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

[Seawytch]

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.

No, I'm not "flatly" rejecting it. I said I would be fine if ALL non familial consenting adults had to get the same civil union. Is that what you're saying? If a straight couple goes into the county clerk, they too get a civil union? I'd be fine with that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

No, I'm not "flatly" rejecting it. I said I would be fine if ALL non familial consenting adults had to get the same civil union. Is that what you're saying? If a straight couple goes into the county clerk, they too get a civil union? I'd be fine with that.

It's what I've been saying! How you missed that is beyond me. You probably said "Zoom is on the right" and stereotyped me. That's why I told you to go back and actually read what I wrote.

So once again I will ask you ... why didn't the homosexual community go this route? Wouldn't that be showing tolerance and acceptance of a group whose pov you disagree with, the very same thing that the homosexual community wants? Would you have a problem with marriage being left to the religious and remain defined as one man/one woman?

 

[Newby]

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.

No, I'm not "flatly" rejecting it. I said I would be fine if ALL non familial consenting adults had to get the same civil union. Is that what you're saying? If a straight couple goes into the county clerk, they too get a civil union? I'd be fine with that.

It's what she's been saying the entire thread, but you're too busy putting your blinders on against anything anyone says that you think is a 'bigot' that you don't hear and you don't see. You're too busy saying 'we won' and trying to force what you believe down everyone else's throat. All I heard for years was how conservatives and the 'religious' try to shove their views down everyone else's throat, but they have nothing on the left when it comes to using government power to do the exact same thing.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No, I'm not "flatly" rejecting it. I said I would be fine if ALL non familial consenting adults had to get the same civil union. Is that what you're saying? If a straight couple goes into the county clerk, they too get a civil union? I'd be fine with that.

It's what I've been saying! How you missed that is beyond me. You probably said "Zoom is on the right" and stereotyped me. That's why I told you to go back and actually read what I wrote.

So once again I will ask you ... why didn't the homosexual community go this route? Wouldn't that be showing tolerance and acceptance of a group whose pov you disagree with, the very same thing that the homosexual community wants? Would you have a problem with marriage being left to the religious and remain defined as one man/one woman?

You think the onus is on us to change the name of the license given by the county clerk because YOU don't like the name being used by "the gheys" and think the gays should change it, not you who doesn't like it. Seriously?

Why do you think the onus is on gays to do it?

Here is a license issued by the state through county clerks that gives partners legal authority to make decisions for each other. Gays say "hey, that sounds great, we'd like that for our partnerships". We should make up our own instead of applying for the license that already exists?

But gays are "intolerant" because they say, "no thanks, we'll just apply for these"?

Too funny!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

No, I'm not "flatly" rejecting it. I said I would be fine if ALL non familial consenting adults had to get the same civil union. Is that what you're saying? If a straight couple goes into the county clerk, they too get a civil union? I'd be fine with that.

It's what she's been saying the entire thread, but you're too busy putting your blinders on against anything anyone says that you think is a 'bigot' that you don't hear and you don't see. You're too busy saying 'we won' and trying to force what you believe down everyone else's throat. All I heard for years was how conservatives and the 'religious' try to shove their views down everyone else's throat, but they have nothing on the left when it comes to using government power to do the exact same thing.

What is being "shoved down your throat"? If you're not gay or a straight woman, nothing.

 

[Zoom-boing]

No, I'm not "flatly" rejecting it. I said I would be fine if ALL non familial consenting adults had to get the same civil union. Is that what you're saying? If a straight couple goes into the county clerk, they too get a civil union? I'd be fine with that.

It's what I've been saying! How you missed that is beyond me. You probably said "Zoom is on the right" and stereotyped me. That's why I told you to go back and actually read what I wrote.

So once again I will ask you ... why didn't the homosexual community go this route? Wouldn't that be showing tolerance and acceptance of a group whose pov you disagree with, the very same thing that the homosexual community wants? Would you have a problem with marriage being left to the religious and remain defined as one man/one woman?

You think the onus is on us to change the name of the license given by the county clerk because YOU don't like the name being used by "the gheys" and think the gays should change it, not you who doesn't like it. Seriously?

Why do you think the onus is on gays to do it?

Here is a license issued by the state through county clerks that gives partners legal authority to make decisions for each other. Gays say "hey, that sounds great, we'd like that for our partnerships". We should make up our own instead of applying for the license that already exists?

But gays are "intolerant" because they say, "no thanks, we'll just apply for these"?

Too funny!

I'm done. You have consistently ignored my questions in this thread, put words in my mouth, refuse to read what I actually ask, and you still can't even comment on the the fact that you demand acceptance and tolerance but refuse to show it for others.

 

[Seawytch]

It's what I've been saying! How you missed that is beyond me. You probably said "Zoom is on the right" and stereotyped me. That's why I told you to go back and actually read what I wrote.

So once again I will ask you ... why didn't the homosexual community go this route? Wouldn't that be showing tolerance and acceptance of a group whose pov you disagree with, the very same thing that the homosexual community wants? Would you have a problem with marriage being left to the religious and remain defined as one man/one woman?

You think the onus is on us to change the name of the license given by the county clerk because YOU don't like the name being used by "the gheys" and think the gays should change it, not you who doesn't like it. Seriously?

