Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yeah except homosexuality is called a sin throughout the Bible.

Moron

And of course because of that , we here in secular America should enact policies and laws that punish children for the "sins " of their parents. Right? Moron

Who said that, moron? I'm simply stating homosexuality is a sin according to the Lord. You brought God into it and once again you're all over the map trying to justify yourself. You all want to be pretend married go right ahead....I don't recognize it, God doesn't and millions of others don't either.

Go play house, I really don't give a shit

You are against same sex marriage. Depriving people of the legal, economic and social advantages of having married, legal parents harms their children . What partof that do you not get?

I did not bring God into it . You religious perverts brought God into it. That's right -perverts. You have perverted the whole concept of God into a hateful being in order to justify your hatred.

Lastly, I don't give a rats hind parts what you think of me,or what you beleve I am . You are beyond contempt

Tilly thinks that a lot of my posts are "funny" Not funny agreed , just funnyBut can never articulate a coherent and rational respose. Why is that Tilly?​

Like so many others here, theregressiveprat, I find your posts very amusing.

Also it was only a couple of weeks ago that you said you regularly start threads on a wide variety of subjects, I haven’t seen anything fitting that description, but here is yet another one in an endless parade that is basically about LBGTQ ‘issues’.Lol.

And you’ve had plenty of coherent and rational responses from me and others on the other LGBTQ thread - you know - the one where you were slaughtered. Lol.

I’m sorry if the fact that your obsession with all things gay amuses me and causes you discomfort, but there’s nothing funnier than a septuagenarian SJW drama queen who is constantly damaging existing good feeling toward LGBTQ’s whilst remaining firmly in the closet himself! Lol,
Do you OUT people who don’t want to be outed too?

What ever you say sweeet heart

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To a point. Perversion includes doing harm to children and families and that is not a right

And yet you are the one who most staunchly tried to argue that it is a right, and that nobody could oppose it for any other reason that that we are hateful, ignorant bigots.

Your tongue has become so forked, that even you cannot keep track of your own lies.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh, look! Another TheRegressivePedrvert pro-child-sexual-abuse thread, just like all the many others that he's previously started. Perhaps he imagines that this time, he'll actually be able to convince sane people to agree that handing children over to sick sexual perverts is a good idea.

What was that cliché about doing what has been done before, and expecting a different result?

You had better watch that shit you fucking moron! I reported you before, for accusing me of promoting child sexual abuse, and I will again. You are a bizarre and seriously disturbed POS

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

People don’t want males dressed up as women sharing their daughters/wives/sisters bathrooms. Get used to it, regressivepervert.

Oh shit really? Is that the most relevant and cogent comment that you can make here . Pathetic!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are against same sex marriage.

There is no such thing. There never has been, and never will be.

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is madness to claim that there can be any such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex. It's like claiming that a rotifer is an elephant.

Depriving people of the legal, economic and social advantages of having married, legal parents harms their children . What partof [sic] that do you not get?

Handing children over to sick, immoral, homosexuual perverts harms them. What party of that do you not get?

 

[bodecea]

You are against same sex marriage.

There is no such thing. There never has been, and never will be.

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is madness to claim that there can be any such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex. It's like claiming that a rotifer is an elephant.

Depriving people of the legal, economic and social advantages of having married, legal parents harms their children . What partof [sic] that do you not get?

Handing children over to sick, immoral, homosexuual perverts harms them. What party of that do you not get?

Are you accusing gays of being pedophiles?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You had better watch that s••• you f•••ing moron! I reported you before, for accusing me of promoting child sexual abuse, and I will again. You are a bizarre and seriously disturbed POS

And yet, you continue to openly do so. You keep starting thread after thread after thread, for no other purpose that to defend putting children under the control of dangerous, immoral, sexual perverts. And you accuse me of being “a bizarre and seriously disturbed POS”?

In a sane society, your ass would be in prison.

 

[Tilly]

And of course because of that , we here in secular America should enact policies and laws that punish children for the "sins " of their parents. Right? Moron

Who said that, moron? I'm simply stating homosexuality is a sin according to the Lord. You brought God into it and once again you're all over the map trying to justify yourself. You all want to be pretend married go right ahead....I don't recognize it, God doesn't and millions of others don't either.

Go play house, I really don't give a shit

You are against same sex marriage. Depriving people of the legal, economic and social advantages of having married, legal parents harms their children . What partof that do you not get?

