What rights are the gays missing?

[PubliusInfinitum]

did i say that churches must perform ceremonies....no ...i said you want to pass a law tell the church that that a word they have historically defined as a man and a woman is now two people.....thus they will become guilty of discrimination under federal law....and then you will have an interesting moment....

Again, no proposed law would have done any such thing. In fact, the laws have specifically required only the states to recognize the unions, leaving religious ceremonies out of the bills forwarded thus far.

Nice fearmongering, though.

so let me get this right.....when mariage is defined as the union of two people....under no circumstances will it be a violation of federal law for st mary's cathedral to deny two gay catholics the right to get married in the church they grew up attending.....

and as i keep saying if you all had simply asked for civil union at the federal level you would have it by now....

They don't need to ask the Federal Government to do ANYTHING...

They can file articles of incorporation TODAY and be recognized as one legal entity, with enormous financial benefits; income sharing, joint pensions, single tax filing... and so on...

Every single LEGAL BENEFIT of "marriage" is available through incorporation... and where they feel that such is insufficient, THEY CAN LOBBY TO HAVE THE LAW CHANGED!... Tax law is changed EVERYDAY in the Legislature; and such does not turn the culture on its head..

But the fact is that THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN ANY OF THAT... what they want is the LEGITIMACY that MARRIAGE, in the RELIGIOUS SENSE... provides.

And this DESPITE THEIR PROTESTATIONS THAT MARRIAGE IS PURELY A CIVIL, LEGAL... issue.

They're liars... and those who lend credence to their lies, are fools... PERIOD.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

We also have laws denying the right to fuck 10 year olds, so I guess we better change that right quick ehh?

 

[manu1959]

Your example falls flat, as I said, because the law as it is is already telling churches and religious leaders how to follow their religions. If you remember I don't believe there should be any legal connections in marriage, that it should have remained in the realm of religion, but it's already a law defining religious belief. To make that law truly equal all religious definitions of marriage should be allowed, even polygamy. If you don't want it that way then get rid of marriage laws and legal benefits completely.

actually it doesn't.....when federal law passed that mixed race marriages were legal.....civil lawsuits were the order of the day....there is no reason to believe that the gay comunnity will not behave in a similar fashion....you will not be able to discriminate based on race creed religion or sexual orientation....

attorneys will make a fortune......

hey how about this .....why not ask the straights to give up the same federal rights gays are denied and the gays can call theirs civil union and the staraights can call theirs marriage and everyone has the same rights.....

what are those federal rights again....testifying agianst a spouse in federal court......filing taxes.....transfer of property......next of kin.....

also all crimes are now hate crimes ....cuz you are one of us now.....no special parades because you are on of us now.....

oh you can keep track lighting and all the tweaked color names...persimmon...fuscia....

oh an last but not least you will need a thicker skin and a sense of humour.....

Just because it had happened in the past doesn't mean it will happen in again, also I haven't seen anything of the sort. However, a "Justice of the Peace" would be a different matter, they are government employees and are not allowed to discriminate for any reason, which is why the ban on gay marriage is in conflict with the law anyway.

yep....the government co-opted church marriage and created a license and a fee for it.....now they have a problem and are trying to parse their way through it.....

if they were smart they would get ride of the term marriage at the govt level cite separation of church and state........call them all civil unions and issue civil union licenses....give everyone all the same rights and move on......

next up...spending all foreign aid domestically to fix our problems with our tax dollars.....and charging other countries for the right to have a military base in their country to protect them and help their economy.....

next up regulation.....eliminate all of them......if you make something and someone dies or is even hurt ....you have to give all your shit and your company to that person or thier next of kin....even if their next of kin is a gay black woman ..... that used to be a mexican man that came here illegally....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Again, no proposed law would have done any such thing. In fact, the laws have specifically required only the states to recognize the unions, leaving religious ceremonies out of the bills forwarded thus far.

Nice fearmongering, though.

so let me get this right.....when mariage is defined as the union of two people....under no circumstances will it be a violation of federal law for st mary's cathedral to deny two gay catholics the right to get married in the church they grew up attending.....

and as i keep saying if you all had simply asked for civil union at the federal level you would have it by now....

Your example falls flat, as I said, because the law as it is is already telling churches and religious leaders how to follow their religions. If you remember I don't believe there should be any legal connections in marriage, that it should have remained in the realm of religion, but it's already a law defining religious belief. To make that law truly equal all religious definitions of marriage should be allowed, even polygamy. If you don't want it that way then get rid of marriage laws and legal benefits completely.

