Finally, A Win For Anti-Gay Marriage Republicans

[BS Filter]

I really must wonder what is wrong with people who find it necessary to concern themselves with who other people love and marry. These people, who you support are selfish, ignorant and hatful people who want to deny rights to people who they disapprove of for no rational reason. We have have nation wide same sex marriage in this country for going on 8 yeas, and in some states for much longer We have had interracial marriage legal in every state since 1967. What evils have befallen the country as a result of that ? Do you really want a country where anyone can discriminate against anyone else for whatever bullshit reason that they can come up with? Maybe your straight white ass will be next when the “darkies become a majority and join forces with other oppressed minorities

This legislation has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the so called rights of those who object to certain marriages. No couple is going to want to have their marriage officiated by someone who disapproves of it...proof that this legislation is pure bullshit. It is clearly motivated by ignorant and opprobrious bigotry.

Furthermore, your assertion that officials would not have to pretend that refusing to marry an interracial couple is based on religion reflects a special kind of stupidity on your part. For one thing, bigots have long used religious beliefs against interracial marriages as they have against gay marriages. For another thing, religious freedom meant the ability to openly practice ones religion and live according to their faith without fear. Now you people perverted it to mean the ability to dictate how others live their lives.

White people by and large have no problem with interracial marriage. Why do you think Democrats dug up Anita Hill at the last minute? Black women really have a problem with successful Black men with White wives. Isn't a Black Woman good enough for them? That's the attitude.

 

[fncceo]

I really must wonder what is wrong with people who find it necessary to concern themselves with who other people love and marry.

Several people here, not myself, have argued rather strongly that, because people receive certain benefits from government for being married, it is only right and proper that government should have a say in who, and who cannot, marry.

If you accept that marriages be state controlled, you can't very well argue against states that enact controls on it.

However, if your position is that marriage between two (or six) consenting adults is purely a personal matter, then you can't very well accept any state control over the institution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Irrelevant as only the combination of the male reproductive system and the woman’s reproductive system can create offspring.

Some can’t because of reproductive disabilities. Are you implying same sex couples can’t because of some kind of disability? Choice is not a disability.

I am saying that it is not limited to just those with offspring.

 

[Polishprince]

This legislation has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the so called rights of those who object to certain marriages. No couple is going to want to have their marriage officiated by someone who disapproves of it...proof that this legislation is pure bullshit. It is clearly motivated by ignorant and opprobrious bigotry.

And here is where you are wrong. A lot of Homos want to FORCE people to be part of their so-called "Gay Marriages" especially if they disapprove of it. Just to push their weight around.

That's why the Colorado baker was chosen by the bumbuddies to bake their cake. Because they knew that the baker was a Christian. If the baker had said "sure" when they called to place the order, the homos would have said "thanks but no thanks" and call someone else looking for a Christian to pester.

Same with the Kentucky clerk who was thrown into a dungeon over this. The homos could have got their Gay Marriage approved in any county, but chose the one that they knew the people disagreed so they could be forced to bend a knee to Sodom.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then, I can see a case in the federal agency for whom one works setting a criteria for who is, and isn't an acceptable partner on marriages of their employees. Much as the US military did in decades past.

But, for those of us who aren't federal employees, the state should have no say in whatever sort of relationship (consensual) in which we care to engage.

Social Security spousal and survival benefits.

Married couples can transfer an unlimited amount of property to each other free of any reporting or gift tax.

 

[BS Filter]

And here is where you are wrong. A lot of Homos want to FORCE people to be part of their so-called "Gay Marriages" especially if they disapprove of it. Just to push their weight around.

That's why the Colorado baker was chosen by the bumbuddies to bake their cake. Because they knew that the baker was a Christian. If the baker had said "sure" when they called to place the order, the homos would have said "thanks but no thanks" and call someone else looking for a Christian to pester.

Same with the Kentucky clerk who was thrown into a dungeon over this. The homos could have got their Gay Marriage approved in any county, but chose the one that they knew the people disagreed so they could be forced to bend a knee to Sodom.

Exactly. Nothing to do with rights. It's about submission.

 

[HeyNorm]

I am saying that it is not limited to just those with offspring.

