Same Sex marriage vote

[happycamper]

On 12/2/2022 at 2:02 PM, East Coast Aztec said:

I guess we should also say they are gayfully employed.  Do you also believe a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is not a marriage.  What about non-Christian in general? What about gay Christians. Is there any difference between two adults marrying in this regard, besides feelings?  

I honestly find it strange that people want government to tell people what is marriage, and even more strange that they feel that the freedom to say "marriage" regarding two adults somehow diminishes the framework of it.  How fragile must their own life and marriage be to need that separation on a term, when it is the exact same thing.

What about marriage between people who were previously divorced? or marriage between two athiests? 

[thelawlorfaithful]

On 12/2/2022 at 6:43 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

Then why were you making some dogshit lochneresque argument? 

Because it’s not one. Lochner was bad because the law against how many hours a baker could employ a person a week wasn’t in conflict with the constitution, state or federal. The justices just thought it was a dumb law. The bakers that got paid for sleeping probably agreed but that wasn’t the law. There’s potential for clear conflict with the constitution here. And you don’t have the answer for any of the questions posed.

[thelawlorfaithful]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:43 AM, toonkee said:

Yes, it's the practical concerns.

It’s the constitution and the law. Roll your eyes at them if you want. But don’t whine when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Nevada Convert]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:02 AM, happycamper said:

It's laughable that giving people less rights is inhumane? 

convert

do you know where the concept of "Black" comes from?

what the +++++ are you talking about?

gay people don't "live to be different". Some people do, but convert, there's people who build their identity around shitty music genres. 

gay people want to live their lives. 

what are you talking about

gay pride parades are about accepting who they are

gay marriage is about accepting gay people as part of society

homosexuality is "normal". it has never stopped happening. it happens across species. it doesn't hurt anyone. 

if you have a problem with it ( you do), it's because something is wrong with you. simple as that. 

That’s why it’s impossible to debate anything with you because you play childish games with semantics, muddy the conversation with inequivalents, are dishonest, etc. It just makes you look like a big crybaby social warrior with low IQ. But that’s what you do. 

[happycamper]

On 12/2/2022 at 2:33 PM, Nevada Convert said:

That’s why it’s impossible to debate anything with you because you play childish games with semantics, muddy the conversation with inequivalents, are dishonest, etc. It just makes you look like a big crybaby social warrior with low IQ. But that’s what you do. 

convert, we're debating with words. semantics are the meanings of words. semantics are an inextricable part of any conversation lmfao

what is "inequivalent" here? what is "dishonest"?

[utenation]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:54 AM, Nevada Convert said:

Less human? What makes people and groups such as male, female, black, white, asian, latino, less human because they’re classified differently……because there obviously are distinct differences. You’re being a little drama queen with tunnel vision that assumes that being classified as being different because you are, means it’s being done to make someone less human. That’s laughable.

Do blacks feel less human because they’re separated in their own ethnic class? Do you think they’d rather get rid of all ethnic classification and be combined with whites and all other races and referred to as just “people”? Of course not. 

Do gays want to get rid of “sexual orientation” classification, stop pointing out their differences with being straight, get rid of the rainbow flags to accentuate being different from straight and just proclaim gay and straight are the same? Of course not. The gay movement lives to be different. So why suddenly do they want to do the opposite with marriage? Because the activists think it’s an opportunity to force acceptance on the anti-gay movement as being ‘normal’. That’s why. It’s as simple as that. 

 

I think you have a lot to learn about people.  I also highly doubt you've ever sat down and spoke to any gay people about what defines their choices and lifestyle. I also doubt you've spent any time doing the same for "black" culture.  You fear all these people so you are left with opinions and data from other common ground fear groups that you cling to like a last meal.  

So what really defines negative classification? Decades of social intolerance by the fear mongering majority or gay people wanting to plant a flag to be different? 

You should go back and read a few history books to see why it takes longer than a day for the people you mock to have some trust to not be pigeonholed into safe zones for a largely republican agenda.  

[toonkee]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:15 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

It’s the constitution and the law. Roll your eyes at them if you want. But don’t whine when the shoe is on the other foot.

I'm not rolling my eyes at those things. The law and the constitution are not the reasons these creeps would never support any gay marriage bill.

[Nevada Convert]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:02 AM, East Coast Aztec said:

I guess we should also say they are gayfully employed.  Do you also believe a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is not a marriage.  What about non-Christian in general? What about gay Christians. Is there any difference between two adults marrying in this regard, besides feelings?  

I honestly find it strange that people want government to tell people what is marriage, and even more strange that they feel that the freedom to say "marriage" regarding two adults somehow diminishes the framework of it.  How fragile must their own life and marriage be to need that separation on a term, when it is the exact same thing.

“Marriage” isn’t a broad category word. It’s a specific word with a specific definition that describes the union of a man and a woman.   That’s it. If you want to create sub categories of Christian vs non-Christian marriages or whatever, knock yourself out. But the one thing that’s in common with them all is that it’s a union with a man and a woman. 

