We're Getting Married!

[Seawytch]

now that gay marriage is legal everywhere, I think?, what will gays have to bitch about to bring attention to themselves?

You mean like you're doing right now?

Sorry Howey, this is an area where dumbshits like SeaBytch and Bodecea do you no favors.

Come on Dumb as a Stump, you still haven't answered the question. Do you disagree with public pressure put on the Mormons to be more inclusive of blacks, yes or no?

 

[Seawytch]

Really? You doubt that do you? I spent 20 years in the Coast Guard, Dumber than Dirt so I risked my life for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and the occasional Satanist. (Story for another day). I now serve the voters of my community regardless of their race, religion, gender, nation of origin, sexual orientation AND political affiliation. Some of my best and favorite "customers" (regular candidates and Central Committee Members) are Christian Republicans. They get the same excellent quality service from me that the liberal, gay Green Party members do.

Yes, I absolutely have suggested that peer pressure be used on churches to accept their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters just as people put pressure on the Mormons to accept blacks into their church and then into positions of leadership. I have said it over and over, I'm not ashamed of my desire to see churches be more accepting. My position echos that of young people who are turning away from the church because of their positions on gays.

You are trying to compare unrelated things. My wanting churches to accpet gays is in no way, shape or form, akin to someone wanting someone else to change their sexual orientation (and not just because you can't you know).

I've answered your questions, now answer mine. Do you object to the public pressure put on the Mormon church to accept blacks, yes or no?

Peer pressure is the correct way to effect change, government dictate is not.

do you see the difference?

and for one final time, race and sexual orientation are not analogous.

I'm not advocating for the government to force churches. I'm completely and 100% opposed to such a thing.

Got another Strawman?

For the final time, race and sexual orientation are not being compared, the discrimination is.

Were the Mormons opposed to blacks in their churches for religious reasons? Yes they were. Did public pressure put on the Mormons change the way they did business? Yes it did. Is that analogous with churches now changing their stance on gays due to public pressure? Yes it is.

you say one thing and want something entirely different. you want the government to mandate societal change regarding acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

that will only get you more opposition. people do not react favorably to being told how they must think and what they must believe.

my advice-------------------shut the fuck up about it and let it happen naturally over time. But I know that is like telling a gator to become a vegetarian.

Why should anyone 'shut the fuck up' about demanding their rights?

The Loving's didn't 'shut the fuck up' - they went to court and won- and the law changed- 20 years before change of public opinion happened 'naturally'.

Demanding the end of mixed race marriage bans did not generate more opposition to mixed race marriage bans- it lead to less opposition to mixed race marriage bans. The same is happening with gay marriage bans- already public opinion has shifted from opposition to support.

When gay couples can conceive a child, I'll change my opinion. Until then, same sex marriage does not equate

Really? So all the millions of people that cannot or do not conceive a child with each other are not married? People who have adopted children are not married in your mind?

My partner and I happen to have two children. While my partner is not their biological parent, she is their parent legally and emotionally which is where it matters the most. Why is our family not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

JROC SAID:

"Marriage is between a man and a women husband and wife."

Nonsense.

Marriage is between two consenting adult partners entering into a contract of commitment recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, which is why it's un-Constitutional for states to deny gay Americans access to laws they're eligible to participate in.

You're at liberty to express your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans, but you are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear and hate.

Right!! State law, state constitutions, and I don't hate gay people. I detest the militant left wing, tyrannical, "LBGT"community who attempt to strike fear in and even cause people to loose their job if they don't agree with their gay "marriage" crap. Civil unions which could essentially be same thing is just not good enough for them it must be "marriage"

You're heard of separate but equal, yes? Do you even realize that is what you're proposing? You're proposing a different drinking fountain for gays to make them 2nd class citizens.

Same water came out of both fountains after all...

You're in fine company.

 

[Jroc]

That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.

Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.

Prove I'm wrong

Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.

And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.

I was going by the definition of immutable:

im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change

Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?

Are bi-sexual "immutable" should they be allowed one spouse of each gender?

You only get to marry one person at a time here, anything else is illegal. Do you find more than just your current spouse attractive?

