When the last State "falls"...what will they say?

Imagine (conservatively) it's April 2017, the last challenge to a state's ban on gay marriage is upheld in the US Supreme Court and say....

UTAH....announces that it will "recognize" same-sex marriages as legal....becoming the last state to finally agree to that. (Or use Wyoming or South Dakota or Alabama, if you like).

It's over. What then will we see in the blog posts, hear on Rightwing Radio, watch social con pundits say on Fox?

A. Determined optimism in the face of utter and total defeat? "Just you wait! This will all blow up in the lib'ruls' faces in a few years! Then we'll be proven right and it'll all get repealed"?

B. Abject pessimism and the clarion cry "That's it. America is through....finished....our moral collapse is complete. The Huns will be at the gates of Rome soon to pick clean our bones" (or some equally ludicrious and oddly ahistorical analogy)?

C. Political resignation to reality and "Oh, who really cared? This was all just a trumped-up issue by lib'ruls....conservatives never really cared one way or the other. We've got more important issues to discuss. Let's just move on."?

D. Other?

 

C. I call C. for sure.

 

nah.... just because lemmings all run off a cliff and I don't follow, isn't the definition of "wrong"


I don't discriminate against gays as it is.


if a queer is the best teacher.... hire them
if a queer is the best business consultant, and can help my business.... you got the job
if a queer will pay his rent on time and not destroy my apartment I'm renting him.... when can you move in....


however.... if a queer is a teacher/business consultant, etc because a quota had to be met, he's not the best person for the job and shouldn't ahve been hired
if a queer that has been evicted from his last 5 apartments is denied rent by an owner of an apartment.... it's not because the guy was gay, and therefore, homophobic, it's because he's a high risk for costing me money, and time, while he's squatting.


This is the part of the agenda I can't stand. When you hear of people standing up and saying "kill all queers, don't rent to them because they are gay, don't hire them because they are gay"..... I will stand with you in support of rights violations.


but simply blaming every little or major thing that goes wrong in your life on homophobia is what I protest..... not actual rights violations.

 

I'm betting it will be more like the civil war. People are still saying "The south will rise again."

I'm gonna bet there will always be some who think that there will be a draw back of gay rights. It will never happen of course, but some will say it and want it none the less.

 

You claim you're not homophobic but you call them "queer".

LOL

 

I have to agree, to a degree. THere should not be a quota of minority workers that a company has to have. It should be based on who is the best qualified. Now, if a gay person gets overlooked because he's gay, and doesn't get a job, even when he is the most qualified, that is different. But there are way to many people who claim discrimination whenever they are not picked, regardless of whether or not the person picked was more qualified.




Now, to answer the OP, I do not think we need to wait for each state to legalize gay marriage. We should simply kill all the birds with one stone.

A federal amendment that defines marriage as a contract between consenting adults. No set number or gender requirements. This would legalize gay marriage, polygamy, and possibly even incest between consenting adults.

 

queer as folk.....
http://www.sho.com/sho/queer-as-folk/home

or is this like the n-word for blacks.... "only queers can say queer.... it's OUR word"


....but don't think everyone didn't notice you completely avoiding ANY point I made on there by deflection.... lol

 

I don't know why you qualified it with "... to a degree...." you seem to echo EXACTLY what I feel.

if a queer is best for the job.... I said to hire them
if a queer is not best for the job, but is chosen anyways, so the company doesn't get accused of "being homophobic", that's wrong. Hire the best applicant


I also said, the moment people start saying "don't hire them/rent to them BECAUSE they are queer...." that is completely different.

Like I said.... I may not agree with the gay lifestyle, personally, but I don't discriminate.

Not agreeing does not make me a homphobe, despite what Cowboy wwants to believe. Actively denying them rights for no other reason than they like to stick penis in another dude's ********.... IS homophobic.

that's the problem, not all gays like that icky incest thing. That's the slippery slope noone wants to believe.


two consenting adults
doesn't affect you
children and breeding can't be used as an argument

the same speaking points can be used by

gays
incest
polygamists


I love watching pro-queer supporters say incest is gross....lol Well, gay is gross for me, but you don't seem to think that's a valid argument when it speaks against your agenda

I love watching pro-queer supporters bring up incest and birth defects..... but wait, I didn't think propogation was a valid argument when it speaks against your agenda.... why can we do it now.