Why do you think the onus is on gays to do it?

Here is a license issued by the state through county clerks that gives partners legal authority to make decisions for each other. Gays say "hey, that sounds great, we'd like that for our partnerships". We should make up our own instead of applying for the license that already exists?

But gays are "intolerant" because they say, "no thanks, we'll just apply for these"?

Too funny!

I'm done. You have consistently ignored my questions in this thread, put words in my mouth, refuse to read what I actually ask, and you still can't even comment on the the fact that you demand acceptance and tolerance but refuse to show it for others.

One does not need to tolerate intolerance. A marriage license is what the state issues. If YOU take issue with that, why didn't YOU "go that route"? The onus is not on gays to change it because YOU don't like us using the word. We don't give a flying **** what you call it, you do. That's not our intolerance. We would be very tolerant of a name change, we just don't think we should be the ones responsible for doing it because we don't ******* care.

 

[bodecea]

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.

No, I'm not "flatly" rejecting it. I said I would be fine if ALL non familial consenting adults had to get the same civil union. Is that what you're saying? If a straight couple goes into the county clerk, they too get a civil union? I'd be fine with that.

As would I...since that would not be a religious form of union. However, that requires hundreds if not thousands of statutes, laws, acts etc. have their wording changed to reflect the terminology change....and I don't think that's as cheap and easy as just an edit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

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

You don’t understand.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as they exist now, the exact same marriage contracts opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into; to contrive ‘civil unions’ with the identical provisions as marriage contract law would be legally impossible, redundant, and constitutionally untenable.

Because marriage contract law can accommodate both same- and opposite-sex couples, to ‘write’ and relegate gay Americans to ‘separate but equal’ ‘civil unions’ would be motivated solely to classify “homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

Hence gay Americans would in fact be treated as second class citizens, not ‘good enough’ to access the same marriage law opposite-sex couples are allow to, marriage law same-sex couples are indeed eligible to participate in.

Because such ‘civil union’ measures lack a rational basis, are absent objective, documented evidence in support, and fail to pursue a proper legislative end – seeking only to make gay Americans unequal to opposite-sex couples – any ‘civil union’ law would be invalidated as a violation of the 14th Amendment, and appropriately so.

Moreover, because 14th Amendment jurisprudence is applicable only to the states and local jurisdictions, private organizations such as churches and other religious institutions remain at liberty to exclude same-sex couples, and retain religious marriage dogma for men and women only.

As for ‘GW’s’ post, ignoring it is warranted, as it’s just as wrong and ignorant as your premise.

 

[protectionist]

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.

It can and it does. In fact, most do.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Criminals in prisons don't want to be 2nd class citizens either. But they are - for the protection of society. When one deviates from society's norms, one enters 2nd class citizen territory.

 

[protectionist]

Moreover, because 14th Amendment jurisprudence is applicable only to the states and local jurisdictions, private organizations such as churches and other religious institutions remain at liberty to exclude same-sex couples, and retain religious marriage dogma for men and women only.

What exactly is it that you are saying about the 14th amendment ?

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

Criminals in prisons don't want to be 2nd class citizens either. But they are - for the protection of society. When one deviates from society's norms, one enters 2nd class citizen territory.

awesome thinking. you are a great american.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many nutters ACTUALLY believe that gay Americans are being intolerant of anyone by insisting that they have the exact same rights as straight Americans?

How many actual idiots do we have here?

 

[1751_Texan]

Moreover, because 14th Amendment jurisprudence is applicable only to the states and local jurisdictions, private organizations such as churches and other religious institutions remain at liberty to exclude same-sex couples, and retain religious marriage dogma for men and women only.

What exactly is it that you are saying about the 14th amendment ?

what exactly are you Protecting?

U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[buckeye45_73]

How many nutters ACTUALLY believe that gay Americans are being intolerant of anyone by insisting that they have the exact same rights as straight Americans?

How many actual idiots do we have here?

well you're one. Again give me an argument for being gay that I cant use for being a pedophile or bestiality. I want to hear these.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many nutters ACTUALLY believe that gay Americans are being intolerant of anyone by insisting that they have the exact same rights as straight Americans?

How many actual idiots do we have here?

well you're one. Again give me an argument for being gay that I cant use for being a pedophile or bestiality. I want to hear these.

What?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

What kind of question is that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Aaron. That is a deflection, and a dodge.

Gays and liberals like you don't seem to notice that America isn't the obstacle to being gay, it never has been. You claim that homosexuals are being repressed in America, but they come nowhere close to being such.

I won't bake that gay cake, not if I have to put my religious rights into the mixing bowl. No sir.

Nobody has claimed that America is an obstacle to being gay. The religious right is an obstacle to gays receiving the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples.

So, if America weren't an obstacle, why are liberals making gay rights an issue in America of all places?

Because they live in America?

Why do conservatives make such an issue of gun rights in this country when there are plenty of places around the world with more gun control than the US?

 

[bodecea]

How many nutters ACTUALLY believe that gay Americans are being intolerant of anyone by insisting that they have the exact same rights as straight Americans?

How many actual idiots do we have here?

well you're one. Again give me an argument for being gay that I cant use for being a pedophile or bestiality. I want to hear these.

Consent. Next question?