Growing support for same sex marriages from all religions. (bar evangelicals)

[ding]

That argument was never made. If it had been made then polygamy would be legal based upon your logic.

Your idiotic argument was made in Loving v Virginia and repeated as an argument against same sex marriage

failed both times

I'm not arguing Loving v Virginia.

Of course your not because Loving was decided on the same constitutional principles as Obergefell but you don't want to hear that.. You can't say that Obergefell was a bad decision without saying that Loving was a bad decision, and if you did , you would be labeled a racist which is somewhat out of fashion. So you won't touch Loving with a ten foot pool. You want to walk that fine line between being an anti gay bigot while appearing to be for racial equality. I'm here to tell you and everyone that racial and sexual bigots are cut from the same cloth and that your mentality would just as soon focus your hate on blacks vs gays in a different era. Haters have got to hate. It's just a matter of who is the most convenient target and what you can get away with at a particular time in history

which is why he diverted from saying that "but but but gays have always had equal marriage rights".....to....its a matter of not wanting to normalize gay lifestyles because of "predictable surprises."

He already blew his wad, bro....you can take the night off

also, *pole, lol... (you had pool)

I asked before what those “ predicable surprises “ are but can’t get an answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For starters they will need to "moralize" their choice through school education programs.

 

[ding]

Sure they can. Just like everyone else. The restriction to marry is the same for all. One man one woman. You can be gay and get married the same as everyone else. That was not true for blacks after the civil war.

That argument was laughed at by the courts

That argument was never made. If it had been made then polygamy would be legal based upon your logic.

Your idiotic argument was made in Loving v Virginia and repeated as an argument against same sex marriage

failed both times

I'm not arguing Loving v Virginia.

Of course your not because Loving was decided on the same constitutional principles as Obergefell but you don't want to hear that.. You can't say that Obergefell was a bad decision without saying that Loving was a bad decision, and if you did , you would be labeled a racist which is somewhat out of fashion. So you won't touch Loving with a ten foot pool. You want to walk that fine line between being an anti gay bigot while appearing to be for racial equality. I'm here to tell you and everyone that racial and sexual bigots are cut from the same cloth and that your mentality would just as soon focus your hate on blacks vs gays in a different era. Haters have got to hate. It's just a matter of who is the most convenient target and what you can get away with at a particular time in history

After the Civil War blacks were denied the right to marriage by Democrats like you for no other reason than the color of their skin and it was rationalized that although they were free they were not citizens. That's why they wrote the 14th and 15th Amendments. Later interracial marriages were denied based on skin color. That too was discrimination but to a lessor degree because at least blacks could marry other blacks.

What is happening today is not the same. Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way. There is no class of people. I see no difference in the argument for gay marriage than I do for polygamy. Which happens to be another predictable consequence of this.

 

[ding]

Cat's out of the bag. "teh gays are contageous, dont normalize their "lifestyles!""

Dingerred = homophobe, case close and its a wrap, coach.

Next?

Says the guy that whenever he insults someone calls them a ******.

Like you think that is a compliment, amirite?

Defending gay marriage doesn't redeem your true feeling towards gays, GT.

I say ****** to my gay friends as well, dingdong. Words dont have quite the power you wish they did, its their intent. ...but youve been given enough free wisdom for one evening.

Next, its **** you pay me.

^ rationalizing his true colors.

"normalizing gay lifestyles" being an actual real life concern of yours is pretty brutally homophobic, you stupid ******* ***

Nope. It is no different than normalizing promiscuity. Does that make me a prude because I believe normalizing promiscuity leads to predictable surprises too?

 

[Taz]

Do you really have your head so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine as to not know that gay folks have been, and are in some ways still discriminated against? Or, are you just lying?

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

Sure they can. Just like everyone else. The restriction to marry is the same for all. One man one woman. You can be gay and get married the same as everyone else. That was not true for blacks after the civil war.

I know that's what you meant, it's simply an idiotic comment from a homophobe.

