Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

Which is amazingly not any different from how it works with straight couples when one of them isn't the bio-parent. So?

But they COULD marry. Gays could not. Now they can. Problem solved.

Riiiiight. "You wouldn't do what we wanted and agree with us, so we forced you, and now we're happy, so fuck you, it's over."

You just go on believing that.

Wrong. States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

When I want to hear history rewritten, I'll go find a Holocaust denier. Those stupid bastards are at least funny.

Proof of your assertion? I can prove mine.

You want me to prove that Holocaust deniers are funny? I think humor's in the eye of the beholder.
 
But they COULD marry. Gays could not. Now they can. Problem solved.

Riiiiight. "You wouldn't do what we wanted and agree with us, so we forced you, and now we're happy, so fuck you, it's over."

You just go on believing that.

Wrong. States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

When I want to hear history rewritten, I'll go find a Holocaust denier. Those stupid bastards are at least funny.

Proof of your assertion? I can prove mine.

You want me to prove that Holocaust deniers are funny? I think humor's in the eye of the beholder.

Now you're going the obtuse route?

Where, in the following statement is there a rewriting of history:

States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)
 
Riiiiight. "You wouldn't do what we wanted and agree with us, so we forced you, and now we're happy, so fuck you, it's over."

You just go on believing that.

Wrong. States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

When I want to hear history rewritten, I'll go find a Holocaust denier. Those stupid bastards are at least funny.

Proof of your assertion? I can prove mine.

You want me to prove that Holocaust deniers are funny? I think humor's in the eye of the beholder.

Now you're going the obtuse route?

Where, in the following statement is there a rewriting of history:

States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

The whole statement.

Next question.
 
Your definition of bigotry is anyone who doesn't accept your ideals. You seem to think government can force tolerance and quell bigotry.

The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

220px-US_Marshals_with_Young_Ruby_Bridges_on_School_Steps.jpg




And if the courts rule in favor of homosexuals, you'll soon hear demands that churches marry gays. You know what? That's an intrusion on my faith, and thusly on my beliefs. You will be asking us to sacrifice our beliefs for a "more stable society."

If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.
Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
 
Sorry but please cite any law that disadvantages gays. There are none.

Protections Denied to Same-sex Couples and Their Kids

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Debts:
Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.

Divorce:
Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.

Family leave:
Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.

Health:
Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing:
Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.

Immigration:
U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance:
Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

Insurance:
Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.

Portability:
Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.

Parenting:
Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.

Privilege:
Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.

Property:
Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.

Retirement:
In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Taxes:
Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

And if the deceased partner is the biological parent to their children, they will lose custody and possibly access to their children. Access will depend on whether the family member given custody chooses to allow access.

Which is amazingly not any different from how it works with straight couples when one of them isn't the bio-parent. So?

But they COULD marry. Gays could not. Now they can. Problem solved.

Riiiiight. "You wouldn't do what we wanted and agree with us, so we forced you, and now we're happy, so fuck you, it's over."

You just go on believing that.

Yep- just like the Segregationists tell us- "Its not over!"
 
Wrong. States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

When I want to hear history rewritten, I'll go find a Holocaust denier. Those stupid bastards are at least funny.

Proof of your assertion? I can prove mine.

You want me to prove that Holocaust deniers are funny? I think humor's in the eye of the beholder.

Now you're going the obtuse route?

Where, in the following statement is there a rewriting of history:

States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

The whole statement.

Next question.

Fact: State Laws prohibiting SSM were found unconstitutional.

Fact: Gays won through the courts like interracial couples.

Fact: 59%, say they back the ruling which made same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states. Majorities back Court rulings on marriage ACA - CNNPolitics.com

Fact: 20% of the country supported interracial marriage in 1967

bb8ic2qate-wa_cbgc2ifg.png


Now, please, dazzle me with "nuhuh" again.
 
Last edited:
The government can "force" tolerance. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

220px-US_Marshals_with_Young_Ruby_Bridges_on_School_Steps.jpg




If so, where were all the demands that churches be forced to marry interracial couples?

Since that never happened, why do you think it would happen for gay marriage?

It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.
Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Indeed, and liberals are about to start reaping the harvest of their wickedness and it remains to see how many of you traitor's remain in the American gene pool by the end of this century. You see, the 21st century is going to be a century of extinctions. Who and what survives this era might surprise your average America hating lib.
 
It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.
Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Indeed, and liberals are about to start reaping the harvest of their wickedness and it remains to see how many of you traitor's remain in the American gene pool by the end of this century. You see, the 21st century is going to be a century of extinctions. Who and what survives this era might surprise your average America hating lib.

Oh I am fairly certain hardly any of us posting here will be alive by the end of the century- maybe a few of you who are 15 years old.

Meanwhile- America- and Americans will survive- despite American hating cons like yourself.
 
Riiiiight. "You wouldn't do what we wanted and agree with us, so we forced you, and now we're happy, so fuck you, it's over."

You just go on believing that.

Wrong. States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

When I want to hear history rewritten, I'll go find a Holocaust denier. Those stupid bastards are at least funny.

Proof of your assertion? I can prove mine.

You want me to prove that Holocaust deniers are funny? I think humor's in the eye of the beholder.

