Gay Marriage Added To Democratic Platform

[bodecea]

"I don't like gays. So when someone brings up gays, I am going to make being gay sound the same as me having sex with my mom."


This is the brilliant plan of the retarded bigot.

Who says I don't like homos? I just want to know why marriage such encompass gay relationships but not plural relationships or incestuous relationships.

The arguments are the same. Sexual relations are not a requirement to marriage. Procreation is not a requirement. It seems that the homo position is that consenting adults should be able to do what they want and have their relationships legally recognized. So why should a 30 year old man and his mother not get the benefits of marriage? Or three people? Why are poofter relationships the only ones special enough to be treated like normal relationships?

Definitely your pet Cause, isn't it? Why don't YOU do something about it instead of sitting on your hands wanting gays to do your civil rights work for you?

 

[g5000]

Ok. First, fuck off you bigot. Second, fuckoff for supporting an additional layer of discrimination against incestuous relationships. incestuous relationships, like all relationships, can cause harm. But they do not, in and of themselves, cause harm. Third, bestiality never entered my mind, as consent is clearly required to enter into a contract. Fourth, are you saying that if homo sex was illegal, you would be fine with that? Fifth, you failed to address plural marriages. Your answers and omissions leave me to conclude that your quest for "marriage equality" is anything but.

Now you are going off the rails.

Please explain how you having sex with your mom is analogous to two married men filing a joint tax return.

Homosexuality is legal, incest is illegal. You are clearly having a problem seeing the distinction. Thus your illogical leap to a false conclusion. It is exactly because you think being gay and having sex with your mom are the same thing that leads you to believe they should be treated equally. I, on the other hand, do not see them as the same thing, because they aren't, and therefore your question about my being okay with homosexuality being illegal just betrays your ignorance and magical thinking once again.

This is a topic about gay marriage. When you can coherently explain why you brought up having sex with your mother in a topic about two married men filing a joint tax return, you come on back and do so.

Otherwise, you are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole to the great amusement of the rest of us.

 

[Pho_King]

"I don't like gays. So when someone brings up gays, I am going to make being gay sound the same as me having sex with my mom."


This is the brilliant plan of the retarded bigot.

Who says I don't like homos? I just want to know why marriage suUch encompass gay relationships but not plural relationships or incestuous relationships.

The arguments are the same. Sexual relations are not a requirement to marriage. Procreation is not a requirement. It seems that the homo position is that consenting adults should be able to do what they want and have their relationships legally recognized. So why should a 30 year old man and his mother not get the benefits of marriage? Or three people? Why are poofter relationships the only ones special enough to be treated like normal relationships?

Definitely your pet Cause, isn't it? Why don't YOU do something about it instead of sitting on your hands wanting gays to do your civil rights work for you?

I am not particularly motivated to "do something about it". I just think its funny that you homos are running around with your mullets, dickies, and combat boots screaming about "marriage equality" when your push for equality excludes other relationships that are discriminated against.

 

[Shelzin]

You are correct. There really is no marriage between consenting adults that is illegal.

Thank you.

What is false about this homo push for "marriage equality" is that it only seeks to have legally recognized homo marriages. They could care less about other deviant relationships between consenting adults that are currently in the same boat as the poofters.

First... Couldn't care less. I don't know why but that's a peeve of mine. It's irrelevant but I had to say it.

Second... I agree that there are things about the "push" as you call it that isn't logically sound if it's only about equality. Such as what it's called... Who the hell cares what it's called? You can call it whatever the hell you want... The government can not legislate or force acceptance. It can only make sure that everyone is equal.

Got no issue with anything you have said. But I would add, that the gay marriage push is not about making sure that everyone is equal. It's about making sure the queereyes are treated equally.

Fair enough... Well met.

 

[g5000]

Two adult men filing a married tax return.

Boinking your mom.


Not the same thing.

 

[g5000]

Can anyone on this thread tell me why the federal government of the United States should treat those people that are married with one tax standard and those that are not married to a different tax standard?

Beats me. Separate topic.

As long as the law protect marriages, it should protect all marriages equally.

There are more rewards than joint tax returns. There are also survivor death benefits and many other prizes the law awards to married people.

Unless they are gay.

That's not right, and that is the issue here.

 

[onecut39]

Gay rights is the new civil rights struggle. The GOP has taken their customary position. Far to the rear and against any equality.

They will eventually add this to their heritage of shame with women's rights, children's rights, black rights, worker's rights, and women's suffrage.

 

[g5000]

Gay rights is the new civil rights struggle. The GOP has taken their customary position. Far to the rear and against any equality.

They will eventually add this to their heritage of shame with women's rights, children's rights, black rights, worker's rights, and women's suffrage.