I did not bring God into it . You religious perverts brought God into it. That's right -perverts. You have perverted the whole concept of God into a hateful being in order to justify your hatred.

Lastly, I don't give a rats hind parts what you think of me,or what you beleve I am . You are beyond contempt

Tilly thinks that a lot of my posts are "funny" Not funny agreed , just funnyBut can never articulate a coherent and rational respose. Why is that Tilly?​

Like so many others here, theregressiveprat, I find your posts very amusing.

Also it was only a couple of weeks ago that you said you regularly start threads on a wide variety of subjects, I haven’t seen anything fitting that description, but here is yet another one in an endless parade that is basically about LBGTQ ‘issues’.Lol.

And you’ve had plenty of coherent and rational responses from me and others on the other LGBTQ thread - you know - the one where you were slaughtered. Lol.

I’m sorry if the fact that your obsession with all things gay amuses me and causes you discomfort, but there’s nothing funnier than a septuagenarian SJW drama queen who is constantly damaging existing good feeling toward LGBTQ’s whilst remaining firmly in the closet himself! Lol,
Do you OUT people who don’t want to be outed too?

What ever you say sweeet heart

Ewwww.
Keep away Creep

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Change ONE little letter to Parriage, give 'em the same rights and you got a deal. Up to you to jigger the other terms like spouse, husband, wife..

Separate but equal ,Bubba? That worked real well in the civil rights era. And don't forget that many of those religious bights were opposed to any form of legal recognition.

Sorry you feel that way.. You got a great marching slogan there, but it does not wash. Same sex marriage does have other implications for the law. And how divorces, domestic violence and "violence against women" statutes get adjudicated.

It's a simple proposition to acknowledge important differences. And actually to the benefit a class that wants to be "special".. Got nothing to do with bigotry. It's got to do with biology and semantics and tolerance of tradition. Wouldn't hurt anyone to simply call it something different.

The differences are minor and not an excuse to treat same sex unions differently, or to call them something else. I have given this a lot of thought. It is time to get over it and move on. Marriage is marriage and now one has been able to explain how allowing same sex couples to call t marriage harms any individual, or the institution of marriage. Save the appeals to tradition fallacy, or the biological aspects unless you are prepared to explain how any of that effects the human, personal, romantic bond between two PEOPLE regardless of what is between their respective legs. I wrote this a while ago and it is still relevant now .

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

 

[Tilly]

To a point. Perversion includes doing harm to children and families and that is not a right

And yet you are the one who most staunchly tried to argue that it is a right, and that nobody could oppose it for any other reason that that we are hateful, ignorant bigots.

Your tongue has become so forked, that even you cannot keep track of your own lies.

You should take a look at this thread, Bob.

LGBT attacks Christian pastor helping teens with same sex attraction if you do not stop we will kill

 

[Tilly]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

People don’t want males dressed up as women sharing their daughters/wives/sisters bathrooms. Get used to it, regressivepervert.

Oh shit really? Is that the most relevant and cogent comment that you can make here . Pathetic!

I like to periodically remind you of stuff that gets your panties in a wad, snowflake

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

f you do not want to believe that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, then, have at it. You have the religious freedom to believe what ever you want to believe. You do not have the right to tell the rest of us what to believe, or not to believe.

No one is telling you what to believe. No one is so foolish as to think that they can tell you what to believe . I do not care what you believe What you believe goes on between your two ears and unless someone id accomplished in some sort of advanced mind control , they cant change that. What I care about is how those beliefs translate into how you treat other people. If your behavior emanating from those beliefs result in discrimination and marginalization of other in the name of your god , I do indeed have a problem with that. If you think that your beliefs should determine how others love and live, the YOU have a problem

 

[Tilly]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Georgia is on its way to creating a law that would allow state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples ― or, more specifically, to turn away any parents the agencies don’t approve of based on religious beliefs.

Make no mistake: This anti-LGBTQ adoption bill is part of a wide-reaching plan by religious conservatives ― backed by President Donald Trump and his administration ― to turn same-sex marriage into second-class marriage with a longer-term goal of overturning federal marriage rights for gays and lesbians entirely.

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

By getting courts to rule that wedding-related businesses can turn away gay couples based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, by allowing governments to refuse to give the same benefits to spouses within same-sex marriages as they do to those within opposite-sex marriages, and by allowing adoption agencies to say no to LGBTQ parents.

