What rights are the gays missing?

[PubliusInfinitum]

I don't think so. The conservative right is an odd bunch.

They insist they don't want to be told what to do by "big government" yet have leaders that tell them the most outrageous and nonsensical things, yet they eat it up like pablum.

They want government out of the bedroom, yet have this lurid fascination with gays and "what they must be doing".

So you feel that the public courthouse is something akin to the bed-room?

It never ceases to fascinate me how you twisted fucks can't come to grips with the meaning of privacy... it's your eternal standard you wave, even as you're standing on flat bed trailers in open-asses leather chaps, shouting your presents and your PUBLIC PRIDE IN BEING DEVIENTS, or on the steps to the Courthouse as you demand more PUBLIC policy to advance your EXCEEDINGLY PUBLIC SEXUALITY.

The truth is, there's absolutely NOTHING private about the homosexual advocacy. It's about nothing if it is not about the public normalization of the sexually abnormal and turning PUBLIC POLICY in so doing.

That behavior (chaps and so on) WOULD be pathetic, if it were true.

Really?

Then if there guys weren't showing what Gay-Pride is all about, what were they doing?

However, I have many gay and lesbian friends. They don't march. They don't protest. They don't discuss their sexcapades with people. Not every gay and lesbian flies a gay pride flag next to their front door. I'll bet that you interact, or have interacted many times with gays and lesbians (whom you respected)....and you had absolutely NO idea. ie...those teachers you had who never married, that 50 year old bachelor friend of yours, people with whom you have attended church, those unmarried women who never get married or take maternity leave, that 45 year old bachelorette who works 100 hours per week (no man to depend on), etc... Some are fiercely private about their sexuality, or ashamed.

Yeah, I suspect that's true... and stated as much elsewhere in this thread. Of course, sexuality is a private matter, isn't it? And what is at issue above; and what is at issue in the referenced point, is where sexuality is said to be a private matter, by those who are in the process of making their sexuality A PUBLIC MATTER.

I'm sure that you would agree that those to whom you speak, get very little resistance, hostility, differing opinions... angst... what have you, from those people which are blissfully ignorant of and wholly disinterested in, their sexual orientation.

I have an old friend of mine who dated a chick that was a stone cold freak... We were over at his house one day, drinking through some football and the hallways bathroom was occupied at the moment I decided I needed to drain the reserves... So I knew that the house was a two bath, walked into the master bedroom on my way to the head and BAM! FREAK CENTRAL! It was a cross between a Medieval dungeon and a tack-shed...

I've known this guy since I was 7 years old... love him like a brother... and frankly, I don't give a damn what he does to get his old lady off; so once the shock of the novelty wore off... I took a second to soak it up and laughed my ass off; found the head, finished the mission and headed back to the porch... as I was walking out of the hall, he met me coming down the hall, with a look of 'let me explain...' As I told ya we've known each other for 40 years... so communication is pretty much ESP... and I said with both expression and words: "I don't want to know..." "You sick twisted fuck..." He broke up laughing I blew snotty beer out of my nose; and we headed back to finish the afternoon, no worse for the wear.

Although, I did sidle up next to his old lady and told her in needed to see her in the bedroom for 30 seconds... to which she responded with the steely eye of someone who knows her way around the tack-room... and without a word spoken I realized that my old buddy... was the tie-EE... and not the TIE-ER... which ran straight into TMI... and that was the last 'we've' ever spoke of it... Which isn't to say that that was the last of it that the rest of us ever spoke of it... as somehow the information spread through our little group like WILD fire; and that little bitch was gone inside 2 months; saddles and all.

So I don't give a damn what anyone does in the privacy of their home... but an ADVOCACY can't stand on privacy, where one is advocating for such IN PUBLIC!

The assertion to the contrary is just absurd, friend. And this is because the RIGHT to do whatever in PRIVATE... is sustained by the responsibility TO KEEP IT PRIVATE! Fail that and ya forfeit the right... by default, now don't ya?

One can find this in ANY relationship... hetreo, homo or otherwise. Guys that like to take some video of the playtime... have found that sharing that video with say their buddies... or everyone on the internet, have come to find that such puts a lid on the video thing once the PRIVACY rule is broken; and that's often followed by the lid slamming shut on the relationship. That which is "Private" is private... thus the use of the word: PRIVATE.

Not all want for their lifestyle to be taught in public schools. They want to be able (legally FMLA) to stay home with their partner with they are sick...to share benefits...visit in the hospital (as we've discussed already), would prefer not to be fired because of their sexuality.

I agree... And stated as much a few pages back. I recommended then, as I've always recommended that they file articles of incorporation... whereupon they will be legally bound by those articles, to one legal entity; wherein they can establish their own charter for declaring their Interests and Bonds... Which are every bit as binding as a marriage license... They can share income, pensions; they establish insurable interests... No hospital can prevent them from entrance as they have a legally binding obligation to one another...

The problem I find is that I've never met anyone whose done so... Yet such solves the lions share of the fiscal problems that are commonly held up in the advocacies...

