Libs will love this, now gays can sue for reparations. There has never been a lawsuit a lib did not like.

Personally, I do not care if they marry, more power to them and I hope the have a wonderful live,

now gays can sue for reparations.
#1 | Posted by glasshouse| Flag: COMING INTO SOME MONEY, SOON

Asshouse is very worried that his gay lover is going to sue him.

#3 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2012-02-08 07:42 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Projecting, LMFAO

#1 | Posted by glasshouse| Flag: COMING INTO SOME MONEY, SOON

#2 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS AT 2012-02-08 07:40 PM

How much do you think you will get?

#1 | Posted by glasshouse| Flag: COMING INTO SOME MONEY, SOON
#2 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

How much do you think you will get?
#5 | Posted by glasshouse

Me? Nada, zip, zilh, bupkis.

But you? If you're right (which you aren't), you could be in for quite a payday, Doris.

#3 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2012-02-08 07:42 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Projecting, LMFAO

#4 | Posted by glasshouse

I am projecting that you are very worried that you will be sued by your gay lover...yes... I am projecting that.

The Talibaptist Haters are having a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week.

Talk about projecting! Wanna see?
Posted by Gasshouse

Look at you three..you're not even married to each other yet, and you're already fighting like an old married threesome....

~{:^)

This is total bullshit. Chickenfucker has never fucked intentionally fucked a rooster in his life. Only hens. Except for those times he was so blind drunk that he fucked anything he could get his hands on including that poor Jehovaha's Witness dude.

WTF is this doing on the back page?

Nice one, Spud's immediate neighbour to the south.

7 down.

43 to go.

Be Well.

7 down.
43 to go.

Unless one is shooting for a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing gay marriage rights forever in order to avoid letting the wingnuts making this a political issue ever again in which case you only need marriage for gays to be legal in 3/4 of the country or 38 states.

*does quick math on fingers*

So 31 to go, really.

Did the anti-gay RW wingnuts blow their wad entirely on the whole "Prop-H8 aint Constitutional" thread?

Nothing left over for this one?

[orly]

Well, prolly for the best really.

At some point they are gonna have to get it in their heads that they are wrong and should be ashamed of themselves.

Better sooner than later, eh?

Be Well.

Kudos to Washington. For all that is wrong and ugly in our Country so much time is spent on hating people that love someone outside someone elses comfort zone. Those stright married people in power are not doing very well for us the people, are they?

What is wrong with a county that will let kids rot in foster care before letting a gay committed couple adopt?

California's 9th strikes down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

Almost 500 posts.

Washington state actually makes themselves the 7th state in the nation to approve marriage for gays.

16 posts.

[youcantexplainthat]

Be Well.

"7 down.
43 to go.
Be Well."
#13 | Posted by dethspud

Spud, you really are a stupid idiot. Currently 30 states have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. In most of those states it takes either a 2/3 or a 3/4 vote of the general population to overturn a constitutional amendment.

"Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in at least 42 states.[1] Currently, 30 states have added amendments banning same-sex unions to their constitutions."
en.wikipedia.org

#18 | Posted by FreddyK

Also a state court cannot rule a state constitutional amendment unconstitutional.

So, this issue is settled in 30+ states and growing.

Sorry, Spud you can't marry your cellmate.

Spud, you really are a stupid idiot.

As opposed to an intelligent idiot?

Currently 30 states have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. In most of those states it takes either a 2/3 or a 3/4 vote of the general population to overturn a constitutional amendment.

Those amendments are themselves unconstitutional.

The numbers for support of gay marriage have been growing steadily since the idea was first put forward.

In time all 50 states will have marriage for gays as well as straight people.

Your hateful intolerant ways will have to go underground just like you've done with your racism.

Well, at least you guys know the drill by now.

So there's that.

Be Well.

Huzzah, this one got Front Page treatment.

[happydance.gif]

The one on California was taking too long to load anyways.

Be Well.

Kudos to Washington. For all that is wrong and ugly in our Country so much time is spent on hating people that love someone outside someone elses comfort zone. Those stright married people in power are not doing very well for us the people, are they?

What is wrong with a county that will let kids rot in foster care before letting a gay committed couple adopt?

#16 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2012-02-09 09:23 AM

Two consenting adults should have the
right to enter into a contractual union
of their choosing and should not be
barred from doing so because they are
of the same gender.

In no way does that provision make marriage
between a man and a woman any less sacred.
It just provides a right for all adults to
enjoy the same benefits from it.

#16
"so much time is spent on hating people that love someone outside someone elses comfort zone"

You said it, Gracie!

Kudos to Washington.

Mega kudos.

It will be interesting to see which southern state is the first to not give a shit about gay marriage. My money's on Virginia. Virginia is for lovers.

"Those amendments are themselves unconstitutional."

Oh, now you are a legal scholar? OK, scholar, when has the SC overturned an issue when more than 30 states have constutional amendments going the other way? Answer never.

"Your hateful intolerant ways will have to go underground just like you've done with your racism."#20 | Posted by dethspud

It's interesting how you try to equate turd humping with racism when most blacks (about 70% in surveys) are against gay marriage. So are most blacks racist? Idiot!

Also, when you take one's political view (against gay marriage) and assume another (racism) you are showing your own bigotry.

It's interesting how you try to equate turd humping with racism when most blacks (about 70% in surveys) are against gay marriage. So are most blacks racist?

Gay isn't a race, but according to that stat, it would seem most Blacks ARE Bigots and Prejudice.

Words have meaning. Learn them.

I guess I'll hold out hope for Kentucky!

