Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Flaylo]

There are not winning any fights its bullshit.

Yeah, actually, we are...

Poll: 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage

Who are the polling and from where and who did the poll?

 

[PJC]

That's right, part of my argument is procreation.

Let change your question just a wee bit if that's ok? Between, law abiding, tax paying, related, whether they are fertile or infertile, consenting adult, US Citizen. What is the compelling interest in not allowing them to Marry?

Interesting, isn't it?

Your attempt to change the question is a deflection and an evasion from answering to the actual argument.

You've been relying on fallacious arguments; straw men, moving the goal posts, and errors of fact; now you are using a red herring.


Please, simply answering the question posed honestly, forthrightly, and candidly:
"Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"

Yes or no. If yes, what exactly is that compelling government interest?

Funny, you claim I deflect, then you yourself deflect?

Please answer the following questions because it is you that claim that including same gender couples into marriage will treat all equal.

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to heterosexual siblings, both of the age of consent?

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to brothers, both of the age of consent?

You know they will be treated differently, won't they?

Gets a bit messy

Actually no deflection from me at all. You were asked your question first by WorldWatcher. Once you have answered that question, then and only then will your questions be answered.

You are again deflecting away from answering that same first question by going on the counter-attack. doesn't work like that. Why? simply because if allowed to continue with your deflections, you will never actually answer the questions posed to you. you have given ample evidence of that very ploy yourself with your continuous array of red herrings, straw men, errors of fact and moving the goal posts. Although i am new here, i have yet to see you honestly and point blank answer a question posed to you.

I'll make you a deal, you answer, without evasion, WorldWatcher's question, then i will answer yours. That is only fair as his question was posed first.

 

[Flaylo]

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

No, they’re not just as full. Separate but equal is not equal. There is no legitimate justification for refusing to let them use the word marriage. We keep asking you guys for a justification; all ya’ll keep doing is avoiding and deflecting.

The opposition to interracial marriage used the same arguments you are using right now. The definition of marriage in this country has always been between men and women of the same race; those liberals are trying to change the definition of marriage to let the blacks marry the whites and the whites marry the blacks. It is against nature. It is against religion. It is against God. Blah blah frigging blah.

Same tired bigoted crap, different target of hatred.

I wonder, once gays have full and equal rights and are not openly discriminated against; which group’ll be your next target of intolerance?

It’s easy to find reasons to hate your fellow man; harder but more honorable to find reasons to live in peace with him.

If they get all the same fucking rights under a civil union how is it separate but unequal? Its bullshit, you white folk don't understand why separate but equal was struck down, it was struck down because for example, White swimming pool-black swimming pool, white swimming pool high quality with bells and whistles-black swimming pool substandard, ditto for schools and housing, not because it said separate but equal is automatically unequal. Fucktards.

And its not bigoted shit, married is strictly between a man and woman just as procreation of life is a process that always involves a man and woman, no matter if its in vitro or through sex, go and fucking protest to God that times have changed and gays and lesbians need to be given reproductive "rights" or else God is homophobic... the definition of marriage in this country was NEVER federally between people of the same race, bullshit.

 

[expatriate]

I don't see why the state just doesn't get out of the matrimony business and give licenses for civil unions to everyone. And churches should get out of the civil union business. From the point of getting a state issued civil union license, it would be up to the couple to decide to what extent they could "sanctify" their union. Some could go to a justice of the peace, some could go to liberal mainline protestant denominations that are amenable to same sex marriages. It would be up to the churches to decide who they would and would not join in holy matrimony. That seems like a win-win. If your church or your denomination does not condone gay marriages, just don't perform any. easy-peasy.

 

[Pop23]

Your attempt to change the question is a deflection and an evasion from answering to the actual argument.

You've been relying on fallacious arguments; straw men, moving the goal posts, and errors of fact; now you are using a red herring.


Please, simply answering the question posed honestly, forthrightly, and candidly:
"Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"

Yes or no. If yes, what exactly is that compelling government interest?

Funny, you claim I deflect, then you yourself deflect?

Please answer the following questions because it is you that claim that including same gender couples into marriage will treat all equal.

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to heterosexual siblings, both of the age of consent?

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to brothers, both of the age of consent?

You know they will be treated differently, won't they?

