Prop 8 Losers In Denial

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Slippery slope nonsense. I sure that if a judge ruled that all Americans have the right to marry you'd be eying up that ??? and your real values would just go out the window, cause jeez, gays have equal rights. LMAO.

I believe a judge already ruled that all Americans have a right to marry. Given they are the legal age of consent, not too closely related, not already married, and of opposite sex. To my knowledge, the law doesn't prohibit homosexuals from marrying under those same criteria, so their rights are completely equal to all other Americans.

As I have repeatedly said, I don't hate gay people, I don't want to deny them rights that others have, and I have offered a solution which would easily accomplish everything they seek to accomplish, without redefining traditional marriage. Instead of you listening to that, you continue to try and paint me as a homophobic intolerant bigot, because you obviously think that will work for you. Now, you can keep repeating your lies about me all you like, and you can continue to wage your own private personal war against religion while gay couples are unable to obtain government benefits of civil union, but you will not be allowed to redefine a traditional and sanctified religious practice in America.

Furthermore, if you continue to threaten traditional marriage with judicial fiat, overriding the will of the people at the ballot box, you will eventually force them to adopt a Constitutional Amendment to remedy the issue once and for all. Given the most recent 30-to-ZIP record for Gay Marriage at the ballot box, I don't think you really want to see a ratification initiative on this.

So you godless liberal eurotrash asskissers need to decide... Do you hate God more than you love Gays? The solution is Civil Unions, removing government completely from the "marriage" business, and from redefining "marriage" based on sexual behavior or preferences, as well as, returning the religious sanctity issue to the Church where it belongs.

 

[ironhead]

Dixie,

What of religions that perform marriages for same-sex couples? Does this fit into your definition of "returning the religious sanctity issue to the Church where it belongs." ?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie,

What of religions that perform marriages for same-sex couples? Does this fit into your definition of "returning the religious sanctity issue to the Church where it belongs." ?

There is another thread where all of this is discussed completely. I don't really care what religions do or don't do. My proposal is to remove the "religious" as well as "sexual" element from the civil government sanctioning of union. If a church wants to sanctify a union of homosexuals and call it marriage, that is up to them, they have that right in the 1st Amendment, as far as I am concerned. Likewise, if a church wants to denounce sanctifying such unions, that is up to them as well, and equally protected under the 1st. As far as 'government benefits' or legal matters, Civil Unions would replace the "Marriage License" currently issued in all states. It would be available, not based on sexual preferences or gender, or even relationship of the parties, it would merely be a legal contract between two adult parties seeking to form a civil union together, for whatever purpose.

Again, I will issue the challenge... tell me what is not acceptable about this... from either side? It seems to me, it gives everybody exactly what they want, (without the satisfaction of making the other side eat shit, of course.)

 

[Damocles]

There is another thread where all of this is discussed completely. I don't really care what religions do or don't do. My proposal is to remove the "religious" as well as "sexual" element from the civil government sanctioning of union. If a church wants to sanctify a union of homosexuals and call it marriage, that is up to them, they have that right in the 1st Amendment, as far as I am concerned. Likewise, if a church wants to denounce sanctifying such unions, that is up to them as well, and equally protected under the 1st. As far as 'government benefits' or legal matters, Civil Unions would replace the "Marriage License" currently issued in all states. It would be available, not based on sexual preferences or gender, or even relationship of the parties, it would merely be a legal contract between two adult parties seeking to form a civil union together, for whatever purpose.

Again, I will issue the challenge... tell me what is not acceptable about this... from either side? It seems to me, it gives everybody exactly what they want, (without the satisfaction of making the other side eat shit, of course.)

Churches do it all the time. There is no reason that they can't have the automatic contractual benefit that everybody else gets automatically, except the "ick" factor.

 

[blackascoal]

Well, knuckledraggers and religion doesn't have much effect on nature. Gays haven't reduced nor gained in numbers, as percentage of the population, they remain about the same. There are probably more people who will admit they are gay today, but the actual numbers of homosexual people are a small percentage of whatever the population is, and that is probably not going to ever change. Perhaps one day, we can discover what causes homosexuality in humans, but then... would liberal activists be opposed to allowing people to be treated or given preventative vaccinations against homosexual offspring? You have to wonder! Could we actually see the reverse of the "pro-choice" argument?

