Would you sign a petition to eliminate civil marriage licenses?

[Momanohedhunter]

And....?

Not that I agree with this particular argument, but homosexual sex is not heterosexual sex. It is not equal, in the least. In fact, as sexual relations are legally defined as a penis penetrating a vagina, homosexual sex is non-existent.
Zero does not and never will equal one.

So if in your opinion sexual relations are* defined* as a penis entering a vagina oraL sex is NOT sex bill clinton must love you

What ever is considered sex needs to be kept in the bed room. No civil rights for sex acts.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Because she wants official recognition of her deviant lifestyle. That is what this is all about, legitimacy. It has zero to do with civil rights. It has zero to do with fairness. It has zero to do with visiting sick partners in the hospital. It is simply a grab for legitimacy by the sexual deviants.

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

The constitution did not give that power to the federal govt. It belongs to the states.

Then why do we have DOMA? A Fed law that prevents gays from getting married.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

The constitution did not give that power to the federal govt. It belongs to the states.

Then why do we have DOMA? A Fed law that prevents gays from getting married.

Politicians from both sides bickering over what should be a non-issue for the feds.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who's changing thier outlook now that they were put to a vote?

Yes=
arKangel, Cuyo, Dont Taz Me Bro, JohnA, JWBooth, kaz, Lonestar_logic, PLYMCO_PILGRIM , Quantum Windbag, Two Thumbs, Warrior102

No=
Anachronism, bodecea, del , Kuros, Momanohedhunter, Mr. President , rightwinger, Rinata , Susan45, The Rabbi, tonystewart1, Too Tall, uscitizen

Seems to me the majority of conservatives want to end gov involvment, which means you get to marry your lover. While your fellow dems say no.


[people in black; I have no idea thier politics]

Wait a second. I had to double check the Bods.

Why did you vote against your own self intrest?

Because she wants official recognition of her deviant lifestyle. That is what this is all about, legitimacy. It has zero to do with civil rights. It has zero to do with fairness. It has zero to do with visiting sick partners in the hospital. It is simply a grab for legitimacy by the sexual deviants.

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

Everyone is not equal. That is a misconception.
We have an organic thing called society. Society is not just a bunch of individuals. It is the bedrock of civilzation. And that bedrock is made up, at the core, of families. Families provide stability and the next generation of citizens. The research on this is undisputed.
Gays dont care about visiting sick partners. IF they did they would be OK with domestic partnership arrangements, and would avoid the entire controversy.
But you never, NEVER, see homosexual interest groups lobbying for domestic partnership laws that would solve their issues. Why? Because the homosexual agenda is the recognition of homosexuality as normal.
Sometimes even preferable.


But it isn't. And their push for "gay marriage" is an attack on Western society and its values. Nothing less.

 

[The Rabbi]

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

The constitution did not give that power to the federal govt. It belongs to the states.

Then why do we have DOMA? A Fed law that prevents gays from getting married.

No one is preventing gays from getting married.
Where do people get these weird ideas??

 

[Two Thumbs]

Because she wants official recognition of her deviant lifestyle. That is what this is all about, legitimacy. It has zero to do with civil rights. It has zero to do with fairness. It has zero to do with visiting sick partners in the hospital. It is simply a grab for legitimacy by the sexual deviants.

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

Everyone is not equal. That is a misconception.
We have an organic thing called society. Society is not just a bunch of individuals. It is the bedrock of civilzation. And that bedrock is made up, at the core, of families. Families provide stability and the next generation of citizens. The research on this is undisputed.
Gays dont care about visiting sick partners. IF they did they would be OK with domestic partnership arrangements, and would avoid the entire controversy.
But you never, NEVER, see homosexual interest groups lobbying for domestic partnership laws that would solve their issues. Why? Because the homosexual agenda is the recognition of homosexuality as normal.
Sometimes even preferable.


But it isn't. And their push for "gay marriage" is an attack on Western society and its values. Nothing less.

Would you explain that please.

Off hand it sounds like you are saying that gay parterns don't care about each others health.

But if you are talking about the political groups using that as a talking point... That's true.

 

[tonystewart1]

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

The constitution did not give that power to the federal govt. It belongs to the states.

Then why do we have DOMA? A Fed law that prevents gays from getting married.

Because the feds cant help themselves but pass laws that take away state rights and give them more power. Just because they passed a law does not mean they should have or had the right to.

