Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[bodecea]

STOP oppressing them! No, wait....you aren't a Queen. My bad.

True...but I have been known to tote a whip around when the mood suits. me.

I hope you don't mind, but I lifted a picture of you off your facebook Page

V V

You try too hard. It reflects much more on yourself.

 

[GreenBean]

STOP oppressing them! No, wait....you aren't a Queen. My bad.

She most certainly is , just interchange the n with an r and you're right on target

Oh...clever. Very clever. Did you get help in figuring that out?

Bodecean Logic 7 X 13 = 28
GreenBean Logic 7 X 13 = 91

Example : [ame=http://youtu.be/bQztCYrC2HE]7x13=28 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Gadawg73]

What is really crazy is the insistence of the religious whacks that states adhere to the most offensive of tactics.
Friends of ours got married in NY. One of them was a Delta pilot and former Navy fighter pilot. He got cancer while finally getting to the top over seas routes out of Hartsfield here which is Delta's top hub. And when he died they would not put "married" on his death certificate and checked "never married".
An insult to him, his partner of 17 years and his family.

It's an Insult to Expect Society to call something something it is not.

Man/Woman is NOT Equal to nor the same as Man/Man or Woman/Woman.

Feel free to Defy, but stop Expecting other People to Embrace it or Lie about what it is.



peace...

Society did not know what was on a death certificate you dumb ass.
Only the family knows that.
How does someone force you to "embrace" something you never see?
And they were married so how is it a lie?
You are a dumb **** mal. You hate gay folks and are not man enough to admit it.

 

[Gadawg73]

What is really crazy is the insistence of the religious whacks that states adhere to the most offensive of tactics.
Friends of ours got married in NY. One of them was a Delta pilot and former Navy fighter pilot. He got cancer while finally getting to the top over seas routes out of Hartsfield here which is Delta's top hub. And when he died they would not put "married" on his death certificate and checked "never married".
An insult to him, his partner of 17 years and his family.

Another amazingly convenient story , that fits perfectly into the fantasy scenario that the Gay agenda wishes to paint . How convenient

"Gay agenda"
Such a fool you are.
I am a 59 year old straight, southern by the Grace of God, BULLDOG FOR LIFE, redneck, fisnin and huntin white male.
I have no agenda other than knowing I am right and you are wrong.
A Christian loves thy neighbor and treats them as equal.
Something you know nothing about.

 

[Redfish]

What is really crazy is the insistence of the religious whacks that states adhere to the most offensive of tactics.
Friends of ours got married in NY. One of them was a Delta pilot and former Navy fighter pilot. He got cancer while finally getting to the top over seas routes out of Hartsfield here which is Delta's top hub. And when he died they would not put "married" on his death certificate and checked "never married".
An insult to him, his partner of 17 years and his family.

Another amazingly convenient story , that fits perfectly into the fantasy scenario that the Gay agenda wishes to paint . How convenient

"Gay agenda"
Such a fool you are.
I am a 59 year old straight, southern by the Grace of God, BULLDOG FOR LIFE, redneck, fisnin and huntin white male.
I have no agenda other than knowing I am right and you are wrong.
A Christian loves thy neighbor and treats them as equal.
Something you know nothing about.

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

 

[Seawytch]

STOP oppressing them! No, wait....you aren't a Queen. My bad.

She most certainly is , just interchange the n with an r and you're right on target

Oh...clever. Very clever. Did you get help in figuring that out?

Now, now, Bod. Be nice. He only needed spell check.

 

[Seawytch]

This is post number who cares. Gays where never the poor little abused babies they made themselves out to be. They make all that molah, they can oh so subtly buy Lawyers, advertisersers and buy our collective conscience, and they are doing a bang up job. But I am not buying it. Neither should any of the rest of you.

Hmmmm, gays don't deserve equal rights because they make money? WTF?

 

[Seawytch]

True...but I have been known to tote a whip around when the mood suits. me.

I hope you don't mind, but I lifted a picture of you off your facebook Page

V V

You try too hard. It reflects much more on yourself.

I don't understand why Bean insists in posting from his porn collection. Sad, really.

 

[Seawytch]

Another amazingly convenient story , that fits perfectly into the fantasy scenario that the Gay agenda wishes to paint . How convenient

"Gay agenda"
Such a fool you are.
I am a 59 year old straight, southern by the Grace of God, BULLDOG FOR LIFE, redneck, fisnin and huntin white male.
I have no agenda other than knowing I am right and you are wrong.
A Christian loves thy neighbor and treats them as equal.
Something you know nothing about.

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

So change all civil marriages to civil unions, Fishy. Go ahead, do it. They gays won't stop you because we don't care what you call it. For us it IS all about equality so we don't care what you call it as long as it is the same for gays and straights.

Ah, but you don't want that do you, Fishy because you wouldn't feel all "special", isn't that right?

