Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[Robert W]

I am clearly seeing a disturbing pattern here with you that indicates to me that you are becoming increasingly unhinged. I have a background in mental health and I my assessment of you is that you are decompensating.

A background? In being a patient in a mental health facility!!! Study your own unhinged pattern. I post kindly and you leap into an attack. Far worse than a cold, you are blowing bubbles.

 

[Robert W]

I previously tried to school you on the issue of civil unions just days a go on another thread but apparently you don't learn to well Here it is again:

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.

To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era. Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.

Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won’t cut it

True patriotism is progressivism. True patriotism is working to fix what is wrong with America instead of pretending that it is just high taxes, too much government and liberal policies. True Patriotism is working to make America the truly great country that it can be for all, not just the wealth, white, heterosexual males. I am the Progressive Patriot

You act as if the CA supreme court were jerks for approving what then was the constitution of CA.
Today you act as if you got hurt. After getting your desire, what a man and woman have. There is a global history supporting a man marrying a woman.

It seems you want the role of the woman. This is very very sick.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You act as if the CA supreme court were jerks for approving what then was the constitution of CA.
Today you act as if you got hurt. After getting your desire, what a man and woman have. There is a global history supporting a man marrying a woman.

It seems you want the role of the woman. This is very very sick.

I don’t know or care about what happened in California regarding civil unions. Regardless of what happen or what was said, it could not possibly negate or refute the points that I made about civil unions which you cannot seem to deal with. Instead, you say something about me wanting to be in the role of the woman.....?But no, your not batshit crazy, Oh no!!!

I have not forgotten all of the other stupid shit that you spewed on that other thread that I ran you off:
1 Your idiotic assertion that a woman married to a woman should not refer to that woman as her wife
2. Gay people do not need to, or want to be narried
3 That we ( Progressives or whatever) are trying to “manage” the lives of gay people by approving of and passing gay marriage while you and your ildk want to deprive them of marriage
4 Gender dysphoria in kids is somehow the result of gay marriage
5 Gays should be and in fact were ok with civil unions until we ( enter adjective) messed that up and imposed marriage on them

And what is this gibberish: “After getting your desire, what a man and woman have”. ?? Not coherent. Not even a sentence!

 

[Robert W]

I don’t know or care about what happened in California regarding civil unions. Regardless of what happen or what was said, it could not possibly negate or refute the points that I made about civil unions which you cannot seem to deal with. Instead, you say something about me wanting to be in the role of the woman.....?But no, your not batshit crazy, Oh no!!!

I have not forgotten all of the other stupid shit that you spewed on that other thread that I ran you off:
1 Your idiotic assertion that a woman married to a woman should not refer to that woman as her wife
2. Gay people do not need to, or want to be narried
3 That we ( Progressives or whatever) are trying to “manage” the lives of gay people by approving of and passing gay marriage while you and your ildk want to deprive them of marriage
4 Gender dysphoria in kids is somehow the result of gay marriage
5 Gays should be and in fact were ok with civil unions until we ( enter adjective) messed that up and imposed marriage on them

And what is this gibberish: “After getting your desire, what a man and woman have”. ?? Not coherent. Not even a sentence!

Stink ran me off is what you mean. I do not recall me being run off on any topic. I do not clown around. I mention the Supreme Court of CA approved the term Civil Union and you act as if I am the Supreme court.

Wife is defined in history as the female in the marriage that has a man as the husband.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wife is defined in history as the female in the marriage that has a man as the husband.

And that definition has changed to include same sex marriage.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Just as they have been working to water down Roe v. Wade , with restrictions on abortion, they continue to concern themselves with another, more recent decision, Obergfelle v Hodges which made same sex marriage the law of the land.

They are obsessed with people private lives and social issues, while purporting to be the party of freedom and individual responsibility.

While the country is facing numerous threats and problems both foreign and domestic, they can’t keep their noses out of people’s bedrooms. While they are hell bent on allowing Wall Street to run amok, and letting corporations pollute the planet, women, gays and other who they disapprove of must be tightly controlled.

While they are not actively seeking to overturn Obergefell- that know that even with a conservative SCOTUS- it would be a long road to hoe. So as with Roe, they are finding ways to water down the gains that have been made with respect to choice, privacy, and equality. Consider:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-georgia-adoption_us_5a9c23e7e4b0a0ba4ad45681



Adoption is only one of several fronts on which they are attacking:



I




Is that what God would want? These issues, along wth the myriad of so call "bathroom bills " aimed at trans people make it clear that the GOP is hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for LGBT people in order to appease the religious right.

Getting past your bloviations, which is difficult since it is about 80% of your opening post, you do realize that same sex marriage is against every known religion?
And "God's own party"... whatever that is, I assume you mean Republican?
That's funny.
Anyway, I believe that any adoption agency/service that has religious affiliation should, absolutely, have the right to turn away anyone they want based on the religion they practice.

Why would anyone want any different?

 

[Robert W]

And that definition has changed to include same sex marriage.

You do not care that this nation now is really fucked over. I recall when Slavery was also legal.

 

[WinterBorn]

You do not care that this nation now is really fucked over. I recall when Slavery was also legal.

And you think gay marriage fucked over this nation?

Tell us how a same sex couple getting married fucked us over. And be specific.