 

[Liberty]

i vote yes simply because marriage is not in the enumerated powers. its government overreach. states can do w/e they want tho within the confines of the constitution (10th amendment, uniform laws, etc.)

 

[bodecea]

Who's changing thier outlook now that they were put to a vote?

Yes=
arKangel, Cuyo, Dont Taz Me Bro, JohnA, JWBooth, kaz, Lonestar_logic, PLYMCO_PILGRIM , Quantum Windbag, Two Thumbs, Warrior102

No=
Anachronism, bodecea, del , Kuros, Momanohedhunter, Mr. President , rightwinger, Rinata , Susan45, The Rabbi, tonystewart1, Too Tall, uscitizen

Seems to me the majority of conservatives want to end gov involvment, which means you get to marry your lover. While your fellow dems say no.


[people in black; I have no idea thier politics]

Wait a second. I had to double check the Bods.

Why did you vote against your own self intrest?

Because she wants official recognition of her deviant lifestyle. That is what this is all about, legitimacy. It has zero to do with civil rights. It has zero to do with fairness. It has zero to do with visiting sick partners in the hospital. It is simply a grab for legitimacy by the sexual deviants.

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

The Rabbi simply shows that he wants gay Americans, tax-paying, law-abiding gay Americans to be second class citizens. That he wants the government to sanction his believe that we are somehow 'less' than he is when it comes to rights in this country. He's made that very clear.

 

[Anachronism]

Who's changing thier outlook now that they were put to a vote?


No=
Anachronism, bodecea, del , Kuros, Momanohedhunter, Mr. President , rightwinger, Rinata , Susan45, The Rabbi, tonystewart1, Too Tall, uscitizen

Seems to me the majority of conservatives want to end gov involvment, which means you get to marry your lover. While your fellow dems say no.

I don't believe I've EVER claimed that the Government should get out of moral issues like Marriage. In fact, my position has always been that Government has a significant interest and necessity to be MORE involved in moral issues like this.

 

[gautama]

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

B.O. .......DUH......C'ya,

Hi, I'm glad the "husband" of the LEZBO "marriage" is here to bedevil us with his/its LEZBO tinged Agenda.

Now, I'm NOT willing to abolish "civil" marriage......but I am definitely for abolishing the PC concocted blatant distortion of the English word for "MARRIAGE".

The word "MARRIAGE" used for millenia is, and was, the union between a MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD.

Whereas PC, to suit the agenda of the FREAKS, distorts to mean the Perverted Union between TWO or more FREAKS of the same gender.....and calling that "Marriage".

The agenda of this Lezbo is obvious: somehow The PC concocted definition of "marriage" is primarily thought of as a "civil" marriage by the "progressives". Thus, if you are for "civil" marriage.....supposedly that stat can be used as an indication of approving the PC concocted version of "marriage" between FREAKS.

 

[bodecea]

Not that I agree with this particular argument, but homosexual sex is not heterosexual sex. It is not equal, in the least. In fact, as sexual relations are legally defined as a penis penetrating a vagina, homosexual sex is non-existent.
Zero does not and never will equal one.

So if in your opinion sexual relations are* defined* as a penis entering a vagina oraL sex is NOT sex bill clinton must love you

What ever is considered sex needs to be kept in the bed room. No civil rights for sex acts.

It's not about sex acts, it's a gender issue....discrimination based on gender.

 

[iggy pop]

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

No. Not everyone want's to be married in a church, synagogue or other religious ceremony. Besides, Elvis impersonators in Vegas could never pick up the slack

 

[bodecea]

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

The constitution did not give that power to the federal govt. It belongs to the states.

Then why do we have DOMA? A Fed law that prevents gays from getting married.

An excellent question.

 

[bodecea]

Because she wants official recognition of her deviant lifestyle. That is what this is all about, legitimacy. It has zero to do with civil rights. It has zero to do with fairness. It has zero to do with visiting sick partners in the hospital. It is simply a grab for legitimacy by the sexual deviants.

So?

Lets assume bode is scum of the earth and just wants these rights so she can rub your face in it.

Do you think that makes it ok to keep the equivalent of a spouse out of the loop when the other is in the hospital?

How important is it that we keep gays from having family plans for HC?

Everyone is supposed to be free and equal here in America. It's why many, if not most of our ancesters came here.