Now Kitty... the law isn't telling religions anything... the law reflects the cultural standard.

Now the reason you can't change that law is because THE CULTURE REJECTS IT!

State after STATE rejects, through changes to their state constitutions, which DEFINE MARRIAGE AS THE JOINING OF TWO AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE; WHO REPRESENT THE DISTINCT GENDERS...

In some cases Leftists in the Judiciary reject those changes, but they do so on the same specious grounds as you and your idiots comrades are advancing...

The fact is that NO ONE is STOPPING ANY QUEER FROM MARRYING ANYONE... we are merely holding to the standard, which provides the legitimacy that the fags seek and which would be destroyed the instant that their desires are met.

There is not a single rightful entitlement being withheld from queers. They have no right to force people who do not accept their perversion, to accept it... AND THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT!

And it ain't gonna happen...

 

[KittenKoder]

so let me get this right.....when mariage is defined as the union of two people....under no circumstances will it be a violation of federal law for st mary's cathedral to deny two gay catholics the right to get married in the church they grew up attending.....

and as i keep saying if you all had simply asked for civil union at the federal level you would have it by now....

Your example falls flat, as I said, because the law as it is is already telling churches and religious leaders how to follow their religions. If you remember I don't believe there should be any legal connections in marriage, that it should have remained in the realm of religion, but it's already a law defining religious belief. To make that law truly equal all religious definitions of marriage should be allowed, even polygamy. If you don't want it that way then get rid of marriage laws and legal benefits completely.

Now Kitty... the law isn't telling religions anything... the law reflects the cultural standard.

Now the reason you can't change that law is because THE CULTURE REJECTS IT!

State after STATE rejects, through changes to their state constitutions, which DEFINE MARRIAGE AS THE JOINING OF TWO AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE; WHO REPRESENT THE DISTINCT GENDERS...

In some cases Leftists in the Judiciary reject those changes, but they do so on the same specious grounds as you and your idiots comrades are advancing...

The fact is that NO ONE is STOPPING ANY QUEER FROM MARRYING ANYONE... we are merely holding to the standard, which provides the legitimacy that the fags seek and which would be destroyed the instant that their desires are met.

There is not a single rightful entitlement being withheld from queers. They have no right to force people who do not accept their perversion, to accept it... AND THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT!

And it ain't gonna happen...

It is telling my religion that our contracts are not valid because they don't follow another religion's idea of what that contract should be like.

 

[KittenKoder]

If you want to go by a "cultural" standard then marriage should not even exist.

 

[alan1]

Only if you keep posting them




When I asked if you had any more stupid questions, it was rhetorical. You weren't supposed to ask another one

Well, golly gee, that says "persons of the same sex", not "homosexual persons". Maybe I'm just a dumb hick, but it appears that that law would be the same regardless of ones sexual orientation.

When I said 'stupid answers', it was rhetorical, you weren't supposed to prove that you could get even more stupid.
Now, about them thar missing rights I asked about in the OP, got any?

they can't file a joint tax return with the person they love.....

Yer late to the party, manu1959
neither can me and my brother.

 

[alan1]

If they are homosexual, then you should be fighting- unless, that is, you are a liar.

Their sexuality isn't the point, laws based specifically upon sexuality are.
So far, you haven't proved any exist.

'
Are you blind, stupid, or just a liar?

defense of marriage act - Google Search

I see well enough to see that nothing in your posts or links isolated homosexuals as it pertains to law. We've established that I am not blind.
I'm smart enough to actually read and understand what has been posted here. We've established that i am not stupid.
Everything I've posted is factual. We've established that I am not a liar.

Your turn.

 

[manu1959]

Well, golly gee, that says "persons of the same sex", not "homosexual persons". Maybe I'm just a dumb hick, but it appears that that law would be the same regardless of ones sexual orientation.

When I said 'stupid answers', it was rhetorical, you weren't supposed to prove that you could get even more stupid.
Now, about them thar missing rights I asked about in the OP, got any?

they can't file a joint tax return with the person they love.....

Yer late to the party, manu1959
neither can me and my brother.

they don't have the same next of kin right you and your brother have nor do they have the transfer of property rights you have....

 

[Ravi]

MM...I don't know if anyone answered your question, and I don't remember the exact wording of it, but yes, there are laws that mention the word homosexual...

