Young Conservative DESTROYS gay rights fascists

[emilynghiem]

I think the Gay thing is more than just a passing fad.

I think the angry bashing, bullying and political backlash
is also a "karmic phase" in the stages of recovery and healing,
the equal and opposite reaction to gay bashing and targeting for killing.

As they say: "This too shall pass"

In this case, I don't see people physically killing people for being anti-gay,
but assassinating them in the media and in politics,
forcing their businesses to capitulate (look up Eharmony), as a "civilized" substitute
compared to being rejected, humiliated and attacked or pushed to suicide for being gay.

In America, we didn't have to go through Muslims and Hindus going to war as they have attacked each other in India and surrounding areas.
We didn't have to suffer historic violence from Protestants and Catholics fighting as in Ireland, with armed terrorist attacks in a "civil war."

Instead we have Democrats and Republicans, and specifically prochoice and prolife
and now progay and antigay taking turns attacking and defending against attacks.

If we could work out differences with religions peacefully,
why can't we do the same with political differences?

Why this need to legislate and adjudicate our political beliefs through govt,
and attack opposing beliefs in order to bully public policy in the direction we believe in?

If religious differences can be worked out by free choice, or else agree to separate,
where EVERYONE remains of the denomination of their choosing and isn't harassed for it,
why not with political differences?

 

[emilynghiem]

How is it you only get concerned about married couples getting their "grubs on all the bennies" when they are gay couples?

You are wrong.

I don't like it that married couples get all sorts of special tax breaks that singles do not.

Unlike you and your progressive bretheren, I find social engineering via the tax code, legislation and regulation wrong in all cases.

Having a principled stance on issues is really easy when you put honest effort into it.

So...what have you ACTIVELY done to end such tax code advantages? And you don't seem to be aware there are other benefits for legally married couples beyond tax advantages.

I thought there were more penalties and legal complications with married couples,
and it was better to remain single to avoid those problems.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You are wrong.

I don't like it that married couples get all sorts of special tax breaks that singles do not.

Unlike you and your progressive bretheren, I find social engineering via the tax code, legislation and regulation wrong in all cases.

Having a principled stance on issues is really easy when you put honest effort into it.

So...what have you ACTIVELY done to end such tax code advantages? And you don't seem to be aware there are other benefits for legally married couples beyond tax advantages.

I thought there were more penalties and legal complications with married couples,
and it was better to remain single to avoid those problems.

Well, there is divorce. Gays are completely welcome to that legal three ring circus.

There are also things like hospital visitation (though I have never had my ID checked when going to visit a family member in the hospital) prisoner visitation, protection against testifying against a spouse, and so forth. Most all of which can be mitigated via legal channels beforehand, if one can be bothered to treat their life, liberty and property as though they mean something to them.

But progressives are nothing, if not both cheap and lazy. They want one-stop shopping from the bureaucrats at city hall.

 

[Seawytch]

Then why is it that one of the reasons we hear bandied about, as to why gays want to and should get to marry, is to get in on the same tax breaks that married people get which single people do not?

Why is it you are not as concerned about the rights of singles, as you are about getting your grubs on all the bennies?

I don't give a shit about the "bennies". Take the "bennies" away...but until you are successful, why isn't my committed relationship as deserving of them as a heterosexual couple?

I only care about equality.

No, you want the bennies.

If you were really concerned with equality, you would work as hard for the equal rights of singles as you do to get your mitts on the privileges afforded married hetero couples.

You are the worst kind of hypocrite there is.

No, it's not about the bennies. I just said go ahead and take away all tax benefits for legal marriage, I don't care. We will still want equal access to civil marriage. I got married, after all, before we could GET the bennies.

 

[Seawytch]

Five bucks for a cup of coffee at Starbucks? Glad I don't live where you do! Damn



You argue that the law doesn't specifically state that marriage is between a male and a female, but any two adults are allowed.



Any reason the laws don't specify Martians? And why it is specific to only two?



The reason Martians are not mentioned is probably the same reason that getting your change back from your five at Starbucks isn't considered gambling. Laws normally don't include silly concepts within them. Do you really think that, when marriage was established as law, anyone would ever think people of the same sex would ever want to marry?



Now, let's look at why marriage is between two and only two.



If the law was intended to include same sex, the number two would be nonsense. Two serves no real purpose when those non capable of breeding with each other are included. You do realize that 10000 of the same sex could enter into a marriage contract and never produce a single offspring from within that marriage? You know that right? So if same sex was included it is nonsensical to include any number. The only number reasonable to exclude would be 1.