I

t is really in those three major areas- adoption, public accommodation, and benefits- that equality is being assailed. I do not believe for a Nano second that this is about religion or religious freedom. It’s about bigotry-plain and simple. It is not about concern for the children either. It is about bigotry.

Furthermore, in the Huston Texas case where the Texas Supreme Court rules that married same sex couples on the city payroll were not necessarily entitle to employee benefits is clearly bigotry because it has nothing to do with religion and clearly is harmful to the children of those couples.

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Change ONE little letter to Parriage, give 'em the same rights and you got a deal. Up to you to jigger the other terms like spouse, husband, wife..

Separate but equal ,Bubba? That worked real well in the civil rights era. And don't forget that many of those religious bights were opposed to any form of legal recognition.

Sorry you feel that way.. You got a great marching slogan there, but it does not wash. Same sex marriage does have other implications for the law. And how divorces, domestic violence and "violence against women" statutes get adjudicated.

It's a simple proposition to acknowledge important differences. And actually to the benefit a class that wants to be "special".. Got nothing to do with bigotry. It's got to do with biology and semantics and tolerance of tradition. Wouldn't hurt anyone to simply call it something different.

The differences are minor and not an excuse to treat same sex unions differently, or to call them something else. I have given this a lot of thought. It is time to get over it and move on. Marriage is marriage and now one has been able to explain how allowing same sex couples to call t marriage harms any individual, or the institution of marriage. Save the appeals to tradition fallacy, or the biological aspects unless you are prepared to explain how any of that effects the human, personal, romantic bond between two PEOPLE regardless of what is between their respective legs. I wrote this a while ago and it is still relevant now .

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

Marriage is between a man and a woman - go find your own words and stop hijacking and changing their meanings.
Garriage would do, along with Gedding
You’re welcome.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You are against same sex marriage.

There is no such thing. There never has been, and never will be.

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is madness to claim that there can be any such thing as a “marriage” between two people of the same sex. It's like claiming that a rotifer is an elephant.

Depriving people of the legal, economic and social advantages of having married, legal parents harms their children . What partof [sic] that do you not get?

Handing children over to sick, immoral, homosexuual perverts harms them. What party of that do you not get?

Are you accusing gays of being pedophiles?

Bob the depraved bigot does it all the time. He is seriously disturbed

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

I

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Change ONE little letter to Parriage, give 'em the same rights and you got a deal. Up to you to jigger the other terms like spouse, husband, wife..

Separate but equal ,Bubba? That worked real well in the civil rights era. And don't forget that many of those religious bights were opposed to any form of legal recognition.

Sorry you feel that way.. You got a great marching slogan there, but it does not wash. Same sex marriage does have other implications for the law. And how divorces, domestic violence and "violence against women" statutes get adjudicated.

It's a simple proposition to acknowledge important differences. And actually to the benefit a class that wants to be "special".. Got nothing to do with bigotry. It's got to do with biology and semantics and tolerance of tradition. Wouldn't hurt anyone to simply call it something different.

The differences are minor and not an excuse to treat same sex unions differently, or to call them something else. I have given this a lot of thought. It is time to get over it and move on. Marriage is marriage and now one has been able to explain how allowing same sex couples to call t marriage harms any individual, or the institution of marriage. Save the appeals to tradition fallacy, or the biological aspects unless you are prepared to explain how any of that effects the human, personal, romantic bond between two PEOPLE regardless of what is between their respective legs. I wrote this a while ago and it is still relevant now .

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

Marriage is between a man and a woman - go find your own words and stop hijacking and changing their meanings.
Garriage would do, along with Gedding
You’re welcome.

Get over it and get a life. Appeals to ignorance and tradition are not valid arguments

 

[Tilly]

f you do not want to believe that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, then, have at it. You have the religious freedom to believe what ever you want to believe. You do not have the right to tell the rest of us what to believe, or not to believe.

No one is telling you what to believe. No one is so foolish as to think that they can tell you what to believe . I do not care what you believe What you believe goes on between your two ears and unless someone id accomplished in some sort of advanced mind control , they cant change that. What I care about is how those beliefs translate into how you treat other people. If your behavior emanating from those beliefs result in discrimination and marginalization of other in the name of your god , I do indeed have a problem with that. If you think that your beliefs should determine how others love and live, the YOU have a problem

Actually it’s you and your ilk who are interfering with other people’s beliefs, by hijacking the word marriage for example. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Go find your own words for your arrangements.