 

[Taz]

Do you really have your head so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine as to not know that gay folks have been, and are in some ways still discriminated against? Or, are you just lying?

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Jesus ******* Christ! Can you really be that god damned obtuse!! They were denied the right to marry the person of their choice who they are sexually and romantically attracted to!

The restriction is applied equally. That's all that is legally required for equality.

Just because you have a sexual preference that does not negate the equality of the law.

The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally. Geez, no wonder no one ever agrees with you on anything, you're afraid of homos.

 

[Taz]

You can't be serious Sparky. Did you not check the date on the article? It's pre Obergefell! Gays can in fact marry in every state. Could you possibly be that in attentive to detail? Or, did you think that it would really be that easy to bullshit people ?

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

This kind of herrrpppdeeederrrr idiocy, purposefully missing the point to be an obtuse, degenerate ****...is why your intellectual superiors are overtaking your poorly laid out, lazy as **** views.

No. I believe it is exactly on point. Laws applied equally do not discriminate. There is no test for being gay. Being gay is not a class of people. Being gay is a sexual preference for people of the same sex.

Cool opinion, it's arrogant and backward. Wanna know what the law thinks of your cool opinion on this matter? It told it to go **** itself, and gays can marry freely. Hopefully that doesnt sit well, but my kids are in an improved Country in that regard.

Again, no one is saying a man who prefers to have sex with the same gender is being barred from marrying a woman. Laws applied equally do not discriminate. There is no test for being gay. Being gay is not a class of people. Being gay is a sexual preference for people of the same sex.

You might as well being arguing for polygamy which is also a preference without a class of people.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adults are consenting. What's your problem with polygamy?

 

[ding]

I know that's what you meant, it's simply an idiotic comment from a homophobe.

The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally. Geez, no wonder no one ever agrees with you on anything, you're afraid of homos.

That's right. It treats everyone equally.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adults are consenting. What's your problem with polygamy?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Taz]

I know that's what you meant, it's simply an idiotic comment from a homophobe.

The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally. Geez, no wonder no one ever agrees with you on anything, you're afraid of homos.

That's right. It treats everyone equally.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adults are consenting. What's your problem with polygamy?

Thank you for proving my point.

Is your pyramid for yourself because i said "The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally" and you didn't counter it.
The others took you down on you're treating gays equally bullshit, I'll not go over that again.
What point are you trying to make that relates to polygamy? I bet you don't even know and will respond with your usual "I already explained it" cop out.

But why are you so afraid of gays? Being gay is a natural occurring thing. Get over yourself.

 

[ding]

I know that's what you meant, it's simply an idiotic comment from a homophobe.

The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally. Geez, no wonder no one ever agrees with you on anything, you're afraid of homos.

That's right. It treats everyone equally.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adults are consenting. What's your problem with polygamy?

Thank you for proving my point.

Is your pyramid for yourself because i said "The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally" and you didn't counter it.
The others took you down on you're treating gays equally bullshit, I'll not go over that again.
What point are you trying to make that relates to polygamy? I bet you don't even know and will respond with your usual "I already explained it" cop out.

But why are you so afraid of gays? Being gay is a natural occurring thing. Get over yourself.

The pyramid was under the quote it applied to, Taz.

I'm not looking down on anyone, taz. Please insert a mental pyramid under that comment too.

I'm not going to repeat my point for the fourth time, Taz. If you want to find my point, go look for it. Needless to say, you proved it for me.

 

[rightwinger]

That argument was laughed at by the courts

That argument was never made. If it had been made then polygamy would be legal based upon your logic.

Your idiotic argument was made in Loving v Virginia and repeated as an argument against same sex marriage

failed both times

I'm not arguing Loving v Virginia.

