People who oppose Gay Rights, why do you oppose them?

[Conservative65]

I'm opposed to special rights for any group. Currently gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Nope. Married gays cannot collect all the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straights.

I thought it was about two people that loved each other wanting to get married. Seems it's really about money.

Yes...just like heteros.

No, its not about money, gayness, heteros, marriage, or anything like that.

the current gay agenda is about using government to force societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle as normal and equally acceptable as normal biological human life. Thats whats going on here.

It never has been about equality. That's just the argument they use.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm opposed to special rights for any group. Currently gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Nope. Married gays cannot collect all the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straights.

I thought it was about two people that loved each other wanting to get married. Seems it's really about money.

Yes...just like heteros.

What makes you think my desire to get married was about money? Sounds like you're simply another retarded lefty that has no clue about shit.

 

[bodecea]

I'm opposed to special rights for any group. Currently gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Nope. Married gays cannot collect all the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straights.

I thought it was about two people that loved each other wanting to get married. Seems it's really about money.

Yes...just like heteros.

What makes you think my desire to get married was about money? Sounds like you're simply another retarded lefty that has no clue about shit.

I'm sure your marriage is as much about money as anyones. Why so sensitive about it?

 

[Conservative65]

I'm opposed to special rights for any group. Currently gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Nope. Married gays cannot collect all the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straights.

I thought it was about two people that loved each other wanting to get married. Seems it's really about money.

Yes...just like heteros.

What makes you think my desire to get married was about money? Sounds like you're simply another retarded lefty that has no clue about shit.

I'm sure your marriage is as much about money as anyones. Why so sensitive about it?

I'm sure that you have no clue you ******* moron.

I'm not sensitive about it. You, like most of your lowlife kind, seem to think you know more about someone that you actually do. If you're so sure my marriage is about money, you should easily be able to prove it.

 

[Redfish]

Not if one or more states refuse to make it legal. The bet is that it would be legal in 50 states, you know that it won't be so you tried to change the terms. Typical of a liberal. chickenshit!

They can't refuse to follow Federal law. Currently the part of DOMA still in place says that my marriage license does not have to be recognized in Alabama. The SCOTUS is going to strike that down. Alabama playing their George Wallace game is not going to change the ruling. That was the terms as I stated them from the beginning. That you jumped before you read is not my problem. Are you reneging on the bet, Chickenfish?

there is no bet until both parties agree on all the terms and the meanings of all the words. The bet was not on how SCOTUS would rule, the bet was on whether your Ca marriage would become legal in all 50 states.

You then tried to change and terms and breached the contract. But I understand, its what libs do every day.

My wording has been the same from the beginning, Chickenfish and yes, my wording is that the SCOTUS is going to make my legal marriage legal and recognized in all 50 states. No nullification loopholes. You weren't careful and now you're weasleling. It's okay Chickenfish, I win either way.

No, you were and are a loser regardless of your failed attempt to lure me into a word game bet.

If you want to bet on how SC will rule, thats one thing, if you want to bet on whether gay marriage will be sanctioned by all 50 states, that is a completely different bet.

On the first I will not bet because SCOTUS has made many strange rulings recently. On the second I will bet, but you won't.

So lets move on to something important, like the fact that our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt and getting deeper every hour.

There was never a "word game", Chickenfish. I was clear from the start. I said that when the SCOTUS rules, my civil marriage will be legally recognized in all 50 states. Alabama illegally ignoring Federal law in a Wallace way does not create a loophole for you.

geez, grow up. You tried to play games and you got caught. I am simply smarter than you.

the bet was never about how the SC would rule, it was whether your Ca marriage would be considered legal in all 50 states. That is a state by state decision, not the feds.

 

[g5000]

I'm opposed to special rights for any group. Currently gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Nope. Married gays cannot collect all the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straights.

I thought it was about two people that loved each other wanting to get married. Seems it's really about money.