I could just as easily say: how fragile must gay couples lives and relationships be to need to be lumped into with straight couples? 

The gay movement took an old word and changed it into their own. No one really cared about that word. Then the gay movement took the rainbow and made it there own. Now if someone that just likes rainbows uses one, they’ll be identified as gay.

Now they’re trying to crash the ‘marriage’ meaning, and that’s completely different. It has deep traditional and religious meanings that mean a lot to a lot of people that do also matter.

I know you could give a fvck about these people for feeling this way, and that’s really a shame. Because a lot of these people support ‘gay marriage’. They support their equal rights as couples, but would also like respect for their traditions and religious beliefs. You obviously don’t, but that just proves your intolerance and maybe even some hate. It certainly proves your unwillingness to compromise. 

 

[renoskier]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:06 AM, Bob said:

Lol you think you're more enlightened than God and all of humanity since the beginning of time. Marriage is the harnessing of raw biology to the creation of families. If gays want all the legal protections that marriage affords other than pertaining to children then give them something else. Seems like powers of attorney could do it. I don't care what you think, it's a free country and wrong is wrong and I don't have to support it. kiss my butt

more enlightened than your imaginary Santa Claus...yes

if it walks like a duck, why do we need to call it anything else? does it hurt your feelings...phuck yer feelings

[Nevada Convert]

On 12/2/2022 at 12:05 PM, utenation said:

I think you have a lot to learn about people.  I also highly doubt you've ever sat down and spoke to any gay people about what defines their choices and lifestyle. I also doubt you've spent any time doing the same for "black" culture.  You fear all these people so you are left with opinions and data from other common ground fear groups that you cling to like a last meal.  

So what really defines negative classification? Decades of social intolerance by the fear mongering majority or gay people wanting to plant a flag to be different? 

You should go back and read a few history books to see why it takes longer than a day for the people you mock to have some trust to not be pigeonholed into safe zones for a largely republican agenda.  

Your condescending prick trolling is completely ineffective. 

[SAMO]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:06 AM, Bob said:

Lol you think you're more enlightened than God and all of humanity since the beginning of time. Marriage is the harnessing of raw biology to the creation of families. If gays want all the legal protections that marriage affords other than pertaining to children then give them something else. Seems like powers of attorney could do it. I don't care what you think, it's a free country and wrong is wrong and I don't have to support it. kiss my butt

we are all just god playing hide and go seek with ourself

given your authoritarian bent tho...i can see why you salivate over the idea of some sort of omnipotent SkyKing ruling over everything...probably gets you hard...lol

 

[utenation]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:31 PM, Nevada Convert said:

Your condescending prick trolling is completely ineffective. 

It’s ok NC.  Everyone here understands why you must put all these people into safe boxes with labels. 
 

[renoskier]

@Bob can you explain how allowing gay marriage is bad for our country?

[East Coast Aztec]

On 12/2/2022 at 12:26 PM, Nevada Convert said:

“Marriage” isn’t a broad category word. It’s a specific word with a specific definition that describes the union of a man and a woman.   That’s it. If you want to create sub categories of Christian vs non-Christian marriages or whatever, knock yourself out. But the one thing that’s in common with them all is that it’s a union with a man and a woman. 

I could just as easily say: how fragile must gay couples lives and relationships be to need to be lumped into with straight couples? 

The gay movement took an old word and changed it into their own. No one really cared about that word. Then the gay movement took the rainbow and made it there own. Now if someone that just likes rainbows uses one, they’ll be identified as gay.

Now they’re trying to crash the ‘marriage’ meaning, and that’s completely different. It has deep traditional and religious meanings that mean a lot to a lot of people that do also matter.

I know you could give a fvck about these people for feeling this way, and that’s really a shame. Because a lot of these people support ‘gay marriage’. They support their equal rights as couples, but would also like respect for their traditions and religious beliefs. You obviously don’t, but that just proves your intolerance and maybe even some hate. It certainly proves your unwillingness to compromise. 

 

Gays are looking for the right to be married.  The term is not as important, but to say that they must be called something different based on feelings is absolutely asinine, and to the original comment on this, is squarely rooted in some separate but equal notion of "you can't be like us".  On something that has zero,  I repeat zero, actual effect on others.  Besides feelings.  So, perhaps the +++++ your feelings crowd should perhaps take heed and not be hypocrites.  The respect for religion is in the Bill, and respect for "traditions" is really unexplainable, what tradition is calling something a marriage?  What aspect must be removed to make the difference between a marriage and a gay marriage as a process, legal function, or definition?  Still a license, still a ceremony, still an option for last names, still legal establishment of rights.  The only difference is people feel they are better so they can't say the phrase.  Feelings.  Just feelings.  That is it.  

 

We know where you stand and we know where I stand.  

