Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Seawytch]

It's not marriage equality. It's marriage extinction.

So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.

Don't mind the resident drama queen. The world is ending and you can't convince her otherwise.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's not marriage equality. It's marriage extinction.

So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.

Don't mind the resident drama queen. The world is ending and you can't convince her otherwise.

Yep. According to her, we're already dead of Ebola.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's not marriage equality. It's marriage extinction.

I have no doubt that all the backward, uneducated bigots of days gone by said exactly the same thing.

But -

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why is it that its always the RWs who are against equality?

 

[Syriusly]

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the ******* problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?

They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that.

Unless of course it is the Conservatives suing business's.

If people of faith weren't being dicks to homosexuals, then this whole issue would be moot.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage should be between a male and a female.
.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

 

[Syriusly]

My civil marriage does not desire or require your acceptance...just equal protection.

My civil marriage has no affect on the religious except in their own minds.

Keep telling yourself that.

Stunning (see pathetic) response. Why do you wish to require gays have something different? (Other than animus)

Why do you seek to force people to accept your lifestyle or go out of business?

Since your silly libertarian views are never going to be part of our society, your question is meaningless.

They were what founded our society, until assholes like you figured out a way to **** over people using the courts and government.

Until then people had the liberty to **** over people using guns and knives.....

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage should be between a male and a female.
.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

And in most states it is now

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that

Actually, you wouldn't know a conservative if you gagged on his cock.

 

[Iceweasel]

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

Why two? Who are you to decide? Fags never say, except that "it's traditional".

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

Why two? Who are you to decide? Fags never say, except that "it's traditional".

Man/woman is traditional. So using LGBT logic, polygamy is legal because tradition is moot. They are totally for an arrangement that's thoroughly repugnant to the majority being no longer illegal.

 

[Iceweasel]

Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Marriage should be between a male and a female.
.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

And in most states it is now

Yep.

6 more were just added.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage should be between a male and a female.
.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

Marriage is between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now it is fun watching deviants like weasel and sil fumble and stumble along.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly, more than two people can love and devote themselves to one another. Militant homosexuals are the most intolerant people around today.

Incorrect.

No marriage law exists that can accommodate three or more persons, which is not the case with same-sex couples who are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as the law is currently written. That's why disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hetero fascists, please show us marriage laws that facilitate the marriage of three or more people.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Marriage should be between a male and a female.
.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

Marriage is between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And that's as it should be.

I notice that the phobes have had nothing to say about the ways in which marriage has changed through the ages. There's nothing "traditional" that needs to be protected. Its the equal rights of all citizens that we should all be working to protect.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage should be between two consenting adults who commit to love and support one another for the rest of their lives.

Why two? Who are you to decide? Fags never say, except that "it's traditional".

Because the law is written to accommodate two persons.

The mistake you're making is to perceive this as some sort of 'change' to marriage, or 'change' to marriage law, when in fact that's not the case.

Nothing is being 'changed,' no law is being 'altered' or 'redefined.' Marriage laws currently can accommodate two equal partners entering into a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Three or more persons can't enter into a marriage contract because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union, having nothing to do with gay Americans.