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

No actually it won't since they have nothing to do with each other. How many countries that have given legal marriage status to gays have also done so for Polygamists? Don't bother, it's NONE. How many countries with legalized Polygamy also have legal recognition of SSM? Also none. There is no slippery slope. It's a fallacy.

 

[Pop23]

"Gay agenda"
Such a fool you are.
I am a 59 year old straight, southern by the Grace of God, BULLDOG FOR LIFE, redneck, fisnin and huntin white male.
I have no agenda other than knowing I am right and you are wrong.
A Christian loves thy neighbor and treats them as equal.
Something you know nothing about.

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

So change all civil marriages to civil unions, Fishy. Go ahead, do it. They gays won't stop you because we don't care what you call it. For us it IS all about equality so we don't care what you call it as long as it is the same for gays and straights.

Ah, but you don't want that do you, Fishy because you wouldn't feel all "special", isn't that right?

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

No actually it won't since they have nothing to do with each other. How many countries that have given legal marriage status to gays have also done so for Polygamists? Don't bother, it's NONE. How many countries with legalized Polygamy also have legal recognition of SSM? Also none. There is no slippery slope. It's a fallacy.

Yet you believe your argument, that being that there is no compelling state interest to deny SSM is a winner. Problem then is that it works for every relationship Redfish posted.

The throuple that I posted earlier shows three lesbians, two civilly married, and the other married to them somehow, or so they say. There would be no compelling state interest to discriminate against the third. How could they ever be considered normal without the civil license. To deny this is to deny your own argument.

 

[Redfish]

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

So change all civil marriages to civil unions, Fishy. Go ahead, do it. They gays won't stop you because we don't care what you call it. For us it IS all about equality so we don't care what you call it as long as it is the same for gays and straights.

Ah, but you don't want that do you, Fishy because you wouldn't feel all "special", isn't that right?

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

No actually it won't since they have nothing to do with each other. How many countries that have given legal marriage status to gays have also done so for Polygamists? Don't bother, it's NONE. How many countries with legalized Polygamy also have legal recognition of SSM? Also none. There is no slippery slope. It's a fallacy.

Yet you believe your argument, that being that there is no compelling state interest to deny SSM is a winner. Problem then is that it works for every relationship Redfish posted.

The throuple that I posted earlier shows three lesbians, two civilly married, and the other married to them somehow, or so they say. There would be no compelling state interest to discriminate against the third. How could they ever be considered normal without the civil license. To deny this is to deny your own argument.

Don't confuse wytchey with facts, facts hurt her widdle feewings.

 

[Seawytch]

Sorry to intrude in your discussion with bean, but what you are missing is that the current gay agenda is not about equality and equal treatment. Civil unions would give gays equality in two person unions in every way. But thats not what this is about----the current gay agenda is about using the government to force societal acceptance of gay marriage as being the SAME as heterosexual marriage and for society to teach our kids that they can go either way.

So change all civil marriages to civil unions, Fishy. Go ahead, do it. They gays won't stop you because we don't care what you call it. For us it IS all about equality so we don't care what you call it as long as it is the same for gays and straights.

Ah, but you don't want that do you, Fishy because you wouldn't feel all "special", isn't that right?

A secondary issue is that if gay marriage is fully legalized, there will be no possible legal argument to bar all other forms of marriage. If gay marriage is legalized on the basis of having civil rights denied, then that same argument will be successfully used for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of "marriage".

I understand where you are coming from on this, but I think you are not looking far enough into where it is leading.

No actually it won't since they have nothing to do with each other. How many countries that have given legal marriage status to gays have also done so for Polygamists? Don't bother, it's NONE. How many countries with legalized Polygamy also have legal recognition of SSM? Also none. There is no slippery slope. It's a fallacy.

Yet you believe your argument, that being that there is no compelling state interest to deny SSM is a winner. Problem then is that it works for every relationship Redfish posted.

The throuple that I posted earlier shows three lesbians, two civilly married, and the other married to them somehow, or so they say. There would be no compelling state interest to discriminate against the third. How could they ever be considered normal without the civil license. To deny this is to deny your own argument.

If you believe that there is no compelling state interest in prohibiting Polygamy then gays marrying has nothing to do with it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[birddog]

I believe queers should be eligible for Legal Unions whether they be Civil or in a Church. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and the Civil system should respect that.

 

[Pop23]

So change all civil marriages to civil unions, Fishy. Go ahead, do it. They gays won't stop you because we don't care what you call it. For us it IS all about equality so we don't care what you call it as long as it is the same for gays and straights.

Ah, but you don't want that do you, Fishy because you wouldn't feel all "special", isn't that right?



No actually it won't since they have nothing to do with each other. How many countries that have given legal marriage status to gays have also done so for Polygamists? Don't bother, it's NONE. How many countries with legalized Polygamy also have legal recognition of SSM? Also none. There is no slippery slope. It's a fallacy.

Yet you believe your argument, that being that there is no compelling state interest to deny SSM is a winner. Problem then is that it works for every relationship Redfish posted.