Gays aren't the ones who started the demand for the government to give them cash and prizes for being married. We straights have been doing that for about a century.

So don't pretend to get all indignant now about it being about money.

 

[g5000]

What rights are you talking about?

Equal protection of the laws.

ROFLMNAO!

There is nothing in recognizing and sustaining the laws of nature, which infringes upon the rights of anyone.

Marriage does not exist in nature. Did you skip biology class because it had evolution in it?

Don't be trying to conflate the "laws of nature" with the laws of man. "Equal protection of the laws" is about our secular laws.

 

[g5000]

RUBE: I demand government cash and prizes for being married!

GAY: I would like the exact same thing, please.

RUBE: You are demanding special rights! Those government cash and prizes need to be just for ME!

 

[Redfish]

RUBE: I demand government cash and prizes for being married!

GAY: I would like the exact same thing, please.

RUBE: You are demanding special rights! Those government cash and prizes need to be just for ME!

nice try, but irrelevant.

the issue is whether our society as a whole believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition. THAT is the issue, and society is divided roughly 60/40 against.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm opposed to special rights for any group. Currently gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

Nope. Married gays cannot collect all the same government cash and prizes protected by law for married straights.

I thought it was about two people that loved each other wanting to get married. Seems it's really about money.

Gays aren't the ones who started the demand for the government to give them cash and prizes for being married. We straights have been doing that for about a century.

So don't pretend to get all indignant now about it being about money.

Your marriage may be about and for money.

According to the homos, it's about equality. Guess not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else; no one opposes this.

 

[koshergrl]

What's extra special about having the right to marry the person you want to marry, which is the right of heterosexuals, but not homosexuals?

Marriage is not a right

The Supreme Court of the United States of America (you're heard of them, yes?) has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions and by some reports as many as 14 occasions. Now, you are free to disagree with their rulings, but as it stands right now, marriage is a declared fundamental right. Here are three cases you can research:

Loving v Virgina
Turner v Safley
Zablocki v Wisconsin

So, in order to deny this fundamental right to gays and lesbians, you must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them. Go!

(Sassy claims to be ignoring me so if NYcarbineer would be so kind to respond, Ms Lass will be sure to see it)

marriage is a fundamental right for one man and one woman. None of those cases says that gay marriage is a fundamental right.

If thats what you want, pass a fricken law.

Don't have to...the SCOTUS is taking care of it just like they did in the cases I cited.

sorry, but SCOTUS does not make law. Activist district judges may try, but SCOTUS does not.

You are going to lose this, the SCOTUS will leave it to the states and the people, as it should be

Scotus legislates all the time. That's how we got queer marriage and abortion both. The people didn't want (don't want) that shit, never did.

 

[timslash]

I oppose them because they think that living in modern society means that they can break laws and traditions and i don't think so!
Because they think that they are often suffer from discrimination, but they always close their eyes when they discriminate somebody... Should i continue?

 

[koshergrl]

I oppose them because they think that living in modern society means that they can break laws and traditions and i don't think so!
Because they think that they are often suffer from discrimination, but they always close their eyes when they discriminate somebody... Should i continue?

Well they think that if anyone tells them "no" that it's discrimination, and anybody who doesn't agree with all their extremists views is guilty of hate crimes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I oppose them because they think that living in modern society means that they can break laws and traditions and i don't think so!
Because they think that they are often suffer from discrimination, but they always close their eyes when they discriminate somebody... Should i continue?

Well they think that if anyone tells them "no" that it's discrimination, and anybody who doesn't agree with all their extremists views is guilty of hate crimes.

Indeed.
Apparently you are allowed to have whatever opinion you want of them, so long as they like it.

 

[Silhouette]

I oppose them because they think that living in modern society means that they can break laws and traditions and i don't think so!
Because they think that they are often suffer from discrimination, but they always close their eyes when they discriminate somebody... Should i continue?

The only reason to oppose gays is when they try to tell states they don't have rights to preserve the definition of marriage.

