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

[G.T.]

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.

Or if you trust them more, ask your imaginary gay friends youd prefer subjugated by marriage law, sexually.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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?

No you are not right. That is idiotic. Marry the person you love" Person. Singular. Read Obergefell. " cut it out with your slippery slope logical fallacy horseshit. Anyone who wants plural marriage can pursue it in the courts or legislature the way gays pursued same sex marriage , but it is not t the same thing,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Please point out where the 14th said that it was only about slaves or where it mentioned slaves at all. If you are going to take that position on Obergefell in relation to the 14th, you will also have to take the same position on loving. Do you think that the states alone should decide the question of interracial marriage?

 

[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.

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

No, my point is that you're a chickenshit who spews nonsense and when called on it, you run like the chickenshit that you are.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The 14th amendment applies to all Americans

 

[rightwinger]

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?

I have no issues with polygamy. If it consensual among all parties, it does no harm to me or society as a whole.

It is legal for a man to be married and have a mistress on the side, but if he tries to make it formal, he is breaking the law

 

[james bond]

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?

I have no issues with polygamy. If it consensual among all parties, it does no harm to me or society as a whole.

It is legal for a man to be married and have a mistress on the side, but if he tries to make it formal, he is breaking the law

I'm against the divorce part of polygamy. If someone marries more than one wife, and then wants to divorce one of them, then they have to give up half of what they have to that ex-wife. You can imagine what that will do to the other relationships. Cuts down on the riff-raff.

 

[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

But the restriction which has always existed is applied equally to all. No discrimination.

 

[ding]

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?

I have no issues with polygamy. If it consensual among all parties, it does no harm to me or society as a whole.

It is legal for a man to be married and have a mistress on the side, but if he tries to make it formal, he is breaking the law

But it is illegal, right? It is a restriction, right? And since it applied equally to all there is no discrimination.

 

[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.

Or if you trust them more, ask your imaginary gay friends youd prefer subjugated by marriage law, sexually.

We've discussed it.

There's no discrimination when the law is applied equally.

 

[ding]

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.

The 14th amendment applies to all Americans

The 14th Amendment was written because Democrats in the north and south refused to recognize freed slaves as citizens. Look it up.

 

[ding]

That's right. It treats everyone equally.

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?

No, my point is that you're a chickenshit who spews nonsense and when called on it, you run like the chickenshit that you are.

You and GT should hook up as you both have a common interest.

 

[Andylusion]

Emerging Consensus on LGBT Issues: Findings From the 2017 American Values Atlas | PRRI

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, support for same-sex marriage has increased substantially. Currently, more than six in ten (61%) Americans say gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry legally, while only about half as many (30%) are opposed.
't b
Strength of support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, while strength of opposition has fallen in nearly equal measure. Today, Americans who strongly favor same-sex marriage outnumber those who strongly oppose it by more than a two-to-one margin (30% vs. 14%). In 2007, only 13% of the public strongly favored same-sex marriage, while nearly one-quarter (24%) strongly opposed it.1 Much of this shift has occurred within the last five years. As recently as 2013, more than four in ten (42%) Americans opposed same-sex marriage, including about one in four (23%) who strongly opposed it.2 Over the last five years, strong supporters of same-sex marriage increased only modestly, from 25% to 30%.

Even the majority of Muslims are supportive. it looks like the battle is won in the US.

Just what is the point of one group of people deciding that another group of people can't, or shouldn't be, legally married? Why would any sane person have an interest in this "question,' anyway"?

Apparently its a threat to marriage and the survival of the species. Not sure what the threat is but my marriage has only ever been threatened by my shortcomings. Shortcomings that Mrs Tainant has been helpful in pointing out, at length, on a regular basis.

The thing about us pesky heterosexual folks is that we love and care for each other. I am sure that Mrs. Tainant keeps you in line and that you, in turn, keeps her in line. What we all are dealing with is people who cannot keep human sexuality in line.

Sending all blessings to you and Mrs. Tainant. It seems that you two have heterosexuality figured out. I scratch your back and you scratch mine. Love you folks!

PS: the people who are against LBGTs, are the same people who can't figure out the basics of being in a two-sex relationship.

No, that's not even remotely true. I can think of dozens.... literally dozens of people who have been married for 50 plus years, and love each other, that are against LBGTs.

In fact, more than dozens now that i think about it.

As for me, I would suggest to you that I care more about the people, than those supporting LBGTs.

Suicide is much higher in the LBGT community, than in the hetero community.
Domestic violence is much higher in LBGT community, than in the hetero community.
Drug use, infections, low term health problems, ALL much much higher in LBGT communities than in hetero communities.

And if you actually take out non-married non-traditional hetero couples.... the differences are even more dramatic.

Point being..... anyone that claims to actually care about people, and actually promotes LBGT, is lying. They are just lying. There is no other way to look at the empirical facts, and conclude anything else. Unless they are ignorant of the facts, which I'll grant you that.

But to me, saying you actually care... really care about people.... and support LBGT.... then you are saying you support kids, and support the heroin life style.

No... just no.