My partner and I approached our pastor about getting married in our church a couple weeks ago. We're not engaged, but we want the conversation to start. Because it's a baptist church, it'll need talked about for about 6 months before any kind of votes happen (which congregational voting is a central piece to baptist polity). It's the last thing that our church hasn't done to be welcoming. We just celebrated our 4th year together last month.

Here's hoping. :)

"It will be interesting to see which southern state is the first to not give a shit about gay marriage. My money's on Virginia. Virginia is for lovers."

#25 | Posted by rcade

You are joking, right? Virginia has a constutional amendment banning same sex marriages and does not recognize those from other states.

In Virginia it takes a 2/3 vote of the general population to overturn a constutional amendment.

Good luck with that!

Two consenting adults should have the
right to enter into a contractual union
of their choosing and should not be
barred from doing so because they are
of the same gender.

#23 | Posted by Bellatrix

Why just 2? Why not 3 or 4, you bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Mormon creep. Who are you to shove your morality down their throats?

Why just 2? Why not 3 or 4,

Let them. Consenting adults should be allowed to be miserable if they choose to be.

You are joking, right?

I didn't do any research before picking Virginia. I just figured it would be a state with a lot of DC workers.

#30
3 or 4?
That's another deliberation.
Don't go adding things on to the
situation at hand.

No one is talking about multi-person
marriage contracts. This is about
two same sex people benefiting from
the same union allowed for two opposite
sex people.

It has nothing to do with what you added on.

You come across as an absolutist.
If I'm for gay marriage I must be those other
things you think I am, right? So think that way
it doesn't harm me it just makes you out to be
an assumptive, absolutist ignoramus.

And as far as shoving anything down anyone's
throat, no one is making YOU accept it. They
are asking LAWMAKERS to accept it. If you don't
want to marry a same sex person then don't and
exercise your right to vote against it. It
has no bearing on your life, does it?

That's another deliberation.
Don't go adding things on to the
situation at hand.

No one is talking about multi-person
marriage contracts.

* * * *

You might not be, but there are millions of others who are. That you're ignorant of the fact is little surprise.

You gay-marriage types think you can cross over the moat and pull up the drawbridge behind you. It's not going to work that way. How many queer couples are going to marry in WA, after this? A couple of hundred, maybe? A thousand tops?

But the constituency for plural marriage is much, much higher. And they'll be using all the same arguments you do, albeit without the annoying early line breaks.

Why just 2? Why not 3 or 4

Assuming the government could figure out how to tax those plural relationships, what would it matter to you?

"You gay-marriage types think you can cross over the moat and pull up the drawbridge behind you."

Nonsense. Get the law changed if you want. That way, you can fail with two wives at once to save time.

"But the constituency for plural marriage is much, much higher"

Link, other than your ass?

RisR sure does get angry about the gays and things being shoved down throats.

That way, you can fail with two wives at once to save time.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-09 11:56 AM

...But the constituency for plural marriage is much, much higher. And they'll be using all the same arguments you do, albeit without the annoying early line breaks.

#34 | Posted by rightisright at 2012-02-09 11:44 AM

I have to agree with you on that one, RightisRight.

Once the door is open to one group to no longer recognize traditional marriage as being between only one man and one woman then those pushing for legally allowing heterosexual poligamy would be the next issue.

"But the constituency for plural marriage is much, much higher."

There aren't that many Romneys in the state of Washington.

"I didn't do any research before picking Virginia. I just figured it would be a state with a lot of DC workers."

#32 | Posted by rcade

You don't have to do much research, most states have amendments banning gay marriage.

"Once the door is open to one group to no longer recognize traditional marriage as being between only one man and one woman then those pushing for legally allowing heterosexual poligamy would be the next issue."

As long as it is taught in all history classes in Cali schools as well. Who knows maybe a college will make it a class like occupying...

"Words have meaning."

#27 | Posted by kanrei

Really, wow such insight!

You guys do realize that for a few years Washington had EXACTLY the same state rights for gay couples just without the marriage title right?

So enough about rights, in this case it has proven to be about something other then rights. But, in the end the people who pushed for this will realize that government forcing society do not mean society will embrace you.

"You guys do realize that for a few years Washington had EXACTLY the same state rights for gay couples just without the marriage title right?"

And 60 years ago:

You guys do realize that for a few years blacks had EXACTLY the same water, just from a different drinking fountain, right?

You don't have to do much research, most states have amendments banning gay marriage.

#42 | Posted by FreddyK

most states had Jim Crow or segregation laws until Brown vs the Board of Education

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

#46
You do realize that i cannot use the same restroom as someone born a woman right?

"You do realize that i cannot use the same restroom as someone born a woman right?"

If that's your fondest desire, knock yourself out.

#49

Just saying, knock off the equating it to civil rights crap. It's tired and very few people are fooled by it anymore.

I don't think that same-sex marriage supporters
are talking about doing away with the present
one man/one woman definition of marriage.

I think they just want to add this definition
to the law books.

You don't have to do much research, most states have amendments banning gay marriage.

Here's a map:

"knock off the equating it to civil rights crap."

It's ABSOLUTELY about civil rights. In one instance, the group was treated as second-class citizens. In this instance, the group IS being treated as second-class citizens. It doesn't have to rise to the level of slavery and lynching to be grossly unfair.

"It's tired"

Turn the tables around: what would your reaction be if the government said you couldn't get equal rights unless you married a man?

It doesn't have to rise to the level of slavery and lynching to be grossly unfair.
Posted by Danforth

That's the same thinking that says the poor aren't really poor until they're at Poverty Level: Angela's Ashes.

#54

Again, you mention equal rights, proving that you don't even understand the issue.

Let me slow it down for you.

They

Already

Had

Them

In

This

State.

