Idaho Republicans pass resolution urging Supreme Court to end marriage equality

[Kruska]

What colony ,fucknut?

Get some history books - home-school boy,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage is a religious concept. It is for raising begotten children ,creating a family life , and a stable environment. Not to satisfy a sick Fetish. Bill Clinton was 100% right. "Don't ask ,Don't Tell". What is wrong with "Domestic Partner" ?

If marriage is religious for you that's you're business and you're welcome to it. It is a secular -civil matter to me and my wife and that is our business-stay out of it. In either case people get married for a variety of reasons other than children That too is no one else's business. Certainly not yours . It’s preposterously arrogant for you to try to dictate to others what marriage is or should be for them.

As for sick fetishes, I would not be surprised if more some of you rabid bigots had a few - but you don't need marriage too act on them ,

What is wrong with Domestic Partner? ( or Civil Unions) Plenty

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?"

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

 

[San Souci]

If marriage is religious for you that's you're business and you're welcome to it. It is a secular -civil matter to me and my wife and that is our business-stay out of it. In either case people get married for a variety of reasons other than children That too is no one else's business. Certainly not yours . It’s preposterously arrogant for you to try to dictate to others what marriage is or should be for them.

As for sick fetishes, I would not be surprised if more some of you rabid bigots had a few - but you don't need marriage too act on them ,

What is wrong with Domestic Partner? ( or Civil Unions) Plenty

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?"

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

Normalizing perverted lifestyles is NOT right. Bill Clintons "Don't ask--Don't Tell" was the right idea. All people should keep their Sex lives PRIVATE.

 

[San Souci]

Get some history books - home-school boy,

OK--I will make it simple to allow Y'all to understand. What COLONY has Trump established?

 

[San Souci]

Having children is NOT a requirement for marriage. A growing number of married couples are closing NOT to have kids. So are you saying they're NOT married? As the trend grows as it is predicted are you going to change your definition of it?

No. Normalizing perverted behavior is wrong.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why not just get rid of marriage altogether? Call everything a legal union. Problem solved. Most marriages end in divorce anyway. Divorce is a wonderful option.

I am for God getting out of civil unions and getting back into marriages. The state’s position is secondary to God. People can apply for a civil union and need to go through their church if they want to have a contract with God. As far as divorce, never entertained one nor would I recommend one.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Normalizing perverted lifestyles is NOT right. Bill Clintons "Don't ask--Don't Tell" was the right idea. All people should keep their Sex lives PRIVATE.

Holy shit on a shingle!! This is your pathetic and lugubrious response to my extensive post? Just more whining about what you consider perverted ? Not much of a defense to support your assertion that marriage is a religious institution for the purpose of having kids and that a domestic partnership would be adequate for gays . Do you still contend that gay should be restricted to domestic partnerships or civil unions and why . What is your response to my essay on that topic?

“All people should keep their Sex lives PRIVATE.” you say? For the most part I agree. So what are gays doing differently from other people in that regard. ? What offends you so?

 

[San Souci]

Holy shit on a shingle!! This is your pathetic and lugubrious response to my extensive post? Just more whining about what you consider perverted ? Not much of a defense to support your assertion that marriage is a religious institution for the purpose of having kids and that a domestic partnership would be adequate for gays . Do you still contend that gay should be restricted to domestic partnerships or civil unions and why . What is your response to my essay on that topic?

“All people should keep their Sex lives PRIVATE.” you say? For the most part I agree. So what are gays doing differently from other people in that regard. ? What offends you so?

Yes. And children should NOT be exposed to this depravity.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No. Normalizing perverted behavior is wrong.

Oh the shame and horror of two consenting adults who happen to have the same equipment between their legs- entering into a state sanction union , crating a family , being members of their community, holding jobs and paying taxes , and bothering no one . How ******* disgusting is that??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes. And children should NOT be exposed to this depravity.

Well, thank you for admitting that you don't have much to offer in the way of a rational adult discussion . Not surprised

What exactly do you think that children are being exposed to that is so depraved?

 

[martybegan]

Oh the shame and horror of two consenting adults who happen to have the same equipment between their legs- entering into a state sanction union , crating a family , being members of their community, holding jobs and paying taxes , and bothering no one . How ******* disgusting is that??

They are physically incapable of creating a family through biological means with each other.

 

[San Souci]

Well, thank you for admitting that you don't have much to offer in the way of a rational adult discussion . Not surprised

What exactly do you think that children are being exposed to that is so depraved?

I remember back in the early 1960's that the Vice Squad arrested pervs for faggin' off in public.

 

[San Souci]

They are physically incapable of creating a family through biological means with each other.

True. And the Straight parent should get FULL custody of any children.

 

[martybegan]

True. And the Straight parent should get FULL custody of any children.

I wouldn't go that far.

 

[San Souci]

I wouldn't go that far.

Supervised visits.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I remember back in the early 1960's that the Vice Squad arrested pervs for faggin' off in public.

So that's your problem!! Your living in the 60 ! I would have actually guessed the 50's but what ever. What the hell is "fagging off" anyway?

Still waiting for some answers from you. Lets recap:

You said Yes."children should NOT be exposed to this depravity"

And you that "people should keep their sex lives private"...suggesting that gay do not keep it private

In both cases I tried to get you to explain exactly what you meant. What are gay people doing with their sex lives or with children that you find problematic.

I have gotten nothing but more outrage and whimpering from you about perversions and depravity without even attempting to articulate what it is that you think is going on. Do you think at all ? Or, is it just and autonomic response in reaction to any mention of gay people? It all makes me wonder whether or not there is any cellular activity going on above your neck.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Supervised visits.

Really ? Why ?. Before answering you might want to check out post 170

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

True. And the Straight parent should get FULL custody of any children.

What if there is no straight parent who is capable of caring for a child.? What if that person is a drug dealer or sexual predator.? Should the child be placed with mean old aunt Lillie, or become a ward of the state rather than be care for by the gay parent? THINK!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They are physically incapable of creating a family through biological means with each other.

OH Christ! Are you still here repeating that same ignorant bigoted baseless bullshit?. They are parents! Something that a lot of straight couples are not very good at .

I asked you this yesterday and I will ask again now. If you think that "creating a family through biological means with each other." is so important , what is your policy for hetero sexual couples who are incapable of creating a family through biological means with each other.

That should not be a hard question to answer although you don't seem to be able to

 

[martybegan]

OH Christ! Are you still here repeating that ignorant bigoted baseless bullshit?. They are parents! Something that a lot of straight couples are not very good at .

It's reality. That you have to deny reality to have your viewpoints just shows how fucked up you are.

Just like men pretending to be women aren't women.