 

[Lysistrata]

Emerging Consensus on LGBT Issues: Findings From the 2017 American Values Atlas | PRRI

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, support for same-sex marriage has increased substantially. Currently, more than six in ten (61%) Americans say gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry legally, while only about half as many (30%) are opposed.
't b
Strength of support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, while strength of opposition has fallen in nearly equal measure. Today, Americans who strongly favor same-sex marriage outnumber those who strongly oppose it by more than a two-to-one margin (30% vs. 14%). In 2007, only 13% of the public strongly favored same-sex marriage, while nearly one-quarter (24%) strongly opposed it.1 Much of this shift has occurred within the last five years. As recently as 2013, more than four in ten (42%) Americans opposed same-sex marriage, including about one in four (23%) who strongly opposed it.2 Over the last five years, strong supporters of same-sex marriage increased only modestly, from 25% to 30%.

Even the majority of Muslims are supportive. it looks like the battle is won in the US.

Just what is the point of one group of people deciding that another group of people can't, or shouldn't be, legally married? Why would any sane person have an interest in this "question,' anyway"?

Apparently its a threat to marriage and the survival of the species. Not sure what the threat is but my marriage has only ever been threatened by my shortcomings. Shortcomings that Mrs Tainant has been helpful in pointing out, at length, on a regular basis.

The thing about us pesky heterosexual folks is that we love and care for each other. I am sure that Mrs. Tainant keeps you in line and that you, in turn, keeps her in line. What we all are dealing with is people who cannot keep human sexuality in line.

Sending all blessings to you and Mrs. Tainant. It seems that you two have heterosexuality figured out. I scratch your back and you scratch mine. Love you folks!

PS: the people who are against LBGTs, are the same people who can't figure out the basics of being in a two-sex relationship.

No, that's not even remotely true. I can think of dozens.... literally dozens of people who have been married for 50 plus years, and love each other, that are against LBGTs.

In fact, more than dozens now that i think about it.

As for me, I would suggest to you that I care more about the people, than those supporting LBGTs.

Suicide is much higher in the LBGT community, than in the hetero community.
Domestic violence is much higher in LBGT community, than in the hetero community.
Drug use, infections, low term health problems, ALL much much higher in LBGT communities than in hetero communities.

And if you actually take out non-married non-traditional hetero couples.... the differences are even more dramatic.

Point being..... anyone that claims to actually care about people, and actually promotes LBGT, is lying. They are just lying. There is no other way to look at the empirical facts, and conclude anything else. Unless they are ignorant of the facts, which I'll grant you that.

But to me, saying you actually care... really care about people.... and support LBGT.... then you are saying you support kids, and support the heroin life style.

No... just no.

You fail to explain why it is necessary for an old married heterosexual couple to be against LGBTs. Can't you be happy in your own relationship without worrying what the people down the block do? You two have your bed and can play footsie any time you want to.

Your list of complaints features a worry about LGBTs having higher rates, as opposed to heterosexuals, of suicide, domestic violence, drug use, infections, other medical problems. Even if this were to be true, which I think not, what would you care about the well-being of LGBTs? As a heterosexual, have you ever taken a stand against domestic violence occuring among heterosexuals?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Or if you trust them more, ask your imaginary gay friends youd prefer subjugated by marriage law, sexually.

We've discussed it.

There's no discrimination when the law is applied equally.

You are dumb, and that's an objective fact & not a diss.

 

[Andylusion]

Emerging Consensus on LGBT Issues: Findings From the 2017 American Values Atlas | PRRI

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, support for same-sex marriage has increased substantially. Currently, more than six in ten (61%) Americans say gay and lesbian couples should be able to marry legally, while only about half as many (30%) are opposed.
't b
Strength of support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, while strength of opposition has fallen in nearly equal measure. Today, Americans who strongly favor same-sex marriage outnumber those who strongly oppose it by more than a two-to-one margin (30% vs. 14%). In 2007, only 13% of the public strongly favored same-sex marriage, while nearly one-quarter (24%) strongly opposed it.1 Much of this shift has occurred within the last five years. As recently as 2013, more than four in ten (42%) Americans opposed same-sex marriage, including about one in four (23%) who strongly opposed it.2 Over the last five years, strong supporters of same-sex marriage increased only modestly, from 25% to 30%.

Even the majority of Muslims are supportive. it looks like the battle is won in the US.

Just what is the point of one group of people deciding that another group of people can't, or shouldn't be, legally married? Why would any sane person have an interest in this "question,' anyway"?

Apparently its a threat to marriage and the survival of the species. Not sure what the threat is but my marriage has only ever been threatened by my shortcomings. Shortcomings that Mrs Tainant has been helpful in pointing out, at length, on a regular basis.

The thing about us pesky heterosexual folks is that we love and care for each other. I am sure that Mrs. Tainant keeps you in line and that you, in turn, keeps her in line. What we all are dealing with is people who cannot keep human sexuality in line.

Sending all blessings to you and Mrs. Tainant. It seems that you two have heterosexuality figured out. I scratch your back and you scratch mine. Love you folks!

PS: the people who are against LBGTs, are the same people who can't figure out the basics of being in a two-sex relationship.

