Everything but marriage

[KittenKoder]

So much for them claiming that they "just don't want it called marriage" bullshit. Yes, they are trying to kill this even though it doesn't call it marriage. Hypocrites.

'Everything but marriage' law for same-sex couples on hold | The News Tribune - Local | Seattle-Tacoma News, Weather, Sports, Jobs, Homes and Cars | South Puget Sound's Destination

So, the gay advocates come up with the perfect compromise, it's not marriage by title or legal definition, but they still try to stop it. So far all I see from the anti-gay crowd is their desire to censor everything that they find "offensive" just to protect their over sensitive sensibilities.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

 

[Yurt]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So much for them claiming that they "just don't want it called marriage" bullshit. Yes, they are trying to kill this even though it doesn't call it marriage. Hypocrites.

'Everything but marriage' law for same-sex couples on hold | The News Tribune - Local | Seattle-Tacoma News, Weather, Sports, Jobs, Homes and Cars | South Puget Sound's Destination

So, the gay advocates come up with the perfect compromise, it's not marriage by title or legal definition, but they still try to stop it. So far all I see from the anti-gay crowd is their desire to censor everything that they find "offensive" just to protect their over sensitive sensibilities.

Yes , yes and you would do the same if it were an argument for Incestuous relationships by consenting adults. Or Polygamy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

No Yurt that is different. Just ask Kittenkodder.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So much for them claiming that they "just don't want it called marriage" bullshit. Yes, they are trying to kill this even though it doesn't call it marriage. Hypocrites.

'Everything but marriage' law for same-sex couples on hold | The News Tribune - Local | Seattle-Tacoma News, Weather, Sports, Jobs, Homes and Cars | South Puget Sound's Destination

So, the gay advocates come up with the perfect compromise, it's not marriage by title or legal definition, but they still try to stop it. So far all I see from the anti-gay crowd is their desire to censor everything that they find "offensive" just to protect their over sensitive sensibilities.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this bill. I think the political analysis of the bill is wrong too. Far from "teeing it up" for acceptance of same-sex marriage, I think this lets the steam out of the pot. I don't think there will be enough political will behind a "marriage" per se law once rights are legitimized.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

Nope. This case is easily distinguished because it is known that offspring of close family members results in scientifically significant increases in the odds of producing genetic defects. Thus, there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing close family members from marrying and producing offspring.

Note: compelling state interest is a legal term of art referring to standard of review. Even enumerated rights under the Constitution have had exceptions made to them when there is a compelling state interest for the law.

 

[Red Dawn]

So much for them claiming that they "just don't want it called marriage" bullshit. Yes, they are trying to kill this even though it doesn't call it marriage. Hypocrites.

'Everything but marriage' law for same-sex couples on hold | The News Tribune - Local | Seattle-Tacoma News, Weather, Sports, Jobs, Homes and Cars | South Puget Sound's Destination

So, the gay advocates come up with the perfect compromise, it's not marriage by title or legal definition, but they still try to stop it. So far all I see from the anti-gay crowd is their desire to censor everything that they find "offensive" just to protect their over sensitive sensibilities.

LOL

You thought rightwing christians were telling the truth, that they "only" objected to the relationship being called "marriage"?

Let me explain something to you. Some of these rightwing christians are the biggest liars on the planet. There's a whole wing of rightwing christian theology that acutally thinks lying is okay, if it serves a broader purpose in promoting their religious views.


They have a problem with gays, at a very deep, and disturbing personal level. Its got nothing to do with a handful of obscure passages from the old testament.

 

[mattskramer]

So much for them claiming that they "just don't want it called marriage" bullshit. Yes, they are trying to kill this even though it doesn't call it marriage. Hypocrites.

'Everything but marriage' law for same-sex couples on hold | The News Tribune - Local | Seattle-Tacoma News, Weather, Sports, Jobs, Homes and Cars | South Puget Sound's Destination

So, the gay advocates come up with the perfect compromise, it's not marriage by title or legal definition, but they still try to stop it. So far all I see from the anti-gay crowd is their desire to censor everything that they find "offensive" just to protect their over sensitive sensibilities.

Yes. I pretty much agree with you. It seems like all that the opponents have left is the silly domino theory which amounts to: “Oh no! This may lead to polygamy and incest.” Why don’t they say that this may lead to marriage between dogs and people? This will lead to people getting married to their sofas. As I explained before, people are not dominos. With that way of thinking, perhaps we should prohibit all forms of tobacco consumption. Anyway, each issue is different. Each issue might have good points and bad points to ponder. As our understanding and willingness to take changes progresses, these other issues will be discussed and debated on their own merits. Just as we experimented with legalization and prohibition and legalization of alcohol, so it will be with other issues. If we legalize something and later discover that it was a bad idea to do you, we can reverse the law.

 

[mattskramer]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

Nope. This case is easily distinguished because it is known that offspring of close family members results in scientifically significant increases in the odds of producing genetic defects. Thus, there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing close family members from marrying and producing offspring.

Note: compelling state interest is a legal term of art referring to standard of review. Even enumerated rights under the Constitution have had exceptions made to them when there is a compelling state interest for the law.

Right on! Very well put.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yeah, after all the reasoning "as long as it's not called marriage" by those anti-gay freaks, then when someone does put something forward that is "everything but marriage", thus not calling it marriage, they still try to stop it. Hypocrites, that's all.