And we NEVER deny rights to those with disabilities. Except when it comes to propagation of the species?

So I will ask you again, are you claiming same sex couples are disabled?

 

[HeyNorm]

Social Security spousal and survival benefits.

Married couples can transfer an unlimited amount of property to each other free of any reporting or gift tax.

Yes, one of those perks of belonging to a group that provides for the continuing population. You want to opt out of that, nobodies going to stop you!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And we NEVER deny rights to those with disabilities. Except when it comes to propagation of the species?

So I will ask you again, are you claiming same sex couples are disabled?

Not being able to have a baby is not a disability, thus your whole post is pointless.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, one of those perks of belonging to a group that provides for the continuing population. You want to opt out of that, nobodies going to stop you!

Those perks are given to any married couple, whether they had offspring or not. Thus your post is again pointless.

 

[HeyNorm]

Those perks are given to any married couple, whether they had offspring or not. Thus your post is again pointless.

Not at all. The demographic group, Male plus female make up of the baby making population.

You seem to want to take the right from some, due to disability, and give it to those that, by lifestyle choice, can contribute none.

I actually think, if same sex couples, regardless of sexuality, are continued the right to marry, they should be required to pay additional taxes for that choice.

Then, they want survivors benefits, cool.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not at all. The demographic group, Male plus female make up of the baby making population.

You seem to want to take the right from some, due to disability, and give it to those that, by lifestyle choice, can contribute none.

I actually think, if same sex couples, regardless of sexuality, are continued the right to marry, they should be required to pay additional taxes for that choice.

Then, they want survivors benefits, cool.

you will have a point when those rights are only given to couples with kids, till then you will just continue to make meaningless post.

 

[rightwinger]

Both property rights and medical decisions are purely civil, and don't require any state sanction. Survivor benefits are related to Social Security and are also available to non-state sanctioned (de facto) partners.

But, if you believe that it is only right and proper for the state to have a say in who, and who cannot marry, then why would you take exception to a state restricting marriage based on any number of "unacceptable" combinations?

Marriage is a civil contract

As such, requirements on age, family relations and any other relevant criteria can be set.

What can’t be done is an agent of the government making his own rules

 

[HeyNorm]

you will have a point when those rights are only given to couples with kids, till then you will just continue to make meaningless post.

One demographic group provided 100% of all children

One group provided none.

Excuse me while I laugh my ass off

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One demographic group provided 100% of all children

One group provided none.

Excuse me while I laugh my ass off

And yet we still do not exclude those that do not have children and it would be so easy to do if having children was the only point

 

[lennypartiv]

Critics say the new bill goes beyond that and would empower county clerks to refuse to certify marriage licenses,

Appears to be a sound law to me.

 

[HeyNorm]

And yet we still do not exclude those that do not have children and it would be so easy to do if having children was the only point

You know your probably right, because gays choose a lifestyle that makes creating offspring impossible, thus mooching off of heterosexuality, those heterosexuals with reproductive disabilities, should lose those rights.

Yea, put that on a billboard.

You crack me up.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

 

[Moonglow]

I think marriage should be outlawed.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Actually, that was Sleepy Joe- your leader- who came out against Government School Desegregation back in the day.

And it was the Republican Party who passed the Brown decision.


BTW- Ike is only considered a "good Republican" by modern Dems and libs. In his own day, he was compared to Hitler.

Except he didn't...and the Brown decision is a Supreme Court decision..there was no law to pass you moron.....because the law was already in place, Conservatives just chose to violate that law....




But please...can you tell me the "Conservative leaders" that were assisting Thurgood Marshall in his fight to end segregation in schools?


You know Justice Marshall right? That popular Conservative justice you guys know and love, oh wait!

The Southern Manifesto and "Massive Resistance" to Brown v. Board

After the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board, southern legislators called for "massive resistance" to the ruling.

www.naacpldf.org

I forgot, Conservatives hated the Brown v. Board decision and hated the NAACP for successfully ending segregation.....it's quite telling that Conservatives like yourself continue to have to lie like bitches about something so easily debunked....why aren't you proud of your "Conservative" traditions?