So, like i said enough with the lazy comparison arguments. Make a case for it based on it's own merits are just admit that you are just another tool parroting meaningless talking points.

Let me slow it down for you.
They
Already
Had
The
Same
Water

"Make a case for it based on it's own merits"

You're clearly satisfied with separate but equal. If history has taught us anything, it's that SBE is always separate, and never equal.

"like i said enough with the lazy comparison arguments"

The comparison is spot-on. In both cases, one group was singled out to be denied rights others get to take for granted. It's not my fault the truth makes you uncomfortable.

Most people look at "marriage" as being a sacrament and having religious blessings attached to it -- and due to their religious beliefs -- strongly believe the term "marriage" should apply only to a union between one man and one woman.

My question --

If, as gays maintain all the time -- they only want the same legal benefits and rights which are accorded heterosexual marriages -- would gays accept not using the term "marriage" when they wed and be satisfied with calling it a "civil union" IF their "civil union" was accorded the same nationwide federal recognition (complete with all the same benefits) now given to heterosexual "marriages"?

I believe if gays would just quit demanding that their union be called a "marriage" and instead accept a national federally recognized "civil union" (with all the same benefits) then their chances of gaining a much more wide-spread acceptance would be greatly improved.

However, if gays continued to insist on using the more religious term of "marriage" to describe their union simply because they want to get their own way, then one has to honestly doubt their sincerity about wanting to wed because they love each other.

I'd really like to read some opinions from others on here as to why a federally-recognized "civil union" (giving gays all the same federal benefits but leaving out calling it a "marriage") would or would not be acceptable to them

#57

The homogenization of America is not something to look forward to. There are individual aspects that are to be cherished and if you are that uncomfortable with peoples differences to the point where you think they should become the same you should probably seek help for yourself. Separate but equal, in the case of blacks, was only an issue because society was not willing to embrace the ideas. How well did government intervention work there? Our laws did not move us any further ahead in equality then the rest of the world. But again the civil rights movement has nothing to do with this. It is a complete red herring and straw-man only proving that you lack the ability to make a reasonable argument without drawing on factitious equability.
Government cannot force the minds of society and when if it tries to then we have a much bigger problem on our hands.

#58

See you get it, it is not about rights. Rights would be easy for them to attain. It is about forcing society to bend to their will by using the power of a government.

"I'd really like to read some opinions from others on here as to why a federally-recognized "civil union" (giving gays all the same federal benefits but leaving out calling it a "marriage") would or would not be acceptable to them"

That is exactly what needs to happen. I don't even care if the term marriage goes away on a governmental level. Society should retain the control over the term which it has had for the entirety of history. There would be very little resistance to a civil union law and the issue would be over and done with. Of course that is not what they want, after all they would loose the ability to call anyone who does not fit into their narrow world a bigot. And you would loose their few minutes of fame every so often.

I support gay rights, i do not support gay marriage and i believe that i am in the majority.

It is about forcing society to bend to their will by using the power of a government.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-09 12:54 PM

If, as gays maintain all the time -- they only want the same legal benefits and rights which are accorded heterosexual marriages -- would gays accept not using the term "marriage" when they wed and be satisfied with calling it a "civil union" IF their "civil union" was accorded the same nationwide federal recognition (complete with all the same benefits) now given to heterosexual "marriages"?

great question, Chris. Some gays might be very happy with that as that is all they want. I don't know though.

However, I suspect the same gay rights activists who are clammoring "equal rights" will NOT be satisfied with what you suggest.

they want it all and anything less will be viewed, by them, as though we are still treating homosexuals as 2nd class citizens.

but that's my opinion and nothing more.

"Society should retain the control over the term "

Yeah, the Ayds diet candy company thought the same thing.

"Separate but equal, in the case of blacks, was only an issue because society was not willing to embrace the ideas."

I love it when others underscore my point.

"after all they would loose the ability to call anyone who does not fit into their narrow world a bigot."

Did you miss the part where a majority of Republicans in Congress wanted to codify gays as permanent second-class citizens within the last decade?

Danforth, what is your answer to Chris's #58?

would you be satisfied?

I'm asking you because you are the most passionate advocate for gay rights on this place, as far as I'm concerned.

#62
I do not feel threatened personally aside from that it would be government dictating what society is to think and everyone should be worried about that.

"Turn the tables around: what would your reaction be if the government said you couldn't get equal rights unless you married a man?"

Equal rights compared to whom? Married people? HTF does that stupid scenario even make any sense? Somehow those who are married mean I don't have equal rights because I am single?

That is as lame as your coach being a hypocrite if he throws the challenge flag...

"Danforth, what is your answer to Chris's #58? would you be satisfied?"

It smacks of Separate But Equal.

#66

Underscore your point?

The way i see it is that you would then agree that you cannot force society to think the way you want them to just by using the government to bully them.

#69
Just admit stuff goes over your head all the time, and be done with it.

"Underscore your point?"

Yeah, you can't embrace the idea, so you go for separate but equal.

"Did you miss the part where a majority of Republicans in Congress wanted to codify gays as permanent second-class citizens within the last decade?"

Must have missed it. But I did see some homo advocate pull out his hair because his wharped interpretation seems to be falling on deaf ears. Codify gays as second class citizens... What a fucking drama queen. Pun intended.

And I still maintain you can NEVER duplicate the special charisma, chemistry, and energy which just comes naturally in any relationship between a man and a woman. Ying and yang.

While two men can honestly have love for each other and bond in a relationship -- you can't change male hormones and sex drive nor the male's natural urge for sex with more than one partner - those are facts. Sure, men in a heterosexual marriage will still have the same male urges, but the female counterpart is not as sexually charged so the chances of her demanding -- and getting -- fidelity in their marriage is much higher. Which leads to most heterosexual marriages usually lasting much longer and overall being a lot more stable -- especially for any children involved.

