The Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda: A New Millenium of Free Speech

[Coloradomtnman]

Bullshit. Take a histroy lesson. You show me the words Christian or Judeo-Christian anywhere in the founding documents, and you have an argument. Otherwise it's just hot air driven by extreme, guilt-driven, emotion.

Oh, GIVE me a fucking break. "The words don't appear, therefore no one believed in any of that stuff and they were all atheists!" Shut the fuck up until you have something to say worth hearing.[/QUOTE]

This is why I won't argue with you anymore Cecilie. You're great at dishing out insults and criticisms of others' arguments but don't really contribute and can't back your own statements with supporting evidence. You're a reactionary and nothing more. Perhaps if you avoided the insults I'd be more open to what you have to say, but since that is highly unlikely... Ciao, sweetie.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays do not accept this and want to change it. The majority of this country does not agree with them and want the definition to remain as is.

Civil union, same rights/different name. Separate but equal. Works for me.

You're having an emotional reaction, Zoom. We tried separate but equal before, remember, blacks in the South? It didn't work.

Who says marriage is between a man and a woman? Who is granted that power? The majority? Then we can live in your little fantasy of conservative America (the most historically progressive nation on the face of the Earth) when you can get the majority of Americans to sign a petition to change the Constitution.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays do not accept this and want to change it. The majority of this country does not agree with them and want the definition to remain as is.

Civil union, same rights/different name. Separate but equal. Works for me.

You're having an emotional reaction, Zoom. We tried separate but equal before, remember, blacks in the South? It didn't work.

Who says marriage is between a man and a woman? Who is granted that power? The majority? Then we can live in your little fantasy of conservative America (the most historically progressive nation on the face of the Earth) when you can get the majority of Americans to sign a petition to change the Constitution.

Who says marriage isn't between and man and a woman? The majority of the country want it to remain between a man and a woman but the gay community won't accept that. What's wrong with a civil union that gives all the same rights. Leave marriage to a man and a woman and a civil union to the rest.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Who says marriage isn't between and man and a woman? The majority of the country want it to remain between a man and a woman but the gay community won't accept that. What's wrong with a civil union that gives all the same rights. Leave marriage to a man and a woman and a civil union to the rest.

I just noticed your avatar and that is totally hilarious!

Anyway, back to the trenches!

No one says it isn't between a man and a woman, some of us say that it should be: the life-long commitment made between to human beings to love and care for eachother for life. Is that so hard to swallow (no pun intended)?

Why are you offended by homosexuality so much? I would even think, with how drastic your reaction is, that you may even hate homosexuality.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Who says marriage isn't between and man and a woman? The majority of the country want it to remain between a man and a woman but the gay community won't accept that. What's wrong with a civil union that gives all the same rights. Leave marriage to a man and a woman and a civil union to the rest.

Again, it doesnt matter what the majority of Americans actually want or think. We are a nation subject to a little document called the Constitution. If the majority will is somehow in conflict with that document then the majority is shit out of luck.

Again, personally I think all relationship between two consenting adults should be called a civil union in the eyes of the government.

However, I am going to play devils advocate and advance an argument I dont agree with 100 percent however I believe that there is merit within it. By phrasing the relationship between gays in a different terms you are relegating the love of these people to a lower "class of love" than that of heterosexual couples. Gay people have the same capacity for love as heterosexual people do if you think any different than you're an idiot because gays are humans too. Also, marriage itself is a human institution which should recognize the love of two individuals regardless of sexuality; the concept of marriage pre-dates the judeo-christian construct of marriage which many people subscribe to and are using to define marriage in their terms, between a man and a women.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Who says marriage isn't between and man and a woman? The majority of the country want it to remain between a man and a woman but the gay community won't accept that. What's wrong with a civil union that gives all the same rights. Leave marriage to a man and a woman and a civil union to the rest.

I just noticed your avatar and that is totally hilarious!

Anyway, back to the trenches!

No one says it isn't between a man and a woman, some of us say that it should be: the life-long commitment made between to human beings to love and care for eachother for life. Is that so hard to swallow (no pun intended)?

Why are you offended by homosexuality so much? I would even think, with how drastic your reaction is, that you may even hate homosexuality.

CM, I don't know how you're getting by my reaction that I'm offended or hate homosexuality. From my earlier posts I've stated we should all just live our lives. What I object to is that gay community, a minority, wants to change what the majority in this country view marriage as: between a man and a woman. They want to change that definition to have marriage be: between man/woman; man/man; woman/woman. What is the problem with calling it a civil union for gays and marriage for men/women and have all rights the same? Seems to me the marriage between men/woman people are satisfied and the gays can legally be in a union and have the same rights.

Yes, my avatar is quite funny indeed!

 

[Al Gunn]

zoom, so you want equal rights for gays except using a word (marriage)? How fucking childish you are.

