Gay Bar Owner Shows Intolerance

[g5000]

What if I don't believe there is one? Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it? Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?

It is blindingly obvious where you stand. Which is why you avoid answering the question: Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.

 

[Pho_King]

You really can't stop yourself, can you. You just keep throwing out those red herrings. Obvious homophobe is obvious.

It is obvious you cannot come up with a rational reason to ban gay marriage. So like some really bizarre broken record, you talk about other kinds of relationships that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Can you come up with a rational reason to ban two 80 year old brothers from marrying?
Why do you hate 80 year old brothers so?

For all you know, I myself am a poofter that advocates for homo marriage and I am trying to get my like minded friends on more of a solid basis for our position than "but we love each other and we are consenting adults".

Going the obtuse route now, eh?

Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.

If I were to say yes to that question I would have NO grounds for arguing against any relationship between consenting adults. Which is what you (possibly us) poofters need to come to grips with. Either that, or refine our position to only include ourselves in the struggle for marriage equality, which smells of rank hypocrisy and self-interest.

 

[Ravi]

Wow! Look how fast those goalposts moved!

You are so predictable, I made a list for you: Please see Number 4.

Where were the Goalposts at when I first placed them?...



peace...

The discussion was about gay divorce rates. As soon as SeaWytch debunked the homophbe meme that gays have the same divorce rates as straights, you rushed in and helpfully moved the goalposts to AIDS.

But I was there ahead of you. Did you read number 4?

I have to agree with you here. Pretending AIDS is an answer to the question, why shouldn't gays be allowed to be married, is beyond stupid.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody pretended that.

Except you..just now...

 

[High_Gravity]

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

Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.

Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships? To a man who wants to marry two different women that do not know about each other? Or that do? Is your basis really that any two consenting adults should have the right to marry? That is a very broad basis. But not an unworthy one.

Well incest can be harmful because if they create children they can have all kinds of problems from the inbreeding.

 

[Pho_King]

What if I don't believe there is one? Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it? Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?

It is blindingly obvious where you stand. Which is why you avoid answering the question: Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.

I am sure that, to a simple mind, nearly everything "blindingly obvious".

Perhaps you should provide a basis for prohibiting two gay 80 year brothers from marrying that should not apply to two 80 year old unrelated men. Why would you exclude certain gay relationships?

 

[g5000]

What if I don't believe there is one? Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it? Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?

Too late. Marriage was federalized the day the federal government gave married couples a break in the federal tax laws. And the day the federal government gave a spouse the privilege to collect their spouse's Social Security death benefits. And the day the federal government extended all kinds of other protections to married people.

Therefore, gay marriage will never be just a state-level issue. It is a federal one. They cannot be equal until they receive all the same privileges and benefits received at both state and federal levels.

You are way over your head.

 

[Ravi]

Nobody pretended that.

Except you..just now...

Oh, right, it was just a random attack on gay people by a troll.

 

[g5000]

What if I don't believe there is one? Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it? Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?

It is blindingly obvious where you stand. Which is why you avoid answering the question: Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.

I am sure that, to a simple mind, nearly everything "blindingly obvious".

Perhaps you should provide a basis for prohibiting two gay 80 year brothers from marrying that should not apply to two 80 year old unrelated men. Why would you exclude certain gay relationships?

Incest is a separate topic. Perhaps you should start one since you seem obsessed with it.

Are you in favor of gay marriages being legally recognized by the federal government, with all privileges and benefits extended to straight marriages?

Yes or no question.

 

[Pho_King]

Gee, me too...imagine that. Of course I want ALL couples like me to be able to LEGALLY marry the consenting adult of their choice.

Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships? To a man who wants to marry two different women that do not know about each other? Or that do? Is your basis really that any two consenting adults should have the right to marry? That is a very broad basis. But not an unworthy one.

Well incest can be harmful because if they create children they can have all kinds of problems from the inbreeding.

Is that the basis for denying incestuous relationships? Because of potential harm to children? That seems like a very dangerous argument to make for proponents of gay marriage. WHat if childbirth isn't a possibility- as between 80 year old relatives? Or same-sex relatives?

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, incest is not just harmful because of the offspring. It's harmful because it creates an environment where children are abused from a very young age.

I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.

I'd say the union issue is a lot more relevant than the dna one.

 

[g5000]

When a married couple files a married tax return, they do so because there is a law which allows them to do so. They could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which created the married tax return.

When two gay people get married, they are not allowed to file a married tax return. For some reason, it scares the living bejeesus out of some people if they were to file a married tax return.

This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws".

Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. I know some of you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true! There are!

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it. You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason. You must have a rational reason for denying that protection to them.

"I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from entering into a matrimonial contract and filing a joint tax return.

All of the above was established in precedent by Loving v. Virginia. Read it. Learn it. Because when gay marriage finally comes before the Supreme Court, it will be cited as the precedent for legalizing gay marriage all the way up to the federal level. This will result in the interesting paradox of some ignorant blacks screaming about using the struggle for black equality to achieve gay equality. The idea that gays should be treated like everyone else just does not compute with some blacks who believe blacks should be treated like everyone else.

Go figure.

