Gays have it made! Places in the world where it's actually not okay to be gay

[auditor0007]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Seriously? You're going to compare Sudan to the US where we value freedom and equality? Of course it is better in the US for gays than many other places, but that doesn't make discriminating against gays okay.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Seriously? You're going to compare Sudan to the US where we value freedom and equality? Of course it is better in the US for gays than many other places, but that doesn't make discriminating against gays okay.

I'm not the one making the comparisons. It is better to be discriminated against rather than to be murdered because of what you are. All homosexuals in America fight for is a title. A freaking useless title! Homosexuals in Sudan and other places are murdered or imprisoned.

But hey, in this country, you act as if discrimination is a worse fate than death.

 

[JoeB131]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Seriously? You're going to compare Sudan to the US where we value freedom and equality? Of course it is better in the US for gays than many other places, but that doesn't make discriminating against gays okay.

I'm not the one making the comparisons. It is better to be discriminated against rather than to be murdered because of what you are. All homosexuals fight for is a title. A freaking useless title! Homosexuals in Sudan and other places are murdered or imprisoned.

But hey, in this country, you act as if discrimination is a worse fate than death.

If the "title" is "useless", then why are you Christians making such a big deal about it?

In the Sudan, you can also be murdered for being a Christian, but you Chrisitans in this country whine because they won't let you set up a Nativity Scene or sing a Christmas Carol in a public school.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage = one man/one woman. Now? Marriage redefined to be one man/one woman/ one man/one man/ one woman/one woman. The homosexual community most certainly is trying to change the definition.

Stop being obtuse. S/s marriage was pushed, state after state said no, and instead of going to route of changing what was included in civil unions the homosexual community went after marriage. A small minority insisted the large majority accommodate them but never bothered to try and to do the accommodating themselves. Typical progressive tactic. Like I said earlier, full acceptance is the goal rather than tolerance and the way marriage has been redefined by the gays shows that. Did the homosexual community ever look at how many states refused ssm and that the majority of people agree with the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, take that into consideration, and instead of forcing the change of marriage pursue changing what was included in civil unions instead? Never mind, we all know the answer and we all know why.

No, that is the way you define marriage, it is not the definition of marriage. I would define it as the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

It isn't my definition, it's what has been the definition in this country since its inception, is correct and remains so. Marriage is defined as between man/woman. If it weren't then there wouldn't be an argument over it.

And from this country's inception until the mid 1960s, marriage was only between members of the same race...until it wasn't. Marriage is no longer defined as being only between a man and a woman just as it is no longer defined as being only for whites marrying whites or blacks marrying blacks.

The argument is over, marriage equality has won.

If equality was the goal - and taking advantage of the financial benefits of marriage is the equality being sought - then the gay community would have taken the no answer they received over and over and gone after changing civil unions. By not addressing this, you make it clear that nothing less than acceptance under the guise of equality is the true goal.

In what state have gays said "no" to civil unions? Name one. Oh that's right you can't...because we haven't. Now, you take a look at some of the laws in states like Texas and Wisconsin where not only has marriage equality been prohibited but civil unions or even partner benefits in some states as well. The "gheys" didn't do that, conservatives did.

Equality is sought. Marriage licenses are what is granted by the state. Don't like it, change it. It's not our job to change legal marriage in this country because you don't like the gays saying "marriage". If you don't want gays to get a marriage license from the state, change it for all couples, not just the gay ones. That's unconstitutional in case you didn't know.

Funny thing, when you beat someone over the head long enough they tend to submit ... just to stop the beating. What tolerance you (collective) display.

.

The polls show majority approval for marriage equality. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp, because you're stuck in 2004-2008 when everyone hated the gays? It's over, you've lost.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays should STFU and stop fighting for any rights here because they will never get rights in other countries. Makes perfect sense!

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, that is the way you define marriage, it is not the definition of marriage. I would define it as the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.


And from this country's inception until the mid 1960s, marriage was only between members of the same race...until it wasn't. Marriage is no longer defined as being only between a man and a woman just as it is no longer defined as being only for whites marrying whites or blacks marrying blacks.

