Gay Bar Owner Shows Intolerance

[koshergrl]

When homos marry each other, it almost never works out in the end, either.

Sounds like it's just a gay thing. Meh.

Not true. Turns out our divorce rates are the same as y'alls.

Link?

 

[High_Gravity]

Gays can legally marry, just like everybody else.

They choose not to. Their choice.

Gays cannot legally marry (except in some states), those they love and are attracted to. Apparently, you were unaware of that distinction.

In many cases, neither can heteros.

How do you figure that?

 

[Pho_King]

Marriage is, quite clearly, a fundamental civil right. That has been well established by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. What is the compelling state reason to deny gay and lesbian couples this fundamental civil right? Where is the overriding harm (that will stand up in court)?

Homos are not denied the right to marry any more than a mother and son are. But there are limits-which may or may not be Consitutional, to say nothing of moral-on the relationships that qualify for marriage. Get your arguments straight, poofter.

And those limits are? (Keep in mind, those "limits" must be compelling enough for government to withhold civil marriage and its benefits, rights, etc. from ONE group of law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens, while giving civil marriage and its benefits, rights, etc. to ANOTHER group of law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens.)

There are lots of them. There are age restrictions, restrictions on plural marriages, restrictions on bigamy, restrictions on incestuous marrigaes, restrictions on marriages between members of the same sex, restrictions on the ability to marry certain foreign nationals. There are all kinds of limits placed on the relationships that can be legally constructed as a marriage. The belief that so many homos have that anyone should be able to marry anyone, as long as both are law-abiding, taxpaying consenting adfult citizens is incredibly simplistic. Way to simplistic for a consitutional scholar such as yourself.

 

[koshergrl]

So tell us again....what are the valid reasons for denying civil marriage to law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens because of their gender?

The same reason we deny civil marriage to single people because they're single, or parent/child couples because they're too closely related, or people and their cars...

Really? And those reasons would be.....? (BTW...sorry to see that you cannot tell the difference between a person marrying themself, a person marrying a child who cannot legally consent, and a person marrying their car that cannot legally consent......were you born that dense or did some disease or accident take away your mental capacity to discern obvious differences?)



Correct. But the government must have valid legal reasons for denying equal rights to law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adult citizens.

Citizens A & B are allowed civil marriage.

Citizens A & C are NOT allowed civil marriage.

Why not? Give us valid legal reasons.

If you want to get married, you marry a person of the opposite sex who isn't closely related and who isn't already married. That's what marriage is.

Ah...so, to you, marriage is marrying someone you are NOT attracted to. Gotcha. Are you planning on enforcing your "Marry people you are not attracted to" requirements on all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens? Did it work for you? Or are you pointing out WHY we have such a high divorce rate?

If you want something else, go for it. But we aren't obligated to pretend you're married when you aren't.

Actually, I AM married. Legally too. Just waiting for the sands of time to blow away the bigots like yourself.

No, you aren't married. Legally, meh, who cares.

But a marriage it isn't. Regardless of what the law says.

 

[Pho_King]

Gays cannot legally marry (except in some states), those they love and are attracted to. Apparently, you were unaware of that distinction.

In many cases, neither can heteros.

How do you figure that?

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

 

[High_Gravity]

In many cases, neither can heteros.

How do you figure that?

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

Ok I get what you mean.

 

[Pho_King]

How do you figure that?

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

Ok I get what you mean.

Im impressed. Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else. You must be a rarity on this site.

 

[High_Gravity]

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

Ok I get what you mean.

Im impressed. Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else. You must be a rarity on this site.

Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.

 

[Pho_King]

Ok I get what you mean.

Im impressed. Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else. You must be a rarity on this site.

Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.

i understand that notion. And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos. And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.

 

[High_Gravity]

Im impressed. Someone that is able to read and understand a post of mine without accusing me of being a racist, or a homophobe, or god knows what else. You must be a rarity on this site.

Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.

i understand that notion. And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos. And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.

Besides even if the country outright banned gay marriages across the board that wouldn't stop 2 women from living together as wife and wife if thats what they wanted, thats already going on with people who marry multiple partners, as long as you only have 1 marriage certificate you can shack up with as many people as you want, polygamists and Muslims do this here.

 

[Pho_King]

Well I understand what you mean however I do believe gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry if they wish, we waste so much time arguing about gay marriage when there are such more important things to be worrying about.

i understand that notion. And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos. And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.

Besides even if the country outright banned gay marriages across the board that wouldn't stop 2 women from living together as wife and wife if thats what they wanted, thats already going on with people who marry multiple partners, as long as you only have 1 marriage certificate you can shack up with as many people as you want, polygamists and Muslims do this here.