Of course your not because Loving was decided on the same constitutional principles as Obergefell but you don't want to hear that.. You can't say that Obergefell was a bad decision without saying that Loving was a bad decision, and if you did , you would be labeled a racist which is somewhat out of fashion. So you won't touch Loving with a ten foot pool. You want to walk that fine line between being an anti gay bigot while appearing to be for racial equality. I'm here to tell you and everyone that racial and sexual bigots are cut from the same cloth and that your mentality would just as soon focus your hate on blacks vs gays in a different era. Haters have got to hate. It's just a matter of who is the most convenient target and what you can get away with at a particular time in history

After the Civil War blacks were denied the right to marriage by Democrats like you for no other reason than the color of their skin and it was rationalized that although they were free they were not citizens. That's why they wrote the 14th and 15th Amendments. Later interracial marriages were denied based on skin color. That too was discrimination but to a lessor degree because at least blacks could marry other blacks.

What is happening today is not the same. Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way. There is no class of people. I see no difference in the argument for gay marriage than I do for polygamy. Which happens to be another predictable consequence of this.

Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way.

In either case, you can marry the person you love

 

[rightwinger]

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

This kind of herrrpppdeeederrrr idiocy, purposefully missing the point to be an obtuse, degenerate ****...is why your intellectual superiors are overtaking your poorly laid out, lazy as **** views.

No. I believe it is exactly on point. Laws applied equally do not discriminate. There is no test for being gay. Being gay is not a class of people. Being gay is a sexual preference for people of the same sex.

Cool opinion, it's arrogant and backward. Wanna know what the law thinks of your cool opinion on this matter? It told it to go **** itself, and gays can marry freely. Hopefully that doesnt sit well, but my kids are in an improved Country in that regard.

Again, no one is saying a man who prefers to have sex with the same gender is being barred from marrying a woman. Laws applied equally do not discriminate. There is no test for being gay. Being gay is not a class of people. Being gay is a sexual preference for people of the same sex.

You might as well being arguing for polygamy which is also a preference without a class of people.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adults are consenting. What's your problem with polygamy?

I don’t have a problem with it if they are consenting adults. Polygamy would have to go through what Same sex marriage did. Build public acceptance, fight in the courts, fight in the legislature

 

[G.T.]

claiming to be gay doesnt make you gay, dingerred. ******* dudes and loving it does.

 

[Taz]

I know that's what you meant, it's simply an idiotic comment from a homophobe.

The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally. Geez, no wonder no one ever agrees with you on anything, you're afraid of homos.

That's right. It treats everyone equally.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adults are consenting. What's your problem with polygamy?

Thank you for proving my point.

Is your pyramid for yourself because i said "The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally" and you didn't counter it.
The others took you down on you're treating gays equally bullshit, I'll not go over that again.
What point are you trying to make that relates to polygamy? I bet you don't even know and will respond with your usual "I already explained it" cop out.

But why are you so afraid of gays? Being gay is a natural occurring thing. Get over yourself.

The pyramid was under the quote it applied to, Taz.

I'm not looking down on anyone, taz. Please insert a mental pyramid under that comment too.

I'm not going to repeat my point for the fourth time, Taz. If you want to find my point, go look for it. Needless to say, you proved it for me.

Thanks for proving my point. Again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That argument was laughed at by the courts

That argument was never made. If it had been made then polygamy would be legal based upon your logic.

Your idiotic argument was made in Loving v Virginia and repeated as an argument against same sex marriage

failed both times

I'm not arguing Loving v Virginia.

Of course your not because Loving was decided on the same constitutional principles as Obergefell but you don't want to hear that.. You can't say that Obergefell was a bad decision without saying that Loving was a bad decision, and if you did , you would be labeled a racist which is somewhat out of fashion. So you won't touch Loving with a ten foot pool. You want to walk that fine line between being an anti gay bigot while appearing to be for racial equality. I'm here to tell you and everyone that racial and sexual bigots are cut from the same cloth and that your mentality would just as soon focus your hate on blacks vs gays in a different era. Haters have got to hate. It's just a matter of who is the most convenient target and what you can get away with at a particular time in history

After the Civil War blacks were denied the right to marriage by Democrats like you for no other reason than the color of their skin and it was rationalized that although they were free they were not citizens. That's why they wrote the 14th and 15th Amendments. Later interracial marriages were denied based on skin color. That too was discrimination but to a lessor degree because at least blacks could marry other blacks.