Being against equality is not the customary GOP position. Point of fact, the Republican Party was founded solely for the purpose of abolishing slavery. We are the Party of Lincoln.

The Republican Party also passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which established the "protected classes" discussed earlier in this topic.

The Republican Party of today has been overrun by bigots, psychos, morons, and hypocrites. This much is true.

But this is not the "customary" party.

I do my best to police and clean up the shit-for-brains who have hijacked the GOP, but it feels like a losing battle on some days.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Tax deductions are given to married couples as means of easing the tax burden on families.

 

[mudwhistle]

AP Source: Dems move to formally back gay marriage - Boston.com

The Democratic Party is moving to include support for gay marriage in the official party platform for the first time, a Democratic official said Monday, marking a key milestone for advocates of same-sex unions.

It annoys me when journalists do not name their sources.

The Democratic official would not comment on the exact language of the pro-gay marriage plank approved by the drafting committee. It was unclear if the party would call for any national action to legalize gay marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions, said the decision sets up marriage as a defining issue in the presidential election.

"We will rally supporters of traditional marriage to make sure they realize that the outcome of the presidential election may determine the future of marriage in our country," said Brian Brown, the organization's president.

The original source of this news is The Washington Blade:

Retiring gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who sits on the committee, told the Washington Blade on Monday that the 15-member panel unanimously backed the inclusion of a marriage equality plank after a national hearing over the weekend in Minneapolis, in which several witnesses testified in favor of such language.

“I was part of a unanimous decision to include it,” Frank said. “There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform, which I supported, but everybody was for it.”

I guess Barney Frank is the anonymous source in the AP story?



The GOP's unbroken record of supporting the rights of second class citizens is now officially over.

As the OG (Original GOPer) said, "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal..."

Except for the ones who walk funny and have limp wrists, according to the new GOP gangstas.

Now we are engaged in a great civil rights war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

To suck dick or not to suck dick....that is the question.

 

[Pho_King]

Ok. First, fuck off you bigot. Second, fuckoff for supporting an additional layer of discrimination against incestuous relationships. incestuous relationships, like all relationships, can cause harm. But they do not, in and of themselves, cause harm. Third, bestiality never entered my mind, as consent is clearly required to enter into a contract. Fourth, are you saying that if homo sex was illegal, you would be fine with that? Fifth, you failed to address plural marriages. Your answers and omissions leave me to conclude that your quest for "marriage equality" is anything but.

Now you are going off the rails.

Please explain how you having sex with your mom is analogous to two married men filing a joint tax return.

Homosexuality is legal, incest is illegal. You are clearly having a problem seeing the distinction. Thus your illogical leap to a false conclusion. It is exactly because you think being gay and having sex with your mom are the same thing that leads you to believe they should be treated equally. I, on the other hand, do not see them as the same thing, because they aren't, and therefore your question about my being okay with homosexuality being illegal just betrays your ignorance and magical thinking once again.

This is a topic about gay marriage. When you can coherently explain why you brought up having sex with your mother in a topic about two married men filing a joint tax return, you come on back and do so.

Otherwise, you are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole to the great amusement of the rest of us.

Marriage is not about sex. Many heterosexual marriages do not involve a sexual relationship, and it is not the right to have sex that you homos are pushing for. Its access tothe legal benefits conferred upon a relationship by legal recognition of that relationship through marriage.


So, having properly removed sexual relations from the equation. Why should consenting homos be given access to those valuable benefits, but other consenting adults should not? Why should a mother and son be denied access to those benefits? Why should three people that want to access those benefits together not be permitted access? What makes the homo relationship more equal than the others described?

 

[Pho_King]

Two adult men filing a married tax return.

Boinking your mom.


Not the same thing.

Two adult men filing a married tax return and two related adult men filing a married tax return is exactly the same.

 

[g5000]

Marriage is not about sex. Many heterosexual marriages do not involve a sexual relationship, and it is not the right to have sex that you homos are pushing for. Its access tothe legal benefits conferred upon a relationship by legal recognition of that relationship through marriage.

Ah! You assume I am gay because I support gay marriages having equal rights. So I guess I can assume you engage in incest, right?

So, having properly removed sexual relations from the equation. Why should consenting homos be given access to those valuable benefits, but other consenting adults should not? Why should a mother and son be denied access to those benefits? Why should three people that want to access those benefits together not be permitted access? What makes the homo relationship more equal than the others described?

There are only so many ways it can be explained. Incest is illegal. Full stop.

So arguing that something illegal should have equal protection of marriage laws with something that is legal is nonsensical. A false analogy.