One should oppose gays if they seek to force states to incenvitize the brand spanking new concept of institutionalizing fatherless sons and motherless daughters.

 

[Seawytch]

They can't refuse to follow Federal law. Currently the part of DOMA still in place says that my marriage license does not have to be recognized in Alabama. The SCOTUS is going to strike that down. Alabama playing their George Wallace game is not going to change the ruling. That was the terms as I stated them from the beginning. That you jumped before you read is not my problem. Are you reneging on the bet, Chickenfish?

there is no bet until both parties agree on all the terms and the meanings of all the words. The bet was not on how SCOTUS would rule, the bet was on whether your Ca marriage would become legal in all 50 states.

You then tried to change and terms and breached the contract. But I understand, its what libs do every day.

My wording has been the same from the beginning, Chickenfish and yes, my wording is that the SCOTUS is going to make my legal marriage legal and recognized in all 50 states. No nullification loopholes. You weren't careful and now you're weasleling. It's okay Chickenfish, I win either way.

No, you were and are a loser regardless of your failed attempt to lure me into a word game bet.

If you want to bet on how SC will rule, thats one thing, if you want to bet on whether gay marriage will be sanctioned by all 50 states, that is a completely different bet.

On the first I will not bet because SCOTUS has made many strange rulings recently. On the second I will bet, but you won't.

So lets move on to something important, like the fact that our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt and getting deeper every hour.

There was never a "word game", Chickenfish. I was clear from the start. I said that when the SCOTUS rules, my civil marriage will be legally recognized in all 50 states. Alabama illegally ignoring Federal law in a Wallace way does not create a loophole for you.

geez, grow up. You tried to play games and you got caught. I am simply smarter than you.

the bet was never about how the SC would rule, it was whether your Ca marriage would be considered legal in all 50 states. That is a state by state decision, not the feds.

You're the one throwing a temper tantrum because I didn't let you cheat. The words I used never changed, Chickenfish. Run along, your avatar is safe, poor dear.

 

[Seawytch]

RUBE: I demand government cash and prizes for being married!

GAY: I would like the exact same thing, please.

RUBE: You are demanding special rights! Those government cash and prizes need to be just for ME!

nice try, but irrelevant.

the issue is whether our society as a whole believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition. THAT is the issue, and society is divided roughly 60/40 against.

Link? The ones I've got contradict your statement

 

[g5000]

RUBE: I demand government cash and prizes for being married!

GAY: I would like the exact same thing, please.

RUBE: You are demanding special rights! Those government cash and prizes need to be just for ME!

nice try, but irrelevant.

the issue is whether our society as a whole believes that homosexuality is a normal human condition. THAT is the issue, and society is divided roughly 60/40 against.

"The issue is whether our society as a whole believes the negro is subhuman."

Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is not a right

The Supreme Court of the United States of America (you're heard of them, yes?) has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions and by some reports as many as 14 occasions. Now, you are free to disagree with their rulings, but as it stands right now, marriage is a declared fundamental right. Here are three cases you can research:

Loving v Virgina
Turner v Safley
Zablocki v Wisconsin

So, in order to deny this fundamental right to gays and lesbians, you must be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing them. Go!

(Sassy claims to be ignoring me so if NYcarbineer would be so kind to respond, Ms Lass will be sure to see it)

marriage is a fundamental right for one man and one woman. None of those cases says that gay marriage is a fundamental right.

If thats what you want, pass a fricken law.

Don't have to...the SCOTUS is taking care of it just like they did in the cases I cited.

sorry, but SCOTUS does not make law. Activist district judges may try, but SCOTUS does not.

You are going to lose this, the SCOTUS will leave it to the states and the people, as it should be

Scotus legislates all the time. That's how we got queer marriage and abortion both. The people didn't want (don't want) that shit, never did.

"The people" certainly didn't want interracial marriage when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving. Fewer than 20% supported it...unlike today with gays marrying.