Most conservatives are concerned about people looking for a monetary government handout....you rarely see this with this population. You won't find many workers who are more faithful, and hardworking, than gays and lesbians. They rarely call in sick, and they're ALWAYS good at their jobs. They are depending on themselves, and noone else.

Well I doubt that's a commonly held trait of homosexuality... I'd say it's a commonly held trait of anyone whose working hard to avoid scrutiny and to overcome something that they otherwise recognize as a hinderance. But for the most part I agree with ya...

And I would point out, again, that the position you referenced here is not speaking to the silent majority... but directly, unambiguously to the mouthy minority who are on the verge of screwing it up for everyone.

We're not goint to allow the standards of marriage to be lowered to accept those that are not suited to such. Not now, not ever... it is not going to happen. What you're looking at is not so much a line, as it is an impenetrable, unscalable wall. One which we did not build, but which we've fallen back to... and one which should someone penetrate or scale it... they'll be ground to bits for their trouble.

I've come as far as I'm preprared to go on the homosexual marriage thing; and of the people in my crowd... I'm the one they most worry about crackin'... the softy.

 

[Setarcos]

I know exactly how you view women. They're subhuman garbage to you- that's why you refer to other posters as female in order to feel superior to them.

 

[Setarcos]

Homosexuals are created equal with everyone else; and they're equally free to make the choices which become their lives and the responsbility for which they are fully, solely bear.

One is entitled to pursue the fulfillment of one's life...

So they're free to wed and let God judge them yes?

 

[Bern80]

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.

The next group to try to use the 14 Amendment to protect their sick lifestyles after homosexuals. Will be people into beastuality, pedophelia, and other perverse lifestyles.

Your side has tried to use that same tired argument since homosexuals started to fight for their rights. Your problem is that homosexuals are not violating any laws and they are consenting adults.
Our Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment has been used to protect those rights.

Then it would have to be your assertion that somehow the government is viloating the 14th where gays are concerned. So, specifically, what rights are being abridged?

 

[Setarcos]

The next group to try to use the 14 Amendment to protect their sick lifestyles after homosexuals. Will be people into beastuality, pedophelia, and other perverse lifestyles.

Your side has tried to use that same tired argument since homosexuals started to fight for their rights. Your problem is that homosexuals are not violating any laws and they are consenting adults.
Our Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment has been used to protect those rights.

Then it would have to be your assertion that somehow the government is viloating the 14th where gays are concerned. So, specifically, what rights are being abridged?

Equal rights and protections under the law. Same as in LvV.

 

[Single Dad]

Does anyone actually believe that the liberal homosexual political agenda will be fulfilled if gay marriage is enacted? I say no. I suspect we would see the following proposed to benefit homosexual "victims".

1. Reperations payments to gays for past crimes and attrocities committed by the homophobic Republican hate mongers. (if your a homo you get money taken from hetero's)
2. Forced medical benefits for gay partners. (already in place in many areas)
3. Forced elementary school classes describing the attrocities committed by homophobic Republican hate mongers against gays.
4. etc etc etc......

 

[mal]

With Civil Unions, you Sure would...

You don't Need to Molest the Natural Definition of Marriage, the Definition this Country has Recognized since it's Founding, and on which ALL Cultures have Found their Foundation, to get the Legal Nicities Taken Care of...

You want "Marriage" because you Want Validation for what you are as Equal to something you Factually and Naturally are NOT.

And one other thing, not that it hasn't been Said, you are NOT Denied Marriage...

You are Denied the Priviledge of Redifining it to fit your Deviation from what Creates us.



peace...

This "redefining" bullshit is old. Marriage has been "redefined" many times over the centuries as it is. Remember it wasn't long ago they "redefined" it to not include polygamy, they "redefined" it to include all "races", they "redefined" it to earlier to be a legal contract. Once it became a legal contract the definition stopped being important and the contract itself must be held to the same standards as any business contract. Get the legal contract out of it completely, then you can "define" it however you want.

But... those redefinitions you mention all consist of men coupling with women. There's no homosexual perversion in any of it, and there's mention in the Bible of men having many wives, so actually polygamy isn't a redefinition. Modern day marriage of one man to one woman could be said to be a redefinition to that. I'd like to have two wives. Hell I'd like to have ten wives.

"Wives"?... Not Sure about More than one of those...

*Slap*... As the Wife Reads this...



peace...

 

[Bern80]

Your side has tried to use that same tired argument since homosexuals started to fight for their rights. Your problem is that homosexuals are not violating any laws and they are consenting adults.
Our Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment has been used to protect those rights.

Then it would have to be your assertion that somehow the government is viloating the 14th where gays are concerned. So, specifically, what rights are being abridged?

Equal rights and protections under the law. Same as in LvV.

How so? What equal protections and rights are being denied? You can't just say they are being denied. What, SPECIFICALLY, are they not protected from? What rights do they not have?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person

????? Some states require certain age levels.. etc. What if Bill wants to marry his goat? Why can't he?

