Curious...do homophobes think they're going to "bring it all back"?

Right on!! You said and asked the right things.

 

I could give a rats behind if 2 men or 2 women want to be together. That is there business, not mine nor that of the govt.

I repeat, I do not nor will not support inequity and what you propose is expansion of that. And I'm glad you've been liking the Kool Aid from the Democrats. Leftists tend to be weak and like the hive mentality

Heck, simply look to the poster who cheered on your reply to me. Not one unique, individual thought has ever come from him or even from you. It's pure talking points from your movement leaders. If you enjoy following then so be it. I propose liberty and you propose more govt control. But, being the good leftists that you are I am the one then called BS labels while you want to take a more militant and forced approach.

Listen closely, it's not what you do and to whom you do it that most people give a rats behind about, it's your leftist methodology.

 

I like your plan.

Of course then you would have to move out of gayland, because face it San Fransisco would be the obvious choice for gayland.

 

Why is it that most of you conservatives in here can't put a sentence together to save your lives?

Look- I didn't post talking points, I posted reality.DADT and DOMA are history. Almost ten states now have legalized full marriage rights. Those are facts, not talking points.

 

DOMA should be gone and not because of it being anti gay sex. It should be gone because it subjugates single people. The govt is to view us as individuals with individual liberties and that's it. Leftists and the gay arm of the leftists want more govt control.

If you really do not support govt expansion then you may wish to review your loyalties because they are incorrectly placed. But, if you like big brother then you are right at home with Democrats.

 

sec, martin, et al on the "I'm not afraid of gays...I just don't like 'em" Right......back to my original question....

To put it in military terms....what is your "end-game"? What's "victory" for you? Is it "this far and no further" and surrender the "territory" you've already lost....or "gaining it back".....or just a very slow retreat until you're defeated.

 

No- I want the same rights as everyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

You know the answer already. They will never come right out and say it.

 

sleeping with men should not entitle you to anything extra just like my sleeping with women should not entitle me.

The system is broken and perpetuating it is of no interest to me at all. Leftists cannot see that because you want to be controlled by a big brother govt; I do not. I have free will and wish to exercise it. I am not a mind numbed robot which is how you and the other homosexuals here portray yourselves to be. It's actually quite sad.

 

You can parrot that all you want, in the end its an empty suggestion.

You and I both know marriage as it is today is not going to change. The government bestows upon couples benefits, those include many benefits that establish legal precedent allowing the couple to make hospital decisions, end of life decisions, shared benefits, decision making for children should one of the pair pass away.

To say "Marriage is discriminatory as it is so DON'T LET GAYS PERPETUATE IT." Is just lazy and falls flat on its face. If you really believed that your would argue for ending marriage altogether rather than simply preventing gays from gaining equality in marriage.

Until marriage itself is done away with on the government level there is no reason to not allow gays to share in that contractual agreement.

 

Lazy? I should say not. Nobody can cite one good reason why single people cannot assign their SS benefits to others or donate them to a charity.
If plumbers with butt crack were looking for special consideration I would be against that as well.

The govt has absolutely no business bestowing anything upon anyone if you have straight sex, gay sex or fix pipes with your crack showing.

We have individual liberties and the line must be drawn there.

But, I am not a supporter of big govt like you and that is why you view govt as the solution and I see it as the problem. You are a leftist and there in itself is your root problem.

 

I'm actually a centrist, I'm sorry common sense evades you.

There is no reason to do away with marriage. A couple wishing to enter into the contract of marriage clearly wish to state to the state they live in as well as society at large that they are a committed couple making a life together.

There is no reason they should have to make special arrangements with a lawyer to enter into legal contracts which could much more easily be covered by marriage at significantly lower cost for them.

If you don't agree then don't marry. That is your choice.

 

And you complain about talking points. Every single thing you post is nothing but generalities: "Big govt", "leftist" and on and on. I might as well be listening to Limbaugh.

 

Marriage has little to do with sex quite often, and if you've been married 20 years or more, you know what I mean.

Gays get married because they love each other, and maybe just because the sex is good too sometimes....just like straight folks.

Anti gay marriage people always try to contrive objective opposition to it...and I don't see how that can be sincere, outside of simple denial.

What hole gets what put in it, can't possibly offend anti gay people like it does organically. It's exacerbated by religious convictions that anti gay people deny are the reason for being anti gay. Or, it's just secular conservative folks who are against it because "their side" is against it.

I live in Northern California, where it's not unusual to be gay, and anyone who would embrace archaic prejudices against gays are social pariahs.

Long story short...my gay brother and his partner hate the notion that gay sex defines them in any way beyond how straight sex defines a straight couple.

I've never known any different way to treat gay couples from straight couples. And then I hear these people who disapprove of gay marriage, and a gay couple's marriage license sitting in a desk drawer somewhere doesn't affect them in the slightest, and I just don't know where to begin.

 

Everyone else is similiarly restricted to marrying someone unrelated and of the opposite sex.

 

Yes but it's so much fun to rub salt in the wound.

 

ANY of that answer my question, sec? Want to even try?

What's the "goal" of opponents of gay rights? Again, in military terms, it's either-

1. Stop the advance, hold the line?

2. Push back and "regain territory"...i.e. overturn state laws supporting same-sex marriage, ban gay adoption, etc.

3. Slow "Germans out of Stalingrad 1944 retreat until Berlin falls in April 1945" retreat? Or just simple admission you've lost "the war"?

 

And yet you're married, right?

 

Not simply because he sleeps with his wife but instead because when heterosexual men sleep with their wives, children are frequently the result. It is gays who want marriage extended to anyone who has sex with their partner.

 

I do not believe he has made such an exception or reasoning for himself, he is against government intrusion in general, and has explicitly stated so many times even in cases like his... and yet, to my knowledge, he's married.

 

His personal views are irelevant to why the government licenses and regulates his relationship. All of you have trouble distinguishing between the governmental motivations of licensing and regulating heterosexual marriage and the reasons two people might choose to enter a marriage.

 

It's relevant to his own personal reasons and objections to government involvement, it's just not relevant to your own reasonings which, also, fail to be demonstrated in actual practice.

 

LOLOLOL I have thousands of years of history, right on up to present time court decisions that all demonstrate in actual practice my stated resoning.

 

So infertile married heterosexual couples are getting "extra rights"???

- - - Updated - - -

Slave-owners had thousands of years of history, right up to 1863 and the courts gave them Dred Scott a few years before that, as well.

 

uh, the US has only been around for a little over 200 years. during all that time, no mention of procreation anywhere in any marriage law or on any marriage license.

so no, you have nothing demonstrating your faulty reasoning.

 

No, you don't.