People who oppose Gay Rights, why do you oppose them?

[WorldWatcher]

the truth of the matter is that the left has won through the courts not through popular opinion and polls don't count we are not governed by polls.

So what the left has won is that marriage is no longer a bond between a man and a woman protecting the woman, it is now nothing more then a legal document.

Same sex Civil Marriage has been passed in the legislatures and has passed at the ballot in the last 4 General Election votes it was on.

Your statement that it was not achieved through popular opinion (at least in those jurisdictions) is false.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

My wording has been the same from the beginning, Chickenfish and yes, my wording is that the SCOTUS is going to make my legal marriage legal and recognized in all 50 states. No nullification loopholes. You weren't careful and now you're weasleling. It's okay Chickenfish, I win either way.

No, you were and are a loser regardless of your failed attempt to lure me into a word game bet.

If you want to bet on how SC will rule, thats one thing, if you want to bet on whether gay marriage will be sanctioned by all 50 states, that is a completely different bet.

On the first I will not bet because SCOTUS has made many strange rulings recently. On the second I will bet, but you won't.

So lets move on to something important, like the fact that our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt and getting deeper every hour.

There was never a "word game", Chickenfish. I was clear from the start. I said that when the SCOTUS rules, my civil marriage will be legally recognized in all 50 states. Alabama illegally ignoring Federal law in a Wallace way does not create a loophole for you.

geez, grow up. You tried to play games and you got caught. I am simply smarter than you.

the bet was never about how the SC would rule, it was whether your Ca marriage would be considered legal in all 50 states. That is a state by state decision, not the feds.

You're the one throwing a temper tantrum because I didn't let you cheat. The words I used never changed, Chickenfish. Run along, your avatar is safe, poor dear.

Bullshit, you tried to set up a gotcha word game bet and I saw through it. Now you run along, you arrogant bitch.

No I did not. I said that my marriage would be legal and valid in all 50 states. You thought you'd get a George Wallace loophole. Stop whining, Chickenfish...you backed out because you couldn't cheat. Move on.

 

[Freewill]

the truth of the matter is that the left has won through the courts not through popular opinion and polls don't count we are not governed by polls.

So what the left has won is that marriage is no longer a bond between a man and a woman protecting the woman, it is now nothing more then a legal document.

Same sex Civil Marriage has been passed in the legislatures and has passed at the ballot in the last 4 General Election votes it was on.

Your statement that it was not achieved through popular opinion (at least in those jurisdictions) is false.


>>>>

OK, I over spoke, yes in some places it has. But in a state like PA there was no vote to legalize such marriages matter of fact just the opposite. But if you look at web sited about civil unions you will see that they say just the opposite.

 

[Silhouette]

No I did not. I said that my marriage would be legal and valid in all 50 states. You thought you'd get a George Wallace loophole. Stop whining, Chickenfish...you backed out because you couldn't cheat. Move on.

There are two reasons why "gay marriage" in general & your "marriage" would not be mandatory/ legal and valid in all 50 states.

1. 13 year olds married in New Hampshire do not mandate all 50 states allowing 13 year olds to marry.

2. In the state you said you were married in, California, gay marriage has not ever been nor is it now legal. Your state constitution defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. And BTW, why didn't your state have an intitative on the ballot Fall 2014 to remove that from your Constitution? (Hint: because you knew it would fail....a third time...a smoke and mirrors glitch even your spin machine couldn't rewrite in time to fool SCOTUS)

Bonus question: which one of you two lesbians does your fatherless son call "Dad"?

Another question: did you have a mother around when you were a little girl? Why would you want to force another little girl to not have anyone to call "Mom" in her "married home"?

 

[g5000]

There are two reasons why "gay marriage" in general & your "marriage" would not be mandatory/ legal and valid in all 50 states.

1. 13 year olds married in New Hampshire do not mandate all 50 states allowing 13 year olds to marry.

Another idiotic attempt to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. Nice.

You're underlying point is wrong anyway.

A state that has a requirement that you have to be 18 to get married still recognizes a marriage from a state that says you only have to be 16.

2. In the state you said you were married in, California, gay marriage has not ever been nor is it now legal.

Wrong again! Gay marriage is legal in California.

 

[daws101]

my apologies to the op conservative are just as confused about human rights as they are about basic science.

. . . says the representative of the people who think "personhood" is a scientific designation.

only because it is...
any other designation is subjective and changeable...slavery comes to mind and women's rights

 

[daws101]

No I did not. I said that my marriage would be legal and valid in all 50 states. You thought you'd get a George Wallace loophole. Stop whining, Chickenfish...you backed out because you couldn't cheat. Move on.