 

[paperview]

So, right now we have laws which prohibit homosexuals from marrying the person

????? Some states require certain age levels.. etc. What if Bill wants to marry his goat? Why can't he?

In the real world, goats cannot sign contracts.

Maybe in your world though...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In the real world, goats cannot sign contracts.

Cute.. but way off the mark. This is NOT why Bill can't marry his goat. And I think you know it.

Marriage is a union of a man and a woman... this how MOST states/people view it. Should it be changed and should the entire concept of marriage be redrawn at the federal level? Most people believe "NO".

I'm not making an argument either way.. I'm just saying.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And yes.. it is a morality issue, like it or not.

 

[Qball]

Then it would have to be your assertion that somehow the government is viloating the 14th where gays are concerned. So, specifically, what rights are being abridged?

Equal rights and protections under the law. Same as in LvV.

How so? What equal protections and rights are being denied? You can't just say they are being denied. What, SPECIFICALLY, are they not protected from? What rights do they not have?

We've gone about 10+ pages asking that question, and the best they can come up with is the right to sign a civil contract or something.

 

[Setarcos]

Then it would have to be your assertion that somehow the government is viloating the 14th where gays are concerned. So, specifically, what rights are being abridged?

Equal rights and protections under the law. Same as in LvV.

How so? What equal protections and rights are being denied? You can't just say they are being denied. What, SPECIFICALLY, are they not protected from? What rights do they not have?

Read the thread; several long lists have been posted

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Equal rights and protections under the law. Same as in LvV.

How so? What equal protections and rights are being denied? You can't just say they are being denied. What, SPECIFICALLY, are they not protected from? What rights do they not have?

We've gone about 10+ pages asking that question, and the best they can come up with is the right to sign a civil contract or something.

They have asserted that, among other things... but all of it is nonsense. There is absolutely NOTHING, ZERO, NADA... in the way of Rights distinct from anyone else.


It's a lie... plain and simple.

 

[mal]

How so? What equal protections and rights are being denied? You can't just say they are being denied. What, SPECIFICALLY, are they not protected from? What rights do they not have?

We've gone about 10+ pages asking that question, and the best they can come up with is the right to sign a civil contract or something.

They have asserted that, among other things... but all of it is nonsense. There is absolutely NOTHING, ZERO, NADA... in the way of Rights distinct from anyone else.


It's a lie... plain and simple.

They are NOT Denied Marriage... They are Denied the Priviledge to Exclusively Expand the Legal and Natural Definition of Marriage to Include only their Particular Brand of Deviation...

Each and EVERY One of them can Stop Defying their Natural Design and Marry...

There really is no More or Less to this.



peace...

 

[007]

This "redefining" bullshit is old. Marriage has been "redefined" many times over the centuries as it is. Remember it wasn't long ago they "redefined" it to not include polygamy, they "redefined" it to include all "races", they "redefined" it to earlier to be a legal contract. Once it became a legal contract the definition stopped being important and the contract itself must be held to the same standards as any business contract. Get the legal contract out of it completely, then you can "define" it however you want.

But... those redefinitions you mention all consist of men coupling with women. There's no homosexual perversion in any of it, and there's mention in the Bible of men having many wives, so actually polygamy isn't a redefinition. Modern day marriage of one man to one woman could be said to be a redefinition to that. I'd like to have two wives. Hell I'd like to have ten wives.

"Wives"?... Not Sure about More than one of those...

*Slap*... As the Wife Reads this...



peace...

Only if it was legal. I surely wouldn't want to break the law...

 

[mal]

But... those redefinitions you mention all consist of men coupling with women. There's no homosexual perversion in any of it, and there's mention in the Bible of men having many wives, so actually polygamy isn't a redefinition. Modern day marriage of one man to one woman could be said to be a redefinition to that. I'd like to have two wives. Hell I'd like to have ten wives.

"Wives"?... Not Sure about More than one of those...

*Slap*... As the Wife Reads this...



peace...

Only if it was legal. I surely wouldn't want to break the law...

That's a lot of "Maintenance"...

You Sure the Word you are Looking for isn't "Mistress"?...



peace...

 

[Setarcos]

But... those redefinitions you mention all consist of men coupling with women. There's no homosexual perversion in any of it, and there's mention in the Bible of men having many wives, so actually polygamy isn't a redefinition. Modern day marriage of one man to one woman could be said to be a redefinition to that. I'd like to have two wives. Hell I'd like to have ten wives.

"Wives"?... Not Sure about More than one of those...

*Slap*... As the Wife Reads this...



peace...

Only if it was legal. I surely wouldn't want to break the law...

So the secular law outweighs your morality and the commandment of you god

 

[Qball]

"Wives"?... Not Sure about More than one of those...

*Slap*... As the Wife Reads this...



peace...

Only if it was legal. I surely wouldn't want to break the law...

So the secular law outweighs your morality and the commandment of you god

That cuts both ways. You can't say we can't not legalize gay marriage based on personal morality and religious belief, but then argue we should legalize it on personal morality and emotion-based arguments.