What rights are the gays missing?

[KittenKoder]

Hell, I don't care about gay rights, but I do care about equal rights for everyone, and that includes gays.

1. I don't support marriage being a "legal" thing at all, but as long as it is then all religious views one it should be included for equality, and many religions believe gay marriage is no different than straight marriage.

2. I don't believe that anyone, and I mean anyone who is not criminally insane, should be denied the right to serve their country, period.

 

[Qball]

really?

you said I was relying on emotion after I referred to a SCOUTS case

you said LvV had nothing to do w/ the 14 amendment- I quoted the decision's reference to that very amendment

I'd hate to accuse you of belaboring a point...

I said LvV had nothing to do with securing an inalienable right to a civil contract of any kind like you argued.

 

[manu1959]

Hell, I don't care about gay rights, but I do care about equal rights for everyone, and that includes gays.

1. I don't support marriage being a "legal" thing at all, but as long as it is then all religious views one it should be included for equality, and many religions believe gay marriage is no different than straight marriage.

2. I don't believe that anyone, and I mean anyone who is not criminally insane, should be denied the right to serve their country, period.

the criminally insane make great special ops snipers.....

 

[Setarcos]

as the california supreme court satated they are not denied the right to enter into a legal contract with another person.....their specifc contract under state law is called a civil union....and that contract grants them all the same rights as the contract straight folks have which is called a marriage....

No, it doesn't. Civil unions have no weight with the fed and other states are not requited to recognize it.

They tried 'separate yet equal' once before

uh....the states that have civil unions recognize them.....and you are correct the feds have not recognized the civil unions yet.....

the only right that i can see being denied is the right to be fucked by the IRS like the rest of us "married" folk .....

odd that everyone wants to argue separation of church till it comes to gay marriage then everyone wants the fed to step in and tell the church they have to marry gays.....

not to mention everyone wants the fed to stay of of the bedroom but pass laws marrying those in the bedroom....

should have just asked for civil union at the fed level and you would have all your rights.....

which beggs the question is there something more you all want than just the right to file a joint tax return.....

1)there is a list of federal benefits earlier in the thread

2)Noone said the churches must perform the ceremony, so stop lying

 

[KittenKoder]

Hell, I don't care about gay rights, but I do care about equal rights for everyone, and that includes gays.

1. I don't support marriage being a "legal" thing at all, but as long as it is then all religious views one it should be included for equality, and many religions believe gay marriage is no different than straight marriage.

2. I don't believe that anyone, and I mean anyone who is not criminally insane, should be denied the right to serve their country, period.

the criminally insane make great special ops snipers.....

Um ... not most, most would make great berzerkers, but that's not a modern military position and they are impossible to predict.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

While I am not a "republican" I am a conservative. I am not cheering on the behavior you have addressed above. Also, "SOME" republicans may be cheering this on, not all, or even most.

I believe families have very bad behavior arounf dunerals and family member deaths. They become greedy and selfish. Even liberals and Democrats are included as parts of this behavior.

I believe we have to have a more responsible response about relationships. The family had no business butting in at that point.

The truth is, for MOST Republicans, where gays are concerned, there is no "real" family. Many on the right feel that gays don't have the same "feelings". That gay feelings are less "real". Only "true" love can be between a man and a woman.

You will never change their tiny minds. All you can do is keep fighting and never give up.
Bestiality
Pedophilia
Incest
Robbery

The fact that those aren't reasonable arguments proves that those aren't reasonable people.

What's not reasonable about those arguments... as you've projected them, of course.

And please, be specific; at least to the extent that your intellectual limitations allow.

Now set back and enjoy the response friends...

Highest probability is the challenge goes ignored... if she works up the courage to respond, we'll find that she will be unable to show how ANY of whatever 'argument' she finds in her isolated examples of other sexual abnomralities and behavior's relevant to low moral character... are unreasonable arguments; as there is virtually no distinction from any of the sexual abnormalities listed and the abnormlaity of homosexuality.

