Merged Threads Gay Talk
-
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
don't look at me Dave. My position is marriage isn't a right to begin with, for anybody.
Same sex or hetero couples have the freedom to set up any kind of legal relationship they want to agree on. Marriage has more limitations on freedom and property than arranged legal contracts.
-
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
Oh get over yourself tough guy.
I think I've stated before that I have no problem with gay marriage.
It's not the biggest issue in the world for me so if you need a ride to the demonstration Call somebody else.
If your sister and her partner are deeply religious then I'm sure they can find a preacher and some denomination that would be happy to tie the knot.
Then they can go to any attorney and setup what ever legal situations they see fit.
Of course the roots of the traditional marriage have something to do with children and families. Hence the laws written extending special benefits to couples for that reason, among other things. If you want those laws changed to give similar benefits 2 any couple just because you think it's fair, fine with me.
Put it on the ballot and get it changed. I'll vote with you.
So far those ballot initiatives haven't gone on your way. If the polls everyone seems to have seen are correct the next time it comes up for a fruit you should be in luck.
Snarling it everyone probably won't further your cause.
" If you go carrying pictures of Chairman mao You aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
WSS
-
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
Oh get over yourself tough guy.
I think I've stated before that I have no problem with gay marriage.
It's not the biggest issue in the world for me so if you need a ride to the demonstration Call somebody else.
If your sister and her partner are deeply religious then I'm sure they can find a preacher and some denomination that would be happy to tie the knot.
Then they can go to any attorney and setup what ever legal situations they see fit.
Of course the roots of the traditional marriage have something to do with children and families. Hence the laws written extending special benefits to couples for that reason, among other things. If you want those laws changed to give similar benefits 2 any couple just because you think it's fair, fine with me.
Put it on the ballot and get it changed. I'll vote with you.
So far those ballot initiatives haven't gone on your way. If the polls everyone seems to have seen are correct the next time it comes up for a fruit you should be in luck.
Snarling it everyone probably won't further your cause.
" If you go carrying pictures of Chairman mao You aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
WSS
Oh get over yourself tough guy.
I think I've stated before that I have no problem with gay marriage.
It's not the biggest issue in the world for me so if you need a ride to the demonstration Call somebody else.
If your sister and her partner are deeply religious then I'm sure they can find a preacher and some denomination that would be happy to tie the knot.
Then they can go to any attorney and setup what ever legal situations they see fit.
Of course the roots of the traditional marriage have something to do with children and families. Hence the laws written extending special benefits to couples for that reason, among other things. If you want those laws changed to give similar benefits 2 any couple just because you think it's fair, fine with me.
Put it on the ballot and get it changed. I'll vote with you.
So far those ballot initiatives haven't gone on your way. If the polls everyone seems to have seen are correct the next time it comes up for a fruit you should be in luck.
Snarling it everyone probably won't further your cause.
" If you go carrying pictures of Chairman mao You aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
WSS
Steve, this is ridiculous. I thought you'd accepted that you were wrong before, but apparently not. You're just repeating the same shit you said before.
This does not have anything to do with religious marriage, so I don't know why you keep saying that gay couples should just "Go find a church that will marry you." Churches have no way to confer legal rights. Neither do these lawyers you imagine can suffice. The state confers the legal rights of marriage. That's why Dave, his sister, and everyone else pushing this is pushing for state recognition, not a online list of gay-friendly churches and attorneys. I mean, seriously...
Secondly, there is nothing in civil marriage ceremonies that has "something to do with children and families." When you get married, they don't care whether you have kid, whether you're going to have kids, or anything else. You just sign the papers at your town/city hall, pay your permit fee, and then you're done. As long as you're straight. And that's how you acquire the rights and privileges of marriage. There are lots of subsequent laws that give favorable tax treatment and what have you to families with children, but civil marriage in and of itself has no family requirement whatsoever. It has nothing to do with children.
I happen to like the new guy. Snarl away, my friend. These people deserve to be called out. And it's telling that no one will answer his question except the guy whose main focus is that no one cares about anything or anyone any more than he does.
