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

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage was a civil institution before the Christian church got involved in it.

And out of curiosity, what math equation are you using to determine that gays marrying reduces the population.

Entertain us with that one.

Got any sources from that claim!

You want a "source" for the claim that marriage predates Christianity?

How about the Old Testament?

But I wanted a source for the claim

Marriage was supposed to be a spiritual thing by God.
Nowadays marriage is a legal thing. I say let gays marry. It helps reduce population anyway

Marriage was a civil institution before the Christian church got involved in it.

And out of curiosity, what math equation are you using to determine that gays marrying reduces the population.

Entertain us with that one.

just quote the fucking passage from the source... I ain't reading through all the bullshit for the link you just posted.

Ah I see, the guy who asks for links and 'sources' fully intending to reject any and all of them for some cockeyed reason. An internet message board cliché.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

...and here is where you say you aren't going to take author's word for it. Too bad, email the Pope.

So what's this quote prove again? That marriage was a civil institution, Lanier a catholic one predating Christianity? Uhh okay I thought you were on to something. I really thought you were making the case the marriage began as a legal thing and not a 'religious' think. So you took me for a ride to no where. Fuck your life bitch

It did begin as a legal thing.

 

[Liffy]

Got any sources from that claim!

You want a "source" for the claim that marriage predates Christianity?

How about the Old Testament?

But I wanted a source for the claim

Marriage was supposed to be a spiritual thing by God.
Nowadays marriage is a legal thing. I say let gays marry. It helps reduce population anyway

Marriage was a civil institution before the Christian church got involved in it.

And out of curiosity, what math equation are you using to determine that gays marrying reduces the population.

Entertain us with that one.

just quote the fucking passage from the source... I ain't reading through all the bullshit for the link you just posted.

Ah I see, the guy who asks for links and 'sources' fully intending to reject any and all of them for some cockeyed reason. An internet message board cliché.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

...and here is where you say you aren't going to take author's word for it. Too bad, email the Pope.

So what's this quote prove again? That marriage was a civil institution, Lanier a catholic one predating Christianity? Uhh okay I thought you were on to something. I really thought you were making the case the marriage began as a legal thing and not a 'religious' think. So you took me for a ride to no where. Fuck your life bitch

It did begin as a legal thing.

Yes and I'm looking for the source that that's true. Get the fucking picture? Now you got homework to do.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you realize that you're using the same arguments that were used to support miscegenation laws, almost word for word?

No.

Miscegenation laws, and my views thereof, are irrelevant to this discussion. A white man and a black woman marrying has no impact on religious liberty, and I agree with that reasoning completely, moreover, churches willingly marry interracial couples now, with no incident; because there is not one verse in the Bible which dictates what race you must be to marry. What the Bible does do, however, is state clearly the definition of marriage. What you fail to see as a proponent of a positive ruling, is that this issue hits at the very core of our beliefs. Big difference. People can warp the teachings of the Bible to suit their beliefs and wrongly impose them on others, and there are people like me, who use the Bible as is, with its clear and concrete definitions of marriage to dictate what my beliefs are, and not necessarily impose them on anyone.

You are using faulty analogies by comparing miscegenation laws and gay marriage, and comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. The nature of the two are at their essence different in every way. Blacks had NO rights, gays have rights (not all of them according to you), but still had more rights under law than any black person pre-1960 did. Trust me, comparing the two is a mistake.

TemplarKormac, the segregationists and anti miscegenationists believed it DID impact their religious liberty. They are as sure the bible prohibits desegregation and interracial marriage as you are that the bible forbids gays from marrying. They have bible versus too!

Bob Jones SR - Is Segregation Scriptural

Why should anti gay bigots get special treatment we didn't give racist bigots?

 

[LittleNipper]

Do you realize that you're using the same arguments that were used to support miscegenation laws, almost word for word?

No.

Miscegenation laws, and my views thereof, are irrelevant to this discussion. A white man and a black woman marrying has no impact on religious liberty, and I agree with that reasoning completely, moreover, churches willingly marry interracial couples now, with no incident; because there is not one verse in the Bible which dictates what race you must be to marry. What the Bible does do, however, is state clearly the definition of marriage. What you fail to see as a proponent of a positive ruling, is that this issue hits at the very core of our beliefs. Big difference. People can warp the teachings of the Bible to suit their beliefs and wrongly impose them on others, and there are people like me, who use the Bible as is, with its clear and concrete definitions of marriage to dictate what my beliefs are, and not necessarily impose them on anyone.