Personally, my hope is that they'll find a cure the isolates that ignorant gene so many on the right are infected by.

But hey .. feel free to continue to thrash around trying to stop gay marriage. It only further dooms the right .. which is cool by me.

By all means, moralize your way into oblivion.

 

[evince]

Beefy doesn't know if I've even been married before. My personal life has absolutely nothing to do with this issue or my viewpoints on this issue, nor is it my personal relationships which are being discussed here. As I have said on any number of occasions, I'm not like a fascist liberal, I don't expect society to live by my standards and uphold my personal views. I have never stated that gay marriage personally insulted me or attacked my marriage, and your insinuations, as well as Beefy's, are deplorable, cheap and sickening. No wonder you earned the nickname "Cunt!"

It fits you!

What an utter and complete Douchebag you are Dixie.

You have talked of Exs in the past and obviously have problems with women folk.


Yes it does matter how you live your life if you are going to talk about others not having the same rights as you.

You have the right to marry whomever you want yet you foul marraige after marriage by destroying your bond. You have more effect on the institution of marraige than any gay person I know.

As for the stupid "I'm not like a fascist liberal, I don't expect society to live by my standards and uphold my personal views" statement , you do realize that YOUR ideas are effecting peoples ability to live as they wish and allowing gays to marry does nothing to your personal freedoms right.

 

[Cancel3]

There have been some claims that a Civil Union would grant gay couples the same rights as straight married couples have.

There have been claims that no one is being bigoted in their defense of marriage.

But the Defense of Marriage Act certainly was discriminatory.

"The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1)No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2)The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. "



But remember, the social conservatives claim they have nothing against gay people.

They just want them to do without the 1,000 or so benefits that the federal government bestows on married people.

 

[RockX]

There have been some claims that a Civil Union would grant gay couples the same rights as straight married couples have.

There have been claims that no one is being bigoted in their defense of marriage.

But the Defense of Marriage Act certainly was discriminatory.

"The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1)No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2)The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states. "



But remember, the social conservatives claim they have nothing against gay people.

They just want them to do without the 1,000 or so benefits that the federal government bestows on married people.

:lmao:


I love seeing crap like this, just knowing that in the blue liberal state of California, they voted against the Rump Rangers & Carpet Munchers from getting married.

 

[Cancel3]

:lmao:


I love seeing crap like this, just knowing that in the blue liberal state of California, they voted against the Rump Rangers & Carpet Munchers from getting married.

Webbway, someday when you grow up and finish with puberty, you will look back and realize what a total idiot you were.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There have been some claims that a Civil Union would grant gay couples the same rights as straight married couples have.

Gay people have the exact same 'rights' as everyone else, now! Civil Unions would give gay couples the same benefits as traditional marriage presently affords gay or straight couples. There is no "claim", this is a fact.

There have been claims that no one is being bigoted in their defense of marriage.

I've never claimed this, I can't speak for everyone. I am certainly not bigoted.

But the Defense of Marriage Act certainly was discriminatory.

Nope, it isn't discriminatory. If it were, Bill Clinton wouldn't have signed it into law.

But remember, the social conservatives claim they have nothing against gay people.

Again, I can't speak for all social conservatives, but I have nothing against gay people, and my position is actually more conducive to getting them the benefits they desire. Your position seeks to deny them these benefits for the sake of keeping the issue around to bash religion with.

They just want them to do without the 1,000 or so benefits that the federal government bestows on married people.

Now you are being the "lying coward" with this statement. I have presented a solution to this problem, and you have refused to accept it. You can't articulate why my solution is not tenable, or why it wouldn't effectively work to give gay couples every benefit enjoyed by those with traditional marriages. You continue to lie by stating they are being denied rights, when that is certainly NOT the case, as has been pointed out numerous times... gays are not prohibited from traditional marriage to the opposite sex! And you continue to hurl insults and pejoratives at me personally, because you hold a definitively BIGOTED viewpoint, and refuse to budge.

 

[Cancel3]

The Defense of Marriage Act bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. But the federal government recognizes marriages between different sexes.

THAT is discriminatory. You can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact that the federal government gives benefits to married couples that of different genders, but denies them for married couple that are the same gender is absolutely discrimination.