Gets a bit messy

Actually no deflection from me at all. You were asked your question first by WorldWatcher. Once you have answered that question, then and only then will your questions be answered.

You are again deflecting away from answering that same first question by going on the counter-attack. doesn't work like that. Why? simply because if allowed to continue with your deflections, you will never actually answer the questions posed to you. you have given ample evidence of that very ploy yourself with your continuous array of red herrings, straw men, errors of fact and moving the goal posts. Although i am new here, i have yet to see you honestly and point blank answer a question posed to you.

I'll make you a deal, you answer, without evasion, WorldWatcher's question, then i will answer yours. That is only fair as his question was posed first.

Ok, won't take too much of your time then. Incest.

Now, go for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Why does someone ask 10,000 for a used car when they're willing to sell it for 9,000?

The asking price in this debate is marriage.

The bigots on the Right have been reduced to fighting over a word. They have deluded themselves into believing that somehow, if they hold onto the word 'marriage' and lose on everything else,

they've won. The truth is, every civil union law that equates to the existing marriage law is a win for same sex marriage and a defeat for the bigots.

Over time, gays will win the word too, because over time society will see that civil unions, i.e., de facto civil marriage, do not cause any of the dire trumped up invented imaginary consequences that the bigots keep pissing and moaning about,

and then society will be sufficiently enlightened enough to see that withholding a word from gays after having given them everything else is simply stupid.

 

[PJC]

I'm not a fucking gay hater just because I believe marriage is between a man and woman, fuck that, that guilt trip shit works not on me.

Cool, since i'm new here and i don't have the time or inclination to check your previous posts to confirm or deny your claim; i'll just ask you a couple questions; if that's alright?

Do you agree that it was the right thing to abolish DADT?

Do you agree that The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a necessary and just law?

If you found out your son's best friend was gay, what would you do?

Have you ever used derogatory slurs when referring to gays and lesbians?

Why are you angry?

And I ask you for the third time: if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

Jeez, you guys really duck and dodge, doncha?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Funny, you claim I deflect, then you yourself deflect?

Please answer the following questions because it is you that claim that including same gender couples into marriage will treat all equal.

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to heterosexual siblings, both of the age of consent?

Is there a compelling state interest in denial of a marriage certificate to brothers, both of the age of consent?

You know they will be treated differently, won't they?

Gets a bit messy

Actually no deflection from me at all. You were asked your question first by WorldWatcher. Once you have answered that question, then and only then will your questions be answered.

You are again deflecting away from answering that same first question by going on the counter-attack. doesn't work like that. Why? simply because if allowed to continue with your deflections, you will never actually answer the questions posed to you. you have given ample evidence of that very ploy yourself with your continuous array of red herrings, straw men, errors of fact and moving the goal posts. Although i am new here, i have yet to see you honestly and point blank answer a question posed to you.

I'll make you a deal, you answer, without evasion, WorldWatcher's question, then i will answer yours. That is only fair as his question was posed first.

Ok, won't take too much of your time then. Incest.

Now, go for it.

Just pointing out "incest" is not an answer to the question that I had asked.

Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

<<SNIP>>

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"​

"Non-related" excludes incest because incest is illegal, while being a homosexual is not.


>>>>

 

[Flaylo]

I'm not a fucking gay hater just because I believe marriage is between a man and woman, fuck that, that guilt trip shit works not on me.

Cool, since i'm new here and i don't have the time or inclination to check your previous posts to confirm or deny your claim; i'll just ask you a couple questions; if that's alright?

Do you agree that it was the right thing to abolish DADT?

Do you agree that The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a necessary and just law?

If you found out your son's best friend was gay, what would you do?

Have you ever used derogatory slurs when referring to gays and lesbians?

Why are you angry?

And I ask you for the third time: if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

Jeez, you guys really duck and dodge, doncha?

1) I'm in the army still and was against abolishing DADT, because I felt the US military is not an organization to use to advance homosexual agendas and also I oppose the military teaching soldiers that seeing two men kiss is ok and we should up about it, also they said chaplains can preach that homosexuality is a sin on Sunday's in church but outside of that they cannot say it.

2) I don't believe any man or woman should be killed for any reason, race or sexual "orientation

3) What should I do if I found out my son's best friend was gay, assuming I had a son? Dumb question.