#70

So again it is not about equality. It is about homogenization. You have no interest in equality and don't believe that different things can be equal. That says quite a bit about you and it is not good.

And the actual #66

Statements like that only belittle your own argument. Fear tactics off the bat is never a good way to go.

#75

That is not necessarily the case but as the availability of data is not good you can not make the argument one way or another without relying on theory.

#70

yes or no.

I'm going with "no" unless you claim otherwise.

#69
Just admit stuff goes over your head all the time, and be done with it.

Yeah... My fault you pull some lame ass scenario which makes ZERO sense, and you claim it is over someone's head.

Turning the tables around would imply the Gov chooses your spouse. Your stupid scenario doesn't hold an ounce of water as usual.

"Turn the tables around: what would your reaction be if the government said you couldn't get equal rights unless you married a man?"

Good post (#61), Salamangator.
I think you pretty much said how most people feel about the issue.

"you are the most passionate advocate for gay rights on this place"

It happened when an elderly couple wanted to talk about their finances while I was doing their taxes. I was able to reassure them if one died, the other would get the survivor's pension, as well as a bump up to their spouse's SS, if the one with the lower payout lived.

Then a gay couple came in, and wanted to talk about the same things. The answers I gave had to be so different, I felt ill. What SS would have provided, they have to get Life Insurance to cover. Same for second-to-die pensions.

Following that, my FIL passed, and my wife and I became responsible for my MIL's finances. Once the smoke cleared, it was obvious: the difference between having enough money to pay her bills, vs. having to cut to the bone, deny needed medicine, and avoid costly physical therapy (near-blind, near lame) was due to one factor: God had chosen to make her straight. Had she lived the exact same life, but been gay, her income would've been cut by almost half.

So again it is not about equality. It is about homogenization.

I think that is what he's saying.

he must believe that if we give them everything except the same word, then it "smacks" of having separate drinking fountains, separate diners, back of the bus..........

danforth as railed on and on about the rights we get to take for granted.....but when presented with an option that extends ALL of those rights.......it doesn't appear he is satisfied.

"Turning the tables around would imply the Gov chooses your spouse"

Exactly. What the government is saying to gays is the equivalent of them telling straights they have to marry a man to get equal marital rights.

"Your stupid scenario doesn't hold an ounce of water as usual."

Typical: you're too stupid to get it, so you blame others.

"danforth as railed on and on about the rights we get to take for granted.....but when presented with an option that extends ALL of those rights.......it doesn't appear he is satisfied."

So it doesn't remind you of drink from that fountain over there?

One good thing: a generation from now, you'll all be looked at like idiot pariahs.

-What SS would have provided, they have to get Life Insurance to cover.

ironic as I am using life insurance for my retirement as though SS doesn't even exist.

"Must have missed it"

"Statements like that only belittle your own argument. Fear tactics off the bat is never a good way to go."

What a farking riot! You guys are going with the Dana Perino, Rudy Guiliani tack of "it didn't really happen".

Must be the low IQ.

"#84 | Posted by Danforth "

Once again Danforth is showing us the difference between a broken clock and a broken record. They say the same thing constantly but at least the clock is right twice a day.

How about this: Get government out of marriage 100%. As to what is left behind should a spouse pass? Simple: wills created at the start of a civil union establishing exactly what goes where and who has rights to what.

"But the family will contest the will"

Don't let them. If I want to leave my entire savings to a pile of red ants on my lawn, it is my money and my right.

"ironic as I am using life insurance for my retirement"

I know what you mean, but it does read like you're missing a big concept there.

-So it doesn't remind you of drink from that fountain over there?

no, not all

-One good thing: a generation from now, you'll all be looked at like idiot pariahs.

not me. I don't give a shit if they give the word "marriage" out to same sex marriages.

"but when presented with an option that extends ALL of those rights.......it doesn't appear he is satisfied."

On the contrary, I'd be thrilled. But don't pretend it's just not another form of separate but equal.

But don't pretend it's just not another form of separate but equal.

Since we are dealing with religion here, separate but equal may be the best way to go so long as it is actually equal.

The racist game of "separate but equal" was far from equal in any sense of the word.

Let Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc decide who they will or won't marry in their institutions, but have government benefits based on the union and not the term being used to define it.

"North Carolina has to be the frontrunner, then. They even voted for Obama in 2008."
#52 | Posted by rcade
According to this both states have laws ban same sex marriage but allow domestic partnerships

One good thing: a generation from now, you'll all be looked at like idiot pariahs.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-09 01:24 PM |

No biggie. Today you are taking care of the idiots point of view. Like pretending the Gov is choosing who one MUST marry in order to get equal rights.

I do not feel threatened personally aside from that it would be government dictating what society is to think and everyone should be worried about that.

#68 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-09 01:10 PM

It would be nothing more than a legal definition. You can still think gays are gross and their marriages are fake all you want.

"Like pretending the Gov is choosing who one MUST marry in order to get equal rights."

Just admit the concept flew over your head and be done with it. The federal government is telling gays that to get marital rights, they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. If the tables were turned, that would be the equivalent of the government saying you couldn't get marital rights unless you married a man.

"Today you are taking care of the idiots point of view"

What a self-retorting maroon.

#95

Specifically, it would require society to change IT'S definition of marriage. It is not a personal issue it is much larger.

Specifically, it would require society to change IT'S definition of marriage.

#97 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-09 02:07 PM

It has many times in the past and will in the future. Less than 100 years ago, it was illegal for people of different races to marry. Many of the same arguments used against gay marriage today are just recycled from then.