So it's actually pretty simple to see why ONLY two is allowed to marry. One Male to One Female = 2, which, it's rather funny, but in a manner of speaking, it is the only marriage relationship in which 1 + 1 can actually = 3, 4 or more.



Is that cool or what?



Two is also the best way for society to keep track of bloodlines so we do not breed with those too closely related, and keep order.

Repeating your twisted opinions doesn't change the fact that they are a fantasy. Civil marriage is not about procreation.

I know right? You and your partner can't, so let's ignore the most important function of mankind entirely!



So, give us your opinion as to why the law is written that a marriage only includes two? Any input?

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I don't give a shit about the "bennies". Take the "bennies" away...but until you are successful, why isn't my committed relationship as deserving of them as a heterosexual couple?

I only care about equality.

No, you want the bennies.

If you were really concerned with equality, you would work as hard for the equal rights of singles as you do to get your mitts on the privileges afforded married hetero couples.

You are the worst kind of hypocrite there is.

No, it's not about the bennies. I just said go ahead and take away all tax benefits for legal marriage, I don't care. We will still want equal access to civil marriage. I got married, after all, before we could GET the bennies.

That will not happen.

I have been in these discussions more times than I care to recount.

In the end, it nearly invariably boils down to the bennies.

You would not be looking to little pieces of paper issued by faceless, paper shuffling bureaucrats if you did not get some sort of thing, to which you believe yourself entitled.

But if little pieces of paper are what it takes to complete your life, the prisoner is you.

 

[GreenBean]

Even the feeble minded should be allowed their rights, in spite of how they would deny rights to others.

Let the Faggots Marry and the Dykes too - it's their right as Free Americans. It's not their right however to engage in the devious tactics and mental manipulation they have been perpetrating on the young and uninvolved.

thas rite.

devious tactics and mental manipulation on the young and uninvolved is the domain of clergy.

YUP ! Them too - a lot of sexually repressed priests- see what celibacy can do to a person, it can transform them into sexual degenerates - homsexuals, pedophiles same bag of mixed nuts .

 

[bodecea]

You are wrong.

I don't like it that married couples get all sorts of special tax breaks that singles do not.

Unlike you and your progressive bretheren, I find social engineering via the tax code, legislation and regulation wrong in all cases.

Having a principled stance on issues is really easy when you put honest effort into it.

So...what have you ACTIVELY done to end such tax code advantages? And you don't seem to be aware there are other benefits for legally married couples beyond tax advantages.

So, we have cut to the chase and you can admit that you are really after the bennies. I'll take the small victory.

First of all, I don't pretend that I can change other people. My efforts are concentrated upon on that which is under my control.

In doing that, I came to find that there are numerous legal structures under which my business, property and personal affairs can be arranged, to maximize my freedom, protect my property and assets, without needing the permission of some aloof bureaucrat. Not the least of which are trusts, LLCs, wills, powers of attorney, so forth and so on.

But I am interested in maximizing my liberty, not in furthering my political crusades.

As much and as little as YOU have been after the bennies when you legally married.

 

[Pop23]

Repeating your twisted opinions doesn't change the fact that they are a fantasy. Civil marriage is not about procreation.

I know right? You and your partner can't, so let's ignore the most important function of mankind entirely!



So, give us your opinion as to why the law is written that a marriage only includes two? Any input?

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

 

[bodecea]

I know right? You and your partner can't, so let's ignore the most important function of mankind entirely!



So, give us your opinion as to why the law is written that a marriage only includes two? Any input?

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Show where that is a requirement for legal marriage. TIA

 

[Nosmo King]

I know right? You and your partner can't, so let's ignore the most important function of mankind entirely!



So, give us your opinion as to why the law is written that a marriage only includes two? Any input?

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Has it occurred to you that marriage as a contract, establishes a new entity in the eyes of the law? Marriage, as contract law, is a simple and convenient way to establish that next of kin relationship.

Multi-party contracts are more like a corporation. But, until this Supreme Court, corporations cannot avail themselves of the same legal protections and benefits as those entering a marriage contract.

 

[Seawytch]

No, you want the bennies.



If you were really concerned with equality, you would work as hard for the equal rights of singles as you do to get your mitts on the privileges afforded married hetero couples.



You are the worst kind of hypocrite there is.

No, it's not about the bennies. I just said go ahead and take away all tax benefits for legal marriage, I don't care. We will still want equal access to civil marriage. I got married, after all, before we could GET the bennies.

That will not happen.



I have been in these discussions more times than I care to recount.



In the end, it nearly invariably boils down to the bennies.