(3) No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.

http://www.lc.org/profamily/samesex_adoption_by_state.pdf

 

[manu1959]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

We also have laws denying the right to fuck 10 year olds, so I guess we better change that right quick ehh?

no that is a good law.....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Your example falls flat, as I said, because the law as it is is already telling churches and religious leaders how to follow their religions. If you remember I don't believe there should be any legal connections in marriage, that it should have remained in the realm of religion, but it's already a law defining religious belief. To make that law truly equal all religious definitions of marriage should be allowed, even polygamy. If you don't want it that way then get rid of marriage laws and legal benefits completely.

Now Kitty... the law isn't telling religions anything... the law reflects the cultural standard.

Now the reason you can't change that law is because THE CULTURE REJECTS IT!

State after STATE rejects, through changes to their state constitutions, which DEFINE MARRIAGE AS THE JOINING OF TWO AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE; WHO REPRESENT THE DISTINCT GENDERS...

In some cases Leftists in the Judiciary reject those changes, but they do so on the same specious grounds as you and your idiots comrades are advancing...

The fact is that NO ONE is STOPPING ANY QUEER FROM MARRYING ANYONE... we are merely holding to the standard, which provides the legitimacy that the fags seek and which would be destroyed the instant that their desires are met.

There is not a single rightful entitlement being withheld from queers. They have no right to force people who do not accept their perversion, to accept it... AND THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT!

And it ain't gonna happen...

It is telling my religion that our contracts are not valid because they don't follow another religion's idea of what that contract should be like.

Well if you're writing marriage contracts, for people who are not qualified for marriage, then your contracts are void PERIOD.

If your church is trying to marry queers, I would challenge the status of what you attend as a 'church....' as there is no means to be a church and advocate for evil.

With that said, as I've told you probably 5 dozen times... you could file articles of incorporation and solve the problem TODAY.

You and the rests of the advocates of evil reject that readily available solution; so its clear that you're not LOOKING for THAT solution...

What you seek is the legitimacy that marriage bears... which, were you to find success, you would destroy. Thus the adament refusal to give ya this one.

I mean think about it...

On the one hand you demand that marriage is nothing but a legal instrument... that marriage is whatever the law says it is...

But you reject purely legal remedies and you reject 'legal unions'... which is what the law says marriage could be for queers... OKA: Pretend Marriage for those who can't make the cut...

If YOU felt that Marriage really was, just a legal instrument and can be anything the law says it is... this never would have come to public notice.

The truth is that MOST fags do not give a red rats ass about Marriage... they're making their pretend households... and going about the business of being in love with their bestest good buddies... and trying their individual bests to rationalize around their shame...

As I've said many times... I've been married 30 years, all in a row, to the same woman and if the Hussien Regime decreed that marriage was outlawed entirely tomorrow, it would not effect my relationship with my wife in the slightest.

Our deal is with each other, sanctioned by God and God's sanctions are not effected by the decrees of the collective. If my wife were in the hospital, there'd be no one who would keep me out of her room... and if someone tried, the odds are that would be our mutual last moments on earth, as I killed their asses and those who came to their defense.

Ya see, my rights are unalienable... I am rightfully entitled to exercise them and while I am tolerant of temporal disagreements for most of them, there are some which I have zero tolerance for... and not the least of those are the bonds of my family... It's my family... not the state's... we're not the property of, or a member of any collective.... we are a separate sovereign who is united with a common concept... but where those who reject that concept come to rule over me and get between me and my family, they'll find that I do not recognize their authority, as I did not get my rights from them and I do not ask for their leave to exercise them.

So, what I see from the queer lobby is pure evil, which is trying to con the sum of the individuals that comprise 'the people' out of their rights... to which my response is a resounding:

FUCK THAT! ​

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment



So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

We also have laws denying the right to fuck 10 year olds, so I guess we better change that right quick ehh?

no that is a good law.....

Of course it is a good law, as it serves justice... as does the laws regarding the standard for marriage.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If you want to go by a "cultural" standard then marriage should not even exist.

Actually, absent marriage, the culture doesn't exist... so I'm fairly sure that's X-ing marriage is a bad idea... culturally speaking.

 

[bodecea]

Gee....if you look hard enough it is in there somewhere

Lets try the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person of their choice. We also have laws prohibiting them from serving their country.

We also have laws denying the right to fuck 10 year olds, so I guess we better change that right quick ehh?

You have to wonder at the intelligence (or else the hidden agenda) of someone who pretends that the law equates what law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults do, with the sexual abuse of children.

 

[bodecea]

Now Kitty... the law isn't telling religions anything... the law reflects the cultural standard.

Now the reason you can't change that law is because THE CULTURE REJECTS IT!

State after STATE rejects, through changes to their state constitutions, which DEFINE MARRIAGE AS THE JOINING OF TWO AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE; WHO REPRESENT THE DISTINCT GENDERS...

