Obama: "I think same sex couples should be abe to get married

[Harrekin]

Yes, but you have the luxury of choice. LGBT's don't have that privilege. There are over 1,000 laws that apply only to people with marriage status. Laws that no only effect the married couple but their offspring as well (natural or adopted).


The rest of your post I don't care to respond to due to the infantile homophobic shit pile that it is.

Stfu you whingey cunt, if "people like you" fucking moaned less then the general public would take you more seriously.

I don't give a shit what people do in their bedroom, etc but bitching and moaning over a title? Build a bridge and get over it like.

We have full civil partnerships here, equal to marriage in all but name, yet still moan moan moan, "no equality", we can't get "married".

I personally think its mostly for attention cos no straight person underlines and makes obvious their sexuality in public by behaving and speaking a specific way.

 

[UncleBuck]

Civil partnerships are just fine for those not too butt-hurt (no pun intended,lol) to get all uppity about a difference in title.

the only people getting all butt hurt about the title are people like you.

people like you want to give gays all the same rights, just like i do, but for some reason want to make sure the title is different? lol. um, why?

 

[UncleBuck]

Stfu you whingey cunt, if "people like you" fucking moaned less then the general public would take you more seriously.

I don't give a shit what people do in their bedroom, etc but bitching and moaning over a title? Build a bridge and get over it like.

We have full civil partnerships here, equal to marriage in all but name, yet still moan moan moan, "no equality", we can't get "married".

I personally think its mostly for attention cos no straight person underlines and makes obvious their sexuality in public by behaving and speaking a specific way.

if it's just a title, why don't straights take civil partnerships and gays get marriage?

 

[jdillinger]

This gay rights movement is entirely crap, why don't we just take it to referrendum, I think christie has the right idea. Instead of targetting the politicians and their views, they should be targeting their anger at those who are against gay marriage. How is it fair, to force the politicians to change their stance it entirely knocks out the voices of those who are opposed to gay marriage. Just let it go to referrendum and that would be the end of it. Politicians could avoid homo-anger (lol, couldn't think of anything dramatic) if they just put the decision to the people. If it passes it passes. If it fails then the gay rights movement will be derailed for a while, until they can set another referrendum. I think most people honestly have no opinion on it. Its just gays are so loud about it.

 

[jdillinger]

if it's just a title, why don't straights take civil partnerships and gays get marriage?

Because marriage was invented by straight people, and was first used to describe a monogamous (except in various places) relationship between a man and a women.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think christie has the right idea....Just let it go to referrendum

*referendum, baby einstein

are you so historically ignorant that you would advocate putting minority rights to a majority vote? well, you just did say you are. so yes, you are completely historically ignorant. not an insult, just saying that you are ignoring history.

i am going to hold this ignorance against you often.

Its just gays are so loud about it.

hey there, sailor.

this straight guy has an opinion on it. an opinion i care about deeply enough that my wife and i made sure to mention it at our own wedding as a sad moment during an otherwise happy one.

it is clear you harbor bigoted stereotypes about gays and demean them when possible. you sad little person. what did the gays ever do to you?

 

[UncleBuck]

marriage was invented by straight people

OMFG.

hey mr. historian, why don't you recount for m the full history of marriage. please. i beg you.

i will do it myself if i need to, and you know this, mr historian with the big brain.

 

[Parker]

Because marriage was invented by straight people, and was first used to describe a monogamous (except in various places) relationship between a man and a women.

Except that blacks couldn't marry whites. You cannot call dibs on marriage and say only a certain segment of humans can get married to each other. I can't stress it enough, no one should be able to tell another how to run their life using force and coercion. As long as no ones rights have been violated government should stay out.
In the same vein don't force me to except that marriage. If a company does not want to recognize same sex marriages as part of an employee benefit plan more power to them.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Except that blacks couldn't marry whites. You cannot call dibs on marriage and say only a certain segment of humans can get married to each other. I can't stress it enough, no one should be able to tell another how to run their life using force and coercion. As long as no ones rights have been violated government should stay out.
In the same vein don't force me to except that marriage. If a company does not want to recognize same sex marriages as part of an employee benefit plan more power to them.

So if The GAP doesn't want to accept hetero marriages for their benefit plan, more power to them?

 

[UncleBuck]

In the same vein don't force me to except that marriage. If a company does not want to recognize same sex marriages as part of an employee benefit plan more power to them.

that is discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prevented by civil rights. but i bet you would be singing the same tune if you were a discriminated minority.

LOL!

 

[UncleBuck]

So if The GAP doesn't want to accept hetero marriages for their benefit plan, more power to them?

he supports backdoor bigotry, not up front bigotry.

 

[deprave]

Harrekin,

Name one world government that doesn't have state recognized marriage?

Name one society thats a utopia?

State sponsored marriage is the entire problem here. Absolutely without a shadow of a doubt the entire problem, this is only about money and nothing else. Take the state out of marriage and there would never be such an issue as this ever again.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Name one society thats a utopia?

State sponsored marriage is the entire problem here. Absolutely without a shadow of a doubt the entire problem, this is only about money and nothing else. Take the state out of marriage and there would never be such an issue as this ever again.

having a legal defintion of marrage is the problem?

could you explain how the system would work without defined marrage?

 

[deprave]

having a legal defintion of marrage is the problem?

could you explain how the system would work without defined marrage?

Wow can you not think outside your little bubble or what? Pretty simple...you'd go to the church or the temple or a vegas drive thru or whatever and do a little ceremony and tada married...wouldn't be any difference except no paperwork...

 

[ginjawarrior]

Yea you'd go to the church or the temple or a vegas drive thru or whatever and do a little ceremony and whoopity do your married...wouldn't be any difference except no paperwork...

so utterly meaningless? say no need to divorce or no rights of next of kin?

 

[deprave]

so utterly meaningless? say no need to divorce or no rights of next of kin?

You could make contractual agreements for such things if you wanted to, no it would not be meaningless in the least bit, it would carry the same meaning except the state is not involved.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You could make contractual agreements for such things if you wanted to, no it would not be meaningless in the least bit, it would carry the same meaning except the state is not involved.

so instead of a standard definition that can be added to by prenuptial agreements if needed, you want people to have to lawyer up for every marriage? you dont think thats a bit of a waste?

who would uphold the "contactual agreements" as well?

 

[deprave]

you'd rather people be discriminated against then virtually the same thing without people being discriminated against?

most people wouldn't "lawyer up" or need this crap..

Its the same thing except equal treatment for the sacrifice of government "help"

 

[ginjawarrior]

you'd rather people people discriminated against then virtually the same thing without people being discriminated againt?

lol what? you not making sense and you didnt answer my questions

 

[deprave]

How so?

As usual ..sacrifice any liberty for safety and you get zero liberty. Don't bitch when gays and furries aren't allowed to get married...you give up your freedom when you let the state choose for you. We do not need the state and without their involvement in marriage these issues would not exist.