 

[bodecea]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681

Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:

I

Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Change ONE little letter to Parriage, give 'em the same rights and you got a deal. Up to you to jigger the other terms like spouse, husband, wife..

Separate but equal ,Bubba? That worked real well in the civil rights era. And don't forget that many of those religious bights were opposed to any form of legal recognition.

Sorry you feel that way.. You got a great marching slogan there, but it does not wash. Same sex marriage does have other implications for the law. And how divorces, domestic violence and "violence against women" statutes get adjudicated.

It's a simple proposition to acknowledge important differences. And actually to the benefit a class that wants to be "special".. Got nothing to do with bigotry. It's got to do with biology and semantics and tolerance of tradition. Wouldn't hurt anyone to simply call it something different.

The differences are minor and not an excuse to treat same sex unions differently, or to call them something else. I have given this a lot of thought. It is time to get over it and move on. Marriage is marriage and now one has been able to explain how allowing same sex couples to call t marriage harms any individual, or the institution of marriage. Save the appeals to tradition fallacy, or the biological aspects unless you are prepared to explain how any of that effects the human, personal, romantic bond between two PEOPLE regardless of what is between their respective legs. I wrote this a while ago and it is still relevant now .

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

Marriage is between a man and a woman - go find your own words and stop hijacking and changing their meanings.
Garriage would do, along with Gedding
You’re welcome.

Sorry...but you are in the 21st century now. You are not allowed to treat gay Americans as 2nd class citizens any more.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As consenting adults, homosexuals have the right, to do to each other whatever they please. It is a reasonably free country. Homosexuals do not have the right to insist that I, or anyone else, must approve of their behavior.

Again, NO ONE gives a rats hind parts about what you believe or approve of.

 

[Tilly]

Change ONE little letter to Parriage, give 'em the same rights and you got a deal. Up to you to jigger the other terms like spouse, husband, wife..

Separate but equal ,Bubba? That worked real well in the civil rights era. And don't forget that many of those religious bights were opposed to any form of legal recognition.

Sorry you feel that way.. You got a great marching slogan there, but it does not wash. Same sex marriage does have other implications for the law. And how divorces, domestic violence and "violence against women" statutes get adjudicated.

It's a simple proposition to acknowledge important differences. And actually to the benefit a class that wants to be "special".. Got nothing to do with bigotry. It's got to do with biology and semantics and tolerance of tradition. Wouldn't hurt anyone to simply call it something different.

The differences are minor and not an excuse to treat same sex unions differently, or to call them something else. I have given this a lot of thought. It is time to get over it and move on. Marriage is marriage and now one has been able to explain how allowing same sex couples to call t marriage harms any individual, or the institution of marriage. Save the appeals to tradition fallacy, or the biological aspects unless you are prepared to explain how any of that effects the human, personal, romantic bond between two PEOPLE regardless of what is between their respective legs. I wrote this a while ago and it is still relevant now .

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017

Marriage is between a man and a woman - go find your own words and stop hijacking and changing their meanings.
Garriage would do, along with Gedding
You’re welcome.

Get over it and get a life. Appeals to ignorance and tradition are not valid arguments

You are displaying your own profound ignorance and lack of respect by designating other peoples traditions and their attachment to them as ‘invalid’.
Traditions are very important to people, I’m sure you appreciate that no end when the tradition concerned is that of a minority group, say a Native American, but you have a total lack of respect when it comes to the traditions of straight people and Christians.
Are you realising yet that you are a disrespectful BIGOT of the highest order?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you do not want to believe that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, then, have at it. You have the religious freedom to believe what ever you want to believe. You do not have the right to tell the rest of us what to believe, or not to believe.

No one is telling you what to believe. No one is so foolish as to think that they can tell you what to believe . I do not care what you believe What you believe goes on between your two ears and unless someone id accomplished in some sort of advanced mind control , they cant change that.

We know that you wish you could control what others believe. You rather openly expressed that as part of your version of utopian ideal, in this thread about space aliens coming to our planet and imposing on us your version of utopia. Do you remember what the first of many tyrannical condition was that you fantasized about them imposing on us? Here's a reminder…

All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.