But it should be interesting to watch the sub-intellect stretch for something of which they're incapable.

Now Devnell would have LIKED to have responded to this post with a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound argument...

Sadly, Devnell lacks sufficient cognitive means to offer such; and as a result was relegated by her impotence, to advancing a flaccid little neg-rep to this post; wherein she fiegned 'yawn...'

But I believe in giving credit where credit is due... so let's give Devnell a big USMB hand, for doing the VERY BEST that she can... God bless'er...

​

LOL...
















Humanists...

If anyone would like to neg-rep devnell, just for the hell of it... you can do so at this link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/91004-what-rights-are-the-gays-missing-11.html#post1601127

Ravi would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, in response to this post...

But like all of her little faggot friends, she's unable to offer up such and instead, decided to neg-rep it...

For those who would like to offer RAVI a Neg-rep in return, you can find her at this link:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...h-time-thinking-about-gays-3.html#post1604050

Now I will warn ya that this imbecile carries a serious neg-rep... but she knows it and uses her rep-means to control the reputation level of those members whose views she feels are not worthy...

But I encourage everyone to use the above link to Neg-rep the shit out of her... just to show a leftist that whatever power they might bring to the table against us is only going to get shoved right up their collective asses.

 

[manu1959]

No, it doesn't. Civil unions have no weight with the fed and other states are not requited to recognize it.

They tried 'separate yet equal' once before

uh....the states that have civil unions recognize them.....and you are correct the feds have not recognized the civil unions yet.....

the only right that i can see being denied is the right to be fucked by the IRS like the rest of us "married" folk .....

odd that everyone wants to argue separation of church till it comes to gay marriage then everyone wants the fed to step in and tell the church they have to marry gays.....

not to mention everyone wants the fed to stay of of the bedroom but pass laws marrying those in the bedroom....

should have just asked for civil union at the fed level and you would have all your rights.....

which beggs the question is there something more you all want than just the right to file a joint tax return.....

1)there is a list of federal benefits earlier in the thread

2)Noone said the churches must perform the ceremony, so stop lying

did i say that churches must perform ceremonies....no ...i said you want to pass a law tell the church that that a word they have historically defined as a man and a woman is now two people.....thus they will become guilty of discrimination under federal law....and then you will have an interesting moment....

like i said if you went at the feds with civil union you would already have all your rights.....

the manner in which you and your supporters attack others is it no wonder you can’t get what you want…..

hell i could have gotten you all your rights by now.....

 

[Setarcos]

uh....the states that have civil unions recognize them.....and you are correct the feds have not recognized the civil unions yet.....

the only right that i can see being denied is the right to be fucked by the IRS like the rest of us "married" folk .....

odd that everyone wants to argue separation of church till it comes to gay marriage then everyone wants the fed to step in and tell the church they have to marry gays.....

not to mention everyone wants the fed to stay of of the bedroom but pass laws marrying those in the bedroom....

should have just asked for civil union at the fed level and you would have all your rights.....

which beggs the question is there something more you all want than just the right to file a joint tax return.....

1)there is a list of federal benefits earlier in the thread

2)Noone said the churches must perform the ceremony, so stop lying

did i say that churches must perform ceremonies....no ...i said you want to pass a law tell the church that that a word they have historically defined as a man and a woman is now two people.....thus they will become guilty of discrimination under federal law....and then you will have an interesting moment....

Again, no proposed law would have done any such thing. In fact, the laws have specifically required only the states to recognize the unions, leaving religious ceremonies out of the bills forwarded thus far.

Nice fearmongering, though.

 

[KittenKoder]

uh....the states that have civil unions recognize them.....and you are correct the feds have not recognized the civil unions yet.....

the only right that i can see being denied is the right to be fucked by the IRS like the rest of us "married" folk .....

odd that everyone wants to argue separation of church till it comes to gay marriage then everyone wants the fed to step in and tell the church they have to marry gays.....

not to mention everyone wants the fed to stay of of the bedroom but pass laws marrying those in the bedroom....

should have just asked for civil union at the fed level and you would have all your rights.....

which beggs the question is there something more you all want than just the right to file a joint tax return.....

