MT judge rules against gay couples seeking rights

[TheBrain]

Glad you agree that gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage.

What does the fact that "many" people view gay marriage as a direct attack on heterosexual marriage have to do with anything? "Many" people think President Obama is a terrorist. "Many" people thought that segregation was perfectly OK.

Of course, gay marriage is not an attack on heterosexual marriage. How would that work? Do people think that if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexual people are suddenly going to start divorcing their spouses and going over to the gay side of life?

Nice strawmen you threw out there.


The fact of the matter is that MANY in the gay community insist on thrusting their being gay on the rest of us, and would not be satisfied with anything that requires any sort of compromise. If they would we could have some sort of agreement where even though the government didn't call it marriage they could have all the benefits and privileges of marriage. We both know that.

And yes I fully realize that there are also morons on the other side of the issue who wold see any sort of a compromise as being something terribly horrible. I think they are idiots as well.

Many that are denied rights do insist on thrusting on others that they have a right to be who they are.

A) There is considerable evidence that homosexuality is a choice, and not just who some people.

B) Your rights end where mine begin is a well established legal standard in this country

C) It seems that common sense would dictate that you don't win people over by irritating them. Any MANY in the gay community seem hell bent on irritating and insulting those who oppose them rather than trying to fit in.

 

[TheBrain]

If someone is picketing that they are seking equal rights and someone that comes along that does not want to hear it does that mean that they should immediately cease picketing for their equal rights because a few do not want to hear it?

I am a HUGE fan of the First Amendment; but surely you can recognize that some people go too far?

Also, if you defend a gay's right to picket for his "rights" then you would also have to support a person's right to speak against gays, again within certain limits. Unless you're a hypocrite. Which brings up the point that many are in fact hypocrites when it comes to this subject.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nice strawmen you threw out there.


The fact of the matter is that MANY in the gay community insist on thrusting their being gay on the rest of us, and would not be satisfied with anything that requires any sort of compromise. If they would we could have some sort of agreement where even though the government didn't call it marriage they could have all the benefits and privileges of marriage. We both know that.

And yes I fully realize that there are also morons on the other side of the issue who wold see any sort of a compromise as being something terribly horrible. I think they are idiots as well.

Many that are denied rights do insist on thrusting on others that they have a right to be who they are.

A) There is considerable evidence that homosexuality is a choice, and not just who some people.

B) Your rights end where mine begin is a well established legal standard in this country

C) It seems that common sense would dictate that you don't win people over by irritating them. Any MANY in the gay community seem hell bent on irritating and insulting those who oppose them rather than trying to fit in.

A. Tell us about when you chose your sexuality. Did it go like this:
"Hmm, let me see, do I want to be gay and have sex with men. How would that be? Let me weigh the pros and cons on that one. Maybe I need to try it before I choose. Now let me choose whether or not I want to be straight. Let me weigh the pros and cons"
That may be how it went with you Moe but not me. I have NEVER met anyone that chooses their sexuality. You may not have been born that way and weighed your options on whether or not you wanted to choose schlong but I was born with my sexuality.
B. is false. No law or statute states that anywhere.
C. If you are irritated get over it and act like an adult. Grow up.

 

[Gadawg73]

If someone is picketing that they are seking equal rights and someone that comes along that does not want to hear it does that mean that they should immediately cease picketing for their equal rights because a few do not want to hear it?

I am a HUGE fan of the First Amendment; but surely you can recognize that some people go too far?

Also, if you defend a gay's right to picket for his "rights" then you would also have to support a person's right to speak against gays, again within certain limits. Unless you're a hypocrite. Which brings up the point that many are in fact hypocrites when it comes to this subject.

I used to play before the fans weekly.
Laws are held up and defended, not cheered on.
This country was founded on the laws that seek to protect the rights of those that you may despise the most.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's to define? Couple meaning two people. PERIOD.

Mother/son?
Brother/sister?
Nephew/uncle?
How long does the couple need to be together before they receive the benefits?
How long does the couple need to remain together to keep th enenefits?
How do you define "together"?
Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not arbitrary.