Everyone is not equal. That is a misconception.
We have an organic thing called society. Society is not just a bunch of individuals. It is the bedrock of civilzation. And that bedrock is made up, at the core, of families. Families provide stability and the next generation of citizens. The research on this is undisputed.
Gays dont care about visiting sick partners. IF they did they would be OK with domestic partnership arrangements, and would avoid the entire controversy.
But you never, NEVER, see homosexual interest groups lobbying for domestic partnership laws that would solve their issues. Why? Because the homosexual agenda is the recognition of homosexuality as normal.
Sometimes even preferable.


But it isn't. And their push for "gay marriage" is an attack on Western society and its values. Nothing less.

There you have it.

 

[bodecea]

The constitution did not give that power to the federal govt. It belongs to the states.

Then why do we have DOMA? A Fed law that prevents gays from getting married.

No one is preventing gays from getting married.
Where do people get these weird ideas??

Of course they are...in most states. Not in NY anymore, in that you are correct. Thank goodness.

 

[bodecea]

I've heard a lot of people say that government should get out of marriage altogether....so, for that to happen, the government would have to drop marriage licenses and all that entails....would you sign such a petition?

B.O. .......DUH......C'ya,

Hi, I'm glad the "husband" of the LEZBO "marriage" is here to bedevil us with his/its LEZBO tinged Agenda.

Now, I'm NOT willing to abolish "civil" marriage......but I am definitely for abolishing the PC concocted blatant distortion of the English word for "MARRIAGE".

The word "MARRIAGE" used for millenia is, and was, the union between a MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD.

Whereas PC, to suit the agenda of the FREAKS, distorts to mean the Perverted Union between TWO or more FREAKS of the same gender.....and calling that "Marriage".

The agenda of this Lezbo is obvious: somehow The PC concocted definition of "marriage" is primarily thought of as a "civil" marriage by the "progressives". Thus, if you are for "civil" marriage.....supposedly that stat can be used as an indication of approving the PC concocted version of "marriage" between FREAKS.

Come to prove this right, have you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...basis-other-than-intolerance-and-bigotry.html

 

[Momanohedhunter]

So if in your opinion sexual relations are* defined* as a penis entering a vagina oraL sex is NOT sex bill clinton must love you

What ever is considered sex needs to be kept in the bed room. No civil rights for sex acts.

It's not about sex acts, it's a gender issue....discrimination based on gender.

Not really it is not. Don't get me wrong, I dislike very few folks on race, religion, and creed. Its America, do as you like. That's how I see it, take it or leave it, but dont say I have to accept it. Homosexual is not a gender, its a lifestyle, and in my opinion, a life style choice that is not healthy for those who practice it. I have no hatred for those who do, and unless asked, keep my opinions to my self when among them. It is also NOT an issue for the Federal Government to be considering considering the shape our country is in. That means The feds should not defend DOMA. I agree with Obama there. The same is true for activist Judges like in Cali. They did it wrong. New York did it right.

 

[bodecea]

What ever is considered sex needs to be kept in the bed room. No civil rights for sex acts.

It's not about sex acts, it's a gender issue....discrimination based on gender.

Not really it is not. Don't get me wrong, I dislike very few folks on race, religion, and creed. Its America, do as you like. That's how I see it, take it or leave it, but dont say I have to accept it. Homosexual is not a gender, its a lifestyle, and in my opinion, a life style choice that is not healthy for those who practice it. I have no hatred for those who do, and unless asked, keep my opinions to my self when among them. It is also NOT an issue for the Federal Government to be considering considering the shape our country is in. That means The feds should not defend DOMA. I agree with Obama there. The same is true for activist Judges like in Cali. They did it wrong. New York did it right.

It most certainly is a gender issue. Blatant gender discrimination by the government.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Who's changing thier outlook now that they were put to a vote?


No=
Anachronism, bodecea, del , Kuros, Momanohedhunter, Mr. President , rightwinger, Rinata , Susan45, The Rabbi, tonystewart1, Too Tall, uscitizen

Seems to me the majority of conservatives want to end gov involvment, which means you get to marry your lover. While your fellow dems say no.

I don't believe I've EVER claimed that the Government should get out of moral issues like Marriage. In fact, my position has always been that Government has a significant interest and necessity to be MORE involved in moral issues like this.

I'm fully aware of your authortarian version of conservatism.

Your vote was not a shock, I simply put us on the same "team" b/c you and I are types of conservatives.