4) I say about as many slurs towards gays as they say about so called homophobes

5) I am not angry.

 

[Ravi]

I am saying this shit once again, give them the tax rights and property rights under a civil union, I'm not against that LEAVE marriage for a man and woman since that what MARRIAGE has alway been and is, give them the tax and property rights without changing the definition of marriage. They should have NO complaints, anything other than that ids purposely advancing a homosexual agenda, not equal rights.

That train has already left the station

Offering the civil union cookie is no longer going to cut it. How many states still block civil unions?

Gays are going for the full monty right now. They will not accept anything other than full marriage ....and why should they?

You are now fighting a losing battle. The same battle you lost with interracial marriage. Time to just accept it like most Americans already have

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

And if a church wants to bless such a union with marriage, they may, correct?

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not a fucking gay hater just because I believe marriage is between a man and woman, fuck that, that guilt trip shit works not on me.

Cool, since i'm new here and i don't have the time or inclination to check your previous posts to confirm or deny your claim; i'll just ask you a couple questions; if that's alright?

Do you agree that it was the right thing to abolish DADT?

Do you agree that The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a necessary and just law?

If you found out your son's best friend was gay, what would you do?

Have you ever used derogatory slurs when referring to gays and lesbians?

Why are you angry?

And I ask you for the third time: if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

Jeez, you guys really duck and dodge, doncha?

1) I'm in the army still and was against abolishing DADT, because I felt the US military is not an organization to use to advance homosexual agendas and also I oppose the military teaching soldiers that seeing two men kiss is ok and we should up about it, also they said chaplains can preach that homosexuality is a sin on Sunday's in church but outside of that they cannot say it.

2) I don't believe any man or woman should be killed for any reason, race or sexual "orientation

3) What should I do if I found out my son's best friend was gay, assuming I had a son? Dumb question.

4) I say about as many slurs towards gays as they say about so called homophobes

5) I am not angry.

So you don't want gays in the military or to get married...but you don't hate gays. They're. Just "icky", right?

 

[Michelle420]

The real question to me is: Why do heteros get to discriminate and then have the nerve to ask a group whose rights they have denied why they want the same rights.

 

[PJC]

Ok, won't take too much of your time then. Incest.

Now, go for it.

You evaded again, pop. You're not a very honest man, are you? for shame, young man. go to your room, mister.

As i said, you answer the first question, then you pose your question. Everytime you guys deflect and evade, it gives more and more evidence that indicates that you realize you can't answer the question without losing.

There is no compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage because they can't reproduce. Because the rule is not applied consistently because infertile couples, and couples that won't reproduce are allowed to marry even though they won't or can't reproduce.

Also, as has been mentioned a few times already, and what you are clearly ignoring (for obvious reasons) is that gay couples can reproduce through the use of in vitro and thru surrogates just like some heterosexual couples do. Hence they have fulfilled your "creating population" criteria.

I give you one more chance to answer with honesty. If you duck, dodge, deflect, evade, elude, and avoid yet again; you will clearly be just another deceitful dude who can't justify why he thinks gays shouldn't marry. and who is just full of camel caca.

What is the compelling government interest in disallowing same sex couples to marry but allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry?

and as a penalty for being so dishonest and so lacking in credibility and trustworthiness, you can then show us exactly where it says a couple must be able to, and plan to reproduce after they get married.

Show me the law.

Balls in your court, bruh.

 

[Flaylo]

The real question to me is: Why do heteros get to discriminate and then have the nerve to ask a group whose rights they have denied why they want the same rights.

Its not idscrimination if gays are given all the same rights under civil unions, otherwise its a waste of time and money going to court or semantics, love cannot be legislated.

 

[Ravi]

That train has already left the station

Offering the civil union cookie is no longer going to cut it. How many states still block civil unions?

Gays are going for the full monty right now. They will not accept anything other than full marriage ....and why should they?

You are now fighting a losing battle. The same battle you lost with interracial marriage. Time to just accept it like most Americans already have

Civil unions with all the rights are just as full as a marriage , its just that one is exclusively for a man and woman, all the SCOTUS has to do is give civil unions the full tax and property rights and interracial marriage is not the fucking same as gay marriage, it was still a man marrying a woman, not a redefinition of marriage itself.