There are two reasons why "gay marriage" in general & your "marriage" would not be mandatory/ legal and valid in all 50 states.

1. 13 year olds married in New Hampshire do not mandate all 50 states allowing 13 year olds to marry.

2. In the state you said you were married in, California, gay marriage has not ever been nor is it now legal. Your state constitution defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. And BTW, why didn't your state have an intitative on the ballot Fall 2014 to remove that from your Constitution? (Hint: because you knew it would fail....a third time...a smoke and mirrors glitch even your spin machine couldn't rewrite in time to fool SCOTUS)

Bonus question: which one of you two lesbians does your fatherless son call "Dad"?

Another question: did you have a mother around when you were a little girl? Why would you want to force another little girl to not have anyone to call "Mom" in her "married home"?

 

[Silhouette]

Ever notice how when someone for traditional values makes a point, the LGBT lobby here will post diversionary material or begin bullying people?

Anything to keep from answering the points made?

I've noticed....noticed aplenty...

 

[daws101]

Ever notice how when someone for traditional values makes a point, the LGBT lobby here will post diversionary material or begin bullying people?

Anything to keep from answering the points made?

I've noticed....noticed aplenty...

ah silly wet your "values" are not traditional unless bigotry, homophobia and idiocy are traditional...

 

[Silhouette]

There it is again ^^^

 

[daws101]

There it is again ^^^

I'm glad you agree ....

 

[G.T.]

Because social conservative lack depth, pragmatism, true good character, leadership and kind heartedness and have no shortage of cynacism.

 

[Jarhead]

true conservatives should not give a shit about how others choose to lead their lives.

I understand and respect the religious right who believe it affects their belief system....they have that right to feel that way.

But for the rest of the right to be against gay marriage because they disagree with the lifestyle?

Hypocritical.

 

[Seawytch]

I understand and respect the religious right who believe it affects their belief system....they have that right to feel that way.

Yes, they have an absolute right to feel and believe anything they want. They don't get to legislate those beliefs or discriminate based upon them.

 

[Jarhead]

I understand and respect the religious right who believe it affects their belief system....they have that right to feel that way.

Yes, they have an absolute right to feel and believe anything they want. They don't get to legislate those beliefs or discriminate based upon them.

Yes they do. They are Americans. If those that represent them wish to legislate on their behalf, so be it. If they win the majority, the people have spoken.

However, the religious right has a small minority of representation and the majority will never vote with them on gay rights.

 

[Seawytch]

I understand and respect the religious right who believe it affects their belief system....they have that right to feel that way.

Yes, they have an absolute right to feel and believe anything they want. They don't get to legislate those beliefs or discriminate based upon them.

Yes they do. They are Americans. If those that represent them wish to legislate on their behalf, so be it. If they win the majority, the people have spoken.

However, the religious right has a small minority of representation and the majority will never vote with them on gay rights.

Not when that legislation is unconstitutional as the anti gay laws are.

 

[Jarhead]

I understand and respect the religious right who believe it affects their belief system....they have that right to feel that way.

Yes, they have an absolute right to feel and believe anything they want. They don't get to legislate those beliefs or discriminate based upon them.

Yes they do. They are Americans. If those that represent them wish to legislate on their behalf, so be it. If they win the majority, the people have spoken.

However, the religious right has a small minority of representation and the majority will never vote with them on gay rights.

Not when that legislation is unconstitutional as the anti gay laws are.

the SCOTUS does not "find" based on legislation. They "find" based on law. Legislation being deemed unconstitutional is an opinion expressed during legislative debate, but not used to force legislation off the table if the speaker and senate leader allow it for a vote.

 

[Seawytch]

I understand and respect the religious right who believe it affects their belief system....they have that right to feel that way.

Yes, they have an absolute right to feel and believe anything they want. They don't get to legislate those beliefs or discriminate based upon them.

Yes they do. They are Americans. If those that represent them wish to legislate on their behalf, so be it. If they win the majority, the people have spoken.

However, the religious right has a small minority of representation and the majority will never vote with them on gay rights.

Not when that legislation is unconstitutional as the anti gay laws are.

the SCOTUS does not "find" based on legislation. They "find" based on law. Legislation being deemed unconstitutional is an opinion expressed during legislative debate, but not used to force legislation off the table if the speaker and senate leader allow it for a vote.

Um...these laws are being found unconstitutional. You can't legislate your beliefs when the laws created violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

[|electric|foxy|]