[elklindo69]

From the Rush Limpdick show....

A lot of people have no personal animus against gay people at all. It's instead, you know, a genuine, I don't know, love/respect for the things they believe define this country as great. They get up every day and they see all this stuff under attack. They see it all under assault. And I think they're just worried about the survivability of the country. And to which the opponents say, "Well, the country's changing and you better get with it and understand it because this genie's not getting put back in the bottle." And I think that's right. I don't care what this court does with this particular ruling, Proposition 8. I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide.

Dick Cheney coming out for gay marriage did not soften the opposition or the hatred to him by people in the Democrat Party or on the left a measurable iota. So in terms of the politics of it in the Republican Party, if they think that they can alienate their evangelical base and replace those voters by becoming more hip, modern, with it, what have you, that remains to be seen. Nobody really knows. But the evidence is that they are not going to be able to do that. Anything can change in politics.

[Leroy]

Sadly the liberals/progressives/morons have turned a Religious Ideal into a gay issue, because they don't have any tolerance for things that are different then themselves.

Marriage is a religious institution, always has been, and every religion has it.

That our Government saw fit to give legal standing to Marriage that it didn't to non-Married is a problem.

What the Government and the LGBT community should be doing is changing the laws/regulations so that "Marriage" wording is changed to "Union" wording so that no party is unequal, no party is offended/oppressed, no party is limited, and that all people in this are EQUAL under the LAW.

Changing "Marriage" to include something that it has NOT included, by the thousands of years of accepted definition, is not EQUALITY, it's offensive and oppressive and shows INTOLERANCE on the part of those seeking the change.

Equality would be changing the laws/regulations to use the word UNION.

[RealJustme]

Dick Cheney coming out for gay marriage did not soften the opposition or the hatred to him by people in the Democrat Party or on the left a measurable iota. So in terms of the politics of it in the Republican Party, if they think that they can alienate their evangelical base and replace those voters by becoming more hip, modern, with it, what have you, that remains to be seen. Nobody really knows. But the evidence is that they are not going to be able to do that. Anything can change in politics.

Rush nailed it. Bending over those who will never vote Republican is a waste of time. Republicans shouldn't spend a dime trying to win over blacks or gays, not a dime. They also shouldn't support any black or gay programs unless they truly believe it's the right thing to do. What you have are some Republicans wasting their campaign money trying to reach out to the blacks and gays, they should be spending that money revving up their base to vote and trying to win over some of the native Hispanic votes.

[BilboBagend]

Sadly, these dictatorial bullies who want to keep GBLT persons in a suppressed social position feel it is necessary to enforce a huge degree of inequality on GBLT persons. They feel that their positions and feeling of "moral superiority" are at risk and in danger causing a "harm" to them and their bigotry. They are in fact correct. The only harm created by recognizing GBLT equality under the law is the loss of the feeling of superiority that these bigots desires to maintain. Unfortunately for them, these bigoted feeling are NOT a protected right.

[Leroy]

Sadly, these dictatorial bullies who want to keep GBLT persons in a suppressed social position feel it is necessary to enforce a huge degree of inequality on GBLT persons. They feel that their positions and feeling of "moral superiority" are at risk and in danger causing a "harm" to them and their bigotry. They are in fact correct. The only harm created by recognizing GBLT equality under the law is the loss of the feeling of superiority that these bigots desires to maintain. Unfortunately for them, these bigoted feeling are NOT a protected right.

How is this oppressing the LGBT community: "Equality would be changing the laws/regulations to use the word UNION."?

[BilboBagend]

Equality is equality, no differentiation under the law.

Bigots are bigots and insist on non-equality, differentiation under the law.

End of story.

Yes, liar leroy, we all know, bigots hate to be called bigots, but that still leaves them as bigots.

[Leroy]

Equality is equality, no differentiation under the law.

Bigots are bigots and insist on non-equality, differentiation under the law.

End of story.

Yes, liar leroy, we all know, bigots hate to be called bigots, but that still leaves them as bigots.

You seem to be mistaken, as usual.

Is a Man equal to a Woman in every respect - Nope.

Is a Black equal to a White in all aspects of our laws - Nope.

Is a company able to apply the same standards to all people for hiring, based on our laws - Nope.

Is a Dumb Person just as smart as a Smarter Person - Nope?

Is a person without limbs just as capable of Climbing a Mountain as a person with all limbs - Nope.

Now, if you want to talk about what the LGBT community wants - they CLAIM they want the same BENEFITS as NON-GAYS - and that's simple, change the laws/regulations to read "Union" instead of "Marriage". This is the only truly "Equality" solution as it takes all measures of orientation out of the "Benefits under the law".

Now, if you say, but gays want to get married in ALL churches - well, that's not going to happen any more than the United Negro College Fund giving Scholar Ships to students without considering their Race. The same with the Congressional Black Caucus not considering race when selecting members. Or the New Black Panthers stopping harassing and inciting violence against whites.

You need to understand, there is no true equality in the world, but there can be equality in laws - man makes the laws, man can make them blind to the undeniable differences in people, but man can't deny that people are different or have different beliefs.