To be honest, in an day when Britney Spears marries for 55 hours and you have the Kardashians marriage, and every other politician cheating on their spouses, the argument that gays marrying will destroy the "sanctity of marriage" is quite comical.

Gratz Rex you can tie the knot now. lol j/k

The government required society to change it's definition of black person from 3/5 person to 1 person, too, Sal.

Problem?

"The government required society to change it's definition of black person from 3/5 person to 1 person, too, Sal."

No, it changed it's definition.

"A mind changed against it's will is of the same opinion still."

"Many of the same arguments used against gay marriage today are just recycled from then."

There are some that do, but it is a minority that is claimed as majority by those who would rather use the merit of past issues rather then face this issue. Those arguments seem to be used more as straw men and belittlement tactics by those opposed to societies choice then for those opposed to gay marriage.

IF their "civil union" was accorded the same nationwide federal recognition (complete with all the same benefits) now given to heterosexual "marriages"?

If, as I'm assuming, that by "federal recognition", you include state laws as a well, versus each state having the ability to deny those rights, that would work.

I believe churches should be able to "marry" whoever they want, because there are "churches" out there that will do it.I do have to admit that I don't understand the sectarian warfare between christian churches, especially the protestant ones, but I guess there's money to be made there. If one church-corporation won't marry you, another one will. Excluding the Mormons, they all supposedly use the same Bible, right?

"A mind changed against it's will is of the same opinion still."

#102 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-09 02:33 PM

You poor, oppressed soul. No one is changing your mind. (or your sandy panties) If the government decides to change a legal definition, who cares, other than bleeding vaginas?

"Specifically, it would require society to change IT'S definition of marriage."

We've done it before, when faced with inequality.

"rather then face this issue."

Then face it: why does the word "marriage" bother you when gays use it?

Then a gay couple came in, and wanted to talk about the same things. The answers I gave had to be so different, I felt ill.

Moving story. It's such an unacceptable situation I'm surprised 10 years ago I wasn't already championing gay marriage. I was blind to the reality that long-time gay couples were being denied a basic human right.

#105

You just don't get it.
This accomplishes absolutely nothing. No right were given only the term was changed, a term which is the responsibility of society not of the government. This is taking away the peoples right to determine the value of its own function. The only reason that there is a push for marriage is exactly that, to deny the societal aspect of marriage. It is a group of people whining that a term which is set by society does not fit their agenda and asking the government to force them to embrace their lifestyle rather then just tolerate it. It is the flailing of a group that can not put value on themselves without having it confirmed by people who do not wish to.

As for the who cares part, goes both ways. If you want to say that it does not matter then fine, but gays don't seem to think that is the case and neither does the rest of society.

The bigger issue is the people that oppose gay marriage flat out oppose gays. Therefore any debate with them falls on deaf ears.

The fact is the United States of America will eventually recognize gay marriage across the nation.

People will still hate gays. People still hate blacks, Jews, Mexicans, Muslims, Asians, Gingers, their parents....

It's America, everyone is free to hate everyone else.

But America is based on the idea that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Larry Flynt

"Then face it: why does the word "marriage" bother you when gays use it?"

It does not matter what i think of it. Why is that so hard for you to understand? How many times do i have to tell you something before you hear it? Or are you just unwilling to let go of a fictional argument that you think you can win?

I don't think i can be any clearer or state my position any simpler. I am sorry if there are arguments that cannot be pigeonholed to fit your straw men but such is life. You don't get to chose what others think just because you lack an argument against the reality of theirs.

you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Depends.
How well armed is the sheep?

But, in the end the people who pushed for this will realize that government forcing society do not mean society will embrace you.

This decision was made by the legislatures of Washington. The representatives of the people voted to legalize gay marriage, it passed both houses and the democratically elected governor said she would sign it.

It was hardly forced on society by government.

#109

You do realize that an attempt to marginalize opposing opinion by stereotyping them into a box created by your own fantasy only betrays your own bigotry, right?

that government forcing society do not mean society will embrace you.

You are not promised outcomes, only access. As a Jewish person in America, I am not embraced by all of society. Does that mean my rights should be based on majority rule as well?

This accomplishes absolutely nothing.

#108 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-09 02:53 PM

Danforth's water fountain analogy is perfect here.

Shake the sand from your bikini bottom.

This accomplishes absolutely nothing. No right were given only the term was changed, a term which is the responsibility of society not of the government. This is taking away the peoples right to determine the value of its own function. The only reason that there is a push for marriage is exactly that, to deny the societal aspect of marriage.

I love this argument. When gays wanted civil unions, opponents rose up to fight them just as hard as if they wanted marriage.

So the fight became about gay marriage.

Now that gays are getting marriage, opponents have suddenly decided they should get civil unions instead.

I have to give credit to CC for letting her full blown bigotry out of the closet in #75. Giving old Lisa a run for her money on the feminine tip.

But, in the end the people who pushed for this will realize that government forcing society do not mean society will embrace you.

#45 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Gays are not seeking society's embrace. They are seeking equality.

What topic do you actually believe society as a whole has fully embraced? Any topic you can think of I'm sure there will be a portion of society that rejects it.

Ok so we got the porn shit in the library being fine and dandy to display in front of kids - now gay marriage is ok.
Hey guys-- we are going down the goddamn PC liberal toilet!! What a shame to allow crap like this - no wonder the kids are all on ritalin.

we got the porn shit in the library being fine and dandy to display in front of kids

Hyperbolic much?

Take your Ritalin, Phester.

#113

The Washington voter approved an everything but marriage bill not a marriage bill.

"Gays are not seeking society's embrace. They are seeking equality."

They had equality. They had every right the state gave to a hereto couple.

" Does that mean my rights should be based on majority rule as well?"