 

[Pho_King]

Marriage is not about sex. Many heterosexual marriages do not involve a sexual relationship, and it is not the right to have sex that you homos are pushing for. Its access tothe legal benefits conferred upon a relationship by legal recognition of that relationship through marriage.

Ah! You assume I am gay because I support gay marriages having equal rights. So I guess I can assume you engage in incest, right?

So, having properly removed sexual relations from the equation. Why should consenting homos be given access to those valuable benefits, but other consenting adults should not? Why should a mother and son be denied access to those benefits? Why should three people that want to access those benefits together not be permitted access? What makes the homo relationship more equal than the others described?

There are only so many ways it can be explained. Incest is illegal. Full stop.

So arguing that something illegal should have equal protection of marriage laws with something that is legal is nonsensical. A false analogy.

The sexual aspect of incest is illegal. There is nothing illegal about any other relationship among relatives. Which is irrelevant. The legal benefits of marriage have nothing to do with whether or not the participants are sexual partners. Sex Hal relations is simply not a requirement for marriage. So I ask again, why should two relatives that are doing nothing illegal not be given access to benefits that homos should be given access to? This is about marriage and it's appurtenant benefits. Sex is not one of them.

 

[Pho_King]

I find it really funny that you homos focus on the sexual aspect of relationships you do not prefer, when it is not sexual rights you are after. I also find it funny that you completely avoid the issue of plural relationships. On top of that, cross dressers and mulleted bulldykes are also really funny.

 

[lukelk]

Those who are in favour of marriage equality are already on the Democratic side and those against it are on the Republican side. I can't imagine this decision does anything more than fire up "conservative" voters.

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T-S

Believe it or not there is a significant segment of our population who could care less what you do in your personal life but feel marriage is between a man and a woman.

Acceptance of homosexuality sure feels forced on folks these days.

There is fallout from that.

If I remember correctly, the kkk said the same thing about the 1967 WV law that prohibited whites and coloreds to get hitched, so you support the right wings kkk movement of the 60's? cause its the same thing.......

 

[Gadawg73]

Gay rights is the new civil rights struggle. The GOP has taken their customary position. Far to the rear and against any equality.

They will eventually add this to their heritage of shame with women's rights, children's rights, black rights, worker's rights, and women's suffrage.

Republicans were not against any of those folks' rights.
But you got it right on the gay boogeyman issue.
The GOP needs to kick the religous right to the curb. I respect their beliefs but those beliefs have no place in THE LAW.

 

[Pho_King]

Gay rights is the new civil rights struggle. The GOP has taken their customary position. Far to the rear and against any equality.

They will eventually add this to their heritage of shame with women's rights, children's rights, black rights, worker's rights, and women's suffrage.

Republicans were not against any of those folks' rights.
But you got it right on the gay boogeyman issue.
The GOP needs to kick the religous right to the curb. I respect their beliefs but those beliefs have no place in THE LAW.

Neither do the selfish beliefs of you poofters. If there is no legitimate reason for governments to favor one type of relationship over another then there is no reason why consenting adults should not be able to enter into any arrangement they want and receive the protections of marriage. You homos are not that special.

 

[Gadawg73]

I find it really funny that you homos focus on the sexual aspect of relationships you do not prefer, when it is not sexual rights you are after. I also find it funny that you completely avoid the issue of plural relationships. On top of that, cross dressers and mulleted bulldykes are also really funny.

I am a flannel shirt wearing, beer swillin, bourbon sipping, deer huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, straight white male married for 36 years and Southern by the grace of God.
I have been shot at, beat up and left for dead. Played 4 quarters between the lines against some of the best. I was repoing cars and bounty hunting for cash before you had your face was covered with pimples.
I find it funny you do not know the law. We are a nation of THE LAW, not milk weak religous fools and their changing like the wind religous beliefs.
THE LAW protects the rights of those we may despise the most. THE LAW says homosexuals are legal citizens. Falling in love and being in a committed monogamous relationship with another adult of the same sex is not illegal. What you are stating are sexual crimes that are against THE LAW.
You know it so why the childish BS?
Gay folk do not bother me. Some of the hardest working people I know as I have seen them as law enforcement, prosecutors, attorneys of all kinds, military officers, former team mates that came out decades later, doctors and in all other areas of life.
Take the concrete collar off of your neck and you will feel better. Real freedom is protecting the rights of those you may disagree with.
Gay folks getting married affects you in no way. Get over it.

 

[Avatar4321]

It is also a simple fact that polygamists do not have equal protection under the law. Where is their marriage equality?

False analogy.

Polygamy, incest, and bestiality are all illegal, having been determined as harmful to society.

Homosexuality is not illegal, having been determined as not harmful to society.

You're joking right?

Homosexuality is far more harmful than polygamy is to society.