What is happening today is not the same. Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way. There is no class of people. I see no difference in the argument for gay marriage than I do for polygamy. Which happens to be another predictable consequence of this.

Democrats like me? Give me a ******* break dude!. Those were Southern racist Democrats in a by gone era. Don't you people ever get tired of the nonsense ?

Second of all, nothing that you say here negates my point that both Loving and Obergefell were decided on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and as such, you can't honestly claim that Loving was an appropriate ruling while Obergefell was not

Furthermore, while the courts have not explicitly elevated gays to a protected class status, that does not, and has not precluded the practice of applying the standard of strict scrutiny to laws and practices that discriminate against them . Strict scrutiny is invoked when the victims of alleged discrimination are part of a protected class OR when it is found that a fundamental right has been infringed upon, as was the case in Obergefell. Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Strict Scrutiny requires that the state prove a compelling government interest for the law or policy that is allegedly discriminatory, something that they were unable to do in relation to bans on same sex marriage.

The courts have also treated the issue of homosexuality as an innate, immutable characteristic. In other words , it is taken at face value in the same way that race is, so your little quip about claiming that you could say that you're gay one day and straight the next day is pointless and worthless, as is your reference to polygamy which you guys love to throw out there as a red herring.

If you don't see any difference in the argument for same sex marriage and polygamy, you don't see very well. The argument for same sex marriage turned, in part on the fact that same sex couple were being treated differently that opposite sex couple who, in the language of the court are "similarly situated" Those seeking plural marriage have to one who is similarly situated to point to.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is happening today is not the same. Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way. .

Actually, there is a way to prove it easier than you might think.

All anybody would have to observe is your reaction to a totally hot guy hitting on you. I really doubt that you are good enough an actor to hide your response.

 

[ding]

What is happening today is not the same. Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way. .

Actually, there is a way to prove it easier than you might think.

All anybody would have to observe is your reaction to a totally hot guy hitting on you. I really doubt that you are good enough an actor to hide your response.

Given that I'm 57 it would be hard to hide my response of anyone who was really hot hitting on me.

 

[ding]

That argument was never made. If it had been made then polygamy would be legal based upon your logic.

Your idiotic argument was made in Loving v Virginia and repeated as an argument against same sex marriage

failed both times

I'm not arguing Loving v Virginia.

Of course your not because Loving was decided on the same constitutional principles as Obergefell but you don't want to hear that.. You can't say that Obergefell was a bad decision without saying that Loving was a bad decision, and if you did , you would be labeled a racist which is somewhat out of fashion. So you won't touch Loving with a ten foot pool. You want to walk that fine line between being an anti gay bigot while appearing to be for racial equality. I'm here to tell you and everyone that racial and sexual bigots are cut from the same cloth and that your mentality would just as soon focus your hate on blacks vs gays in a different era. Haters have got to hate. It's just a matter of who is the most convenient target and what you can get away with at a particular time in history

After the Civil War blacks were denied the right to marriage by Democrats like you for no other reason than the color of their skin and it was rationalized that although they were free they were not citizens. That's why they wrote the 14th and 15th Amendments. Later interracial marriages were denied based on skin color. That too was discrimination but to a lessor degree because at least blacks could marry other blacks.

What is happening today is not the same. Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way. There is no class of people. I see no difference in the argument for gay marriage than I do for polygamy. Which happens to be another predictable consequence of this.

Democrats like me? Give me a ******* break dude!. Those were Southern racist Democrats in a by gone era. Don't you people ever get tired of the nonsense ?