In some cases Leftists in the Judiciary reject those changes, but they do so on the same specious grounds as you and your idiots comrades are advancing...

The fact is that NO ONE is STOPPING ANY QUEER FROM MARRYING ANYONE... we are merely holding to the standard, which provides the legitimacy that the fags seek and which would be destroyed the instant that their desires are met.

There is not a single rightful entitlement being withheld from queers. They have no right to force people who do not accept their perversion, to accept it... AND THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT!

And it ain't gonna happen...

It is telling my religion that our contracts are not valid because they don't follow another religion's idea of what that contract should be like.

Well if you're writing marriage contracts, for people who are not qualified for marriage, then your contracts are void PERIOD.

If your church is trying to marry queers, I would challenge the status of what you attend as a 'church....' as there is no means to be a church and advocate for evil.

With that said, as I've told you probably 5 dozen times... you could file articles of incorporation and solve the problem TODAY.

You and the rests of the advocates of evil reject that readily available solution; so its clear that you're not LOOKING for THAT solution...

What you seek is the legitimacy that marriage bears... which, were you to find success, you would destroy. Thus the adament refusal to give ya this one.

I mean think about it...

On the one hand you demand that marriage is nothing but a legal instrument... that marriage is whatever the law says it is...

But you reject purely legal remedies and you reject 'legal unions'... which is what the law says marriage could be for queers... OKA: Pretend Marriage for those who can't make the cut...

If YOU felt that Marriage really was, just a legal instrument and can be anything the law says it is... this never would have come to public notice.

The truth is that MOST fags do not give a red rats ass about Marriage... they're making their pretend households... and going about the business of being in love with their bestest good buddies... and trying their individual bests to rationalize around their shame...

As I've said many times... I've been married 30 years, all in a row, to the same woman and if the Hussien Regime decreed that marriage was outlawed entirely tomorrow, it would not effect my relationship with my wife in the slightest.

Our deal is with each other, sanctioned by God and God's sanctions are not effected by the decrees of the collective. If my wife were in the hospital, there'd be no one who would keep me out of her room... and if someone tried, the odds are that would be our mutual last moments on earth, as I killed their asses and those who came to their defense.

Ya see, my rights are unalienable... I am rightfully entitled to exercise them and while I am tolerant of temporal disagreements for most of them, there are some which I have zero tolerance for... and not the least of those are the bonds of my family... It's my family... not the state's... we're not the property of, or a member of any collective.... we are a separate sovereign who is united with a common concept... but where those who reject that concept come to rule over me and get between me and my family, they'll find that I do not recognize their authority, as I did not get my rights from them and I do not ask for their leave to exercise them.

So, what I see from the queer lobby is pure evil, which is trying to con the sum of the individuals that comprise 'the people' out of their rights... to which my response is a resounding:

FUCK THAT! ​

What kind of polling method did you use?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

MM...I don't know if anyone answered your question, and I don't remember the exact wording of it, but yes, there are laws that mention the word homosexual...

(3) No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.

http://www.lc.org/profamily/samesex_adoption_by_state.pdf

ROFLMNAO... only a FOOL would consider allowing queers adopt children. That is the most absurd thing I've seen come out of this entire farce; and as far as I am concerned wherever such is allowed, it will be repealed in the future; as it is criminally stupid.

No queer can adopt anything in my state... nor can they act as Foster parents... nor work for the CPS...

My wife and I just adopted a foster child and in the process of doing so, one of our counselors was reported for her known status as a dike... she was summarily dismissed on the spot. Standing ovation...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It is telling my religion that our contracts are not valid because they don't follow another religion's idea of what that contract should be like.

Well if you're writing marriage contracts, for people who are not qualified for marriage, then your contracts are void PERIOD.

If your church is trying to marry queers, I would challenge the status of what you attend as a 'church....' as there is no means to be a church and advocate for evil.

With that said, as I've told you probably 5 dozen times... you could file articles of incorporation and solve the problem TODAY.

You and the rests of the advocates of evil reject that readily available solution; so its clear that you're not LOOKING for THAT solution...

What you seek is the legitimacy that marriage bears... which, were you to find success, you would destroy. Thus the adament refusal to give ya this one.

I mean think about it...

On the one hand you demand that marriage is nothing but a legal instrument... that marriage is whatever the law says it is...

But you reject purely legal remedies and you reject 'legal unions'... which is what the law says marriage could be for queers... OKA: Pretend Marriage for those who can't make the cut...

If YOU felt that Marriage really was, just a legal instrument and can be anything the law says it is... this never would have come to public notice.