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

None of this is relevant to what I posted.
If you had bothered to read the conversation, you'd see that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mother/son?
Brother/sister?
Nephew/uncle?
How long does the couple need to be together before they receive the benefits?
How long does the couple need to remain together to keep th enenefits?
How do you define "together"?
Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not arbitrary.

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

Oh, he knows they aren't relevant and he isn't trying to be relevant, instead he proves that those who fight for gay marriage are more interested in destroying the religious ceremony of marriage than they are of obtaining equal rights for anyone.

You didn't answer any of my questions, all of which directly address your idea.

 

[TheBrain]

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

Oh, he knows they aren't relevant and he isn't trying to be relevant, instead he proves that those who fight for gay marriage are more interested in destroying the religious ceremony of marriage than they are of obtaining equal rights for anyone.

You didn't answer any of my questions, all of which directly address your idea.

There is no need to address since incest is already a crime in this country. Unless you're angling to remove that law?

 

[Gadawg73]

Mother/son?
Brother/sister?
Nephew/uncle?
How long does the couple need to be together before they receive the benefits?
How long does the couple need to remain together to keep th enenefits?
How do you define "together"?
Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not arbitrary.

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

None of this is relevant to what I posted.
If you had bothered to read the conversation, you'd see that.

You are correct and I stand corrected.
Facts are never relevant to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, he knows they aren't relevant and he isn't trying to be relevant, instead he proves that those who fight for gay marriage are more interested in destroying the religious ceremony of marriage than they are of obtaining equal rights for anyone.

You didn't answer any of my questions, all of which directly address your idea.

There is no need to address since incest is already a crime in this country. Unless you're angling to remove that law?

Who said anything about incest?
You said "a couple" and "together". I asked you to define the (several) terms. You have not done so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Incest is a CRIME. Same sex relationships are not a crime. DUH.
The subject is civil marriage.
Once again your feeble attempts at analogies are absurd and not relevant to the subject.

None of this is relevant to what I posted.
If you had bothered to read the conversation, you'd see that.

You are correct and I stand corrected.
Facts are never relevant to you.

Thank you for further illustrating your inability to address relevant points.

 

[TheBrain]

You didn't answer any of my questions, all of which directly address your idea.

There is no need to address since incest is already a crime in this country. Unless you're angling to remove that law?

Who said anything about incest?
You said "a couple" and "together". I asked you to define the (several) terms. You have not done so.

What is so hard to understand about a couple meaning any two people in a relationship that is NOT illegal?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no need to address since incest is already a crime in this country. Unless you're angling to remove that law?

Who said anything about incest?
You said "a couple" and "together". I asked you to define the (several) terms. You have not done so.

What is so hard to understand about a couple meaning any two people in a relationship that is NOT illegal?

OK... define "In a relationship".
I have a relationship with my brother, and it isnt illegal.

Define "together".
How long does the "couple" need to be "together" before they receive the benefits?
How long does the "couple" need to remain "together" to keep the benefits?

Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not subjective or arbitrary.

 

[TheBrain]

Who said anything about incest?
You said "a couple" and "together". I asked you to define the (several) terms. You have not done so.

What is so hard to understand about a couple meaning any two people in a relationship that is NOT illegal?

OK... define "In a relationship".
I have a relationship with my brother, and it isnt illegal.

Define "together".
How long does the "couple" need to be "together" before they receive the benefits?
How long does the "couple" need to remain "together" to keep the benefits?

Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not subjective or arbitrary.

You're stupid yo know that? I have answered ALL of these questions.

ANY consenting relationship where two people have signed legal documents granting each other benefits. It has NOTHING to do with sex, only YOU continue to make it so. If you want to share benefits and such with your brother, and he's amicable. What do I care? Now, if you're having sex with him, that is of course a matter for the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is so hard to understand about a couple meaning any two people in a relationship that is NOT illegal?

OK... define "In a relationship".
I have a relationship with my brother, and it isnt illegal.

Define "together".


Then explain how the answers to the above questions are not subjective or arbitrary.

You're stupid yo know that? I have answered ALL of these questions.

No, you haven't. Unless you define htese things there's no way for the state to stop fraud.