 

[Newby]

Who says marriage isn't between and man and a woman? The majority of the country want it to remain between a man and a woman but the gay community won't accept that. What's wrong with a civil union that gives all the same rights. Leave marriage to a man and a woman and a civil union to the rest.

I just noticed your avatar and that is totally hilarious!

Anyway, back to the trenches!

No one says it isn't between a man and a woman, some of us say that it should be: the life-long commitment made between to human beings to love and care for eachother for life. Is that so hard to swallow (no pun intended)?

Why are you offended by homosexuality so much? I would even think, with how drastic your reaction is, that you may even hate homosexuality.

That post right there proves that you do not just want 'equality under the law', because a civil union would give just that. Nothing more to say. You want to shove something on the majority whether they like it or not, accept it or not, you want to force respect for something that a lot of people will never respect. If all you wanted was 'equality under the law' then you'd back off of the marriage issue and work towards the concept of civil unions. So, why don't you cut the bullshit and be honest about what it is you really want?

 

[Newby]

Who says marriage isn't between and man and a woman? The majority of the country want it to remain between a man and a woman but the gay community won't accept that. What's wrong with a civil union that gives all the same rights. Leave marriage to a man and a woman and a civil union to the rest.

Again, it doesnt matter what the majority of Americans actually want or think. We are a nation subject to a little document called the Constitution. If the majority will is somehow in conflict with that document then the majority is shit out of luck.

Again, personally I think all relationship between two consenting adults should be called a civil union in the eyes of the government.

However, I am going to play devils advocate and advance an argument I dont agree with 100 percent however I believe that there is merit within it. By phrasing the relationship between gays in a different terms you are relegating the love of these people to a lower "class of love" than that of heterosexual couples. Gay people have the same capacity for love as heterosexual people do if you think any different than you're an idiot because gays are humans too. Also, marriage itself is a human institution which should recognize the love of two individuals regardless of sexuality; the concept of marriage pre-dates the judeo-christian construct of marriage which many people subscribe to and are using to define marriage in their terms, between a man and a women.

Again, you cannot legislate respect and acceptance, it's as simple as that. If you really wanted 'equality under the law' then you would quit with these ridiculous arguments and assertions about the differences between marriage and civil unions.

 

[Tinktink]

She wasn't fired for that comment, she was fired for not complying with her duties.

 

[KittenKoder]

Who says marriage isn't between and man and a woman? The majority of the country want it to remain between a man and a woman but the gay community won't accept that. What's wrong with a civil union that gives all the same rights. Leave marriage to a man and a woman and a civil union to the rest.

I just noticed your avatar and that is totally hilarious!

Anyway, back to the trenches!

No one says it isn't between a man and a woman, some of us say that it should be: the life-long commitment made between to human beings to love and care for eachother for life. Is that so hard to swallow (no pun intended)?

Why are you offended by homosexuality so much? I would even think, with how drastic your reaction is, that you may even hate homosexuality.

That post right there proves that you do not just want 'equality under the law', because a civil union would give just that. Nothing more to say. You want to shove something on the majority whether they like it or not, accept it or not, you want to force respect for something that a lot of people will never respect. If all you wanted was 'equality under the law' then you'd back off of the marriage issue and work towards the concept of civil unions. So, why don't you cut the bullshit and be honest about what it is you really want?

Bullshit, been tried, same people who say what you say still shot it down. Stop lying, you just enjoy telling people what they can and cannot say.

 

[Newby]

I just noticed your avatar and that is totally hilarious!

Anyway, back to the trenches!

No one says it isn't between a man and a woman, some of us say that it should be: the life-long commitment made between to human beings to love and care for eachother for life. Is that so hard to swallow (no pun intended)?

Why are you offended by homosexuality so much? I would even think, with how drastic your reaction is, that you may even hate homosexuality.

That post right there proves that you do not just want 'equality under the law', because a civil union would give just that. Nothing more to say. You want to shove something on the majority whether they like it or not, accept it or not, you want to force respect for something that a lot of people will never respect. If all you wanted was 'equality under the law' then you'd back off of the marriage issue and work towards the concept of civil unions. So, why don't you cut the bullshit and be honest about what it is you really want?

Bullshit, been tried, same people who say what you say still shot it down. Stop lying, you just enjoy telling people what they can and cannot say.

Do you want to try again in English? What's been tried? Civil unions? Where? And where exactly have I told anyone what they can and cannot say?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Again, you cannot legislate respect and acceptance, it's as simple as that. If you really wanted 'equality under the law' then you would quit with these ridiculous arguments and assertions about the differences between marriage and civil unions.

So its really just a semantics issue? Give them their rights but not the word marriage? I cannot buy that since the whole seperate but equal notion has been ruled unconstitutional. Changing every relationship between two consenting adults to a civil union and leaving marriage up to nongovernmental institutions... I can buy that.