Discrimination!!

 

[Jroc]

JROC SAID:

"Marriage is between a man and a women husband and wife."

Nonsense.

Marriage is between two consenting adult partners entering into a contract of commitment recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, which is why it's un-Constitutional for states to deny gay Americans access to laws they're eligible to participate in.

You're at liberty to express your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans, but you are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear and hate.

Right!! State law, state constitutions, and I don't hate gay people. I detest the militant left wing, tyrannical, "LBGT"community who attempt to strike fear in and even cause people to loose their job if they don't agree with their gay "marriage" crap. Civil unions which could essentially be same thing is just not good enough for them it must be "marriage"

You're heard of separate but equal, yes? Do you even realize that is what you're proposing? You're proposing a different drinking fountain for gays to make them 2nd class citizens.

Same water came out of both fountains after all...

You're in fine company.

Same rights for all. Try to keep up.. Straw man ..Woman

 

[Jroc]

Peer pressure is the correct way to effect change, government dictate is not.

do you see the difference?

and for one final time, race and sexual orientation are not analogous.

I'm not advocating for the government to force churches. I'm completely and 100% opposed to such a thing.

Got another Strawman?

For the final time, race and sexual orientation are not being compared, the discrimination is.

Were the Mormons opposed to blacks in their churches for religious reasons? Yes they were. Did public pressure put on the Mormons change the way they did business? Yes it did. Is that analogous with churches now changing their stance on gays due to public pressure? Yes it is.

you say one thing and want something entirely different. you want the government to mandate societal change regarding acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

that will only get you more opposition. people do not react favorably to being told how they must think and what they must believe.

my advice-------------------shut the fuck up about it and let it happen naturally over time. But I know that is like telling a gator to become a vegetarian.

Why should anyone 'shut the fuck up' about demanding their rights?

The Loving's didn't 'shut the fuck up' - they went to court and won- and the law changed- 20 years before change of public opinion happened 'naturally'.

Demanding the end of mixed race marriage bans did not generate more opposition to mixed race marriage bans- it lead to less opposition to mixed race marriage bans. The same is happening with gay marriage bans- already public opinion has shifted from opposition to support.

When gay couples can conceive a child, I'll change my opinion. Until then, same sex marriage does not equate

Really? So all the millions of people that cannot or do not conceive a child with each other are not married? People who have adopted children are not married in your mind?

My partner and I happen to have two children. While my partner is not their biological parent, she is their parent legally and emotionally which is where it matters the most. Why is our family not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Kids without a parent of each gender are missing something, especially boys. Boys need fathers not two "mothers" although, i'll give you it's better to be adapted than not

 

[Seawytch]

Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.

Prove I'm wrong

Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.

And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.

I was going by the definition of immutable:

im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change

Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?

Are bi-sexual "immutable" should they be allowed one spouse of each gender?

You only get to marry one person at a time here, anything else is illegal. Do you find more than just your current spouse attractive?

Discrimination!!

If you believe so, then you should challenge it in court. I wish you luck, but your fight to marry more than one person at a time is unrelated to gays and lesbians who only wish to marry one person at a time, as is established law in this country.

 

[Seawytch]

JROC SAID:

"Marriage is between a man and a women husband and wife."

Nonsense.

Marriage is between two consenting adult partners entering into a contract of commitment recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, which is why it's un-Constitutional for states to deny gay Americans access to laws they're eligible to participate in.

You're at liberty to express your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans, but you are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear and hate.

Right!! State law, state constitutions, and I don't hate gay people. I detest the militant left wing, tyrannical, "LBGT"community who attempt to strike fear in and even cause people to loose their job if they don't agree with their gay "marriage" crap. Civil unions which could essentially be same thing is just not good enough for them it must be "marriage"

You're heard of separate but equal, yes? Do you even realize that is what you're proposing? You're proposing a different drinking fountain for gays to make them 2nd class citizens.

Same water came out of both fountains after all...

You're in fine company.