Were you actually of the mind that Bunker is going to change he opinion on gay marriage? T? Cal? Hell, no. They hate gay people. So, if Dave here can point out for them what the real world consequences of their hatred are for his family I'm all fucking for it.
-
Okay Heck.
As long as we are in hypothetical mode, let's say you are the governor.
The voters in your state overwhelmingly support be ban.
Do you support the presidents states rights position or do you veto?
WSS
Hmm. That's a good question. I'd be pretty torn between honoring what the people want, especially if it was as overwhelming a vote as it was in NC, and not wanting to go down in history as someone on the complete wrong side of the issue. In the end, I'd suspect I'd veto it.
Though I'm not sure the NC governor has the ability to veto this. I'm pretty sure this resolution was binding.
Hmm. That's a good question. I'd be pretty torn between honoring what the people want, especially if it was as overwhelming a vote as it was in NC, and not wanting to go down in history as someone on the complete wrong side of the issue. In the end, I'd suspect I'd veto it.
Though I'm not sure the NC governor has the ability to veto this. I'm pretty sure this resolution was binding.
That's a fair answer.
WSS
-
But let's hear you say it, my friend: you're with Obama on this issue.
Mitt Romney wants a federal law, an amendment to the US Constitution, banning gay marriage. For all of you "state's rights" fans, this means that Mitt doesn't care if your state has already legalized gay marriage, and thousands of gay couples have already wed under these laws. He wants the federal government to supersede what those states have done on their own.
Additionally, he's not for civil unions. He's not for giving gay couples the same rights as straights even if it's not called "marriage." George W. Bush was even for civil unions.
So let's hear it, Steve. Are you not with Obama on this issue?
Let's see how much snark you have to go through before you simply say, "Yes, I am."
-
Hmm. That's a good question. I'd be pretty torn between honoring what the people want, especially if it was as overwhelming a vote as it was in NC, and not wanting to go down in history as someone on the complete wrong side of the issue. In the end, I'd suspect I'd veto it.
Though I'm not sure the NC governor has the ability to veto this. I'm pretty sure this resolution was binding.
That's a fair answer.
WSS
That's a fair answer.
WSS
What? No pissy response? No accusing me of having an agenda? No rabbit hole?
I'm going to frame this.
-
I said I was wrong? When and about what?
I stated my preference and if I'm not militant or strident enough for you, tough shit.
WSS
-
I'm just saying you're with Obama on this issue, right? You think Romney is wrong.
-
But let's hear you say it, my friend: you're with Obama on this issue.
Mitt Romney wants a federal law, an amendment to the US Constitution, banning gay marriage. For all of you "state's rights" fans, this means that Mitt doesn't care if your state has already legalized gay marriage, and thousands of gay couples have already wed under these laws. He wants the federal government to supersede what those states have done on their own.
Additionally, he's not for civil unions. He's not for giving gay couples the same rights as straights even if it's not called "marriage." George W. Bush was even for civil unions.
So let's hear it, Steve. Are you not with Obama on this issue?
Let's see how much snark you have to go through before you simply say, "Yes, I am."
But let's hear you say it, my friend: you're with Obama on this issue.
Mitt Romney wants a federal law, an amendment to the US Constitution, banning gay marriage. For all of you "state's rights" fans, this means that Mitt doesn't care if your state has already legalized gay marriage, and thousands of gay couples have already wed under these laws. He wants the federal government to supersede what those states have done on their own.
Additionally, he's not for civil unions. He's not for giving gay couples the same rights as straights even if it's not called "marriage." George W. Bush was even for civil unions.
So let's hear it, Steve. Are you not with Obama on this issue?
Let's see how much snark you have to go through before you simply say, "Yes, I am."
Actually, sir, if you have an honest bone in your body you admit I've been in favor of gay marriage as long as you've known me.
So apparently the empty suit has finally gotten on board with me.
Yes I'm sure he struggled with the decision and talked with his family.
Most likely uncle axelrod.
WSS
-
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
Hey DAve S All my rowdy friends! I am one of your chumps I think, and I answered your post #38 on page 2 with my retort #59 on page # 3!
did you know Hank hates Obama? yes yes and I think that might mean he hates gays too?
-
By the way I am and always have been in favor of the public mandate for healthcare coverage.