Are you denied any rights?

Good, neither were they.

You are not promised outcomes, only access. As a Jewish person in America, I am not embraced by all of society. Does that mean my rights should be based on majority rule as well?

#115 | Posted by kanrei

Is that question specific to you, or jews in general?

JK

Reading up here, I see that people simply don't care. When did we stop caring?
When it got legal to jerk live babies out and chop them up?
When it became "cool" to burn the American flag??
When it became ok to have porn where anyone - kids and all can see it?
When?

As a Jewish person in America, I am not embraced by all of society.
#115 | Posted by kanrei

Sure, blame it on your Jewishness.

#118

When will people realize having differing opinions is not bigotry.
The word has lost all meaning now.

#114

Yea. I'm a bigot because I'm pointing out your close minded intolerance.

I guess not accepting your disdain for homosexuals makes me intolerant.

I can live with that.

Can you live with the fact that you hate homosexuals because you fight to obstruct the equality they desire? An equality that will in no way have any impact on your life.

You keep saying they already had it. This is simply terminology. Great! Even less of a reason for you to care.

Except, you hate gays. So it bothers you they are doing anything at all other than hiding themselves from society.

Take your Ritalin, Phester.
#122 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I don't have any ritalin.

At least you've identified the problem.

"When will people realize having differing opinions is not bigotry."

Oh, here we go. Straw man alert.

"Yea. I'm a bigot because I'm pointing out your close minded intolerance."

I must have missed that, both you pointing it out and where i said anything but that i support the rights of gays.

"I guess not accepting your disdain for homosexuals makes me intolerant."

If i had disdain for them it would, id no not so all it does is point out you delusion.

" you fight to obstruct the equality they desire? "
The equality they had in the eyes of the state government, they want to make people see them the way they want despite what society wants, that is my issue.

"Except, you hate gays. "
Why do you have such a difficult time understanding the difference between hate and a differing opinion?

#133

Really?

You claimed she was a bigot because she does not hold the same beliefs as you. No strawman at all.

You claimed she was a bigot because she does not hold the same beliefs as you. No strawman at all.
#135 | Posted by salamandagator

That wasn't the argument you made. And it doesn't reflect my position at all.

-When did we stop caring?

Pretty much when a Republican President was forced to claim publicly,
"I am not a crook!".... when everyone knew he was.

Trust in government after Watergate went into the shit can, and rwingers turned that into a "political philosophy" of demeaning anything people try to do as a nation, including giving equal justice under the law to those who don't have it.

giving equal justice under the law to those who don't have it.
#137 | Posted by Corky

www.youtube.com/watch?
v=zo77TcgtAVQ

#136
proven wrong by your
#188

How is it not your position that she is a bigot when you expressly said it?

#118
When will people realize having differing opinions is not bigotry.
The word has lost all meaning now.

#129 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

Sorry Sal,

Just because it's an opinion doesn't exclude it from being bigoted.

Everything CC wrote in #75 is a steaming sack of self serving bigotry.

First, she has no clue what love between two men or two women feels like. So that a pile of shit.

Second, the divorce rate among heterosexuals proves her theory of heterosexual marriages being stable is bullshit. Plus she really thinks a woman can control how often her husband cheats on her? Give me a fucking break.

Finally,
My partner and I... just celebrated our 4th year together last month.
Here's hoping. :)

#28 | POSTED BY GREENEYEDGUY

So much for her "theory" that homosexuals can't form commuted relationships.

My inequality is less than your inequality therefore I demand equality in our inequalities!

Of course, governemnt created the inequality to begin with, so what's with the bandaids and not with solutions?

#138 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE AT 2012-02-09 03:31 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Fantasizes about shooting black people

#133
Really?
You claimed she was a bigot because she does not hold the same beliefs as you. No strawman at all.

#135 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

No, he actually read what she wrote. Why don't you try it.

Pretty much when a Republican President was forced to claim publicly,
"I am not a crook!"....
#137 | Posted by Corky

So...We stopped caring about the porn, the baby killing and flag burning when Nixon lied? Jayzuz help us if anymore than 10 people in the Land believe that.

#143 | Posted by Corky LOVES THE CRIMINAL AND WELCOMES THEM WITH OPEN LIPS.

SALAMANDAGATOR

I put forward one question to you.

Since this has no impact on your life, at all, ever, why do you care what gays want?

One good thing about the 80's was that it looked like some of the bigotry and prejudiced and hatred of "the other"; anyone different than ones self, of the John Birch Soc 60's was finally wearing off.

Now today it is back with likes of Unkle Phester, just as ugly and mean-spirited as before.

Too bad, that.

Corky, Prejudice and racism and hatred have been with us since Adam and Eve. Oh sorry, I bet you hate hearing about those 2 folks - hey boy?

Some people are just not as proud as you are to be bigots and racists, Unkle P.

Addressing facts for what they are is simply truthful and pragmatic.

Whatever excuse for hatred and bigotry and injustice you use to let you sleep at night, Cracker Boy.

Addressing facts for what they are is simply truthful and pragmatic.

Here's a fact.

You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you, introduced itself and then kicked you square in the balls.

Be Well.

Cracker Boy.
#152 | Posted by Corky

Wow the hate and prejudice is oozing from you lad. That can cause ulcers in the long run.

Here's a fact.
You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you, introduced itself and then kicked you square in the balls.
Be Well.
#153 | Posted by dethspud

You have demonstrated the fact that you are a moron. See - not even a ball kick besides.

Spuds, I believe Uncle Cracker was neutered some years ago under the Keep America Beautiful Act, so kicking him there may be... fruitless.

"Since this has no impact on your life, at all, ever, why do you care what gays want?"