Same rights for all. Try to keep up.. Straw man ..Woman

Sorry, can't watch videos at home...shared usage limitations. At any rate, if you're arguing for civil unions for all, I'm perfectly fine with that. What Fishy wants is civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights. Is that what you're advocating?

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not advocating for the government to force churches. I'm completely and 100% opposed to such a thing.

Got another Strawman?

For the final time, race and sexual orientation are not being compared, the discrimination is.

Were the Mormons opposed to blacks in their churches for religious reasons? Yes they were. Did public pressure put on the Mormons change the way they did business? Yes it did. Is that analogous with churches now changing their stance on gays due to public pressure? Yes it is.

you say one thing and want something entirely different. you want the government to mandate societal change regarding acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

that will only get you more opposition. people do not react favorably to being told how they must think and what they must believe.

my advice-------------------shut the fuck up about it and let it happen naturally over time. But I know that is like telling a gator to become a vegetarian.

Why should anyone 'shut the fuck up' about demanding their rights?

The Loving's didn't 'shut the fuck up' - they went to court and won- and the law changed- 20 years before change of public opinion happened 'naturally'.

Demanding the end of mixed race marriage bans did not generate more opposition to mixed race marriage bans- it lead to less opposition to mixed race marriage bans. The same is happening with gay marriage bans- already public opinion has shifted from opposition to support.

When gay couples can conceive a child, I'll change my opinion. Until then, same sex marriage does not equate

Really? So all the millions of people that cannot or do not conceive a child with each other are not married? People who have adopted children are not married in your mind?

My partner and I happen to have two children. While my partner is not their biological parent, she is their parent legally and emotionally which is where it matters the most. Why is our family not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Kids without a parent of each gender are missing something, especially boys. Boys need fathers not two "mothers" although, i'll give you it's better to be adapted than not

No, actually they don't. All studies on the subject show that there is no difference in outcomes of children raised by straights and children raised by gays.

Does the gender of parents really matter?

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Dr. Biblarz and Dr. Stacey of New York University, analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. Their review included 30 studies that compared two-parent lesbian couples to heterosexual coparents, 1 compared gay male to heterosexual coparents, and 2 compared lesbian to gay male coparents. They also reviewed 48 studies of single male or female parents.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success. They found there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.​

 

[Redfish]

That one's easy...religion is a choice and not an immutable trait whereas sexuality is well accepted in scientific circles to be an immutable trait. People don't choose their orientation, whereas they most certainly choose their religion. They do choose to act upon their natural or god given inclinations, but the feelings themselves are not a choice.

Christianity itself requires that you make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.

Prove I'm wrong

Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.

And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.

I was going by the definition of immutable:

im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change

Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?

Are bi-sexual "immutable" should they be allowed one spouse of each gender?

You only get to marry one person at a time here, anything else is illegal. Do you find more than just your current spouse attractive?

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

 

[Redfish]

Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.

And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.

I was going by the definition of immutable:

im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change

Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?

Are bi-sexual "immutable" should they be allowed one spouse of each gender?

You only get to marry one person at a time here, anything else is illegal. Do you find more than just your current spouse attractive?

Discrimination!!

If you believe so, then you should challenge it in court. I wish you luck, but your fight to marry more than one person at a time is unrelated to gays and lesbians who only wish to marry one person at a time, as is established law in this country.

no its not. Its exactly the same legal argument-----------exactly the same!

 

[frigidweirdo]

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

it just is. I don't see a good argument for it being so, but it is. Based on equality you have to have everyone being able to marry the one person they choose to be with. A polygamist can make a decision whether to divorce or stay with one person. They can even live with multiple people. However gay people can't marry at all in some places.

But if you want to fight the polygamists side, go ahead, I won't oppose you.

 

[Redfish]

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

it just is. I don't see a good argument for it being so, but it is. Based on equality you have to have everyone being able to marry the one person they choose to be with. A polygamist can make a decision whether to divorce or stay with one person. They can even live with multiple people. However gay people can't marry at all in some places.

But if you want to fight the polygamists side, go ahead, I won't oppose you.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay agenda and its arguments for gay marriage. They use discrimination and equality as their legal arguments.

Those exact same arguments apply to polygamy and bigamy. Legally the cases are exactly the same.

