When the going gets rough, start bashing the Gays

[xj0hnx]

Your 2012 republican presidential candidates.
Make room for them in your bedroom, America.

Bachmann, and Santorum haven't been relevant for a while now, Perry is equally irrelevant in the last couple weeks, must be a slow day a HuffPo.

why is anything Bachman says news anymore?

It's not, hasn't been for a long time now.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Because conservatives and Christians are historically oppressed groups in this country....

The war on conservatives and Christians goes all the way back - when they were denied their freedom,... to keep slaves.

 

[cybrsage]

Personaly, I think the government should stop being in the marriage business and drop to just the civil union business. Marriage should also be a federal issue, as marriage has to be portable between the states. If you are part of a gay civil union in New York and enter PA, you cease to be a legal couple. That is stupid.

I also think, since we are visiting the issue of removing limitations on forming a civil union, that we should remove all limitations except the age one and a slight derivation on the genetic distance one. Polygamy...what is the justification for imprisoning these people? If a brother and sister are both sterile, what is the justification for denying them the same rights as well (genetic defects are a good reason to deny if they are not sterile...the odds are way too high to risk it).

 

[Agfadoc]

Because conservatives and Christians are historically oppressed groups in this country....

Here is a few of the groups that the left can't tolerate in their "tolerance"

Christians
Conservatives
Jewish state and Jewish people
White people (maybe that's more guilt than anything else)
Successful people
People who disagree with anything they say

Here is who they tolerate:

Other left people
Muslim Brotherhood
Palestinians
Gays, minorities and women (unless you are any of the above)
Hippies, low lifes, and dredges of our society.

 

[cybrsage]

Because conservatives and Christians are historically oppressed groups in this country....

You mean like New York allowing homosexual groups to meet in schools (publically owned property) outside of school hours but not allowing Christians to do the same?

 

[Craig234]

Show where I am wrong with the statement I made.

OK. There isn't the 'intolerance' you speak of generally.

For example:

'I hate Muslims, they all love terrorism'.

Lefty opposes that - points out bigotry against Muslims.

Now, if you substitute Christians for Muslims, lefty opposes that too. No 'intolerance'.

Now, Christians want to get 'special treatment' - for example inject their religion into a public function. Liberal opposes that. The right calls that support for equality intolerance.

It's your false claims of 'intolerance' that are primarily the issue.

Another example: The left opposing lies. So if the left attacks right-wing media for lies, that's 'intolerance' to the right. Oppose lies in liberal media, the right ignores that.

The right is terribly fixated on 'victimhood'. They claim to be under attack by the very groups they discriminate against. They want to say they can marry but deny the right to gays; then they say that gays wanting equality is 'attacking them' and 'attacking their marriages'. If you remember, Nazis claims to be persecuted by the Jews.

 

[Craig234]

Here is a few of the groups that the left can't tolerate in their "tolerance"

Christians
Conservatives
Jewish state and Jewish people
White people (maybe that's more guilt than anything else)
Successful people
People who disagree with anything they say

Here is who they tolerate:

Other left people
Muslim Brotherhood
Palestinians
Gays, minorities and women (unless you are any of the above)
Hippies, low lifes, and dredges of our society.

Now point out specific things the left won't allow of the first group and will of the second, and things the group will allow the second and not the first. Point out several things.

 

[feralkid]

How about intolerance of Conservatives and Christians? If you want respect, you have to give it.

The left is tolerant only with the left, oh and radical Muslim extremists.. But other than those two groups the left is the most intolerant group in the world.

Well played, sir.

 

[Agfadoc]

OK. There isn't the 'intolerance' you speak of generally.

For example:

'I hate Muslims, they all love terrorism'.

Lefty opposes that - points out bigotry against Muslims.

Now, if you substitute Christians for Muslims, lefty opposes that too. No 'intolerance'.

Now, Christians want to get 'special treatment' - for example inject their religion into a public function. Liberal opposes that. The right calls that support for equality intolerance.

It's your false claims of 'intolerance' that are primarily the issue.

Another example: The left opposing lies. So if the left attacks right-wing media for lies, that's 'intolerance' to the right. Oppose lies in liberal media, the right ignores that.

The right is terribly fixated on 'victimhood'. They claim to be under attack by the very groups they discriminate against. They want to say they can marry but deny the right to gays; then they say that gays wanting equality is 'attacking them' and 'attacking their marriages'. If you remember, Nazis claims to be persecuted by the Jews.

Victimhood? That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Sent from my Supercharged Asus Transformer

 

[actuarial]

Except if government civil unions provided the same legal rights as marriage would it really be "separate but equal?"

