian because you have to make a profession of faith in order to be considered a follower of Christ, and the unborn can't talk. I was born heterosexual, I didn't have to choose between being heterosexual or homosexual, so why would you think that homosexuals get to choose?

 

[jasonnfree]

If it has to be explained to you that it's a human female, you're either a dumb piece of white trash or a stupid n*****. There's not any difference.

The reason I had to ask is because I know that dumb white trash are into molesting animals.

You ask because you've either done it with animals or you're so stupid it has to be stated for you to get it.

No I asked because I have been told by dumb white trash that they have sex with cows and other animals. They thought it was funny while at the same time having a wistful look of fond remembrance of the event.

Here's a righteous republican politician talking about his love of farm animals.

Neal Horsley The Mule-loving Republican Candidate Said He Would Kill His Own Son For Liberty And To Secede From The Union Crooks and Liars

What is it with you and farm animals?

What is it with you and homosexuals?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The reason I had to ask is because I know that dumb white trash are into molesting animals.

You ask because you've either done it with animals or you're so stupid it has to be stated for you to get it.

No I asked because I have been told by dumb white trash that they have sex with cows and other animals. They thought it was funny while at the same time having a wistful look of fond remembrance of the event.

Here's a righteous republican politician talking about his love of farm animals.

Neal Horsley The Mule-loving Republican Candidate Said He Would Kill His Own Son For Liberty And To Secede From The Union Crooks and Liars

What is it with you and farm animals?

What is it with you and homosexuals?

He wants to be one and it scares him.

 

[jasonnfree]

Homosexual threads sure brings in the conservatives, it looks like.