No, that's not even remotely true. I can think of dozens.... literally dozens of people who have been married for 50 plus years, and love each other, that are against LBGTs.

In fact, more than dozens now that i think about it.

As for me, I would suggest to you that I care more about the people, than those supporting LBGTs.

Suicide is much higher in the LBGT community, than in the hetero community.
Domestic violence is much higher in LBGT community, than in the hetero community.
Drug use, infections, low term health problems, ALL much much higher in LBGT communities than in hetero communities.

And if you actually take out non-married non-traditional hetero couples.... the differences are even more dramatic.

Point being..... anyone that claims to actually care about people, and actually promotes LBGT, is lying. They are just lying. There is no other way to look at the empirical facts, and conclude anything else. Unless they are ignorant of the facts, which I'll grant you that.

But to me, saying you actually care... really care about people.... and support LBGT.... then you are saying you support kids, and support the heroin life style.

No... just no.

You fail to explain why it is necessary for an old married heterosexual couple to be against LGBTs. Can't you be happy in your own relationship without worrying what the people down the block do? You two have your bed and can play footsie any time you want to.

Your list of complaints features a worry about LGBTs having higher rates, as opposed to heterosexuals, of suicide, domestic violence, drug use, infections, other medical problems. Even if this were to be true, which I think not, what would you care about the well-being of LGBTs? As a heterosexual, have you ever taken a stand against domestic violence occuring among heterosexuals?

You: "the people who are against LBGTs, are the same people who can't figure out the basics of being in a two-sex relationship"

Me: "No, that's not even remotely true. I can think of dozens.... literally dozens of people who have been married for 50 plus years, and love each other, that are against LBGTs."

You: "You fail to explain why it is necessary for an old married heterosexual couple to be against LGBTs"

Please show me where in the above conversation, that I need to "explain why it is necessary" for any couple to be against LGBT?

You made a claim that those people who are against LBGTs, can't figure how to do a two-sex relationship. I stated I personally know of dozens on dozens of Heterosexual couples, that are against LBGTs, and have wonderful relationship.

I don't need to explain anything. The facts, contradict your theory, without any additional explanation.

Your list of complaints features a worry about LGBTs having higher rates, as opposed to heterosexuals, of suicide, domestic violence, drug use, infections, other medical problems. Even if this were to be true, which I think not, what would you care about the well-being of LGBTs? As a heterosexual, have you ever taken a stand against domestic violence occuring among heterosexuals?​

Because I care about all people. I want everyone to win. Everyone. I had this left-winger talking about how I was making him rich, because I shopped at Walmart, and he's a truck driver for Walmart. I said that's wonderful. The best thing you can tell me, is that you got a wonderful job, paying a six-figure wage, and enjoy what you do. You winning.... to me is good. I want everyone to win.

Even the people on this forum, I completely and utterly disagree with, I hope.... Win. I had a co-worker that hated me, and I didn't care for him. He was rude, crass, and a bit of an ego trip. Generally I tried to avoid him. He came in one day, and said he found a new job paying $3/hour more, and he was going to ditch me to stay here, and quit. I shook his hand, and said congrats on finding a better job, and wish him the best in whatever he did.

He looked at me like I had just beamed down from the Enterprise. Why would I want anyone to be worse off in life? How does that benefit me? Better to have everyone succeed, even if I don't.

So yeah, I want people to live their life, in a way that results in less drug addiction, less suicide, less mental health problems, less STDs and physical illness. We had a gay man that worked with us for a while. He was walking around with a bag strapped to his waist, and a tube up his butt. He told us that after years and years, his actions resulted in the muscles in his butt being destroyed, so now he had to ware a poop bag for the rest of his entire life. 3 times, that bag broke, and he had to leave work, leaking smelly disgusting stuff all over the place.

I want more people doing well, and fewer living out the rest of their lives in shame. Is that bad of me?

As for domestic violence with heterosexual couples....

Yeah. As matter of fact. Right now, I support a charity that specifically helps domestic abuse victims.

Additionally I found out that one of my co-workers was being beaten by their husband. I got my CCW, and carry a 9mm to work every single day, just in case I need to pin this guy down, and wait for police to take him.

Not only that, but I offered to pay for an apartment for her and her children.... and if not that, I even offered to move into my own basement at my condo, and allow her and her children to have the entire upstairs, and both bedrooms. I have taken pictures of the bruises and cuts, in an effort to keep evidence in case I can convince her to press charges.

I have driven her home, and showed myself to her husband, to let him know if I ever see her harmed again.... I will be there.

So yes, miss Lysistrata..... I absolutely hate domestic violence with a passion you can't even fathom. That's a pain in my very soul, and I wonder if you have any room to lecture me on the topic. Just typing this out, makes me furious about it.

 

[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.

Or if you trust them more, ask your imaginary gay friends youd prefer subjugated by marriage law, sexually.

We've discussed it.

There's no discrimination when the law is applied equally.

You are dumb, and that's an objective fact & not a diss.

Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is critical to the process. People like you want to homogenize thought. You want to squelch opposing views.

 

[ding]

Raise your game, bro.

 

[G.T.]

dingerred ^^

 

[ding]

^ dinged by ding