You are using faulty analogies by comparing miscegenation laws and gay marriage, and comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement. The nature of the two are at their essence different in every way. Blacks had NO rights, gays have rights (not all of them according to you), but still had more rights under law than any black person pre-1960 did. Trust me, comparing the two is a mistake.

TemplarKormac, the segregationists and anti miscegenationists believed it DID impact their religious liberty. They are as sure the bible prohibits desegregation and interracial marriage as you are that the bible forbids gays from marrying. They have bible versus too!

Bob Jones SR - Is Segregation Scriptural

Why should anti gay bigots get special treatment we didn't give racist bigots?

Nowhere Bible does it say not to marry someone of a different hue. The Bible clearly state that one I not to marry outside his or her faith. This is the indication of unequally yoked. Ethiopian is mentioned more than once in the Bible. Look it up. No where in the Bible is a man given in marriage to a man. However, there is punishment connected where men tried to KNOW other men in the carnal sense.

PS Mr. Jones is only human. And humans do make mistakes. The Bible remains the same.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are welcome to take that debate up with the millions of Christians in this country that disagree with you.

And I can just as easily stand with the billions of others in the world that don't.

Sure, like ISIS, al Qaeda, Muslim countries, Putin, and Stalin.

 

[Bfgrn]

Adam Phillips
Pastor of Christ Church: Portland, an open, active & inclusive faith community for God's glory & neighbor's good.

I am sorry for the legions of people who have said, done and prayed unimaginable, exclusionary and degrading things in the name of God. I am. Were these hateful (and not so hateful -- some good folks are just stuck in outdated, callous theologies) people my responsibility? I believe, in some ways, yes. As a pastor, I am incredibly concerned with the flourishing and full potential of everyone. And when someone speaks or does things to denigrate others in the name of God, we must try harder. No matter one's professed faith or disinterest in faith. Because, as a Christian pastor, I believe the good news of Jesus is that everyone is fearfully and wonderfully made, and that we are invited to join in a life of love for the common good.

Heady ideas, I know. But I think that in these days of division, derision and despair, people are looking for better ways and better possibilities.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are welcome to take that debate up with the millions of Christians in this country that disagree with you.

And I can just as easily stand with the billions of others in the world that don't.

Sure, like ISIS, al Qaeda, Muslim countries, Putin, and Stalin.

Come now, comparing me to dictators and terrorists? Well, that's on par for you, bellboy. And, I can't help but notice how you always want to get in the last word. Well, if you keep engaging me, I'll engage right back, we can keep this debate going for another month, and I can keep kicking your butt from page one to page last in this thread; BUT I have no interest in continuing this discussion. Now, prepare for an essay.

So, those terrorists and dictators you compared me to: They value(d) gay rights less than you think I do. Yet you have no spine to recognize that, you heft your faux outrage upon me instead, like the indignant, unnatural noise that you are. Gays here fight for marriage, gays there fight for their freedom, their lives. They are treated as chattel in Muslim countries, killed, persecuted, imprisoned, sold off, abused, etc.

Here? They don't have to endure that kind of suffering. Hey, it just dawned on me that we Christians must be slacking off, we haven't tied up and thrown a few gay people off tall buildings in a long time. We'll have to discuss a remedy for that at our next strategy session during the Sunday service and pick up the pace. In all seriousness, you don't realize how messed up your priorities are. How dare you equate me to such evil, simply because I don't agree with you.

I don't care for gay people, I don't care for the lecherous filth they engage in. But I have enough wherewithal to know they have rights. I've set aside my distaste for them to know they have a human side too. I had bisexual friends in high school believe it or not, I've broken bread at the dinner table with them, I've worked with them, gamed with them, and one of my late uncles was gay.

Oh yeah, I don't think I've ever told anyone about my uncle. My gay uncle (his name was Jared) was murdered in 2004. He was the first and only member of my family to ever be murdered, and I'm pretty sure that contrary to what my Dad says happened--that he had a drug deal go bad on him-- I knew it was a hate crime. That memory is burned into my skull, and it hurt all the same.

I was confronted with the issue of homosexuality in my teenage years; and I've known how to handle it/them for a long time. When one of your family members is gay, you have to set aside the negative feeling you have in your gut, all of the voices that say what they are is wrong, the stereotypes; and love them anyway. Because that is the Christian thing to do.