Another issue in which the empty suit flip flopped to agree with me.
Maybe I should be president?
WSS
-
You're so provocative!
-
You're so provocative!
You're so provocative!
Sorry to disappoint you.
You and Dave can go burn down the ROTC building.
WSS
-
So.... Still no answer?
-
I have two questions.
1. Why aren't couples in civil unions not entitled to the same benefits as a married couple?
2. Why do gay people want to have a "marriage"? Why cant they be happy with Civil Union? If gay people get the same benefits as married people, then there is no technical difference between a Civil Union and a Marriage, correct?
Think "separate but equal." Same idea here.
They want the same rights, the same title, as everyone else gets. Otherwise known as equality.
I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else, and didn't get an answer to: if you don't mind giving them civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage, why would you have a problem calling it marriage instead? Why create a separate but legally equal institution for gay couples?
Think "separate but equal." Same idea here.
They want the same rights, the same title, as everyone else gets. Otherwise known as equality.
I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else, and didn't get an answer to: if you don't mind giving them civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage, why would you have a problem calling it marriage instead? Why create a separate but legally equal institution for gay couples?
Sorry im answering so late.
Simple. I do not put much importance to words. If calling it a 'Marriage' hurts a lot of sentiments of the traditional and conservative people, then fine - Perhaps we should be adjusting enough to call it something else and carry on if equal rights are given. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
-
ok, so I dragged in another take on the subject.....
When Prager tells it like it is - in a traditional 1 man 1 woman marriage / family unit
A child can benefit from the what they learn exclusively from dad and exclusively from mom.
Sorry, but the new look family is not the way to go... just sayin
bashers get in line -
Still waiting for one of you chumps to tell me why my sister and her partner...sorry, wife... shouldn't have the same rights to raise her children in a family with the same rights as straight people. Or are you all just talk?Because suddenly y'all are church mouses.
Oh get over yourself tough guy.
I think I've stated before that I have no problem with gay marriage.
It's not the biggest issue in the world for me so if you need a ride to the demonstration Call somebody else.
If your sister and her partner are deeply religious then I'm sure they can find a preacher and some denomination that would be happy to tie the knot.
Then they can go to any attorney and setup what ever legal situations they see fit.
Of course the roots of the traditional marriage have something to do with children and families. Hence the laws written extending special benefits to couples for that reason, among other things. If you want those laws changed to give similar benefits 2 any couple just because you think it's fair, fine with me.
Put it on the ballot and get it changed. I'll vote with you.
So far those ballot initiatives haven't gone on your way. If the polls everyone seems to have seen are correct the next time it comes up for a fruit you should be in luck.
Snarling it everyone probably won't further your cause.
" If you go carrying pictures of Chairman mao You aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
WSS
Oh get over yourself tough guy.
I think I've stated before that I have no problem with gay marriage.
It's not the biggest issue in the world for me so if you need a ride to the demonstration Call somebody else.
If your sister and her partner are deeply religious then I'm sure they can find a preacher and some denomination that would be happy to tie the knot.
Then they can go to any attorney and setup what ever legal situations they see fit.
Of course the roots of the traditional marriage have something to do with children and families. Hence the laws written extending special benefits to couples for that reason, among other things. If you want those laws changed to give similar benefits 2 any couple just because you think it's fair, fine with me.
Put it on the ballot and get it changed. I'll vote with you.
So far those ballot initiatives haven't gone on your way. If the polls everyone seems to have seen are correct the next time it comes up for a fruit you should be in luck.
Snarling it everyone probably won't further your cause.
" If you go carrying pictures of Chairman mao You aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
WSS
i liked this reply and believe you win the "fair and balanced" award
it has it all really, an angry beginning, a sensible solution to the "sister"
what I liked most is the statement on families and children,
put it on the ballot is their burden.... good point!
and a beatles revolution reference at the end....
-
ok, so I dragged in another take on the subject.....
When Prager tells it like it is - in a traditional 1 man 1 woman marriage / family unit
A child can benefit from the what they learn exclusively from dad and exclusively from mom.
Sorry, but the new look family is not the way to go... just sayin
bashers get in lineok, so I dragged in another take on the subject.....
