| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Ann Margret Thatcher |
|||
|
It's all a separation of church and state matter anyway. They can call it whatever they want, as long as it affords the same legal benefits and privileges
of heterosexual couples and is legally binding from state to state.
|
|||
DelosWorld |
|||
factoryhurl wrote: Who's pissing on it? I said if you really need the help you should get it. |
|||
youfist |
|||
BobbyBrown06 wrote: I disagree. Blacks getting hung because they had melanin in their skin and didn't fit in/melt in the crowd is alot different than not fitting in because of behavior and overt attention. You are saying that you are discrimiated against because you choose to act in a certain way is equvilent to getting discriminated against becasue of something that you can not choose? I think that is a huge slap in the face to blacks. Blacks suffered just because of their physical difference. My Irish grandfather could keep his mouf shut and 'blend in'...(no one would here his accent) You could do the same (no lispy high-pitched girlie accent) blacks NEVER had that luxery...so you comparing your 'cause' with the black cause is very obtuse.
tell me, do gays have a 'gay only' waiting room? Water Fountain? Where gays forced to sit in the back of the bus?
|
|||
kutabeach |
|||
|
Props to Obama for authorizing the attack on the pirates.
Nice work, Prez. |
|||
youfist |
|||
kutabeach wrote: I agree. Although he is mouring the loss of his cousin who was killed by the US Navy SeALS during the attack.
|
|||
BobbyBrown06 |
|||
|
I was being pissy when I compared it to the black civil rights movement, but it's A civil right's movement of the new century.
|
|||
glazerboy |
|||
merkyl wrote:Merkyl's standard answer when he's been outmatched. Hey, black people in the 50s had the same right to marry anybody they wanted as long as the person was the same color as them. Don't know WHAT they were complaining about that. |
|||
glazerboy |
|||
youfist wrote:Damn those gays for their lispy high-pitched girlie accents. How DARE they not act like the rest of this free society. |
|||
youfist |
|||
BobbyBrown06 wrote: Marriage was designed to keep the husband in the home with children that he helped to create with his sperm and the wifes unfertized egg. It would finacially/emotionally bind the 'parents' together in a legal way. This is why Kings got married to queens to put the LEGITAMACY of the babies in lineage with certain rights to the name that would be passed on to it. SInce gays can't form babies (as sperm inserted deep in a hairy asshole has yet to prove a viable way to create a baby-human) there is no 'legal' reason for marriage. You want to co-own a home? YOU CAN (on the title of the home) You want to co-own a checking account? DO IT You want to leave/will your $$ to your partner-in-poo....GO FOR IT.. At teh end-of-the day, it is up to society to change the mores that are established via a vote/concencuss. Brown v. Board of Ed. was a vote Roe v. wade was a vote Plessy v. Ferguson was a vote. Non of those were one activist judge indiscriminatly changing the will of the majority. |
|||
merkyl |
|||
|
Seriously, shut up. You are a known idiot and no one cares about your "thoughts".
Putting shit in italics doesn't make your point either, especially when you're wrong again. ETA meant for glazertard of course.
Last Edited By: merkyl
04/13/09 9:11 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
youfist |
|||
|
Damn those gays for their lispy high-pitched girlie accents. How DARE they not act like the rest of this free society.
Blacks didn't have the option to keep their mouf shut to avoid persecution. |
|||
Miles Edgeworth |
|||
|
You know who did have that option?
Hitler thats who |
|||
Savvy Ignoramus |
|||
|
Suicide was always an option, right? And have you never heard of adoption or something? The fact that adults can adopt children and raise them with their
committed partners should be reason enough to "legitimize" a parent's custody over the children they raise. Wut about da chirruns, huh?????
|
|||
youfist |
|||
|
what where the names of the Irish gay couple?
Michael Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael. |
|||
blockhose |
|||
Gregoire |
|||
Blacks getting hung because they had melanin in their skin and didn't fit in/melt in the crowd is alot different than not fitting in because of behavior and overt attention. So if gay people had a third ear coming out of their forehead, then this would be a noble struggle and worthy of your support? This isn't about 'fitting in'. This has nothing to do with you at all You want to leave/will your $$ to your partner-in-poo....GO FOR IT.. Again, with lunch counter/drinking fountain argument, easily dismissed. Your arguments are semantic and have no basis in reality. You know full well there's a difference but prefer to keep them intact for some darker reason that frankly I don't want to know. And now you're using Roe v. Wade to support one of your arguments? Rich. Again, the gay civil unions debate literally has nothing to do with you. So why do you care whether it's brought down -- on a state level -- by one judge or six judges?
Last Edited By: Gregoire
04/13/09 10:46 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
BBSpencer |
|||
|
It's kind of funny how men used to be able to marry post-op transgender women, as long as they received a new birth certificate declaring they are a woman.
Then gays started asking for marriage rights, and...society took a step backwards and declared those transgender marriages unlawful. It's like MLK jr gave
his "I Have a Dream" speech and they put blacks back into slavery.
This is a really tough debate to have with anyone opposing, because it's hard to change a bigot. They honestly have no reason TO oppose it, they just took the gay insult a little too seriously in middle school and allowed it to control their opinions. If everyone can bitch about gun rights, or everyone can bitch about medical rights, why do we have to break down the science of when someone becomes gay, in order to give them rights? Is the gay rights movement on the same level of the civil rights movement? Hell no. Is it safe to say gays are the most discriminated against sect of the population? Hell yes. Well besides Muslims but...w/e. |
|||
Kudo Withholder |
|||
Is it safe to say gays are the most discriminated against sect of the population?Gays are a sect? |
|||
CBRetriever |
|||
|
Is it safe to say gays are the most discriminated against sect of the population?
I still say women are in most third world countries |
|||
BBSpencer |
|||
|
Ah, my bad. Wrote out minority but figured someone would harp on that too. Sect was a much worse choice, so I dug my hole deeper I suppose. Let's go
with...uh...group?
ETA: I agree CB, but I was sticking with the U.S. population, as that is where the issue is flip-flopping due to state rights over federal rights.
Last Edited By: BBSpencer
04/13/09 11:26 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||