I bet if you asked regular, working families who happen to be gay rather than professional "activists" most of them would be thrilled to have the legal protections of a civil union now rather than holding out for years for the same thing under a different name. As I said I have no problem with gay marriage, but I'm a realist about what kind of country we live in.

So as long as blacks are given the same number of drinking fountains as whites, thereby having the same equal rights, that's okay with you?

And how is that going to work with private business? Can you stop an insurance company from offering spousal coverage to married people and not to civil unions if their definitions are legally separate?

 

[cybrsage]

And how is that going to work with private business? Can you stop an insurance company from offering spousal coverage to married people and not to civil unions if their definitions are legally separate?

Marriages are a type of civil union. If they deny civil unions, they deny marraige by default.

However, the term "civil union" has appeared on my insurance signup papers. Just letting you know.

I have no problems with creating a new civil union to pass on more civil rights to more people.

 

[cybrsage]

Here is an issue....had the gay rights groups actually fought for a civil union instead of demanding the name marriage be used, I suspect every state would have homosexual civil unions by now (or at least most states).

People would naturally start calling them gay marriages, and over time the gay would be dropped. The desired outcome would be well on its way to being achieved.

Since the gay rights groups are trying to ramrod it, they are encountering pushback. Their tactics are backfiring. They should quit while they are behind. They are not actually fighting for rights, but rather fighting to control a word. In the process, they are helping to deny rights. It is absurd, they should focus on the rights instead.

 

[zsdersw]

One of government's principal functions is the recognition and enforcement of contracts. Marriage is, in terms of the government's role in legal, tax, and medical distinctions made between married and non-married individuals, a contract.

The status quo is that every citizen has the right to enter into a contract with whomever they choose and have it recognized as a contract by their government. If there is to be a restriction on who one can enter into a contract with it must be for a more constitutionally valid and acceptable reason than, essentially, "the Bible says so".

 

[Craig234]

Victimhood? That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Sent from my Supercharged Asus Transformer

So, you can't address the points in the post.

OK.

 

[shortylickens]

Hyperbole much?

Umm, its a FORUM dude.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=forum

 

[SilthDraeth]

But marriage brings with it certain privileges as seen under the law. You are restricting a minority from those privileges you enjoy because you dont agree with their lifestyle.

You are wrong.

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, not in hetero, or homo. If a homo couple wants a church to marry them, or wants to live together, then fine. But government needs to get out of it completely.

There should be no "marriage certificates" ie tax to get married, no tax breaks for married, etc.

 

[blackangst1]

Why not talk about candidates that have a chance at making the ticket?

 

[shortylickens]

Oh and whenever someone brings up gays in politics its just a perfect reminder that the government should NOT be acknowledging personal affairs of any kind, including marriage and civil unions. Straight people dont have a "right" to filing jointly either. Thats bullshit. If you want someone to get your shit after you die, make a will.

 

[cybrsage]

Why not talk about candidates that have a chance at making the ticket?

That is less fun.

 

[Craig234]

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, not in hetero, or homo. If a homo couple wants a church to marry them, or wants to live together, then fine. But government needs to get out of it completely.

There should be no "marriage certificates" ie tax to get married, no tax breaks for married, etc.

Supporting government out of marriage is NOT an excuse to oppose gay equality.

 

[dank69]

IMO: Being gay is not a minority. It is a genetic defect

Sig worthy

 

[actuarial]

Marriages are a type of civil union. If they deny civil unions, they deny marraige by default.

However, the term "civil union" has appeared on my insurance signup papers. Just letting you know.

I have no problems with creating a new civil union to pass on more civil rights to more people.

I recognize that many companies already do use the term civil union, but there is no guarantee of that. And if marriage is a subset, they can simply offer benefits to married people and be silent on civil unions.

I'm not sure that simply allowing it as a civil union will automatically give all the benefits of marriage from a legal sense. I am also not sure that there is a clean way to make that happen other than saying marriage includes male-male and female-female partnerships.

And even if it does confer all benefits, I am sure if it is done the civil union route there will be challenges to try to create the legal separation.

 

[cybrsage]

Sig worthy

At least finish his sentence in your sig. You are cutting off the rest.

It does not minimize the statement, but it keeps you honest.

 

[Ausm]

Sig worthy

Actually straight jacket and padded room worthy.

 

[blackangst1]

At least finish his sentence in your sig. You are cutting off the rest.

It does not minimize the statement, but it keeps you honest.

Coz thats not as fun