UNA
New Member
Wirelessly posted
Larry Gude said:
Further proof that gays are just as ####ed up as heteros.
It's like OJ proving a black many can get away with murder just like any white man provided he, like the white man, has enough dough.
And Obama proving that being a poor potus isn't just a white mans game anymore!
If Jesse Helms had stood up in the Senate 20 years ago and said "I think gays should be able to marry!" that would have been the end of it; gays would want nothing to do with it! Of course, now it's too late. If Helms did it today, he'd just freak people out and get shot as a zombie.
:shrug:
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
I will take Bob Hope over that boring stuff.
ehh, we disagree again, never really found Bob Hope all that funny... could be a generational thing...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
I was 2 in '83 but I do remember Pee Wee.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Now, you're speaking of the religious concept of marriage, not the legal one, right?
You know there's a difference, right?
Are you speaking religiously, or legally? There is a difference.
They certainly can marry someone they love in whatever ceremony they choose. What they can not do is have that "marriage" recognized as marriage by the state. Because, that marriage (just like multiple partnered marriage, marrying someone too young, marrying someone too closely related.....) does not fit the criteria for the recognition and all that comes with it.
It's really so easy a concept to understand, I would think even you would have that mental capacity.
And, you realize that homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex just as much as heterosexuals can not marry someone of the same sex. This is not a sexual orientation issue.
You speak of love, though. Do you know of a state that requires "be in love" to be a criteria for marriage? I'll bet as many states require that as have sexual orientation clauses
It's nothing like interracial marriage. Unless, of course, there's a state that requires a certain sexual orientation for a marriage license. In that (non-existent) state, it's just like interracial marriage.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Actually, that is not even true. The constitution said to count for representation, non-free persons were to count as 3/5. Free blacks were counted equally to free whites/hispanics/chinese/etc.
Note, Indians were not counted because they were not taxed. If we used that same criteria today, around half the country wouldn't count
DipStick
Keep Calm and Don't Care!
This_person
Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted
Yeah I know, it's different because you think their marriage is unequal instead
Prove that concept wrong: show the study that shows same-sex marriage, where it has been legalized and therefore "normalized", has given equal benefit to society.
This_person
Well-Known Member
This_person
Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted
Because they ARE equal! They deserve equality! Why do you say they deserve less? Because YOU find it immoral?! A lot of things can be considered immoral, I bet YOU even do immoral things!but notice I'M not trying to cure you nor treat you unequally!
Please demonstrate the study that supports your claim.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Wirelessly posted
I am talking about recgonized legal marriage. Many many of them are religious ceremonies that result in a legally recognized marriage.
This is exactly like interracial marriage, it's changing slowly just like those laws did, and sadly just like the bigots of yesteryear, the ones of today feel justified in their bigotry.
This_person said:Now, you're speaking of the religious concept of marriage, not the legal one, right?
You know there's a difference, right?Are you speaking religiously, or legally? There is a difference.
They certainly can marry someone they love in whatever ceremony they choose. What they can not do is have that "marriage" recognized as marriage by the state. Because, that marriage (just like multiple partnered marriage, marrying someone too young, marrying someone too closely related.....) does not fit the criteria for the recognition and all that comes with it.
It's really so easy a concept to understand, I would think even you would have that mental capacity.
And, you realize that homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex just as much as heterosexuals can not marry someone of the same sex. This is not a sexual orientation issue.
You speak of love, though. Do you know of a state that requires "be in love" to be a criteria for marriage? I'll bet as many states require that as have sexual orientation clausesIt's nothing like interracial marriage. Unless, of course, there's a state that requires a certain sexual orientation for a marriage license. In that (non-existent) state, it's just like interracial marriage.
I am talking about recgonized legal marriage. Many many of them are religious ceremonies that result in a legally recognized marriage.
This is exactly like interracial marriage, it's changing slowly just like those laws did, and sadly just like the bigots of yesteryear, the ones of today feel justified in their bigotry.
Last edited:
you have yet to produce anything that demonstrates that are not equal.