Second of all, nothing that you say here negates my point that both Loving and Obergefell were decided on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and as such, you can't honestly claim that Loving was an appropriate ruling while Obergefell was not

Furthermore, while the courts have not explicitly elevated gays to a protected class status, that does not, and has not precluded the practice of applying the standard of strict scrutiny to laws and practices that discriminate against them . Strict scrutiny is invoked when the victims of alleged discrimination are part of a protected class OR when it is found that a fundamental right has been infringed upon, as was the case in Obergefell. Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

Strict Scrutiny requires that the state prove a compelling government interest for the law or policy that is allegedly discriminatory, something that they were unable to do in relation to bans on same sex marriage.

The courts have also treated the issue of homosexuality as an innate, immutable characteristic. In other words , it is taken at face value in the same way that race is, so your little quip about claiming that you could say that you're gay one day and straight the next day is pointless and worthless, as is your reference to polygamy which you guys love to throw out there as a red herring.

If you don't see any difference in the argument for same sex marriage and polygamy, you don't see very well. The argument for same sex marriage turned, in part on the fact that same sex couple were being treated differently that opposite sex couple who, in the language of the court are "similarly situated" Those seeking plural marriage have to one who is similarly situated to point to.

The 14th amendment had to do with the freed slaves. You people were the reason the 14th amendment had to be written in the first place and now you go shitting on it all over again.

 

[ding]

I know that's what you meant, it's simply an idiotic comment from a homophobe.

The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally. Geez, no wonder no one ever agrees with you on anything, you're afraid of homos.

That's right. It treats everyone equally.

I have no problem with polygamy as long as all the adults are consenting. What's your problem with polygamy?

Thank you for proving my point.

Is your pyramid for yourself because i said "The law doesn't treat everyone's sexual preference equally" and you didn't counter it.
The others took you down on you're treating gays equally bullshit, I'll not go over that again.
What point are you trying to make that relates to polygamy? I bet you don't even know and will respond with your usual "I already explained it" cop out.

But why are you so afraid of gays? Being gay is a natural occurring thing. Get over yourself.

The pyramid was under the quote it applied to, Taz.

I'm not looking down on anyone, taz. Please insert a mental pyramid under that comment too.

I'm not going to repeat my point for the fourth time, Taz. If you want to find my point, go look for it. Needless to say, you proved it for me.

Thanks for proving my point. Again.

Was your point that you are an overly emotional lesbian who needs to lash out?

 

[ding]

claiming to be gay doesnt make you gay, dingerred. ******* dudes and loving it does.

I'm going to have to take your word on that. It sounds like you know what you are talking about.

 

[ding]

That argument was never made. If it had been made then polygamy would be legal based upon your logic.

Your idiotic argument was made in Loving v Virginia and repeated as an argument against same sex marriage

failed both times

I'm not arguing Loving v Virginia.

Of course your not because Loving was decided on the same constitutional principles as Obergefell but you don't want to hear that.. You can't say that Obergefell was a bad decision without saying that Loving was a bad decision, and if you did , you would be labeled a racist which is somewhat out of fashion. So you won't touch Loving with a ten foot pool. You want to walk that fine line between being an anti gay bigot while appearing to be for racial equality. I'm here to tell you and everyone that racial and sexual bigots are cut from the same cloth and that your mentality would just as soon focus your hate on blacks vs gays in a different era. Haters have got to hate. It's just a matter of who is the most convenient target and what you can get away with at a particular time in history

After the Civil War blacks were denied the right to marriage by Democrats like you for no other reason than the color of their skin and it was rationalized that although they were free they were not citizens. That's why they wrote the 14th and 15th Amendments. Later interracial marriages were denied based on skin color. That too was discrimination but to a lessor degree because at least blacks could marry other blacks.

What is happening today is not the same. Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way. There is no class of people. I see no difference in the argument for gay marriage than I do for polygamy. Which happens to be another predictable consequence of this.

Gays are not a class of people. I could claim to be gay today and claim to be straight the next day and you couldn't prove it either way.

In either case, you can marry the person you love

Sounds like a perfect argument for polygamy? amirite?