I would hope the people on the opposing legal team would bring up the incest and bestiality red herring when that day comes in court, just for the incredibly hilarious yucks it would bring watching them get bitch-slapped by all nine justices, but they could not be lawyers who made it all the way to arguing before the Supreme Court if they were that profoundly stupid.

 

[Pho_King]

What if I don't believe there is one? Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it? Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?

Too late. Marriage was federalized the day the federal government gave married couples a break in the federal tax laws. And the day the federal government gave a spouse the privilege to collect their spouse's Social Security death benefits. And the day the federal government extended all kinds of other protections to married people.

Therefore, gay marriage will never be just a state-level issue. It is a federal one. They cannot be equal until they receive all the same privileges and benefits received at both state and federal levels.

You are way over your head.

Talk about being way in over your head....
Family and marital relations law is a matter of state jurisdiction. What you have described are benefits that flow from marriage. In short, you are greatly confusing the issues. Marriage has not been federalized. Even heterosexaul couples cannot march down to the federal courthouse and receive the blessings of marriage. Why? Because the regulation of domestic affairs is purely a state's issue.

 

[Pho_King]

Actually, incest is not just harmful because of the offspring. It's harmful because it creates an environment where children are abused from a very young age.
I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.

I'd say the union issue is a lot more relevant than the dna one.

How so?

 

[Pho_King]

When a married couple files a married tax return, they do so because there is a law which allows them to do so. They could not possibly file a married tax return if there was no law which created the married tax return.

When two gay people get married, they are not allowed to file a married tax return. For some reason, it scares the living bejeesus out of some people if they were to file a married tax return.

This means they do not have "equal protection of the laws".

Let's go to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. I know some of you are probably surprised there are more than 10 Amendments, but it is true! There are!

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So once a law is created, everyone is protected by it. You cannot keep someone away from that protection without a good reason. You must have a rational reason for denying that protection to them.

"I hate fags" is not a rational reason to prevent two people from entering into a matrimonial contract and filing a joint tax return.

All of the above was established in precedent by Loving v. Virginia. Read it. Learn it. Because when gay marriage finally comes before the Supreme Court, it will be cited as the precedent for legalizing gay marriage all the way up to the federal level. This will result in the interesting paradox of some ignorant blacks screaming about using the struggle for black equality to achieve gay equality.

I would hope the people on the opposing legal team would bring up the incest and bestiality red herring when that day comes in court, just for the yucks it would bring, but they could not be lawyers if they were that profoundly stupid.

"I hate incestuous octegenarians", is, like "I hate fags" not a rational reason to prevent two people from entering into a matrimonial contract and filing a joint tax return. Luckily, its only the very simple-minded like yourself that operate on such an unsophisticated level.

 

[g5000]

I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.

Of course you do. It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless). It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).

Completely rational person, you are...

 

[g5000]

What you have described are benefits that flow from marriage. In short, you are greatly confusing the issues.

You dumb shit. Those benefits ARE the issue.

That is all gays want. To be extended the same protections of the laws as everyone else.

It is as simple as that. You got so wrapped up in your own smoke and mirrors that you are the one who has become confused.

Before you speak again, just sit and think about that.

"Huh. Gays just want to be legally protected the EXACT SAME same as everyone else!"

What a concept!

You are going to need one giant fuck of a red herring now, to cover that up.

 

[Pho_King]

I find it interesting that the homosexual lobby wants to equate the homosexual marriage issue to RACE..but they balk at equating it to any other UNIONS.

Of course you do. It does not compute for you that comparing an interracial marriage (which is harmless) to a gay marriage (which is harmless). It makes more sense to you to compare a gay marriage (which is harmless) to an incestous relationship (which is harmful).

Completely rational person, you are...

How is it that incestuous realtionships are harmful?

 

[bodecea]

I have not equated gay marriage and incestuous except for examining how the legal basis for one applies to the legal basis for another. Have ye the vapors?

How is an incestuous relationship harmful? What if it is an incestuous relationship between octegenarians? How would that be harmful? Why does the prospect of two 80 year old brothers filing a joint tax return terrify you so?

Please provide a rational reason for banning gay marraige. Now.

What if I don't believe there is one? Or that I believe that there are several, that are outweighed by rational reasons for permitting it? Or that i am in favor of gay marriage, but don't believe it is a federal (read civil rights) issue and should be left to the states?

Its way more fun to allow you to live in your narrow, simplistic, and utterly self-righteous confines in which anyone that is not as similarly simple-minded as you is a homophobe.

What have YOU actively done to get that changed?

 

[High_Gravity]

Just a tester....does that also apply to incestuous relationships? To a man who wants to marry two different women that do not know about each other? Or that do? Is your basis really that any two consenting adults should have the right to marry? That is a very broad basis. But not an unworthy one.

Well incest can be harmful because if they create children they can have all kinds of problems from the inbreeding.

Is that the basis for denying incestuous relationships? Because of potential harm to children? That seems like a very dangerous argument to make for proponents of gay marriage. WHat if childbirth isn't a possibility- as between 80 year old relatives? Or same-sex relatives?

I guess if they don't have kids I'd be fine with it, if some dude wants to fuck his sister thats no hair off my nose.