Because, when the rights of society to govern it's own function is attacked it affects us all. This is not about gay rights it is about societal rights.

kicking him there may be... fruitless.
#156 | Posted by Corky

Your not-so-clever anti-ghey pun is noted.

But, that was a liberal program, so it might explain why he hates blacks and Latinos and gays and the poor and.... well, anyone
really who is not a lily-white southern redneck with a 3rd grade edumacation.

lily-white southern redneck with a 3rd grade edumacation.
#159 | Posted by Corky

That was mean spirited and elitist. Coming from such a liberal, that makes you a hypocrite.

Fire with fire, Tubby Tits.

"No, he actually read what she wrote. Why don't you try it."

What she wrote was based of a lack of knowledge, a knowledge that does not currently support either side. Her theory is that of many that first men have a harder time being faithful which may be stereotypical but sexuality studies have found in the past that this is the case. As to my knowledge no credible ones have been done specifically on gay marriage nor would they be possible at this time. As to raising a child, it seems pretty obvious that a child need to know the influence of both sexes in a home environment and that may not be able to be accomplished using outside referenced in the case of a homosexual marriage. Again no honest studies have been done on the subject that you could consider viable so it is up to the individual to grant merit to the theory or not. She never said that it was impossible she spoke of extra difficulties that may occur. There is no hate or bigotry in her post, i can not speak as to if she has any herself but certainly when read honestly it does not manifest itself in her comment.

Pardon me to those trying to have a serious conversation... out.

Fire with fire, Tubby Tits.
#161 | Posted by Corky

There - admitting to being a hate monger wasn't so hard after all was it?

"What she wrote was based of a lack of knowledge"

That's included in the definition of bigotry.

#165

No, no definition claims that you must be wrong to be a bigot or that if you are right you cannot be one.

Wow. All I said was it would likely solve a lot of problems with a majority of people if we allow gays to wed in a federally-sanctioned "civil union" (which would afford them all the legal benefits given to a heterosexual marriage) and gays would then agree to quit insisting on their use of the term "marriage" -- and that makes me a hate-filled, bigoted shrew.

I have to believe, then, it's really not equal rights at all some of the more activist gays want but just to be able to stick it to the MAJORITY of society who look at a "marriage" as also having a sacred and religious aspects (which includes most religions' definition of "marriage" as being between one man and one woman).

Sorry, but you will NEVER get the majority of people to look at same sex marriages as being equal in every single respect as one man marrying one woman. Society is NOT going to throw out overnight what's been the norm for thousands of years. You gay activists need to understand you have to allow people to keep those parts of their traditional identities they see as being very important to them and accept the advances you've made so far. Let people get used to the idea of gay civil unions first. If you get too greedy and demand everything NOW then you make a majority of the people want to push back.

Hell, three or four years ago I wasn't even in favor of civil unions but after getting to know some of the gay folks on here and having more of an appreciation and understanding for their points of view, I changed my mind. Not bad for a bigoted, mean bitch, huh?

Ok, it's not bigoted.

It was baseless. It was purely opinion.

It belittled homosexuals.

Also, wouldn't her post indicate lesbian marriages would last forever since women are less likely to cheat?

Sorry, but you will NEVER get the majority of people to look at same sex marriages as being equal in every single respect as one man marrying one woman.

Public acceptance of same-sex marriage has grown at an accelerating pace, with approval jumping by nine percentage points in the past two years and the nation now evenly divided on the issue, according to a new Pew Research Center survey released Thursday.

The poll, conducted in late September and early October, showed 46% of Americans surveyed support legalizing same-sex marriage and 44% are opposed.

Sally, the great news is that even if they get to call it marriage, you can still disapprove of it. That's why America is so great, they get what they want and you can still have sand in your vag over it. (freedom of thought you know)

#169

"You're out of your element Donnie"

#170

So it is okay for a government to tell you what to think because you can secretly disagree.

Nice.

So it is okay for a government to tell you what to think because you can secretly disagree.

#172 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-09 05:23 PM

BS
That is exactly what they are doing.
The people voted to give them the same exact rights.
The government now says that they have to consider them married despite what society has specified marriage as.

Since this has no impact on your life, at all, ever, why do you care what gays want?

#147 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2012-02-09 03:39 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Because he feels better about his life by telling someone else how to live theirs.

The people voted to give them the same exact rights.
The government now says that they have to consider them married despite what society has specified marriage as.

You would have been a hoot in the 1960's.

"Because he feels better about his life by telling someone else how to live theirs."

Actually it is you poofsters on the left trying hard to tell someone what they should recognize. Most undertsand and have no problem with marriage being defined as a man and a woman. Been that way for thousands of years. Until of course the liberal disease created a bunch of limpwristed, dudley fucking do rights who have nothing better to do than stick their nose into places.

"The government of Washington isn't telling their citizens what to think. The citizens told Washington's government what to think, and the government acted on it. But yes you can (not so) secretly have sand in your vag over it."

LMAO. How did that work out in California? Prop 22, Prop 8...

726

I'll repeat my #171

#92 | POSTED BY KANREI

NW FLAG!

#167

CChris, no one has ever said homosexuals are looking for the acceptance of society.

Black people, Jewish people, minorities, etc... are not accepted by all of society.

What gays want is to be able to call their union a marriage.

"It does not matter what i think of it."

Sorry, you don't get out of it that easy. You said you're for civil unions, but not gay marriage. What is it about the word "marriage" that turns the tide?

As to raising a child, it seems pretty obvious that a child need to know the influence of both sexes in a home environment and that may not be able to be accomplished using outside referenced in the case of a homosexual marriage.
#162 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

So how do you account for the millions of well balanced individuals who grew up in single parent households? The environment you describe may not be available in a single parent household either, yet.......