The throuple that I posted earlier shows three lesbians, two civilly married, and the other married to them somehow, or so they say. There would be no compelling state interest to discriminate against the third. How could they ever be considered normal without the civil license. To deny this is to deny your own argument.

If you believe that there is no compelling state interest in prohibiting Polygamy then gays marrying has nothing to do with it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

What part of, it's your argument, do you not understand!

 

[Seawytch]

Yet you believe your argument, that being that there is no compelling state interest to deny SSM is a winner. Problem then is that it works for every relationship Redfish posted.

The throuple that I posted earlier shows three lesbians, two civilly married, and the other married to them somehow, or so they say. There would be no compelling state interest to discriminate against the third. How could they ever be considered normal without the civil license. To deny this is to deny your own argument.

If you believe that there is no compelling state interest in prohibiting Polygamy then gays marrying has nothing to do with it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

What part of, it's your argument, do you not understand!

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

 

[Pop23]

If you believe that there is no compelling state interest in prohibiting Polygamy then gays marrying has nothing to do with it. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

What part of, it's your argument, do you not understand!

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

What part of, it's your argument, do you not understand!

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

Pop, I don't care. If you think Polygamist have a legal argument, great. I wish you and them luck. Polygamy has nothing to do with not discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. Polygamy and same sex marriage are not related in any way, shape or form. If Polygamist have a legal argument, they have it outside of gays and lesbians having equal access to the laws as they already exist. Polygamist civil marriage would require a complete re-write of existing US law.

Not a single country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples has gone on to legalize polygamous marriage. None, not one.

On the other hand, countries that have legal status for Polygamist marriages, usually have also criminalized homosexuality.

No relation.

 

[Pop23]

No, it's not mine it is your slippery slope fallacy. Properly recognizing that the 14th Amendment applies to gay couples has nothing to do with more than couples. Civil Marriage does not legally apply to more than two. Never has. Two people, that's it.

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

Pop, I don't care. If you think Polygamist have a legal argument, great. I wish you and them luck. Polygamy has nothing to do with not discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. Polygamy and same sex marriage are not related in any way, shape or form. If Polygamist have a legal argument, they have it outside of gays and lesbians having equal access to the laws as they already exist. Polygamist civil marriage would require a complete re-write of existing US law.

Not a single country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples has gone on to legalize polygamous marriage. None, not one.

On the other hand, countries that have legal status for Polygamist marriages, usually have also criminalized homosexuality.

No relation.

I've shown you they are related. You posed the question of compelling state interests and then refuse to answer the questions? Your care means nothing, you understand that right? Of course you do. You simply can't answer the questions because of how it reflects on your argument.

 

[Seawytch]

Then answer the question posted earlier and quit trying to run from them. Laws change. You argue that exact point, then run when challenged on them.

Is the third party in the throuple being discriminated against?

What compelling state interest is there in denying polygamists access to legally recognized marriage?

Pop, I don't care. If you think Polygamist have a legal argument, great. I wish you and them luck. Polygamy has nothing to do with not discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. Polygamy and same sex marriage are not related in any way, shape or form. If Polygamist have a legal argument, they have it outside of gays and lesbians having equal access to the laws as they already exist. Polygamist civil marriage would require a complete re-write of existing US law.

Not a single country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples has gone on to legalize polygamous marriage. None, not one.

On the other hand, countries that have legal status for Polygamist marriages, usually have also criminalized homosexuality.

No relation.

I've shown you they are related. You posed the question of compelling state interests and then refuse to answer the questions? Your care means nothing, you understand that right? Of course you do. You simply can't answer the questions because of how it reflects on your argument.

No, actually you didn't. Again, I don't care. Good luck. I hope you hurry...the wife and I would LOVE to bring in a third, but unless I can get her on my healthcare, it just wouldn't be worth the trouble, ya know?

 

[Pop23]

Pop, I don't care. If you think Polygamist have a legal argument, great. I wish you and them luck. Polygamy has nothing to do with not discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. Polygamy and same sex marriage are not related in any way, shape or form. If Polygamist have a legal argument, they have it outside of gays and lesbians having equal access to the laws as they already exist. Polygamist civil marriage would require a complete re-write of existing US law.

Not a single country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples has gone on to legalize polygamous marriage. None, not one.

On the other hand, countries that have legal status for Polygamist marriages, usually have also criminalized homosexuality.

No relation.

I've shown you they are related. You posed the question of compelling state interests and then refuse to answer the questions? Your care means nothing, you understand that right? Of course you do. You simply can't answer the questions because of how it reflects on your argument.

No, actually you didn't. Again, I don't care. Good luck. I hope you hurry...the wife and I would LOVE to bring in a third, but unless I can get her on my healthcare, it just wouldn't be worth the trouble, ya know?

Thanks, now marriage is simply a healthcare concern

You've bolstered my argument.