The truth is that MOST fags do not give a red rats ass about Marriage... they're making their pretend households... and going about the business of being in love with their bestest good buddies... and trying their individual bests to rationalize around their shame...

As I've said many times... I've been married 30 years, all in a row, to the same woman and if the Hussien Regime decreed that marriage was outlawed entirely tomorrow, it would not effect my relationship with my wife in the slightest.

Our deal is with each other, sanctioned by God and God's sanctions are not effected by the decrees of the collective. If my wife were in the hospital, there'd be no one who would keep me out of her room... and if someone tried, the odds are that would be our mutual last moments on earth, as I killed their asses and those who came to their defense.

Ya see, my rights are unalienable... I am rightfully entitled to exercise them and while I am tolerant of temporal disagreements for most of them, there are some which I have zero tolerance for... and not the least of those are the bonds of my family... It's my family... not the state's... we're not the property of, or a member of any collective.... we are a separate sovereign who is united with a common concept... but where those who reject that concept come to rule over me and get between me and my family, they'll find that I do not recognize their authority, as I did not get my rights from them and I do not ask for their leave to exercise them.

So, what I see from the queer lobby is pure evil, which is trying to con the sum of the individuals that comprise 'the people' out of their rights... to which my response is a resounding:

FUCK THAT! ​

What kind of polling method did you use?

I doubt you've heard of it, it's an old system which at one time was quite commonly applied, but today is fairly rare... Google if ya need to, although it's my experience that such isn't found much on the web... it's called: COMMON SENSE

 

[rdean]

That's a right?

Well to be a right, it would come with a sustaining responsibility... you didn't mention such, and given that you 'feel' so strongly in your intellectual prowess... it's odd that ya wouldn't note the essential responsibility which are intrisic to all rights; so I thought I'd give ya the courtesy of presenting the chance to do so.

There's no proponent of creationism that contests any of the tangible sciences... the assertion is ludicrous. Schools don't exist in a vacuum... and what they teach should reflect the beliefs of their communities.

Your position is nothing less than a demand that schools must teach only what you feel is relevant to education... and that sis is YOU FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS. That you don't get that, is YOU demonstrating that YOU are a DUMBASS!





Your Nephew has a Right to serve his country... and that right comes with the responsibility to conduct herself so as to meet the high standards required for applicants for such... Your Nephew chose to reject her responsibility; choosing instead to succumb to her twisted sexual cravings... Therefore; your nephew is not qualified to be in the US military, because she's queer. The 'anti-fag thing' is based in science... common sense and sound moral reasoning.

Science... Homosexuality is an incontrovertible ABNORMAL SEXUALITY...
Common Sense... Normalizing sexuality can only encourage others to succumb to the obsession of abnormal cravings...

Sound moral reasoning... Encouraging others to succumb to obsessive abnormal cravings, can only undermine cultural standards of behavior, promoting cultural decadence and lending to the destruction of individuals that comprise the culture; thus the inevtiable demise of the culture itself.



Bullshit...

Your nephew can get married anytime she wants, as long as she applies with a person of the opposite gender.



Wow... spreading the good word to your hellians? SAY IT AINT SO!

But hey... that's free speech for ya.




Oh!... Now that's too bad... it was just getting interestin'.

You proved your point. You are definitely an ass.

Of course I proved my point... I always do as my points are always founded in immutable reason.

Just as you, who claim to possess high intellect, never fail to miss the point.

Homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexuals... a person can THINK about having sex with those of their same gender, all day, every day... and until they have sex with a person of their same gender... they are not a homosexual.

Just as a person can THINK about killing another human being for their belongings... or some other unsound moral justification, they are not a murderer, until they act and take the life of another absent valid, sound moral justification.

Thus, homosexuality is a CHOICE.

First you say you are "reasonable" then you say you can choose to be "gay". Obviously, you are speaking from "experience". So tell us oh grand wizard, are you truly happy that you never acted on your "feelings"? Are you in a "straight" relationship that you "chose" over a gay one? Is it as "satisfying"?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Good one.

 

[rdean]

Your position is nothing less than a demand that schools must teach only what you feel is relevant to education... and that sis is YOU FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS. That you don't get that, is YOU demonstrating that YOU are a DUMBASS!

Science... Homosexuality is an incontrovertible ABNORMAL SEXUALITY...
Common Sense... Normalizing sexuality can only encourage others to succumb to the obsession of abnormal cravings...

Define: Normal

LOL, yeah, what is "normal" nowadays?

Anything NOT right wing, conservative or Republican.