Should we ban single parent households all together? Should we ban single people from adopting?

Have you ever met anyone who adopted while being single? I do and she is still single. The kid grew up fine. Just graduated college.

"What is it about the word "marriage" that turns the tide?"

Because the term is social not governmental.

"So much for her "theory" that homosexuals can't form commuted relationships. "

The gay couple I referenced earlier? 35 years together. Another pair of friends just celebrated their 10th, and another, their 21st.

"Because the term is social not governmental."

Wow. That makes you really narrow-minded.

What part about the social word wigs you out? Do you think the word should be reserved for the Kim Kardashians and the Britney Spears of the world and their egg-timer "marriages"...?

Prop 8...

#178 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC

Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and rightly so. What ever legislation was passed in Washington most definitely won't be overturned on constitutional grounds.

You see, Crisp, apples are red and oranges are well...orange. You color blind or something?

"the MAJORITY of society who look at a "marriage" as also having a sacred and religious aspects "

Just ask Amy Koch.

Because the term is social not governmental.
#184 | Posted by salamandagator

If you really believe what you posted above then you should be arguing that nobody should have a government issued "marriage" license, allowing religious org's to "marry" whomever they choose. If being logically consistent is of any concern to you.

#184

So pretty much your entire argument is you don't want gay people that enter a civil union to be able to call it "marriage".

So, it just boils down to you being a selfish elitest brat.

Or, as Live or Die accurately put it, you got a sandy vag.

#184 | POSTED BY SALAMANDAGATOR

You see the problem I have with defining "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman is that it goes against some of the 1,900+ separate religions covered by the constitution of the United States. It may be a majority view (false - see latest polls) that gay marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, but establishing such a view legislatively tramples the rights of those religions who view the definition of marriage as a union between two human beings.

There are denominations of Christianity that believe gays should marry under the eyes of their god. Who is society to trample on the rights of these religions? Simply because your religion holds one view should not be forced upon everyone else and that is what you're suggesting with supporting your definition of marriage legislatively.

Why do you want to trample on the rights of those religions who wish to marry two human beings? It has no effect on your life. Yet your actions and views have an effect on theirs.

#170

So it is okay for a government to tell you what to think because you can secretly disagree.

Nice.

#172 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-09 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

As usual, you are mistaken and looking stupid in the process.

If gays are allowed to marry, no one will tell you what to think. They are telling you the law.

"Think" what you like.

"Libs will love this, now gays can sue for reparations."

Would you please come up with links to all the media stories about gay people suing for reparations in the states where gay marriage has been legalized thus far?

We're waiting....

In reponse to danforth and post #81. Wow your story was quite mind opening. did a little reasearch it the difference of civil and marriage . Not even close to the same benefit wise. The DOMA denies almost all federal benifits that I get in my marriage .Even the military partners survior is denied. Not to mention the medical care decisions.
If my kid was ever to be gay I would want him to also have acces to what I enjoy. I may never agree with the life style or understand it, But fair is fair.
Marriage is after all only a word,Its how the couple interact with each other over the years. I've know people who have married and beaten their wifes,the word marriage did stop it.I agree that the only fair thing is marriage

We're waiting....

#193 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Who is 'we'?

Who is 'we'?

#195 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2012-02-09 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's it to you? Are you writing a book?

#196 | Posted by Buttfuck_Bob

Actually I am, it's called 'Smokestack Bob and the Antenni Showdown.'

It's a story about a tired old man and his mental infirmaties.

#197 | Posted by RexZeitgeist at 2012-02-09 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then you should talk to me, and ask me the questions, moron.

;-)

As to raising a child, it seems pretty obvious that a child need to know the influence of both sexes in a home environment and that may not be able to be accomplished using outside referenced in the case of a homosexual marriage.

That's an argument for disallowing divorce.

Lots of us were raised by single parents. It's not the ideal, but shit happens.

Here's my beef.

When I get married to my partner, I'll be married in my church who supports us before God, family, etc.

Your church may disagree and not recognize it or my church. But I will. My friends will. My family will. Ok. But it still doesn't matter. I'll still be married. I won't have a license until the government figures out what it wants to do.

But I'll STILL BE MARRIED. Again, you can disagree and call it what you want. But when someone asks me, "Are you single?" I'll say "I'm married", not "I'm domestically partnered" or "I'm civil unioned".

I'll only ever say, "I'm married". Fight over the word all you want, but it'll be the way gays will use it regardless if we get the federal protections or not. They will come in time.

Nice that elected representatives enacted a this law rather than having it "enacted" by unelected judges.

199
I abhor divorce. it is an escape for those not strong enough to face their challenges, with a few exceptions. It is an argument against divorce I do not beloved that someone who is willing to inflict that on a child is a good parent, again with a few exceptions. but that is a different issue.

As for the rest, it worries me that many of you can not see the value of society ruling its own function and would rather have the government rule society as well.

#200 at least seems to get it. he puts the value in his hands. to force it on society via government destroys any semblance of value that it would otherwise have.

the government can never make them equal. only society and they themselves can. to force it is only belittling to their plight.

Libs will love this, now gays can sue for reparations. There has never been a lawsuit a lib did not like.

#1 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-02-08 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Says the Oily Taints fan who loves him some 'Birther' lawsuits.

the government can never make them equal. only society and they themselves can. to force it is only belittling to their plight.

#202 | Posted by salamandagator at 2012-02-10 06:08 PM | Reply | Fla

I heard the exact same thing said in the sixties about black equality. I'm sure the same thing was said about equality for women. Bigotry and ignorance die hard

#204
when is doubt pull the race card. way to go Bob.