 

[WinterBorn]

You do not care that this nation now is really fucked over. I recall when Slavery was also legal.

I care about this nation. But gay marriage is not what fucked us over.

And no, you do not "...recall when Slavery was also legal". You have read about it.

The 13th amendment was passed in 1865. So unless you are over 160 years old, you don't remember it.

 

[Robert W]

I care about this nation. But gay marriage is not what fucked us over.

And no, you do not "...recall when Slavery was also legal". You have read about it.

The 13th amendment was passed in 1865. So unless you are over 160 years old, you don't remember it.

Oh so you don't recall Slavery was the law for this country????

 

[Robert W]

And you think gay marriage fucked over this nation?

Tell us how a same sex couple getting married fucked us over. And be specific.

I do. At my age, which is 85 until August, then 86, i recall when America was great. Homosexuals gained nothing by pirating a term used for centuries denoting a man and a woman are in a union where laws over their children are created to cover all 3 in the marriage. Why are you clinging to the word marriage? Apparently you believe men need to be effeminate.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh so you don't recall Slavery was the law for this country????

I know slavery was legal. Because I read about it and was taught about it.

 

[Robert W]

I know slavery was legal. Because I read about it and was taught about it.

Maybe you are slowly catching onto why I said what I did.

 

[WinterBorn]

I do. At my age, which is 85 until August, then 86, i recall when America was great. Homosexuals gained nothing by pirating a term used for centuries denoting a man and a woman are in a union where laws over their children are created to cover all 3 in the marriage. Why are you clinging to the word marriage? Apparently you believe men need to be effeminate.

The fact that you think our nation is fucked is fine.

But gay marriage is not the reason. The fact that something happened around the same time does not mean it is the cause.

 

[WinterBorn]

Maybe you are slowly catching onto why I said what I did.

And maybe I prefer better grammer and sentence structure.

 

[Robert W]

The fact that you think our nation is fucked is fine.

But gay marriage is not the reason. The fact that something happened around the same time does not mean it is the cause.

My objection has always been based on accuracy. That is why I and millions of CA citizens crafted a law that was approved by the CA supreme court where in our constitution we gave them what they needed called civil unions. Were I as stubborn as you are, I would not have voted for Civil Unions.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Getting past your bloviations, which is difficult since it is about 80% of your opening post, you do realize that same sex marriage is against every known religion?
And "God's own party"... whatever that is, I assume you mean Republican?
That's funny.
Anyway, I believe that any adoption agency/service that has religious affiliation should, absolutely, have the right to turn away anyone they want based on the religion they practice.

Why would anyone want any different?

So I post a factual and well researched OP and you call it bloviation? That does not speak well for your ability to comprehend the written word or to apply critical thinking skills, if you have any
I will add that I do not give a crap about the worlds major religions and what they believe. Anyone with religious objections to homosexuality or same sex marriage is free to not engage in homosexuality or same sex marriage. A few other facts that you should familiaize yourself with

1. Number of Americans with no religious affiliation growing

1. Religious 'Nones' are now the largest single group in the U.S.

1. This is not a theocracy

As far as adoption goes, I did not state that I oppose religious exemptions for religious agencies- although not serving all people equally harms kids. But I understand, you people never had a problem using children as pawns in your fight against equality
If your reading comprehension was up to par, you woud have known that I was objecting to the use of ublic fund to discriminate

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So I post a factual and well researched OP and you call it bloviation? That does not speak well for your ability to comprehend the written word or to apply critical thinking skills, if you have any
I will add that I do not give a crap about the worlds major religions and what they believe. Anyone with religious objections to homosexuality or same sex marriage is free to not engage in homosexuality or same sex marriage. A few other facts that you should familiaize yourself with

1. Number of Americans with no religious affiliation growing
2. Religious 'Nones' are now the largest single group in the U.S.
3. This is not a theocracy

As far as adoption goes, I did not state that I oppose religious exemptions for religious agencies- although not serving all people equally harms kids. But I understand, you people never had a problem using children as pawns in your fight against equality
If your reading comprehension was up to par, you woud have known that I was objecting to the use of ublic fund to discriminate

"You people" - there you go again.
You like putting people in little boxes don't you?
And how many people are and are not religious doesn't have anything to do with it.
I will await what other group of people you will assume I am a part of.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"You people" - there you go again.
You like putting people in little boxes don't you?
And how many people are and are not religious doesn't have anything to do with it.
I will await what other group of people you will assume I am a part of.

So that is all you got? To complain about being put in a box. ? That does not show a lot of brain power. You put yourself in a box, the box of people who put religion over secular society and civil rights.

"And how many people are and are not religious doesn't have anything to do with it."? Really why not? Should non religious people be governed by religion inspired law?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So that is all you got? To complain about being put in a box. ? That does not show a lot of brain power. You put yourself in a box, the box of people who put religion over secular society and civil rights.

No.
1) You assume too much of yourself, and the topic you brought up. It isn't worth that much effort.
2) Agencies that are affiliated with religions or churches absolutely should have the right to refuse to serve anyone that goes against that religion. PERIOD.
3) In the acts of a church, within their own boundaries - your damn right their rights should trump all other rights.
That is a foundational policy of our nation that goes well -well beyond just religions.