Sure, that happens. But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.

 

[Katzndogz]

The major success story of a homosexual man who finally got the courage to come out to his family has to be the father of John Walker Lindh. He came home in a dress and announced he was leaving his family for a man. Soon after that son Johnny became Jihad Johnny. But, dad was finally happy.

 

[mal]

But a marriage it isn't. Regardless of what the law says.

Marriage itself Exists because of the Marriage of the Flesh which each and every Person is Capable of...

Hell, Bodecea is only posting on this Forum because of it.

Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal and the Law can't make something that's not Equal Equal to something it Factually is not.

The Constitution could be Amended to say that all Gays are Less than Human and not Deserving of Rights Afforded EVERY Individual...

And in that, it would be Constitutional.

It would not be Right.

The Agendists Know that they have the Courts Leaning their way with Deliberately Appointed Liberals over the years.

It's why Liberal Californians who Voted AGAINST Gay Marriage were Overruled by the Tyranny of the Despotic Branch of that State.

Ultimately Homosexual Coupling is NOT "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" and if you Observe the Fact that EACH AND EVERYONE of them is Designed by Nature to Couple with the Opposite Sex, their Choice to Defy that Design and Equipment is not Society's Burden.

Bodey and Sea can NOT Take Issue with this and that is why they Avoid it.



peace...

 

[g5000]

In many cases, neither can heteros.

How do you figure that?

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

Wrong. Again.

The point is that a same sex marriage filing a married tax return is as harmless as an opposite sex marriage filing a married tax return. You are just tossing out red herrings about things that ARE harmful. Working your ass off to make gay marriage equal to some guy boning his dog or his sister. Obvious dickhead is obvious.

You can't explain what makes gay marriage harmful, and so you try to equate it to things that are. What a lame tactic. Impotent dick is impotent.

Oh, look! There's two men married to each other filling out a form together! Booga booga booga!

 

[g5000]

Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling are Inherently and Naturally Unequal

Please Explain Why.

 

[Seawytch]

When homos marry each other, it almost never works out in the end, either.

Sounds like it's just a gay thing. Meh.

Not true. Turns out our divorce rates are the same as y'alls.

Link?

http://m.columbian.com/news/2012/jan/23/gays-divorce-rates-may-hew-close-to-heterosexuals/

 

[Pho_King]

How do you figure that?

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

That takes nothing away from the point that a same sex marriage filing a married tax return is as harmless as an opposite sex marriage filing a married tax return. You are just tossing out red herrings.

Had I ever even intimated that I believe anything at all about the harmful or harmless nature of diffent relationships filing tax returns, you would have a point. But I haven't, and you don't. You are just droppin shits.

 

[Seawytch]

In many cases, neither can heteros.

How do you figure that?

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

If you wish to advocate for bigamy or incest, nobody is stopping you. The law would also have to supply a valid legal reason for preventing your marriage. They would have to provide an overriding harm in allowing them.

An argument can surely be made to prevent incest. Bigamy, not so much.

 

[Seawytch]

i understand that notion. And I don't think you are a homo for believing that way, any more than I think proponents of traditional marriage just hate homos. And I certainly think that if I were to do to lesbians what the bar owner in question has done to straight women, that the most......emotional....on this thread would be singing a different tune.

Besides even if the country outright banned gay marriages across the board that wouldn't stop 2 women from living together as wife and wife if thats what they wanted, thats already going on with people who marry multiple partners, as long as you only have 1 marriage certificate you can shack up with as many people as you want, polygamists and Muslims do this here.

Sure, that happens. But for very specific, time-honored, and sound reasons, marriage is a recognition given to a very narrow set of realationships.

No, an ever broadening set of relationships. We used to legally prevent interracial marriage for the same reason you give to prevent me from legally marrying my non familial, consenting adult partner.

 

[Pho_King]

How do you figure that?

I am a heterosexual man. Were I to fall in love with another woman, I could not marry her. Because I am married. Were I to want to marry my sister-either due to an incestuous desire or for other, well-meaning reasons, I could not do so. Were i to want to marry my best friend Bob, I could not do so. Love and attractions are personal preferences in choosing a marital partner. They have nothing to do with legal requirements.

If you wish to advocate for bigamy or incest, nobody is stopping you. The law would also have to supply a valid legal reason for preventing your marriage. They would have to provide an overriding harm in allowing them.

An argument can surely be made to prevent incest. Bigamy, not so much.

I respect your honesty, Seawytch. I however, am not a marriage advocate, except for my own.