Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, it is discrimination. And your "if" is not a reality, because you're gay hatin' brethren shot civil unions down time and time again and won't allow all 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
I was in the military for 21 years; and i did want DADT to be repealed. I worked right alongside gay and lesbian soldiers on several occasions and they were some of the most professional, hard charging warriors i've ever had the pleasure to deploy with. DADT was a dishonorable travesty of justice and based on a lie.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?
because your cohorts in cynical animosity aren't all for civil unions giving the same rights. Why don't you convince your buddies?
I did not want DADT repealed, ie, gays openly saying they're gay in te military and under DADT they were allowed in the military, I listed my reasons, none of which had anything to do with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.
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?
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?
Why do dishonest homophobes think they can deny their fellow citizens their inalienable rights based upon mythical superstitious nonsense which has no bearing in American law and would be in contravention to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution?
and how do you know your god is heterosexual? Maybe he's gay? there have been a few if i remember correctly.
To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
Curious...
would you say the 5% of people that have a natural aversion to chocolate are ALSO not normal? I mean, in the same light you are saying gays are not normal....
To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
Curious...
would you say the 5% of people that have a natural aversion to chocolate are ALSO not normal? I mean, in the same light you are saying gays are not normal....
From a statistical standpoint where "normal" means a member of the largest population subset, as in falling within 2 standard deviations from the "normal" or center line...
Then yes homosexuals and those with an aversion to chocolate are not normal.
Doesn't mean either group should be denied Civil Marriage with no compelling government reason.
>>>>
Republicans. Christians. Muslims. Gays don't even come close.To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
Curious...
would you say the 5% of people that have a natural aversion to chocolate are ALSO not normal? I mean, in the same light you are saying gays are not normal....
Two points
If "homosexual unions" are given "equal rights", what is to stop same sex relatives from forming a "union" to scam the tax code/gov't benefits?
Currently? The same thing that stops different sex relatives from forming entering a Civil Marriage to scam the tax code/gov't benefits.
What will be the policy regarding "homosexual unions", regarding travel into foreign nations where homosexuality is ILLEGAL? How many military personnel will be sacrificed trying to force this lifestyle onto "foreign soil"?
That will be up to that country. Whether homosexuals are Civilly Married will make no differnce in that foreign country.
How many countries did we attack to force interracial marriage on other countries.
>>>>
I am glad you are pro gay marriage. I understand some of their position; and i do not use spin or hyperbole to punch holes in their position either. I simply ask direct, straightforward questions and logic.Why do gays think they can redefine marriage? Why did a hetero God make procreation a heterosexual process and not hmosexuality just as equal?
Why do dishonest homophobes think they can deny their fellow citizens their inalienable rights based upon mythical superstitious nonsense which has no bearing in American law and would be in contravention to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution?
and how do you know your god is heterosexual? Maybe he's gay? there have been a few if i remember correctly.
Putting aside your obvious aversion to those that feel strongly about their faith....
Your assumption is wrong. I have no aversion to those who feel strongly about their faith. I do have a strong aversion to those who feel that their faith should be the basis for laws which affect all Americans. I do not ever wish to live in a theocracy.
Procreation can only take place with the sperm of a male and the egg of a female.
Procreation is not a necessary requirement for marriage. and is therefore irrelevant to allowing gays to marry.
If one were to combine religion with science, it is understandable why many believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
If we combine religion with government, we have the seedlings of tyranny. If we combine religion with science we have an oxymoron, a pseudo-science and sci-fi. Religion is based on faith; faith is belief without evidence. Science is based on evidence.
One must understand and respect the sentiments of their opposition in a debate if one wants to properly express their own.
I respect the sentiments of my opposition, until they use deceit and hate. I have no respect for those who wish to use deception to try and rationalize and justify their hatred. When they do this, they show they lack the balls and the integrity to debate honestly. When they do this, they also show that there is no reasoning with them; hence trying to argue against them with the intent of changing their mind is a waste of time. Far better to argue with those types of people with the intent to show them for the dishonest jackasses they are.
Thus is why I am pro gay marriage. I understood their position. I did not use spin and hyperbole to punch holes in it.
To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
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.
>>>>
To answer the OP, a desire to be viewed as normal when in fact, they are not. Have you ever met a more intolerant group than gays? Just listen to them for a while and see how they teardown just about everything and everyone.
Curious...
would you say the 5% of people that have a natural aversion to chocolate are ALSO not normal? I mean, in the same light you are saying gays are not normal....
Or the 2% with red hair.
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.
>>>>
Kind of uncomfortable isn't it to think that we have to treat all within the group as equal. The government would have a tough time finding a compelling state interest in not allowing them a state issued license to same sex siblings, i can't think an argument that would work to deny them, but the opposite sex siblings would be denied, which there are good valid reasoning behind?
Separate but equal?
Curious...
would you say the 5% of people that have a natural aversion to chocolate are ALSO not normal? I mean, in the same light you are saying gays are not normal....
Or the 2% with red hair.
Now THEY are not normal.
No one that I know of wants gay couples to be exempt from the estate tax.
They simply want the estate tax applied equally to Civilly Married couples.
>>>>
Re-read the threads and the posts advocating gay marriage and their justification for it.
No need to, my statement is correct. The case before the SCOTUS (Windsor v. United States) is not about eliminating the Estate Tax. The case is about a legally married woman who was required to pay an Estate Tax that other legally married couples are not required to pay when a legal spouse dies.
That is not about making a special exemption for gay couples, that is not about eliminating the Estate Tax.
That is about the same rules that apply to some legally married couples being applied to other legally married couples.
>>>>
I'm against discrimination, you want to expand it.The amusing part is that in general those who want the estate tax are the ones who want gay couples exempt from it. Why should they be let off the hook for stepping in their own traps?
No, we aren't asking to exempt from anything. We want our legal marriage to be treated exactly like yours, that's all.