The argument is over, marriage equality has won.





In what state have gays said "no" to civil unions? Name one. Oh that's right you can't...because we haven't. Now, you take a look at some of the laws in states like Texas and Wisconsin where not only has marriage equality been prohibited but civil unions or even partner benefits in some states as well. The "gheys" didn't do that, conservatives did.

Equality is sought. Marriage licenses are what is granted by the state. Don't like it, change it. It's not our job to change legal marriage in this country because you don't like the gays saying "marriage". If you don't want gays to get a marriage license from the state, change it for all couples, not just the gay ones. That's unconstitutional in case you didn't know.

.

The polls show majority approval for marriage equality. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp, because you're stuck in 2004-2008 when everyone hated the gays? It's over, you've lost.

The race difference left marriage as it had always been, one man/one woman. Apples and oranges comparison.

You've missed my point on civil unions three times now. Can't help you with that.

The polls show majority approval for marriage equality. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp, because you're stuck in 2004-2008 when everyone hated the gays? It's over, you've lost.

Actually, this shows me you've missed the point I was making throughout my posts.

You're right, you've won. Silly me to think there was a way for all to do that.

 

[Seawytch]

The polls show majority approval for marriage equality. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp, because you're stuck in 2004-2008 when everyone hated the gays? It's over, you've lost.

The race difference left marriage as it had always been, one man/one woman. Apples and oranges comparison.

You've missed my point on civil unions three times now. Can't help you with that.

The polls show majority approval for marriage equality. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp, because you're stuck in 2004-2008 when everyone hated the gays? It's over, you've lost.

Actually, this shows me you've missed the point I was making throughout my posts.

You're right, you've won. Silly me to think there was a way for all to do that.

There is no "point with civil unions". Unless you have civil unions instead of legal marriage for all couples, it simply doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Sorry, but we aren't going to make you "feel" better by accepting 2nd class citizenship status. If you don't want us getting married, change it for everyone.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The race difference left marriage as it had always been, one man/one woman. Apples and oranges comparison.

You've missed my point on civil unions three times now. Can't help you with that.



Actually, this shows me you've missed the point I was making throughout my posts.

You're right, you've won. Silly me to think there was a way for all to do that.

There is no "point with civil unions". Unless you have civil unions instead of legal marriage for all couples, it simply doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Sorry, but we aren't going to make you "feel" better by accepting 2nd class citizenship status. If you don't want us getting married, change it for everyone.

You really need to go back and read what I posted. Seriously.

 

[Pogo]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Seriously? You're going to compare Sudan to the US where we value freedom and equality? Of course it is better in the US for gays than many other places, but that doesn't make discriminating against gays okay.

I'm not the one making the comparisons. It is better to be discriminated against rather than to be murdered because of what you are. All homosexuals in America fight for is a title. A freaking useless title! Homosexuals in Sudan and other places are murdered or imprisoned.

But hey, in this country, you act as if discrimination is a worse fate than death.

Uhhhmmmm...... whose thread is it anyway?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Seriously? You're going to compare Sudan to the US where we value freedom and equality? Of course it is better in the US for gays than many other places, but that doesn't make discriminating against gays okay.

I'm not the one making the comparisons. It is better to be discriminated against rather than to be murdered because of what you are. All homosexuals in America fight for is a title. A freaking useless title! Homosexuals in Sudan and other places are murdered or imprisoned.

But hey, in this country, you act as if discrimination is a worse fate than death.

You truly are repugnant.

The ignorance and contempt you and most others on the right exhibit toward Americans' civil rights is astonishing.

 

[BDBoop]

Seriously? You're going to compare Sudan to the US where we value freedom and equality? Of course it is better in the US for gays than many other places, but that doesn't make discriminating against gays okay.

I'm not the one making the comparisons. It is better to be discriminated against rather than to be murdered because of what you are. All homosexuals in America fight for is a title. A freaking useless title! Homosexuals in Sudan and other places are murdered or imprisoned.