Plus, 1st time (not a family history of it) incest between close relations, = less chance of birth defect than a smoking mother

 

My feeling too....especially given how easily led they are by guys like Drudge, or Talk Radio, or Fox News....who will all toe the same line-

"Who cares? Let the gays have marriage? Never bothered us. Let's talk debt and tax reform and more oil drilling. Move on!"

Sadly (for them), there will be a few die-hard homophobes that will be left saying "Wait! Wait! We have to fight this!"....and they'll be left behind like a bunch of kids moving on to the next game while the kid who lost wants a "re-match".

- - - Updated - - -

Javis is giving us a sample of "C". "Bah! Who cares? I never minded if gays got married. Let's talk terrorism or taxes or fracking or something important!"

 

no it's not, because I still won't support it. I can still teach my children, gay is morally wrong. the majority doesn't dictate my morals.


But like I said in what you snipped out, the moment gays are denied TRUE RIGHTS like not getting a job they were most qualified for BECAUSE they are queer.... (don't be confused with a queer not getting a job when they weren't the best candidate)

if they ever are denied a home or rent BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY (don't be confused with a queer not qualifying for a home loan because they have a 475 credit score, but accuse the banks of being homophobic)


You see, there is always a difference between rights, and privileges..... getting a tax break or a spouse rate for insurance is not a right

the day a gay guy is denied the right to marry a girl, is the day gays are being denied the right to marry. you aren't being denied anything, you just don't like the limitations on your rights. But just like there are limitations on freedom of speech, marriage also has limitations that are acceptable. Marrying the same sex.... is not a denial of rights to gays since I also am prevented from marrying a male.

 

Most people marry for love.

You are allowed to marry who you love. In most states gays and lesbians are barred from marrying the person they love.

 

Well, I don't think it matters whether or not they like it. Any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult, and no one else has the right to dictate their right to marry.

 

You are confusing love with lust.

 

You have married or are planning to marry because of lust?

 

No. .

 

You know this because....

 

Straight people can marry who they lust or love too.

But again, if a man lusts after another man, or loves him, or a woman lusts after another woman or even loves her, they are still barred from marriage. Why?

If you don't feel any kind of emotion for the opposite sex why should that be your only option when it comes to legally, government recognized marriage?

 

because...we are talking about SEXUAL orientation. The genitals lust, they do not love. A homosexual man should be able to love and marry a woman (if that is what marriage is about), but the problem is she doesn't get his dick hard.

 

At this point, marriage as an institution is so corrupted that I say "why not?" to gay marriage. It is not that I agree with gay marriage per se, it's just that I feel that the institution has nothing left to lose, and there's not much point in fighting over it anymore. Marriage was gone two generations ago, with a wink and a nod from the churches and "traditionalists" who now are trying to "save" it from the gays. I was just pointing out that love has little to do with it; it is not much more than a euphemism.

 

What exactly is corrupt about marriage now if I may ask?

 

It is a contract with no enforcement. It is an oath that is broken more often than it is upheld. "Till death do us part" is now seen as "till my fickle ass gets bored".

 

That's freedom though isn't it? If two people no longer want to be together why should they feel obligated to?

 

Why should they feel obligated? Because they gave their word. All freedoms are not inherently good. The freedom to break an oath is not an honorable freedom. The proper exercise of freedom is the decision whether or not to swear the oath in the first place. With freedom comes responsibility. At least it should.

 

But that is not true freedom. Real freedom comes with good and bad because your right to be free and make choices others might not like are protected and ultimately two people choosing to no longer be together is part of those freedoms.

 

But is "true" freedom worth sacrificing honor? Does "true" freedom mean that you can do just whatever the hell you want, regardless of who it hurts? You frame the debate as "two people choosing to no longer be together", but what about when it is ONE person choosing to wrong another person by breaking an oath which the other has, in good faith, upheld? Even a left leaning libertarian must accept that one's right to swing their fists ends at another person's nose, and that is as much "true" freedom as anyone can really be entitled to.