When Prager tells it like it is - in a traditional 1 man 1 woman marriage / family unit
A child can benefit from the what they learn exclusively from dad and exclusively from mom.
Sorry, but the new look family is not the way to go... just sayin
bashers get in line
That's really the best pro-gay debater they could get, a celebrity blogger? lol
The definition of marriage has changed multiple times, not just recently. At first it was just a way to transfer your daughter and cattle to another man.
He keeps saying "little kids will have to be asked when they are 6 will you marry a man or a woman." That's stupid. You don't choose to be gay or straight. The fact that two men can marry won't all of a sudden make more gay guys....
He's right about the eHarmony thing though. A private company should be able to only match men and women if it wants to. Its a private company, it can do whatever it wants.
The fact that gay people can marry won't erode the foundations of marriage and family. I think straight couples are doing that enough right now.
He also said not letting blacks and whites marry was never the value of any religious tradition. I bet if you dig hard enough you can find racism in a lot of religions, lol.
-
ok, so I dragged in another take on the subject.....
When Prager tells it like it is - in a traditional 1 man 1 woman marriage / family unit
A child can benefit from the what they learn exclusively from dad and exclusively from mom.
Sorry, but the new look family is not the way to go... just sayin
bashers get in line
That's really the best pro-gay debater they could get, a celebrity blogger? lol
The definition of marriage has changed multiple times, not just recently. At first it was just a way to transfer your daughter and cattle to another man.
He keeps saying "little kids will have to be asked when they are 6 will you marry a man or a woman." That's stupid. You don't choose to be gay or straight. The fact that two men can marry won't all of a sudden make more gay guys....
He's right about the eHarmony thing though. A private company should be able to only match men and women if it wants to. Its a private company, it can do whatever it wants.
The fact that gay people can marry won't erode the foundations of marriage and family. I think straight couples are doing that enough right now.
He also said not letting blacks and whites marry was never the value of any religious tradition. I bet if you dig hard enough you can find racism in a lot of religions, lol.
That's really the best pro-gay debater they could get, a celebrity blogger? lol
The definition of marriage has changed multiple times, not just recently. At first it was just a way to transfer your daughter and cattle to another man.
He keeps saying "little kids will have to be asked when they are 6 will you marry a man or a woman." That's stupid. You don't choose to be gay or straight. The fact that two men can marry won't all of a sudden make more gay guys....
He's right about the eHarmony thing though. A private company should be able to only match men and women if it wants to. Its a private company, it can do whatever it wants.
The fact that gay people can marry won't erode the foundations of marriage and family. I think straight couples are doing that enough right now.
He also said not letting blacks and whites marry was never the value of any religious tradition. I bet if you dig hard enough you can find racism in a lot of religions, lol.
ya I know Perez Hilton.. at least not of the militant type! He was the outspoken angry bitch at the miss america contest that one year though!
-
That's really the best pro-gay debater they could get, a celebrity blogger? lol
The definition of marriage has changed multiple times, not just recently. At first it was just a way to transfer your daughter and cattle to another man.
He keeps saying "little kids will have to be asked when they are 6 will you marry a man or a woman." That's stupid. You don't choose to be gay or straight. The fact that two men can marry won't all of a sudden make more gay guys....
He's right about the eHarmony thing though. A private company should be able to only match men and women if it wants to. Its a private company, it can do whatever it wants.
The fact that gay people can marry won't erode the foundations of marriage and family. I think straight couples are doing that enough right now.
He also said not letting blacks and whites marry was never the value of any religious tradition. I bet if you dig hard enough you can find racism in a lot of religions, lol.
ya I know Perez Hilton.. at least not of the militant type! He was the outspoken angry bitch at the miss america contest that one year though!
ya I know Perez Hilton.. at least not of the militant type! He was the outspoken angry bitch at the miss america contest that one year though!
That's like when Fox News wants to have a "fair" debate about something and to represent the science side they bring in Bill Nye the Science Guy. I love the man, we watched him all the time in school and it really helped make me like science. But come on now, we need actual professors debating the religious guy on Fox News, not a childrens TV star
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login