 

[KittenKoder]

That post right there proves that you do not just want 'equality under the law', because a civil union would give just that. Nothing more to say. You want to shove something on the majority whether they like it or not, accept it or not, you want to force respect for something that a lot of people will never respect. If all you wanted was 'equality under the law' then you'd back off of the marriage issue and work towards the concept of civil unions. So, why don't you cut the bullshit and be honest about what it is you really want?

Bullshit, been tried, same people who say what you say still shot it down. Stop lying, you just enjoy telling people what they can and cannot say.

Do you want to try again in English? What's been tried? Civil unions? Where? And where exactly have I told anyone what they can and cannot say?

Seattle Washington less than a month ago. "Everything But Marriage" bill was shot down by the religious "right" ... they offered your types a compromise, one that was "okay" according to you, and they still went against it. Seriously, you are talking bullshit, have been, and will be.

 

[Newby]

Again, you cannot legislate respect and acceptance, it's as simple as that. If you really wanted 'equality under the law' then you would quit with these ridiculous arguments and assertions about the differences between marriage and civil unions.

So its really just a semantics issue? Give them their rights but not the word marriage? I cannot buy that since the whole seperate but equal notion has been ruled unconstitutional. Changing every relationship between two consenting adults to a civil union and leaving marriage up to nongovernmental institutions... I can buy that.

I've read many things about the acceptance of civil unions. The problem is that is not what the gay community wants. That's my point, it's not just about the legal issues, if it were this situation would have been solved a long time ago.

Outside of tax issues, a gay couple can accomplish everything a married couple can with regard to the law in any case.

I just read today where Obama is giving all domestic partners of all federal employees access to employment benefits. I wonder if that's also going to apply to opposite sex domestic partners, I'm guessing not.

 

[Newby]

Bullshit, been tried, same people who say what you say still shot it down. Stop lying, you just enjoy telling people what they can and cannot say.

Do you want to try again in English? What's been tried? Civil unions? Where? And where exactly have I told anyone what they can and cannot say?

Seattle Washington less than a month ago. "Everything But Marriage" bill was shot down by the religious "right" ... they offered your types a compromise, one that was "okay" according to you, and they still went against it. Seriously, you are talking bullshit, have been, and will be.

My type? You don't pay very good attention around here do you?

Could you provide a link to the legistlation that was 'shot down' please?

 

[KittenKoder]

Do you want to try again in English? What's been tried? Civil unions? Where? And where exactly have I told anyone what they can and cannot say?

Seattle Washington less than a month ago. "Everything But Marriage" bill was shot down by the religious "right" ... they offered your types a compromise, one that was "okay" according to you, and they still went against it. Seriously, you are talking bullshit, have been, and will be.

My type? You don't pay very good attention around here do you?

Could you provide a link to the legistlation that was 'shot down' please?

Oh, the bill passed, but only after being assaulted by the religious freaks who think it's their business.

 

[Newby]

Do you mean this one?

Legislature passes 'everything but marriage' bill | KOMO News - Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional

Legislature passes 'everything but marriage' bill

CloseStory Published: Apr 15, 2009 at 3:34 PM PDT

Story Updated: May 4, 2009 at 1:35 PM PDT
By RACHEL LA CORTE Associated Press Writer OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Same-sex domestic partners would have all the rights and benefits that Washington state offers married couples under a bill that passed the state Legislature Wednesday.

After nearly two hours of debate, the House approved the Senate-passed measure on a mostly party-line 62-35 vote. It now goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who said she will sign it into law.

"Our state is one that thrives on diversity," Gregoire said in a statement. "We have to respect and protect all of the families that make up our communities."

The bill expands on previous domestic partnership laws by adding such partnerships to all remaining areas of state law where currently only married couples are mentioned. The statutes range from labor and employment rights to pensions and other public employee benefits.

"This bill completes our work on domestic partnerships by making sure that we state clearly our intention to treat domestic partners in our state equally," said Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, the bill's sponsor and one of six gay lawmakers in the Legislature.

 

[KittenKoder]

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/43065572.html
Quote:
Opponents said the measure will have a detrimental effect on traditional marriage.

"We cannot elevate the legal standing of domestic partnerships to equate with marriage and not have profound impact on the status of marriage in this state," said Rep. Jay Rodne, R-Snoqualmie.

 

[Newby]

Seattle Washington less than a month ago. "Everything But Marriage" bill was shot down by the religious "right" ... they offered your types a compromise, one that was "okay" according to you, and they still went against it. Seriously, you are talking bullshit, have been, and will be.

My type? You don't pay very good attention around here do you?

Could you provide a link to the legistlation that was 'shot down' please?

Oh, the bill passed, but only after being assaulted by the religious freaks who think it's their business.

Ah, now the truth comes out. Nice try tho.