1)there is a list of federal benefits earlier in the thread

2)Noone said the churches must perform the ceremony, so stop lying

did i say that churches must perform ceremonies....no ...i said you want to pass a law tell the church that that a word they have historically defined as a man and a woman is now two people.....thus they will become guilty of discrimination under federal law....and then you will have an interesting moment....

like i said if you went at the feds with civil union you would already have all your rights.....

the manner in which you and your supporters attack others is it no wonder you can’t get what you want…..

hell i could have gotten you all your rights by now.....

Yet, with marriage defined as it is by law, they are telling many churches and religious leaders that they cannot marry according to their own traditions. See how that works? However making gay marriage legal will not force anyone to perform it, hell, the churches don't even have to recognize it if they don't want to.

 

[Setarcos]

I wonder whether I can get a traditional Christian marriage with my seven wives and three concubines...

 

[manu1959]

1)there is a list of federal benefits earlier in the thread

2)Noone said the churches must perform the ceremony, so stop lying

did i say that churches must perform ceremonies....no ...i said you want to pass a law tell the church that that a word they have historically defined as a man and a woman is now two people.....thus they will become guilty of discrimination under federal law....and then you will have an interesting moment....

Again, no proposed law would have done any such thing. In fact, the laws have specifically required only the states to recognize the unions, leaving religious ceremonies out of the bills forwarded thus far.

Nice fearmongering, though.

so let me get this right.....when mariage is defined as the union of two people....under no circumstances will it be a violation of federal law for st mary's cathedral to deny two gay catholics the right to get married in the church they grew up attending.....

and as i keep saying if you all had simply asked for civil union at the federal level you would have it by now....

 

[KittenKoder]

did i say that churches must perform ceremonies....no ...i said you want to pass a law tell the church that that a word they have historically defined as a man and a woman is now two people.....thus they will become guilty of discrimination under federal law....and then you will have an interesting moment....

Again, no proposed law would have done any such thing. In fact, the laws have specifically required only the states to recognize the unions, leaving religious ceremonies out of the bills forwarded thus far.

Nice fearmongering, though.

so let me get this right.....when mariage is defined as the union of two people....under no circumstances will it be a violation of federal law for st mary's cathedral to deny two gay catholics the right to get married in the church they grew up attending.....

and as i keep saying if you all had simply asked for civil union at the federal level you would have it by now....

Your example falls flat, as I said, because the law as it is is already telling churches and religious leaders how to follow their religions. If you remember I don't believe there should be any legal connections in marriage, that it should have remained in the realm of religion, but it's already a law defining religious belief. To make that law truly equal all religious definitions of marriage should be allowed, even polygamy. If you don't want it that way then get rid of marriage laws and legal benefits completely.

 

[Qball]

I think it's pretty safe to say the verdict is, "Gays aren't missing any rights".

 

[Setarcos]

 

[Setarcos]

I think it's fair to say that the OP and his ilk have no interest in the truth

 

[KittenKoder]

My religion doesn't have marriage, the closest is a heathen business contract (a contract within a household which determines the responsibilities of the "heads" of the household) ... other than that, there is no "marriage" in my religion. This contract is not restrictive of gender or even number and can include "sexual favors" as part of it. It however served the same purpose as marriage does in modern world. Unless that form of contract is again allowed, the current laws are forbidding the practice of my religious beliefs, period, you are forcing me to follow another religion.

 

[alan1]

Ravi would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument, in response to this post...

But like all of her little faggot friends, she's unable to offer up such and instead, decided to neg-rep it...

For those who would like to offer RAVI a Neg-rep in return, you can find her at this link:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...h-time-thinking-about-gays-3.html#post1604050

Now I will warn ya that this imbecile carries a serious neg-rep... but she knows it and uses her rep-means to control the reputation level of those members whose views she feels are not worthy...