You would not be looking to little pieces of paper issued by faceless, paper shuffling bureaucrats if you did not get some sort of thing, to which you believe yourself entitled.



But if little pieces of paper are what it takes to complete your life, the prisoner is you.

That little piece if paper is the difference between being treated as equal and being treated like 2nd class citizens. If it is of so little importance, why are folks fighting SO hard against us getting it?

Are you only contemptuous of gays marrying or all married people?

 

[Seawytch]

I know right? You and your partner can't, so let's ignore the most important function of mankind entirely!



So, give us your opinion as to why the law is written that a marriage only includes two? Any input?

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Which is not a requirement for marriage, civil or religious.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Which is not a requirement for marriage, civil or religious.

So why no comment on the reason marriage is only between two?

 

[Pop23]

No, it's not about the bennies. I just said go ahead and take away all tax benefits for legal marriage, I don't care. We will still want equal access to civil marriage. I got married, after all, before we could GET the bennies.

That will not happen.



I have been in these discussions more times than I care to recount.



In the end, it nearly invariably boils down to the bennies.



You would not be looking to little pieces of paper issued by faceless, paper shuffling bureaucrats if you did not get some sort of thing, to which you believe yourself entitled.



But if little pieces of paper are what it takes to complete your life, the prisoner is you.

That little piece if paper is the difference between being treated as equal and being treated like 2nd class citizens. If it is of so little importance, why are folks fighting SO hard against us getting it?

Are you only contemptuous of gays marrying or all married people?

I know many heterosexual couples with children and not married. None of them have that piece of paper and none feel like second class citizens. Curious huh?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Has it occurred to you that marriage as a contract, establishes a new entity in the eyes of the law? Marriage, as contract law, is a simple and convenient way to establish that next of kin relationship.

Multi-party contracts are more like a corporation. But, until this Supreme Court, corporations cannot avail themselves of the same legal protections and benefits as those entering a marriage contract.

You sound like a traditionalist. Many contracts allow for more than 2 participants. Any comment on why marriage was set up for just two? Makes sense for heterosexuals, but if the intent was to allow same sex to marry it makes no sense to limit the number. And why would the United States send troops into the Utah territory to insure that marriage was between a single male and a single female? Guess back then the federal government knew the intent, huh?

 

[Seawytch]

That will not happen.







I have been in these discussions more times than I care to recount.







In the end, it nearly invariably boils down to the bennies.







You would not be looking to little pieces of paper issued by faceless, paper shuffling bureaucrats if you did not get some sort of thing, to which you believe yourself entitled.







But if little pieces of paper are what it takes to complete your life, the prisoner is you.

That little piece if paper is the difference between being treated as equal and being treated like 2nd class citizens. If it is of so little importance, why are folks fighting SO hard against us getting it?



Are you only contemptuous of gays marrying or all married people?

I know many heterosexual couples with children and not married. None of them have that piece of paper and none feel like second class citizens. Curious huh?

They aren't denied it, they choose not to get it.

 

[Seawytch]

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.



So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Which is not a requirement for marriage, civil or religious.

So why no comment on the reason marriage is only between two?

I don't care why, it is. I'm not interested in changing the law to incorporate more than two. If you are, good luck. I hope by the time you are successful, Angelina Jolie will be available...for me and my wife

 

[Nosmo King]

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Has it occurred to you that marriage as a contract, establishes a new entity in the eyes of the law? Marriage, as contract law, is a simple and convenient way to establish that next of kin relationship.

Multi-party contracts are more like a corporation. But, until this Supreme Court, corporations cannot avail themselves of the same legal protections and benefits as those entering a marriage contract.

You sound like a traditionalist. Many contracts allow for more than 2 participants. Any comment on why marriage was set up for just two? Makes sense for heterosexuals, but if the intent was to allow same sex to marry it makes no sense to limit the number. And why would the United States send troops into the Utah territory to insure that marriage was between a single male and a single female? Guess back then the federal government knew the intent, huh?

Marriage is a unique contract in that it establishes a next of kin relationship. Multi-party contracts cannot do this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know right? You and your partner can't, so let's ignore the most important function of mankind entirely!



So, give us your opinion as to why the law is written that a marriage only includes two? Any input?

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA.

Irrelevant, as opposite-sex couples who are infertile are allowed to access marriage law.

And if that infertile opposite-sex couple should adopt, that child would be considered the same as their own offspring.

Rather than continuing to exhibit your ignorance and appear ridiculous, consider instead simply posting that you hate gay Americans and wish to disadvantage them in some manner, such as denying them access to marriage law they’re otherwise eligible to participate in.