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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
"Forced acceptance" .Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
Nobody is forcing you to accept shit. You can still be the backwards idiot you choose to be.
"Forced acceptance" .
Nobody is forcing you to accept shit. You can still be the backwards idiot you choose to be.
Really?
Is that why we have so many attempts to usurp the States with laws that favour some group or cause when NONE of them are being deprived of a single thing except acceptence and are laughed at for thier stupidity?
Oh yeah?
Did I mention...?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUOykwS-TmY"]Cows Mooing - YouTube[/ame]
Nobody is forcing you to accept shit. You can still be the backwards idiot you choose to be.
Really?
Is that why we have so many attempts to usurp the States with laws that favour some group or cause when NONE of them are being deprived of a single thing except acceptence and are laughed at for thier stupidity?
Oh yeah?
Did I mention...?
*I deleted the video just because it was taking up too much space.
Same sex couples are being denied the same access to a unique property contract that only heterosexual couples are by law allowed to take advantage of.
What's the big deal if a gay couple have the same property and legal rights as do a married couple?
Why can't a gay man have as a beneficiary to his pension his life long partner.
Why should the partner in a same sex couple have to fight for medical proxy rights or power of attorney when a simple marriage contract would grant those equal legal protections to all who seek them.
So what if a same sex couple can take advantage of family rate insurance plans.
What's the problem with contributing, productive members of society taking part in all the benefits and legal protections that society has to offer?
And the most important question is what's the big fucking deal if a couple of gay guys or lesbians that you don't know and don't care about want to live in a legally recognized and protected relationship exactly like the one you are living with your spouse?
In my world, I against them because it's still state involvement in a private matter.
In the lolberal world, it's a matter of nothing more than semantics.
While true I wish civil unions would be embraced so we could put this issue behind us. It's damaging to both parties and fosters gridlock.
So gay folks have to hire a lawyer to define a contract, and straights can save those fees and use state law? Yeah, that's equal protection.
I'm not seeing how you got that from his post.
EVERYONE can form their own legal contracts, gay or straight.
I think what he meant is that homosexuals have to pay attorneys to draw up a contract (which can be quite expensive) while straights simply need to see a justice of the peace.
I hate to say it, but I understand where he is coming from in that point. He's right.
Immie
Obviously you've never been in the military, nor have you lived in base housing, otherwise you wouldn't have made such bullshit remarks.
Base housing has certain rules they have to follow, as well as have guidelines for how the appearance of your place is. If there was a loud party going on, all the E-3 would have to do is to call the base police and it would be shut down pronto.
How would I feel about it if a gay couple applied for base housing? If they were entitled to it, more power to 'em, it's sometimes a long waiting list.
Do as I do. Ignore him. I have already proven him to be faux military....and I have lost interest in him. He is likely a child of no more than 17...maybe younger.
If I'm "faux military" why do I have a retirement certificated signed by Jr., as well as a DD Form 2N (Blue), as well as receive 1,300/mo from the government?
Think what you want, your opinion matters nothing to me.
I think the issue is probably that giving a different label to what is supposed to be the exact same thing smacks of separate but equal. If the idea is that homosexuals should have the same legal, secular rights and privileges to marriage as heterosexuals, but people are unwilling to use the same label, then clearly they are NOT thought of as being the same.
Civil unions for gays is certainly much closer to equality, but the need to give it a different name than straights use sounds too much like an unwillingness to really allow gays to have the same privileges. Having the legal unions all be labelled civil unions rather than marriage would be a better solution IMO. I don't think heterosexuals would be willing to give up the marriage label, though. Of course, removing government from marriage entirely would also work, but that's not happening any time soon.
Nonsense, their relationship IS different. Thus the need to define it differently. The end result is the same while understanding marriage as a traditional term.
I think the issue is probably that giving a different label to what is supposed to be the exact same thing smacks of separate but equal. If the idea is that homosexuals should have the same legal, secular rights and privileges to marriage as heterosexuals, but people are unwilling to use the same label, then clearly they are NOT thought of as being the same.
Civil unions for gays is certainly much closer to equality, but the need to give it a different name than straights use sounds too much like an unwillingness to really allow gays to have the same privileges. Having the legal unions all be labelled civil unions rather than marriage would be a better solution IMO. I don't think heterosexuals would be willing to give up the marriage label, though. Of course, removing government from marriage entirely would also work, but that's not happening any time soon.
Nonsense, their relationship IS different. Thus the need to define it differently. The end result is the same while understanding marriage as a traditional term.
The problem with your response is that many straight relationships are different, but apparently there is no need to define those differently. Some people may have an open marriage, some may have a marriage that is more friendship than romantic, etc. etc. You are deciding that this particular difference (admittedly, a fairly large one in some ways) requires a separate term while others do not.
As I said, if the government simply called all such relationships civil unions, I think it would be a reasonable solution. However, I don't believe most heterosexual couples would be accepting of such a change.