The exact wording is:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

In other words, your civil union would not be recognized either, because it would be "...a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage..."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Defense of Marriage Act bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. But the federal government recognizes marriages between different sexes.

THAT is discriminatory. You can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact that the federal government gives benefits to married couples that of different genders, but denies them for married couple that are the same gender is absolutely discrimination.

It is "absolute" discrimination just as it is discriminatory to disallow marriage based on a whole host of other sexual behaviors as well! One could argue, ALL laws are somewhat "discriminatory" toward SOMEONE!

The exact wording is:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

In other words, your civil union would not be recognized either, because it would be "...a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage..."

Hey dumbass... do you not notice the keyword there? A legal binding UNION does not have to be defined as MARRIAGE! If what I suggested is adopted, there would be no government licensing of MARRIAGE! In its place, would be a generic and benign legal civil union of two adults, and nothing more! No assumption would be made as to WHY or for what purpose! It completely sidesteps both the issue of sexuality and the issue of religious ceremony.

 

[Cancel3]

The religious issue should be moot.


But what part of "...between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage..." doesn't fit a civil union? It is treated as a marriage. The reason it was worded that way is to INCLUDE civil unions. That is why the federal government does not recognize the civil unions that Vermont has made legal.


"It is "absolute" discrimination just as it is discriminatory to disallow marriage based on a whole host of other sexual behaviors as well! One could argue, ALL laws are somewhat "discriminatory" toward SOMEONE!"


This is just ignorant tripe. They are not basing their marriage on sexual behaviors, you neanderthal. They are basing their marriage on being in love. Perhaps if you and the other "benevolent & loving" social conservatives could get your head off of other people sex lives, you might realize that these people are in love.

And don't go with this bullshit about this opening the door for marrying children, marrying animals, or marrying your mailbox. It is a ridiculous argument now and it always has been.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The religious issue should be moot.

As long as we have a 1st Amendment, religious issues are NOT moot. Sorry!

But what part of "...between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage..." doesn't fit a civil union? It is treated as a marriage. The reason it was worded that way is to INCLUDE civil unions. That is why the federal government does not recognize the civil unions that Vermont has made legal.

I don't see one thing about civil unions. I see "marriage" and that is what the law is designed to 'defend' here. A law that was signed by President Clinton, I might add... AGAIN!

"It is "absolute" discrimination just as it is discriminatory to disallow marriage based on a whole host of other sexual behaviors as well! One could argue, ALL laws are somewhat "discriminatory" toward SOMEONE!"


This is just ignorant tripe. They are not basing their marriage on sexual behaviors, you neanderthal. They are basing their marriage on being in love. Perhaps if you and the other "benevolent & loving" social conservatives could get your head off of other people sex lives, you might realize that these people are in love.

*sigh* Yes, people of the same sex who marry, are indeed basing their marriage on sexual preference. People can also "love" multiple partners or children or goats or mailboxes! We do not base our laws on what people desire from a sexual aspect.

And don't go with this bullshit about this opening the door for marrying children, marrying animals, or marrying your mailbox. It is a ridiculous argument now and it always has been.

But it's the same thing, it is people "in love" and you would deny them their "right" to enjoy the same benefits as homosexuals! What a fucking bigoted knuckledragger you are! If you are going to grant rights based on sexual preferences and personal lifestyle choices, how can you limit that to only the sexual behaviors you personally feel comfortable with? As I see it, you really can't, without being prejudiced and hypocritical of your own argument.

As I have REPEATEDLY stated now, a comprehensive civil unions law, would remove all aspects of sexuality, sexual behavior, religious sanctity, and religiously fundamental institutions, from the civil government aspects of joint partnerships. You've not offered one single SOLITARY reason for why this shouldn't or couldn't work. Instead, you continue to argue your points, which continue to be refuted, and I can only conclude you don't really want to settle this issue, you aren't really concerned with obtaining benefits for gay couples, you simply want to have the issue to bash religion with.

 

[RockX]

Webbway, someday when you grow up and finish with puberty, you will look back and realize what a total idiot you were.

Puberty was some time ago for me and I don't think I will ever regret not joining your Rump Ranger support band wagon.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Webway=Toby?