I've gotten to know gay people, and unlike you, they aren't interested in changing my opinion of them, they aren't interested in changing what I believe. They respect what I believe, and trust me, the respect is mutual. They don't demand that I ascribe to their version of reality or belief. They are interested in just getting along with others, peacefully, and they don't necessarily have to fight for their rights in the same way you do. We never get into childish debates like these.

Don't you dare lecture me about what gays need and don't have. I know exactly what they need and don't have. What they need is to be treated equally, to be respected. But when people like you take up your self righteous indignance and fly the banner of LGBT rights, you deny them the respect they deserve. You pervert that cause. You drive a wedge in between you and those you are trying to reach with your message by demeaning the religious beliefs of others. You do that cause, and them, a great disservice. You make more enemies than allies.

But seriously man? Comparing me to ISIS? How low will you go? And, just a parting question: How Christian are you when you slander another brother in Christ, hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, excuse me. I have a day to prepare for. You will forgive me if I don't further indulge your braying and goatish bleating with any further replies. You are a member of my ignore list, starting now. For all of that whinnying you did:

Have a nice day.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

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.

 

[Seawytch]

Why should anti gay bigots get special treatment we didn't give racist bigots?

Nowhere Bible does it say not to marry someone of a different hue.

The segregationists and anti miscegenationist were certain you're wrong.

Daniel 2:43
"As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay."

They were just as convinced the bible prohibited interracial marriage and the mixing of the races as you are that the bible prohibits baking a fucking cake. You're both wrong, but the bible is still the same bible and you both use it in ways Jesus would not approve of.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

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?

 

[Bfgrn]

You are welcome to take that debate up with the millions of Christians in this country that disagree with you.

And I can just as easily stand with the billions of others in the world that don't.

Sure, like ISIS, al Qaeda, Muslim countries, Putin, and Stalin.

Come now, comparing me to dictators and terrorists? Well, that's on par for you, bellboy. And, I can't help but notice how you always want to get in the last word. Well, if you keep engaging me, I'll engage right back, we can keep this debate going for another month, and I can keep kicking your butt from page one to page last in this thread; BUT I have no interest in continuing this discussion. Now, prepare for an essay.

So, those terrorists and dictators you compared me to: They value(d) gay rights less than you think I do. Yet you have no spine to recognize that, you heft your faux outrage upon me instead, like the indignant, unnatural noise that you are. Gays here fight for marriage, gays there fight for their freedom, their lives. They are treated as chattel in Muslim countries, killed, persecuted, imprisoned, sold off, abused, etc.

Here? They don't have to endure that kind of suffering. Hey, it just dawned on me that we Christians must be slacking off, we haven't tied up and thrown a few gay people off tall buildings in a long time. We'll have to discuss a remedy for that at our next strategy session during the Sunday service and pick up the pace. In all seriousness, you don't realize how messed up your priorities are. How dare you equate me to such evil, simply because I don't agree with you.

I don't care for gay people, I don't care for the lecherous filth they engage in. But I have enough wherewithal to know they have rights. I've set aside my distaste for them to know they have a human side too. I had bisexual friends in high school believe it or not, I've broken bread at the dinner table with them, I've worked with them, gamed with them, and one of my late uncles was gay.

Oh yeah, I don't think I've ever told anyone about my uncle. My gay uncle (his name was Jared) was murdered in 2004. He was the first and only member of my family to ever be murdered, and I'm pretty sure that contrary to what my Dad says happened--that he had a drug deal go bad on him-- I knew it was a hate crime. That memory is burned into my skull, and it hurt all the same.

I was confronted with the issue of homosexuality in my teenage years; and I've known how to handle it/them for a long time. When one of your family members is gay, you have to set aside the negative feeling you have in your gut, all of the voices that say what they are is wrong, the stereotypes; and love them anyway. Because that is the Christian thing to do.

I've gotten to know gay people, and unlike you, they aren't interested in changing my opinion of them, they aren't interested in changing what I believe. They respect what I believe, and trust me, the respect is mutual. They don't demand that I ascribe to their version of reality or belief. They are interested in just getting along with others, peacefully, and they don't necessarily have to fight for their rights in the same way you do. We never get into childish debates like these.

