- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Jerry's images.
I do beleive it is a valid question however. ---If the Law allows Same Sex people to get Married, my point is, that the Law should apply equally across the board, and not to show preferential treatment to people that profess to be gay. A persons sexual orientation, should have bearing on how they are covered by the law. A Neutered Male, should have the same rights as any other Person, under%2Yeah, I saw that. Which, of course, makes it trolling, rather than an actual poll.
He does admit it.
Jerry... you've GOT to be kidding. You know as well as I that what you posted was nothing but inaccurate propaganda. That book is the worst kind of misrepresenation, and, in my eyes, teaches hate. That is NOT how counselors act (ethical ones) and that is NOT how homosexuality occurs. Further, the "book" perpetuates the myth that homosexuals are pedophiles. The book should be burned.
That was one of the most disgusting posts I've seen at DP in a long while.
I do beleive it is a valid question however.
Jerry... you've GOT to be kidding.
So you want to suggest something "telling" about what we THOUGHT you meant? And your whole intention was to point that out--except that you haven't actually pointed anything out?Phishing, actually.
Notice how I posted the image without comment, and then assumptions abounded.
It's quite telling.
So you want to suggest something "telling" about what we THOUGHT you meant? And your whole intention was to point that out--except that you haven't actually pointed anything out?
This is a tactic for avoiding an argument, not participating in one. It's an inherently disingenuous action, much more disingenuous than the poll, which is kind of an outright challenge to prove that prohibiting same-sex marriage ISN'T unequal treatment. Your post is just a bigoted piece of ****.
I'd rather actually prove you got nothin'.This is a bait thread, games like this are what this thread is all about :2wave:
Why don't you stop crying and bait me back :mrgreen:
Phishing, actually.
Notice how I posted the image without comment, and then assumptions abounded.
It's quite telling.
I had a feeling you were testing. Regardless, my comments stand. And truthfully, Jer... the phishing is starting to get old.
Not as old as these partisan polls :2wave:
Jerry... if you don't like the thread, don't post on it.
There are plenty of others... even several on this particular topic.
I brought this up on another thread the other night. It just kind of rolled out in response to a "Gays getting married" thread.--but the more I think about,the more it seems like a legitimate question. I ask why would two people of the same sex, have to be homosexual to get married? --Because once married, they would then be able enjoy the benefits that go along with being married. Such as tax Breaks, special insurance rates, and so on. If Two Homo Men can get Married legally, then why couldn't two straight Men get married also? (Not that I would want to, but just sayin) Just seems to be more discrimination against Straight Guys to me. Male is Male, and Female is Female, regardless of sexual orientation.-So my question is, if made legal, should two people of the same sex be allowed to marry, whether they are Homosexuals or not? ---this could be interesting
All I know is--If Gay Guys can get married, and reap the benefits, than Straight Guys should have the same rights.---I don't think either is right, but it is not my business what two people do. As long as they are all covered equally under the Law. --I'm so over special privilege for one group---and zero for another. fair is fair.Gay marriage is not an equality issue.
It never was.
I suspect gay 'marriage will go the rout of women's right to vote: SCOTUS will claim the right does not exist, and then we will have to create an amendment to establish it.
All I know is--If Gay Guys can get married, and reap the benefits, than Straight Guys should have the same rights.---I don't think either is right, but it is not my business what two people do. As long as they are all covered equally under the Law. --I'm so over special privilege for one group---and zero for another. fair is fair.
I think it is my business
Marriage is not about supporting just whatever sort of relationship someone wants to be in. It's about a specific type of relationship with specific goals.
Thank God it is not.
You play by your religion's rules and others can play by theirs.You do not deserve certain legal rights, because of your religion's silly rules, while denying others the same. That's hypocrisy. It's only a matter of time before people like you have to accept that fact. It's just a matter of time.
What are those specific goals?
Yes they are (in the traditional sense). Which is why the "controversy" is pure baloney - marriage in the traditional sense is totally unrelated to "legal marriage" (and gays can have wedding ceremonies anyway). So why is the anti-gay marriage group obsessed with "legal marriage"? If they're worried about traditions being destroyed, then they should focus their attention on liberal churches that wed gay couples.Until they are granted the ability to engage fully in their right to contract and obtain a marriage license, they are not allowed to marry in all 50 states.
And yet two people of opposite sexes may have any number of sorts of relationships, many sorts of which you might not approve, and yet they are married. A man and a woman can have an open relationship. They can agree never to have children. A gay man and a lesbian can get married with the intention of sleeping with members of their own sex.Marriage is not about supporting just whatever sort of relationship someone wants to be in. It's about a specific type of relationship with specific goals.
So you would also deny marriage licenses to any heterosexual couples whose intentions for their marriage don't line up with your own views?I would never stop someone from having other types of relationships, they have every right to free association as everyone else, but if they're not doing this specific type of relationship then they have no business seeking the legal buffs.
And yet two people of opposite sexes may have any number of sorts of relationships, many sorts of which you might not approve, and yet they are married. A man and a woman can have an open relationship. They can agree never to have children. A gay man and a lesbian can get married with the intention of sleeping with members of their own sex.
At one time, the traditional marriage where the woman stayed home and the man worked was the only sort people thought of, and for a woman to work outside the home was considered close to a scandal. This argument for the traditional is just silly and it was betrayed long ago by heterosexuals (it pretty much all changed in the first half of the 20th century, though it didn't come to full fruition until the early seventies.
So you would also deny marriage licenses to any heterosexual couples whose intentions for their marriage don't line up with your own views?
The Fourteenth Amendment protects against discrimination. Saying that marriage doesn't include a Same-Sex Option is like saying the Missionary Position doesn't include a Same-Sex option.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?