Marriage doesn't include gays, except for the churches where gays have undermined the institution at a small level, and it doesn't have to include gays any more than White people can claim they are Black (or the other). You don't have a right to force anyone to believe what you want.

The sad fact is that most people don't really want true legal equality once they have legal inequality - like Hiring laws, Quota's, Special Points for Scholarships, special points for discounts, special points for loan acceptance.... People don't want those special perks, that make them different by law, taken away - they don't want true equality because they are, like most people, not wanting to truly be equal as everyone else under the law.

And that's the truth - you don't want equality, you want to force people you disagree with to change their beliefs, to change their ways, to change their lives, and to bow down and say they accept what you want and even praise you, but that's not equality, that's fascism.

[elklindo69]

Nobody is forcing anybody to change their beliefs. That's bullshit. I personally believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But that means nothing, if you agree or disagree with it.

Although there will never be true equality in the world. As individuals and a society we should strive to make the world a better place to live. If giving homosexuals some semblance of status in society by allowing them to get married or to have a civil union, then so be it. Then at least they will get the associated legal status and benefits, whether you like it or not.

I just have a difficult time with the fact that the federal government has codified the fact a marriage should be a male and a female. There shouldn't be a law dictating that. It's up the the Christians, Jews, and Muslims to figure that stuff out...

[Leroy]

Nobody is forcing anybody to change their beliefs. That's bullshit. I personally believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But that means nothing, if you agree or disagree with it.

Although there will never be true equality in the world. As individuals and a society we should strive to make the world a better place to live. If giving homosexuals some semblance of status in society by allowing them to get married or to have a civil union, then so be it. Then at least they will get the associated legal status and benefits, whether you like it or not.

I just have a difficult time with the fact that the federal government has codified the fact a marriage should be a male and a female. There shouldn't be a law dictating that. It's up the the Christians, Jews, and Muslims to figure that stuff out...

Elk, do you believe we should force ALL RELIGIONS to Embrace, Accept, and Partake in the Gay lifestyle as welcomed members?

There is a vast difference between allowing Same-Sex "Marriage" and Same-Sex "Union", and that's where the argument/fight comes in - if the gay community was actually tolerant of the beliefs of others, they would NEVER seek to change "Marriage", they would seek LEGAL EQUALITY under the law, by changing the LAW.

[Vj2]

Nobody is forcing anybody to change their beliefs. That's bullshit. I personally believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But that means nothing, if you agree or disagree with it.

Although there will never be true equality in the world. As individuals and a society we should strive to make the world a better place to live. If giving homosexuals some semblance of status in society by allowing them to get married or to have a civil union, then so be it. Then at least they will get the associated legal status and benefits, whether you like it or not.

I just have a difficult time with the fact that the federal government has codified the fact a marriage should be a male and a female. There shouldn't be a law dictating that. It's up the the Christians, Jews, and Muslims to figure that stuff out...

Elk, do you believe we should force ALL RELIGIONS to Embrace, Accept, and Partake in the Gay lifestyle as welcomed members?

There is a vast difference between allowing Same-Sex "Marriage" and Same-Sex "Union", and that's where the argument/fight comes in - if the gay community was actually tolerant of the beliefs of others, they would NEVER seek to change "Marriage", they would seek LEGAL EQUALITY under the law, by changing the LAW.

I'm curious, if the law states that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman? Isn't that what they are trying to change by stating that it should be between to loving committed partners? By changing the definition of marriage isn't that ipso facto changing the law?

[Leroy]

I'm curious, if the law states that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman? Isn't that what they are trying to change by stating that it should be between to loving committed partners? By changing the definition of marriage isn't that ipso facto changing the law?

Are you telling me that you see NO DIFFERENCE between changing the Law to read "Union" and changing the Definition of "Marriage" to include something that it has not included by definition for thousands of years?

Why do you want to play word games?

Marriage is a Union, a Union is not a Marriage.

A Union can be used to cover all parties, without forcing anyone to change their beliefs or practices.

[BilboBagend]

Marriage:

1) The religious institution. Unaffected by any gay rights equality law. Believe as you wish. Your church may believe as they wish and act with all the exclusion or inclusion that they wish in respect to religious activities. No change from current status. Church may grant or refuse rights and certificates of marriage as they wish as is currently done. Bigots have full right to preserve their status as having superior special rights of religious marriage and may exclude GBLT individuals from such rights, certificates, and privileges within the church and it's religious activities.

2) The state contract. A standardized secular contract with a well developed body of law. Standard well understood legal rights. No religious implications at all. This is sole focus of the legal conflict for simple equality under the law. No "special" rights or privileges will be granted. Bigots may disagree because their "special" rights and privileges will be extended to a larger group of people who will become equals under the law. One can easily see how bigots will see harm in loss of their status as having special superior rights to those them deem subhuman. However, their is no legal justification for preserving the special superior rights of bigots.

3) One of the many reasons we have and should preserve separation of church and state and why we have multidemoninationalism in this country. Why, traditionally, multidemoniationalism was developed and has been preferred in this country. So one set of religious bigots can not dictate to every other denomination, religion, or any other people or person.