But you say polygamy is illegal because "it just is". Do you see how silly that is?

 

[Jroc]

you say one thing and want something entirely different. you want the government to mandate societal change regarding acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

that will only get you more opposition. people do not react favorably to being told how they must think and what they must believe.

my advice-------------------shut the fuck up about it and let it happen naturally over time. But I know that is like telling a gator to become a vegetarian.

Why should anyone 'shut the fuck up' about demanding their rights?

The Loving's didn't 'shut the fuck up' - they went to court and won- and the law changed- 20 years before change of public opinion happened 'naturally'.

Demanding the end of mixed race marriage bans did not generate more opposition to mixed race marriage bans- it lead to less opposition to mixed race marriage bans. The same is happening with gay marriage bans- already public opinion has shifted from opposition to support.

When gay couples can conceive a child, I'll change my opinion. Until then, same sex marriage does not equate

Really? So all the millions of people that cannot or do not conceive a child with each other are not married? People who have adopted children are not married in your mind?

My partner and I happen to have two children. While my partner is not their biological parent, she is their parent legally and emotionally which is where it matters the most. Why is our family not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Kids without a parent of each gender are missing something, especially boys. Boys need fathers not two "mothers" although, i'll give you it's better to be adapted than not

No, actually they don't. All studies on the subject show that there is no difference in outcomes of children raised by straights and children raised by gays.

Does the gender of parents really matter?

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Dr. Biblarz and Dr. Stacey of New York University, analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. Their review included 30 studies that compared two-parent lesbian couples to heterosexual coparents, 1 compared gay male to heterosexual coparents, and 2 compared lesbian to gay male coparents. They also reviewed 48 studies of single male or female parents.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success. They found there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.​

Only in your warped mind boys don't need fathers or girls don't need mothers

 

[Jroc]

JROC SAID:

"Marriage is between a man and a women husband and wife."

Nonsense.

Marriage is between two consenting adult partners entering into a contract of commitment recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, which is why it's un-Constitutional for states to deny gay Americans access to laws they're eligible to participate in.

You're at liberty to express your unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans, but you are not at liberty to seek to codify that fear and hate.

Right!! State law, state constitutions, and I don't hate gay people. I detest the militant left wing, tyrannical, "LBGT"community who attempt to strike fear in and even cause people to loose their job if they don't agree with their gay "marriage" crap. Civil unions which could essentially be same thing is just not good enough for them it must be "marriage"

You're heard of separate but equal, yes? Do you even realize that is what you're proposing? You're proposing a different drinking fountain for gays to make them 2nd class citizens.

Same water came out of both fountains after all...

You're in fine company.

Same rights for all. Try to keep up.. Straw man ..Woman

Sorry, can't watch videos at home...shared usage limitations. At any rate, if you're arguing for civil unions for all, I'm perfectly fine with that. What Fishy wants is civil unions for gays, civil marriage for straights. Is that what you're advocating?

You're the one who wants to change the definition of marriage, as it has been for thousands of yours not me, and marriage is generally not "civil marriage". except for to a bunch of friken atheist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay agenda and its arguments for gay marriage. They use discrimination and equality as their legal arguments.

Those exact same arguments apply to polygamy and bigamy. Legally the cases are exactly the same.

But you say polygamy is illegal because "it just is". Do you see how silly that is?

You're trying. Yet you haven't shown that they oppose polygamy.

Bigamy is different. Bigamy is fraud. Polygamy isn't.

Yes, polygamy is illegal because it is, just as gay marriage in some states is. What do you want? For it not to be when it is?

 

[Syriusly]

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

it just is. I don't see a good argument for it being so, but it is. Based on equality you have to have everyone being able to marry the one person they choose to be with. A polygamist can make a decision whether to divorce or stay with one person. They can even live with multiple people. However gay people can't marry at all in some places.

But if you want to fight the polygamists side, go ahead, I won't oppose you.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay agenda and its arguments for gay marriage. They use discrimination and equality as their legal arguments.

Those exact same arguments apply to polygamy and bigamy. Legally the cases are exactly the same.