But hey, in this country, you act as if discrimination is a worse fate than death.

You truly are repugnant.

The ignorance and contempt you and most others on the right exhibit toward Americans' civil rights is astonishing.

Yup! Well, I think they apply the Constitution the same way they apply the Bible. By the time they're done twisting it and using it to their own ends, there is no resemblance to the original.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no "point with civil unions". Unless you have civil unions instead of legal marriage for all couples, it simply doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Sorry, but we aren't going to make you "feel" better by accepting 2nd class citizenship status. If you don't want us getting married, change it for everyone.

You really need to go back and read what I posted. Seriously.

You, seriously, want gays to have civil unions and straights to, seriously, have civil marriage. That's seriously unconstitutional. Seriously.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You really need to go back and read what I posted. Seriously.

You, seriously, want gays to have civil unions and straights to, seriously, have civil marriage. That's seriously unconstitutional. Seriously.

Nope.

Once again, go back and read what I wrote not what you think I wrote.

 

[Seawytch]

You really need to go back and read what I posted. Seriously.

You, seriously, want gays to have civil unions and straights to, seriously, have civil marriage. That's seriously unconstitutional. Seriously.

Nope.

Once again, go back and read what I wrote not what you think I wrote.

I did, twice. For you it's all about the word "marriage" on my license. Don't like it, get it changed.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You, seriously, want gays to have civil unions and straights to, seriously, have civil marriage. That's seriously unconstitutional. Seriously.

Nope.

Once again, go back and read what I wrote not what you think I wrote.

I did, twice. For you it's all about the word "marriage" on my license. Don't like it, get it changed.

Is that leftist tolerance? I don't see any tolerance ... so the answer must be yes.

GW wrote this on another thread. Sums it up very nicely. (I'm confident you'll dismiss it or respond with some leftist babblespeak).

Until recently, "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. Now, we are faced with a small minority of deviant individuals who insist on re-defining a traditional institution to suit their own agenda. They insist on disrespecting those who hold their traditional belief that "marriage" is a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN. They refuse to accept an alternate definition that would afford them what they claim to demand, equality under the law for those government benefits awarded to "married" couples. And yet, these deviants insist they be given the respect they refuse to give to others.
Hypocrite much? Compromise much? Compassion much? Respect for others much?

I didn't think so.

Tolerance for thee, but everyone else? "We won".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage = one man/one woman. Now? Marriage redefined to be one man/one woman/ one man/one man/ one woman/one woman. The homosexual community most certainly is trying to change the definition.

Stop being obtuse. S/s marriage was pushed, state after state said no, and instead of going to route of changing what was included in civil unions the homosexual community went after marriage. A small minority insisted the large majority accommodate them but never bothered to try and to do the accommodating themselves. Typical progressive tactic. Like I said earlier, full acceptance is the goal rather than tolerance and the way marriage has been redefined by the gays shows that. Did the homosexual community ever look at how many states refused ssm and that the majority of people agree with the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, take that into consideration, and instead of forcing the change of marriage pursue changing what was included in civil unions instead? Never mind, we all know the answer and we all know why.

Ridiculous.

Marriage law is contract law, a contract entered into by two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex. And no one is seeking to ‘redefine’ marriage; indeed, same-sex couples seek to preserve marriage as it exists now: a union of two equal partners.

Moreover, there is no civil union ‘route,’ not only is the notion ignorant legal nonsense, but a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment, where ‘separate but equal’ is just as offensive to the Constitution today as it was 60 years ago.

The issue has nothing to do with anyone ‘forcing’ anyone to ‘accommodate’ anyone or anything; there is no ‘agenda,’ ‘gay’ or otherwise, and the issue has nothing to do with a ‘progressive tactic,’ which is mere partisan idiocy.

In our Constitutional Republic one’s civil liberties are not determined by majority rule, and one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence. The ‘majority’ of a given jurisdiction lacks the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil rights, including the right of gay Americans to access a given state’s marriage law.