And if a church wants to bless such a union with marriage, they may, correct?

No answer. Shocker.

 

[Michelle420]

The real question to me is: Why do heteros get to discriminate and then have the nerve to ask a group whose rights they have denied why they want the same rights.

Its not idscrimination if gays are given all the same rights under civil unions, otherwise its a waste of time and money going to court or semantics, love cannot be legislated.

Why do heteros get to dictate who is allowed to "marry" and who isn't?

 

[Flaylo]

Cool, since i'm new here and i don't have the time or inclination to check your previous posts to confirm or deny your claim; i'll just ask you a couple questions; if that's alright?

Do you agree that it was the right thing to abolish DADT?

Do you agree that The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a necessary and just law?

If you found out your son's best friend was gay, what would you do?

Have you ever used derogatory slurs when referring to gays and lesbians?

Why are you angry?

And I ask you for the third time: if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

Jeez, you guys really duck and dodge, doncha?

1) I'm in the army still and was against abolishing DADT, because I felt the US military is not an organization to use to advance homosexual agendas and also I oppose the military teaching soldiers that seeing two men kiss is ok and we should up about it, also they said chaplains can preach that homosexuality is a sin on Sunday's in church but outside of that they cannot say it.

2) I don't believe any man or woman should be killed for any reason, race or sexual "orientation

3) What should I do if I found out my son's best friend was gay, assuming I had a son? Dumb question.

4) I say about as many slurs towards gays as they say about so called homophobes

5) I am not angry.

So you don't want gays in the military or to get married...but you don't hate gays. They're. Just "icky", right?

I'm all for civil unions giving the same rights, marriage is between a man and woman, if you get all the same rights under a civil unions what the fuck is there to bitch about? You can redefine whatever you want to suit you, case in point, procreation cannot be redefined and changed to suit gays wanting to bear children all the same ways like heterosexuals and thats nature, ditto for nature, it was NEVER for two people of same sex.

I did not want DADT repealed, ie, gays openly saying they're gay in te military and under DADT they were allowed in the military, I listed my reasons, none of which had anything to do with hate so don't smear that bullshit.

 

[Flaylo]

The real question to me is: Why do heteros get to discriminate and then have the nerve to ask a group whose rights they have denied why they want the same rights.

Its not idscrimination if gays are given all the same rights under civil unions, otherwise its a waste of time and money going to court or semantics, love cannot be legislated.

Why do heteros get to dictate who is allowed to "marry" and who isn't?

Why do gays think they can redefine marriage? Why did a hetero God make procreation a heterosexual process and not hmosexuality just as equal?

 

[Michelle420]

Its not idscrimination if gays are given all the same rights under civil unions, otherwise its a waste of time and money going to court or semantics, love cannot be legislated.

Why do heteros get to dictate who is allowed to "marry" and who isn't?

Why do gays think they can redefine marriage? Why did a hetero God make procreation a heterosexual process and not hmosexuality just as equal?

Who is in charge of defining marriage?

 

[PJC]

1) I'm in the army still and was against abolishing DADT, because I felt the US military is not an organization to use to advance homosexual agendas and also I oppose the military teaching soldiers that seeing two men kiss is ok and we should up about it, also they said chaplains can preach that homosexuality is a sin on Sunday's in church but outside of that they cannot say it.
Indicator that you hate gays.

2) I don't believe any man or woman should be killed for any reason, race or sexual "orientation
Evasion. Indicator of deception; meaning you may be hiding something; logically if you're hiding something, it's likely that it's something which will show you do hate gays
3) What should I do if I found out my son's best friend was gay, assuming I had a son? Dumb question.
Another deflection; indicating if you were to answer honestly, it would be more evidence that you hate gays.
4) I say about as many slurs towards gays as they say about so called homophobes
Another deflection. See above.
5) I am not angry.
Aaakhaa, you have Tourette's Syndrome in your fingers.

And you again evaded the last question; clearly indicating that you can't honestly answer the question without losing your argument.

Thanks for playin', gay-hater.

You proved my point. yuk yuk yuk

Next player???? anyone....anyone???

Bueller??? Bueller???