But you say polygamy is illegal because "it just is". Do you see how silly that is?

The hypocrisy is with the anti-homosexual agenda, and its arguments against gay marriage. They use incest and polygamy as strawmen to argue against marriage equality for same gender couples.

Those exact same arguments were by opponents of mixed race marriage- and for the same reason. They argued that if mixed race marriage were allowed then incest and polygamy would become legal.

The hypocrisy is opposing treating a same gender couple legally exactly the same as an opposite gender couple

 

[Syriusly]

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

it just is. I don't see a good argument for it being so, but it is. Based on equality you have to have everyone being able to marry the one person they choose to be with. A polygamist can make a decision whether to divorce or stay with one person. They can even live with multiple people. However gay people can't marry at all in some places.

But if you want to fight the polygamists side, go ahead, I won't oppose you.

Exactly.

No one said the Lovings were hypocrites because they didn't advocate for incestuous marriage. No one was called a hypocrite for calling for voting rights for men of color, when they didn't also call for the vote for women.

Everybody argues their own case.

The bigots argue against all measures for equality- by calling those who advocate for any measure of equality- hypocrites.

 

[Seawytch]

Some people are born feeling compelled to be religious.

Prove I'm wrong

Legally both religion and sexuality are considered to be immutable traits.

And that doesn't require that one is born with either a religious compulsion or a sexual preference.

I was going by the definition of immutable:

im·mu·ta·ble
adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmyü-tə-bəl\
: unable to be changed
: not capable of or susceptible to change

Where, legally, has religion been declared an immutable characteristic?

Are bi-sexual "immutable" should they be allowed one spouse of each gender?

You only get to marry one person at a time here, anything else is illegal. Do you find more than just your current spouse attractive?

why is multiple marriage illegal? What legal rationale do you have that supports denying the rights of these people to marry who they love and want to commit to?

Why do you support discriminating against polygamists and use discrimination as the main argument for gay marriage?

I don't. I don't care one way or the other. Your desire for polygamists to have civil marriage in this country is separate from gays and lesbians having equal access to existing laws. Current law does not allow for polygamist marriages. If it is something you feel strongly about, good luck.

 

[Seawytch]

Why should anyone 'shut the fuck up' about demanding their rights?

The Loving's didn't 'shut the fuck up' - they went to court and won- and the law changed- 20 years before change of public opinion happened 'naturally'.

Demanding the end of mixed race marriage bans did not generate more opposition to mixed race marriage bans- it lead to less opposition to mixed race marriage bans. The same is happening with gay marriage bans- already public opinion has shifted from opposition to support.

When gay couples can conceive a child, I'll change my opinion. Until then, same sex marriage does not equate

Really? So all the millions of people that cannot or do not conceive a child with each other are not married? People who have adopted children are not married in your mind?

My partner and I happen to have two children. While my partner is not their biological parent, she is their parent legally and emotionally which is where it matters the most. Why is our family not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

Kids without a parent of each gender are missing something, especially boys. Boys need fathers not two "mothers" although, i'll give you it's better to be adapted than not

No, actually they don't. All studies on the subject show that there is no difference in outcomes of children raised by straights and children raised by gays.

Does the gender of parents really matter?

Extending their prior work on gender and family, Dr. Biblarz and Dr. Stacey of New York University, analyzed relevant studies about parenting, including available research on single-mother and single-father households, gay male parents and lesbian parents. Their review included 30 studies that compared two-parent lesbian couples to heterosexual coparents, 1 compared gay male to heterosexual coparents, and 2 compared lesbian to gay male coparents. They also reviewed 48 studies of single male or female parents.

In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children's psychological adjustment and social success. They found there are far more similarities than differences among children of lesbian and heterosexual parents. On average, two mothers tended to play with their children more, were less likely to use physical discipline, and were less likely to raise children with chauvinistic attitudes. Studies of gay male families are still limited.​

Only in your warped mind boys don't need fathers or girls don't need mothers

Then I'm sure you can find a reputable study that appears in a peer reviewed journal that supports your claim, right? I provided you a half dozen that say our children are at no disadvantage to yours.