It would be a little like saying homosexual couples cannot have a son or daughter, they must use a different term for legal purposes. After all, the family relationship is different, so a different term is needed. Gays can be guardians and the children they have can be wards. Everything is equal, it's all the same, but we need another term to differentiate between family structures.
Nonsense, their relationship IS different. Thus the need to define it differently. The end result is the same while understanding marriage as a traditional term.
The problem with your response is that many straight relationships are different, but apparently there is no need to define those differently. Some people may have an open marriage, some may have a marriage that is more friendship than romantic, etc. etc. You are deciding that this particular difference (admittedly, a fairly large one in some ways) requires a separate term while others do not.
As I said, if the government simply called all such relationships civil unions, I think it would be a reasonable solution. However, I don't believe most heterosexual couples would be accepting of such a change.
It would be a little like saying homosexual couples cannot have a son or daughter, they must use a different term for legal purposes. After all, the family relationship is different, so a different term is needed. Gays can be guardians and the children they have can be wards. Everything is equal, it's all the same, but we need another term to differentiate between family structures.
The very term GAY MARRIAGE defines it as "something different"
I simply gave it a more non judgemental term. No matter how you spin it IT IS OUT OF THE NORM thereby different.
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
WTF is wrong with gays getting married
Traditions change...
The problem with your response is that many straight relationships are different, but apparently there is no need to define those differently. Some people may have an open marriage, some may have a marriage that is more friendship than romantic, etc. etc. You are deciding that this particular difference (admittedly, a fairly large one in some ways) requires a separate term while others do not.
As I said, if the government simply called all such relationships civil unions, I think it would be a reasonable solution. However, I don't believe most heterosexual couples would be accepting of such a change.
It would be a little like saying homosexual couples cannot have a son or daughter, they must use a different term for legal purposes. After all, the family relationship is different, so a different term is needed. Gays can be guardians and the children they have can be wards. Everything is equal, it's all the same, but we need another term to differentiate between family structures.
The very term GAY MARRIAGE defines it as "something different"
I simply gave it a more non judgemental term. No matter how you spin it IT IS OUT OF THE NORM thereby different.
Gay marriage is just marriage, idiot. The term gay marriage is used to bring light to the situation that it's involving the rights of gay individuals to get married.
Married gay people are not "gay married"... they are just married, through the process of marriage.
Gay in Gay Marriage is only used as a qualifier for discussing the political implications that is plaguing our country.
The very term GAY MARRIAGE defines it as "something different"
I simply gave it a more non judgemental term. No matter how you spin it IT IS OUT OF THE NORM thereby different.
Gay marriage is just marriage, idiot. The term gay marriage is used to bring light to the situation that it's involving the rights of gay individuals to get married.
Married gay people are not "gay married"... they are just married, through the process of marriage.
Gay in Gay Marriage is only used as a qualifier for discussing the political implications that is plaguing our country.
You mean its a means to divide the country. A civil union law accomplishes each request for equality. Except equality isn't the goal.
Now stfu and put vinegar on that thumb you've been sucking.
They want Christian privilege until it's Christmas time.. then they'll shit all over it.
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their
committed relationships, and plaintiffs relationships are
consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of
marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses;
they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage,
Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their
union is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully
enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. Griswold,
381 US at 486. Plaintiffs unions encompass the historical purpose
and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs genders relative to one
another prevent California from giving their relationships due
recognition.
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
characterize plaintiffs objective as the right to same-sex
marriage would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy namely,
marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
relationships for what they are: marriages.
http://lambdalegal.org/sites/defaul...ry_ca_20100804_decision-us-district-court.pdf
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
This is why 'civil unions' are unacceptable:
Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their
committed relationships, and plaintiffs relationships are
consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of
marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses;
they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage,
Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their
union is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully
enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. Griswold,
381 US at 486. Plaintiffs unions encompass the historical purpose
and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs genders relative to one
another prevent California from giving their relationships due
recognition.
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
characterize plaintiffs objective as the right to same-sex
marriage would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy namely,
marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
relationships for what they are: marriages.
http://lambdalegal.org/sites/defaul...ry_ca_20100804_decision-us-district-court.pdf
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
WTF is wrong with gays getting married
Traditions change...
Next the bizarre in America will want anti miscegenation laws reenacted.
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?
Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.
This is why 'civil unions' are unacceptable:
Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their
committed relationships, and plaintiffs relationships are
consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of
marriage in the United States. Perry and Stier seek to be spouses;
they seek the mutual obligation and honor that attend marriage,
Zarrillo and Katami seek recognition from the state that their
union is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully
enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. Griswold,
381 US at 486. Plaintiffs unions encompass the historical purpose
and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs genders relative to one
another prevent California from giving their relationships due
recognition.
Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
characterize plaintiffs objective as the right to same-sex
marriage would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy namely,
marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
relationships for what they are: marriages.
http://lambdalegal.org/sites/defaul...ry_ca_20100804_decision-us-district-court.pdf
They are not marriages as the term is currently defined. They are an unnatural union.