[Nevada Convert]

On 12/2/2022 at 12:49 PM, East Coast Aztec said:

Gays are looking for the right to be married.  The term is not as important, but to say that they must be called something different based on feelings is absolutely asinine, and to the original comment on this, is squarely rooted in some separate but equal notion of "you can't be like us".  On something that has zero,  I repeat zero, actual effect on others.  Besides feelings.  So, perhaps the +++++ your feelings crowd should perhaps take heed and not be hypocrites.  The respect for religion is in the Bill, and respect for "traditions" is really unexplainable, what tradition is calling something a marriage?  What aspect must be removed to make the difference between a marriage and a gay marriage as a process, legal function, or definition?  Still a license, still a ceremony, still an option for last names, still legal establishment of rights.  The only difference is people feel they are better so they can't say the phrase.  Feelings.  Just feelings.  That is it.  

 

We know where you stand and we know where I stand.  

You socially left folks crack me up when you say it’s just a word. It’s a word that means nothing. LOL, since when have social leftists never cared about words, definitions and categories? You guys live for that shit. But only if it gets you what you want. Suddenly, with ‘marriage’, what’s  the big deal? Just a word. 

Can you imagine if Russia changed its flag to be a rainbow flag, and after 5 years, when people saw a rainbow flag, they thought of Putin? The LGBT movement would be out of their minds about having their identity stolen. What if someone took the acronym G.A.Y. and used it for something else and became more prominent than the current definition worldwide? The LGBT movement would be going crazy and fighting it. 

Symbols do matter. Words do matter, and it works both ways, not one way. You’re a one way minded fella.

[youngredbullfan]

On 12/2/2022 at 2:14 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because it’s not one. Lochner was bad because the law against how many hours a baker could employ a person a week wasn’t in conflict with the constitution, state or federal. The justices just thought it was a dumb law. The bakers that got paid for sleeping probably agreed but that wasn’t the law. There’s potential for clear conflict with the constitution here. And you don’t have the answer for any of the questions posed.

You should look at the issue as a matter of utility.

It causes less societal harm to "force" private businesses to provide services to all regardless of their sexual orientation. It causes more societal harm to allow private businesses to discriminate against people on that basis. 

If you'd prefer a Jim Crow-like legal structure instead because of your subjective interpretation of a paper document produced during the 1700s, fine. Just understand that in the long term, getting your way will induce more and more people to hate and distrust the paper you worship. Better to take a more flexible and practical view so the whole scaffolding holds up. Your conservative progenitors understood that, at least. 

[Old_SD_Dude]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:06 AM, Bob said:

Lol you think you're more enlightened than God and all of humanity since the beginning of time. Marriage is the harnessing of raw biology to the creation of families. If gays want all the legal protections that marriage affords other than pertaining to children then give them something else. Seems like powers of attorney could do it. I don't care what you think, it's a free country and wrong is wrong and I don't have to support it. kiss my butt

So what about heterosexual couples that can’t/won’t have kids? No marriage for them either? What about a gay couple that adopts? Ok then?

[East Coast Aztec]

On 12/2/2022 at 2:33 PM, Nevada Convert said:

You socially left folks crack me up when you say it’s just a word. It’s a word that means nothing. LOL, since when have social leftists never cared about words, definitions and categories? You guys live for that shit. But only if it gets you what you want. Suddenly, with ‘marriage’, what’s  the big deal? Just a word. 

Can you imagine if Russia changed its flag to be a rainbow flag, and after 5 years, when people saw a rainbow flag, they thought of Putin? The LGBT movement would be out of their minds about having their identity stolen. What if someone took the acronym G.A.Y. and used it for something else and became more prominent than the current definition worldwide? The LGBT movement would be going crazy and fighting it. 

Symbols do matter. Words do matter, and it works both ways, not one way. You’re a one way minded fella.

Okay, symbols and words matter.  So your insistence that gay people can not share your symbols and words is somehow not anything less than a discriminatory outlook is wrong, and if your feelings are hurt that those who you pass judgement on get to use those, than that is on you.  Own it. 

 

You go ahead and call them "unions" and the rest of us will call it "marriage".  Because it is exactly the same, and you haven't said any way that it isn't.  Except that it's your feelings.  

[thelawlorfaithful]

On 12/2/2022 at 3:38 PM, youngredbullfan said:

You should look at the issue as a matter of utility.

It causes less societal harm to "force" private businesses to provide services to all regardless of their sexual orientation. It causes more societal harm to allow private businesses to discriminate against people on that basis. 

If you'd prefer a Jim Crow-like legal structure instead because of your subjective interpretation of a paper document produced during the 1700s, fine. Just understand that in the long term, getting your way will induce more and more people to hate and distrust the paper you worship. Better to take a more flexible and practical view so the whole scaffolding holds up. Your conservative progenitors understood that, at least. 

I should? And how you measure this utility? How are you quantifying “less societal harm” by “forcing” private actors to perform work they don’t desire to do? The whole “nice bill of rights there, be a shame if something happened to it” argument isn’t persuasive in the least.

[East Coast Aztec]

On 12/2/2022 at 3:54 PM, Old_SD_Dude said:

So what about heterosexual couples that can’t/won’t have kids? No marriage for them either? What about a gay couple that adopts? Ok then?

I am very confident that if this was 1967, these opinions would have been about interracial marriage.