[RealJustme]

Bilbo, just live with the guy as a couple, if you really love him then marriage isn't something that's essential for you two to be happy.

[RealJustme]

Bilbo, just live with the guy as a couple, if you really love him then marriage isn't something that's essential for you two to be happy.

[Leroy]

Dildo, you're an idiot:

1) The religious institution - these are oppressed and attacked by gay groups because of the current use of the word "Marriage" instead of "Union". Gay groups constantly attack religious groups demanding that the religious groups CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS TO "ACCEPT" GAYS - something that almost all religious groups do not accept or support in any manner.

2) The state contract - this is where the trouble came in - the founders of the laws never envisioned, because of their religious beliefs, which is much of the foundation of all laws in this country, that Gays, a non-accepted group in our culture, would ever have any support for legal quality - so the word "Marriage" was used in creating the laws/regulations.

The best case resolution - change the laws/regulations to read "Union" instead of "Marriage" and then no party has to give or take anything from them or others and both sides still get their legal equality.

What amazes me is how much hate and intolerance liberals/gays have for true equality in the eyes of the law.

[BilboBagend]

1) dishonest bullshit. delusion. No religion is under attack. No religion is forced by any law to make any change.

2) tough shit. No one is harmed by the proper extension of rights to a secular contract and it's body of secular law.

3) All you have is a game of semantics to support you outright bigotry. The usual liar leroy position. Just simple malice for you fellow human is all you have. Same as all the previous generations of bigots who wanted to preserve their supremacist rights as exclusive.

[Leroy]

1) dishonest bullshit. delusion. No religion is under attack. No religion is forced by any law to make any change.

2) tough shit. No one is harmed by the proper extension of rights to a secular contract and it's body of secular law.

3) All you have is a game of semantics to support you outright bigotry. The usual liar leroy position. Just simple malice for you fellow human is all you have. Same as all the previous generations of bigots who wanted to preserve their supremacist rights as exclusive.

I see all you have is INTOLERANCE AND HATE on your side, and lies too - gays regularly pressure religious groups to not talk about the teachings that gay is a sin.....

Seems you just want to destroy, and that's all liberals/progressives are about, not tolerance and acceptance.

[brandon]

change the laws/regulations to read "Union" instead of "Marriage" and then no party has to give or take anything from them or others and both sides still get their legal equality.

There is your secular equality. A legally binding state contract.

If that's not enough for you Bilbo then I'm gonna have to agree with Leroy and consider your intentions suspect.

What else do you fucking want? The whole damn world to give up their religious convictions for your satisfaction?

Doubt that's gonna happen for ya' man.

Ya'll need to give it a fuckin' rest already. Your hate is showing.

[Vj2]

Go read up on what happened in Canada. May shed some light

[BilboBagend]

Aw, liar leroy/brandon. I am hurt. ROFLMAO. My intentions suspect?? How? Eq2uality under the law is equality under the law?

[Leroy]

Aw, liar leroy/brandon. I am hurt. ROFLMAO. My intentions suspect?? How? Eq2uality under the law is equality under the law?

Because changing the definition of "Marriage" is not bringing equality, it's bringing intolerance and hate to one side, it's bring injustice to a religious ideal.

Removing "religion" from the law makes it totally equal for all parties, religious or not, MM/MF or any other Union deemed at a later time.

Your position that "Marriage" must be changed is one sided, lacking of intelligence, lacking of reason, filled with hate and intolerance.

[brandon]

Mr. PHD is just playing games now. Nobody can have something explained so clearly, repeatedly, and not understand.


Leave the religious people alone.

[BilboBagend]

liar leroy proves his hatred, intolerance, dishonesty, dishonor, malice, and delusion with every post. He makes it soooooo clear with his completely forced upside down inside out "logic". The same logic of all those who came before and wanted to preserve their special privileges over women, blacks, Italians, Irish, Scots, Germans, non-landed workers, journeymen, etc, etc.

[BilboBagend]

Go on brandon. Dig deeper.

[Leroy]

liar leroy proves his hatred, intolerance, dishonesty, dishonor, malice, and delusion with every post. He makes it soooooo clear with his completely forced upside down inside out "logic". The same logic of all those who came before and wanted to preserve their special privileges over women, blacks, Italians, Irish, Scots, Germans, non-landed workers, journeymen, etc, etc.

But, as you often do, you fail to see how Changing the Definition of "Marriage" is forcing "hatred, intolerance, dishonesty, dishonor, malice, and delusion" on all those that already accept the definition of "Marriage" as it has stood for thousands of years.

Gays have no more right to change the definition "Marriage" so that they can FIT INTO IT, than Whites do for changing the definition of "Black" so that they can claim "Black" on government forms.

Not every group is inclusive of everyone on the planet, and they never will be - you don't have a RIGHT to join every group, but you have a right to apply, but they don't have to accept you if your views are counter to their groups views.

Union is legal equality for everyone, it's that simple.

[BilboBagend]

Oh, we all see liar leroy. We all see.

[Leroy]

Oh, we all see liar leroy. We all see.

Yes, we see your hate and intolerance and self over country views.