But I encourage everyone to use the above link to Neg-rep the shit out of her... just to show a leftist that whatever power they might bring to the table against us is only going to get shoved right up their collective asses.

Alternatively, you can use the above link to pos-rep me.
For every pos rep I get on that thread, I will send a PM to Ravi (anonymously on your behalf), thanking her for contributing to my rep.
I'm nice like that.

 

[manu1959]

Again, no proposed law would have done any such thing. In fact, the laws have specifically required only the states to recognize the unions, leaving religious ceremonies out of the bills forwarded thus far.

Nice fearmongering, though.

so let me get this right.....when mariage is defined as the union of two people....under no circumstances will it be a violation of federal law for st mary's cathedral to deny two gay catholics the right to get married in the church they grew up attending.....

and as i keep saying if you all had simply asked for civil union at the federal level you would have it by now....

Your example falls flat, as I said, because the law as it is is already telling churches and religious leaders how to follow their religions. If you remember I don't believe there should be any legal connections in marriage, that it should have remained in the realm of religion, but it's already a law defining religious belief. To make that law truly equal all religious definitions of marriage should be allowed, even polygamy. If you don't want it that way then get rid of marriage laws and legal benefits completely.

actually it doesn't.....when federal law passed that mixed race marriages were legal.....civil lawsuits were the order of the day....there is no reason to believe that the gay comunnity will not behave in a similar fashion....you will not be able to discriminate based on race creed religion or sexual orientation....

attorneys will make a fortune......

hey how about this .....why not ask the straights to give up the same federal rights gays are denied and the gays can call theirs civil union and the staraights can call theirs marriage and everyone has the same rights.....

what are those federal rights again....testifying agianst a spouse in federal court......filing taxes.....transfer of property......next of kin.....

also all crimes are now hate crimes ....cuz you are one of us now.....no special parades because you are on of us now.....

oh you can keep track lighting and all the tweaked color names...persimmon...fuscia....

oh an last but not least you will need a thicker skin and a sense of humour.....

 

[KittenKoder]

so let me get this right.....when mariage is defined as the union of two people....under no circumstances will it be a violation of federal law for st mary's cathedral to deny two gay catholics the right to get married in the church they grew up attending.....

and as i keep saying if you all had simply asked for civil union at the federal level you would have it by now....

Your example falls flat, as I said, because the law as it is is already telling churches and religious leaders how to follow their religions. If you remember I don't believe there should be any legal connections in marriage, that it should have remained in the realm of religion, but it's already a law defining religious belief. To make that law truly equal all religious definitions of marriage should be allowed, even polygamy. If you don't want it that way then get rid of marriage laws and legal benefits completely.

actually it doesn't.....when federal law passed that mixed race marriages were legal.....civil lawsuits were the order of the day....there is no reason to believe that the gay comunnity will not behave in a similar fashion....you will not be able to discriminate based on race creed religion or sexual orientation....

attorneys will make a fortune......

hey how about this .....why not ask the straights to give up the same federal rights gays are denied and the gays can call theirs civil union and the staraights can call theirs marriage and everyone has the same rights.....

what are those federal rights again....testifying agianst a spouse in federal court......filing taxes.....transfer of property......next of kin.....

also all crimes are now hate crimes ....cuz you are one of us now.....no special parades because you are on of us now.....

oh you can keep track lighting and all the tweaked color names...persimmon...fuscia....

oh an last but not least you will need a thicker skin and a sense of humour.....

Just because it had happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen in again, also I haven't seen anything of the sort. However, a "Justice of the Peace" would be a different matter, they are government employees and are not allowed to discriminate for any reason, which is why the ban on gay marriage is in conflict with the law anyway.

 

[alan1]

I think it's fair to say that the OP and his ilk have no interest in the truth

Perhaps you can point out an untruth I have posted in this thread to justify your position.
Good luck.