Now you're going the obtuse route?

Where, in the following statement is there a rewriting of history:

States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)
14318625.gif
 
It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.
Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Indeed, and liberals are about to start reaping the harvest of their wickedness and it remains to see how many of you traitor's remain in the American gene pool by the end of this century. You see, the 21st century is going to be a century of extinctions. Who and what survives this era might surprise your average America hating lib.



You need to calm the fuck down, clown.
 
It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.
Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Indeed, and liberals are about to start reaping the harvest of their wickedness and it remains to see how many of you traitor's remain in the American gene pool by the end of this century. You see, the 21st century is going to be a century of extinctions. Who and what survives this era might surprise your average America hating lib.
Riiiiight. "You wouldn't do what we wanted and agree with us, so we forced you, and now we're happy, so fuck you, it's over."

You just go on believing that.

Wrong. States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

When I want to hear history rewritten, I'll go find a Holocaust denier. Those stupid bastards are at least funny.

Proof of your assertion? I can prove mine.

You want me to prove that Holocaust deniers are funny? I think humor's in the eye of the beholder.

Now you're going the obtuse route?

Where, in the following statement is there a rewriting of history:

States passed unconstitutional laws. Gays redressed their grievances and won. You have facts to the contrary, provide them. Last poll I saw showed that 59% of Americans agree with the SCOTUS ruling. (Unlike when they ruled on Loving)

These idiots think changing the future is rewriting history. They have acquired the chronic version of the disease of bewilderment.
 
Ahh!! A prophet!
neil-tyson-giggling.gif


It's easy. Ask the court to place a definition on what marriage is. Thusly if they do, you can bet there will be people demanding that churches marry gays or whoever else. Thus, this attack on pro traditional marriage churches will reach a new level. There would be far reaching implications of they do just that in a week or so.

Because now marriage would be a free for all, and no longer a cherished rite of matrimony, it would be a union borne of coercion not of love. It would bring about the destruction of the church as most Christians know it.

It is also quite disturbing that you think the government can force people to tolerate anything. As history points out time and again, that's never a good thing.

And you make the mistake of comparing this to the plights of blacks during the civil rights movement. Gays today have far more entitlements and privileges than blacks ever did then.

This isn't a movement it's a war of belief. Nobody will stand idly by while the government forces them to do something that violates a core teaching of their faith.
Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Indeed, and liberals are about to start reaping the harvest of their wickedness and it remains to see how many of you traitor's remain in the American gene pool by the end of this century. You see, the 21st century is going to be a century of extinctions. Who and what survives this era might surprise your average America hating lib.
 
Ahh!! A prophet!
neil-tyson-giggling.gif


Churches are private institutions thus protected by the constitution.

Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Indeed, and liberals are about to start reaping the harvest of their wickedness and it remains to see how many of you traitor's remain in the American gene pool by the end of this century. You see, the 21st century is going to be a century of extinctions. Who and what survives this era might surprise your average America hating lib.
I know exactly what's been happening for the last 20 years. Liberalism has been destroying America and gays have not wanted civil unions, which would apply to ALL partners, because their true motive is to force society to accept their deviant behavior as normal and a lot of people won't ever do that — ever.

So here we are, an America that's the most divided it has been since the Civil War. America is a mess because we have followed the wrong path.
 
According to you!
Enough said.
neil-tyson-giggling.gif



Ahh!! A prophet!
neil-tyson-giggling.gif


Their protection comes from their being primarily religious in function.
Please do not assume that just because a few gay provocateurs went after some Christian businesses recently, it means that the majority of gays would demand churches marry them. That is the argument you will hear from those sympathetic to gay rights. I hope they are right, but I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because if rights were all that the homosexual community wanted, then why wouldn't they settle for a civil union? .

I keep hearing this- and I wonder- are you really this ignorant about what has been happening the last 20 years?

Civil Unions- where they existed- never gave all the rights of marriage- EVER.

And States like Georgia- who wrote a law specifically to ban 'gay marriage'- also specifically banned any recognition of 'Civil Unions'.

No one has a 'right' to a Civil Union- so there was no going to court to fight for 'Civil Union' second class status. But we do have a right to get married- and that is what the Supreme Court recognized.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Indeed, and liberals are about to start reaping the harvest of their wickedness and it remains to see how many of you traitor's remain in the American gene pool by the end of this century. You see, the 21st century is going to be a century of extinctions. Who and what survives this era might surprise your average America hating lib.
I know exactly what's been happening for the last 20 years. Liberalism has been destroying America and gays have not wanted civil unions, which would apply to ALL partners, because their true motive is to force society to accept their deviant behavior as normal and a lot of people won't ever do that — ever.

So here we are, an America that's the most divided it has been since the Civil War. America is a mess because we have followed the wrong path.
 
Laugh all you like. When what I said comes to pass you will probably shrug it off as well. No matter. If it is meant to happen, it will happen, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Enjoy.
 
gary-patterson-sweat-wipe.gif

Whew! Glad we got that out of the way.




Laugh all you like. When what I said comes to pass you will probably shrug it off as well. No matter. If it is meant to happen, it will happen, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Enjoy.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top