Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[martybegan]

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

What's wrong with defining legal civil marriage, if the original definition under the law is biased and represents a clear violation of civil rights?

We redefined being a black person in America after the Civil War. Was that a crime?

Well it doesn't, but as the op states that ship has sailed.

But the valid point is you've only redefined it to support gay marriage to the exclusion of other groups who may wish to marry. Where is the equality for those other groups?

Any 'group' that can claim sufficient similarity to monogamous adult unions that are recognized by the law as civil marriage have the right to claim equal protection.

 

[R.D.]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

What's wrong with defining legal civil marriage, if the original definition under the law is biased and represents a clear violation of civil rights?

We redefined being a black person in America after the Civil War. Was that a crime?

Well it doesn't, but as the op states that ship has sailed.

But the valid point is you've only redefined it to support gay marriage to the exclusion of other groups who may wish to marry. Where is the equality for those other groups?

Any 'group' that can claim sufficient similarity to monogamous adult unions that are recognized by the law as civil marriage have the right to claim equal protection.

So monogamy is the starting point of your hate? You're a pluraphobe? You hate children? I'm being a little sarcastic, but hate and homophobe are among the terms blindly tossed out to those of us who support traditional marriage.

Husband and wife have been redefined to suit the new need, but you're not willing to go farther?

 

[NLT]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

 

[Iceweasel]

What about the bisexuals? Why are homosexuals so bigoted against them by banning a man from marrying a man and a woman? Such hatred!

 

[Seawytch]

What about the bisexuals? Why are homosexuals so bigoted against them by banning a man from marrying a man and a woman? Such hatred!

The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.

Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?

 

[rightwinger]

It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

Absolutely false statement by you. Marriage has been two people in Europe since the Roman Age.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's cute watching the hetero fascists gnashing their teeth and stomping their feet.

 

[Iceweasel]

The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.

Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?

You're the moron by suiting your own pleasures and denying another theirs while preaching against intolerance. You haven't even offered an argument against it, just a retarded emotional reaction. No one expects a marriage to be temporary and switch to another off and on, that isn't why people marry.

 

[R.D.]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

Absolutely false statement by you. Marriage has been two people in Europe since the Roman Age.

Being wrong never stops you. You get points for that

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.

Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?

You're the moron by suiting your own pleasures and denying another theirs while preaching against intolerance. You haven't even offered an argument against it, just a retarded emotional reaction. No one expects a marriage to be temporary and switch to another off and on, that isn't why people marry.

A fraudulent statement, that, weasel. No one is denying you your pleasure: you may marry as you wish the person of your choice.

If your pleasure is to deny others that choice, sux to be you, because it won't change.

 

[dilloduck]

The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.

Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?

You're the moron by suiting your own pleasures and denying another theirs while preaching against intolerance. You haven't even offered an argument against it, just a retarded emotional reaction. No one expects a marriage to be temporary and switch to another off and on, that isn't why people marry.

A fraudulent statement, that, weasel. No one is denying you your pleasure: you may marry as you wish the person of your choice.

If your pleasure is to deny others that choice, sux to be you, because it won't change.

Look---now Jake's a reactionary !

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it

Awww, not keeping to the talking points you want?

You don't get to define the parameters of the debate

 

[rightwinger]

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it

Awww, not keeping to the talking points you want?

You don't get to define the parameters of the debate

 

[martybegan]

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it

Awww, not keeping to the talking points you want?

You don't get to define the parameters of the debate

 

[Seawytch]

The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.

Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?

You're the moron by suiting your own pleasures and denying another theirs while preaching against intolerance. You haven't even offered an argument against it, just a retarded emotional reaction. No one expects a marriage to be temporary and switch to another off and on, that isn't why people marry.

I'm not denying anyone anything. If polygamists feel that their cases are strong enough to challenge prohibitions on plural marriages, I wish them the best of luck. Their fight, however, is not my fight and has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays. If YOU believe that there is no societal harm in allowing them, it really has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays.

Since you seem to think that plural marriages are inevitable, perhaps you can tell me where this has happened. It's not like gays haven't been marrying for over a decade now legally. Where has any of the slippery slope fallacies you cling to actually come to fruition?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, they are fined for not baking a cake, and you know it.

Stop hiding your religious bigotry with semantics.

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it

The most ridiculous aspect of that fact is that none of the states where bakers or photographers were sued, were marriage equality states. The issues of PA laws and marriage equality are completely unrelated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great thing is that a bisexual can now marry the person they fall in love with, man or woman. They still only get one at a time just like everyone else.

Why is it that morons think bisexuals must have both partners at once?

You're the moron by suiting your own pleasures and denying another theirs while preaching against intolerance. You haven't even offered an argument against it, just a retarded emotional reaction. No one expects a marriage to be temporary and switch to another off and on, that isn't why people marry.

A fraudulent statement, that, weasel. No one is denying you your pleasure: you may marry as you wish the person of your choice.

If your pleasure is to deny others that choice, sux to be you, because it won't change.

Look---now Jake's a reactionary !

(in other words, a 'dilloduck')

Reactionary Define Reactionary at Dictionary.com
reactionary
[ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee] IPA Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
noun, plural reactionaries.
2.
a reactionary person.

reactionary
[ree-ak-shuh-ner-ee] IPA Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
noun, plural reactionaries.
2.
a reactionary person.

 

[martybegan]

For crying out loud....Who gives a fuck about a cake?

We can't proceed on gay marriage until we have resolved this cake issue?

Gay marriage? But what about the cakes?

It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.

Cry me a river

We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes

How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?

Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it

The most ridiculous aspect of that fact is that none of the states where bakers or photographers were sued, were marriage equality states. The issues of PA laws and marriage equality are completely unrelated.

Actually they are very related, and like most Engineers I don't just thing of the current issue, but several issues ahead.

You do note that I don't have issues with gay marriage in states that voted on it legislatively.