The inane contrivance of ‘civil unions’ is predicated only on animus toward gay Americans, its goal only to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this a state cannot do.

 

[Seawytch]

Nope.

Once again, go back and read what I wrote not what you think I wrote.

I did, twice. For you it's all about the word "marriage" on my license. Don't like it, get it changed.

Is that leftist tolerance? I don't see any tolerance ... so the answer must be yes.

GW wrote this on another thread. Sums it up very nicely. (I'm confident you'll dismiss it or respond with some leftist babblespeak).

Until recently, "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. Now, we are faced with a small minority of deviant individuals who insist on re-defining a traditional institution to suit their own agenda. They insist on disrespecting those who hold their traditional belief that "marriage" is a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN. They refuse to accept an alternate definition that would afford them what they claim to demand, equality under the law for those government benefits awarded to "married" couples. And yet, these deviants insist they be given the respect they refuse to give to others.
Hypocrite much? Compromise much? Compassion much? Respect for others much?

I didn't think so.

Tolerance for thee, but everyone else? "We won".

Yes, I'm the intolerant one because I don't want to be a 2nd class citizen. Go with that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I did, twice. For you it's all about the word "marriage" on my license. Don't like it, get it changed.

Is that leftist tolerance? I don't see any tolerance ... so the answer must be yes.

GW wrote this on another thread. Sums it up very nicely. (I'm confident you'll dismiss it or respond with some leftist babblespeak).

Until recently, "marriage" was a union between a man and a woman. Now, we are faced with a small minority of deviant individuals who insist on re-defining a traditional institution to suit their own agenda. They insist on disrespecting those who hold their traditional belief that "marriage" is a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN. They refuse to accept an alternate definition that would afford them what they claim to demand, equality under the law for those government benefits awarded to "married" couples. And yet, these deviants insist they be given the respect they refuse to give to others.
Hypocrite much? Compromise much? Compassion much? Respect for others much?

I didn't think so.

Tolerance for thee, but everyone else? "We won".

Yes, I'm the intolerant one because I don't want to be a 2nd class citizen. Go with that.

How does having civil unions for all with same financial benefits and leaving marriage to the religious and defined as on man/one woman make you a second class citizen?

You ignored GW's post and you fail to even acknowledge the intolerance on your side. Typical.

 

[Seawytch]

Is that leftist tolerance? I don't see any tolerance ... so the answer must be yes.

GW wrote this on another thread. Sums it up very nicely. (I'm confident you'll dismiss it or respond with some leftist babblespeak).



Tolerance for thee, but everyone else? "We won".

Yes, I'm the intolerant one because I don't want to be a 2nd class citizen. Go with that.

How does having civil unions for all with same financial benefits and leaving marriage to the religious and defined as on man/one woman make you a second class citizen?

How did having a separate water fountain, out of which came the same exact water, make blacks 2nd class citizens?

I'm fine with Civil Unions. I don't have a problem with them at all...for everyone. If you go get a license issued by a county clerk, you should get a civil union license. You, me, everyone. What is not acceptable is that you get a marriage license when you go down and I get a civil union licence when I go down.

We went down the separate but equal road before. Survey says?

Unconstitutional is the number one answer.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Yes, I'm the intolerant one because I don't want to be a 2nd class citizen. Go with that.

How does having civil unions for all with same financial benefits and leaving marriage to the religious and defined as on man/one woman make you a second class citizen?

How did having a separate water fountain, out of which came the same exact water, make blacks 2nd class citizens?

I'm fine with Civil Unions. I don't have a problem with them at all...for everyone. If you go get a license issued by a county clerk, you should get a civil union license. You, me, everyone. What is not acceptable is that you get a marriage license when you go down and I get a civil union licence when I go down.

We went down the separate but equal road before. Survey says?

Unconstitutional is the number one answer.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

How does having civil unions for all with same financial benefits and leaving marriage to the religious and defined as on man/one woman make you a second class citizen?

The answer is, it doesn't. This is what is fair to everyone. Everyone wins.

But you flatly reject it.