 

[jillian]

Nope. This case is easily distinguished because it is known that offspring of close family members results in scientifically significant increases in the odds of producing genetic defects. Thus, there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing close family members from marrying and producing offspring.

Note: compelling state interest is a legal term of art referring to standard of review. Even enumerated rights under the Constitution have had exceptions made to them when there is a compelling state interest for the law.

not worth discussing with him...it's a troll... and he knows it.

 

[KittenKoder]

The next step the government will take (since they always take a mile) will be to say that only one church can perform marriages and no other church will, unless this bill at least passes, allowing them "everything but marriage" ... just sayin.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh ... and the only church they'll pick will be mormons ... wanna bet!

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

I really don't care to get involved in your personal problems, Yurt.

 

[Yurt]

Of course. The Conservatives are for "freedom" as long as they get to define freedom. I really don't give a damn, either way, but what consenting adults choose to do between themselves is their own business. And what they choose to call it should be the same.

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

Nope. This case is easily distinguished because it is known that offspring of close family members results in scientifically significant increases in the odds of producing genetic defects. Thus, there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing close family members from marrying and producing offspring.

Note: compelling state interest is a legal term of art referring to standard of review. Even enumerated rights under the Constitution have had exceptions made to them when there is a compelling state interest for the law.

so should the government run genetic tests on everyone to determine their odds of producing children with genetic defects? that is what you are arguing...if marriage is a fundamental right, how do you think that is going to play against the compelling interest? you do realize that those who argue against homosexuality and homosexual marriages have also used the compelling state interest argument....

using your logic, it is a scientific fact homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus the state would ultimately lose its population base if the majority should homosexual. might the state have a compelling interest in maintaining the population? all one has to do is look to china, which mandates a decreased population and then to russia which is giving incentives to its citizens to increase population.

and this is not a troll argument. your counter argument to the issue raised is an excellent one, this issue is not one you can just dismiss out of hand no matter how much jillian wants to cover her ears and claim it is a troll.

 

[Yurt]

tech esq:

would you support incest marriage if the people underwent genetic testing to determine the odds of genetic defects and if the odds are same as non relations? what would that do to the compelling state interest? and really, since this is most likely going to fall under strict scrutiny, how often does the state win strict scrutiny cases?

 

[Nik]

then you support this....?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-and-daughter-should-be-allowed-to-marry.html

Nope. This case is easily distinguished because it is known that offspring of close family members results in scientifically significant increases in the odds of producing genetic defects. Thus, there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing close family members from marrying and producing offspring.

Note: compelling state interest is a legal term of art referring to standard of review. Even enumerated rights under the Constitution have had exceptions made to them when there is a compelling state interest for the law.

so should the government run genetic tests on everyone to determine their odds of producing children with genetic defects? that is what you are arguing...if marriage is a fundamental right, how do you think that is going to play against the compelling interest? you do realize that those who argue against homosexuality and homosexual marriages have also used the compelling state interest argument....

using your logic, it is a scientific fact homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus the state would ultimately lose its population base if the majority should homosexual. might the state have a compelling interest in maintaining the population? all one has to do is look to china, which mandates a decreased population and then to russia which is giving incentives to its citizens to increase population.

and this is not a troll argument. your counter argument to the issue raised is an excellent one, this issue is not one you can just dismiss out of hand no matter how much jillian wants to cover her ears and claim it is a troll.

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

 

[KittenKoder]

People who hate like to make such strange connections and twists for no reason, masking their desire to babysit everyone while getting mad when their "hetero" perversions are brought to light. Tell you what, I won't care either way if they got rid of all the breeder sex on TV, in the movies, on the fucking streets, etc.. Until such time, the gay community should be allowed to do it all as well, since at least then I can laugh at the squeamish straight people who have to go through what I do every time I go to try to enjoy some fucking coffee at a coffee shop only to have some straight livestock fondling each other.

 

[Yurt]

Nope. This case is easily distinguished because it is known that offspring of close family members results in scientifically significant increases in the odds of producing genetic defects. Thus, there is a "compelling state interest" in preventing close family members from marrying and producing offspring.

Note: compelling state interest is a legal term of art referring to standard of review. Even enumerated rights under the Constitution have had exceptions made to them when there is a compelling state interest for the law.

so should the government run genetic tests on everyone to determine their odds of producing children with genetic defects? that is what you are arguing...if marriage is a fundamental right, how do you think that is going to play against the compelling interest? you do realize that those who argue against homosexuality and homosexual marriages have also used the compelling state interest argument....

using your logic, it is a scientific fact homosexuals cannot reproduce, thus the state would ultimately lose its population base if the majority should homosexual. might the state have a compelling interest in maintaining the population? all one has to do is look to china, which mandates a decreased population and then to russia which is giving incentives to its citizens to increase population.

and this is not a troll argument. your counter argument to the issue raised is an excellent one, this issue is not one you can just dismiss out of hand no matter how much jillian wants to cover her ears and claim it is a troll.

How predictable.

There is not compelling state interest against homosexuality. Running tests on people is not comparable to something that is clear without running tests.

Homosexuals can, in fact, reproduce. In fact many of them have kids.

did i say there was a compelling interest?

it is not clear that all incest will result in birth defects, that is false. further, using YOUR logic, if incest will in fact always result in birth defects, then the incest couple can have a child the same way a homosexual couple does....

thus, there is no reason the state should interfere in an incest marriage, using YOUR logic and the logic of lawrence v. texas...