Don't you dare lecture me about what gays need and don't have. I know exactly what they need and don't have. What they need is to be treated equally, to be respected. But when people like you take up your self righteous indignance and fly the banner of LGBT rights, you deny them the respect they deserve. You pervert that cause. You drive a wedge in between you and those you are trying to reach with your message by demeaning the religious beliefs of others. You do that cause, and them, a great disservice. You make more enemies than allies.

But seriously man? Comparing me to ISIS? How low will you go? And, just a parting question: How Christian are you when you slander another brother in Christ, hmm?

Oh, because you are ISIS light we should let you off the hook?

When "Disagreement" Becomes Murder

Because words are where violence begins. And in America, violence against gays, lesbians, and transgendered people most often begins in hateful and intolerant words spoken in right-wing churches like Rick Warren's Saddleback. Warren has compared gay and lesbian people to pedophiles and perpetrators of incest (you can watch the CNN video of his remarks here). His words may often be cloaked more politely, but in his intolerance, Warren is really no different than James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or other peddlers of anti-gay hate.

And the seeds of that hate are growing faster than ever.

This year, the FBI reported a 1% decline in hate crimes in the United States. At the same time, they revealed a 6% increase in hate crimes against gay, lesbian, and transgendered people. In the past few months alone, shocking murders have been reported across the country from Oxnard, CA to Brooklyn, NY, and most recently, San Francisco.

-----------------------------------------------------
Not only are you ISIS light, you are truly Christian light...

This past week has given us a stark example of TRUE Christians. The families of the murder victims in Charleston had the most important people in their lives brutally taken from them by a hate crime. And although their hearts were broken, they had no room for hate....NONE. Their love of Christ so fills their hearts with love, there is no room for any hate.

Let's compare that to your black heart abomination of "Christianity".

You and your ilk are not being asked to sacrifice anything. Absolutely nothing would be taken away from you, no one would force you to change or alter your lifestyle in any way, shape or form...yet your heart is filled with hate.. You can claim it is not hate, but words like " lecherous filth" IS HATE.

 

[Bfgrn]

Now, excuse me. I have a day to prepare for. You will forgive me if I don't further indulge your braying and goatish bleating with any further replies. You are a member of my ignore list, starting now. For all of that whinnying you did:

Have a nice day.

That is fine. But here is how it works. You can't claim victory, and run away. I know you are over-matched here, and you just PROVED it...LOL

 

[Adrian]

I am tolerant, but that doesn't mean I will ever accept bigotry. Why don't you take the Apostle Paul's advice and stop try to legislate stumbling blocks and obstacles in the way of fellow Americans?

Our government recognizing same sex marriage as equal under the law requires no sacrifice or change of lifestyle on your part...NONE. As a matter of fact, it is a positive and helps create a more stable society.

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.

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? Because it was never just about rights with homosexuals, it was about acceptance. They want to force the rest of us to be A-ok with their homosexuality. They want society to say what they engage in is normal behavior, even though it is not by any measure and deep down they know it. It is this ulterior motive that will keep them militant and angry and eventually targeting churches to force them to accept, at least on the surface, homosexuality as a norm.
That, my friends, is the truth of the matter.

Now, having said that, I do believe gays are human beings who, for the most part, do not interfere with anyone else's life. As such they deserve the same rights afforded normal people. I would hope all conservatives would agree with that. If not, you'd best read your Constitution again I think.

Homosexuality should be treated like any otthr disorder, with compassion and understanding. Gays should be treated as the people that they are, not for personal things that affect no one but themselves. Is there really anyone, Christian or not, who would have a problem with that? I would hope not, especially if you're a Christian.

However, having said that, guard yourselves Christians, because there are those in the homosexual community who will not be satisfied until they are not only tolerated, but accepted. Those people aren't done yet and they are not good people by any measure.

What pisses me off is that no one ever suggested the simpler and more Constitutional solution which would have satisfied the stated needs of both sides of the issue. I mean I know why they ignored this option; it was because each side had and has an ulterior motive in it all. It's just sad that neither side has the intellectual honesty to state their true motives.

You humans are an odd species.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

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.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

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.

Gratz!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Only you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans have failed to learn from history.

And the lesson you've failed to learn is that Americans disadvantaged by force of law, subject to discrimination solely because of who they are, will fight to realize their comprehensive civil rights and ultimately prevail, regardless the efforts of conservatives to deny citizens their civil rights.

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.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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)

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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.