It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

page: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:00 PM

Fair enough. I pay federal taxes. The fed gives benefits to married couples. If I marry someone that I love in a state that allows such marriages (and must remain there for it to be 'recognized'), the fed does not recognize my marriage and I cannot enjoy the benefits that my tax dollars pay for.

Erm... in which part of your tax return/receipt/check stubs does it say $x.xx dollars to Married People's Benefits? For all we know, the entirety of my tax dollar goes to rebuilding New Orleans, which I believe is an insane and idiotic idea. I'm paying for something which is temporary and will inevitably happen again? I don't complain, I vote and hope that those I help elect will have my best interests at heart. I pay for homeless/drug rehabilitation and I HAVE been homeless, but didn't take a dime, and have NEVER used drugs. Besides alcohol. And cigarettes. Just because you pay taxes doesn't mean your going to agree to everything your dollar goes to. How much of your money do you believe is being mis-spent or spent to the contrary of your wishes? How much do you think you should be discounted until the issue of gay marriage is resolved?

If unconstitutional laws were not passed, being a Supreme Court Justice would be the easiest job in the world! But, keep DOMA in mind in the next section...

And yet the law stands. I honestly think that you have your case well enough in hand that you could walk into a courtroom and convincingly plead the issue. Have you ever sought to do so?

You do realize that you just quoted DOMA, right??? Since we both agree that it's unconstitutional...

Yep. I was setting up the question that followed:

If the US caved in and allowed you to rewrite the definition, what would it be?

Yes, outside of the topic at hand, so another day...

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Erm... in which part of your tax return/receipt/check stubs does it say $x.xx dollars to Married People's Benefits? For all we know, the entirety of my tax dollar goes to rebuilding New Orleans, which I believe is an insane and idiotic idea. I'm paying for something which is temporary and will inevitably happen again? I don't complain, I vote and hope that those I help elect will have my best interests at heart. I pay for homeless/drug rehabilitation and I HAVE been homeless, but didn't take a dime, and have NEVER used drugs. Besides alcohol. And cigarettes. Just because you pay taxes doesn't mean your going to agree to everything your dollar goes to. How much of your money do you believe is being mis-spent or spent to the contrary of your wishes? How much do you think you should be discounted until the issue of gay marriage is resolved?

Our taxes go to pay for everything the government expends money on. While some is going to the rebuilding of New Orleans, which it would have to no matter what area was destroyed by such a natural disaster, it goes for many other things as well. And it's not just financial benefits I am speaking of, but legal protections as well. I would care not if the Fed did away with all of the financial bene's it gives married couples, even if it did recognize gay marriage. It's the legal protections that we are fighting for. As a secular American, I am also fighting for equality. The rights and freedoms of the individual. Oh, and no discount, I'll pay my fair share.

And yet the law stands. I honestly think that you have your case well enough in hand that you could walk into a courtroom and convincingly plead the issue. Have you ever sought to do so?

It stands because it has yet to be challenged, but that is only a matter of time. Since I am single and not currently in a relationship, it would be hypocritical of me to just grab some guy to drag up to Vermont to get married simply to challenge this law.

If the US caved in and allowed you to rewrite the definition, what would it be?

The legal union of two consenting adults. Simple, huh?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Hi Jaxon!

I have some questions now.

1) If marriage is a religious institution proscribed by G-D, as my church believes then it is a right guaranteed under the Constitution to be protected. All of us are guaranteed the right to free exercise of our religion. IF the Unitarian Universalists marry you and your future boyfriend then you are "married" and the Federal government would have to respect it.

So why not challenge it on the grounds of religious freedom?

2) If it is not a religious institution and is a governmental institution then in a representative democracy you have to allow "the people" to define marriage, and they have defined it as a union between man and woman. So why not push for the alternative "civil union" as a union between two consenting adults? You can push for the legal rights (to make life or death decisions, to share a credit score...) you desire, yes?

I'm kinda stuck with marriage being a Catholic and all, but I'm not sure if I wasn't that I'd be so hot to trot about it.

Marriage used to be the union of one or more households or kingdoms. Love had nothing to do with it. It was for the purpose of creating children and the propagation of a particular lineage. Same sex couples could certainly not do this, and yet they could still have lifelong relationships that were not "forced" as those in marriages sometimes were.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:03 PM
I'm growing bored of playing Devil's Advocate. I want to play the other side for awhile.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by A Fortiori

Fair questions, so let me address them:

1. Religious Institution: While it used to be so back when the entire population was religious, it is now both a religious institution and a secular institution. Would you exclude those who are not religious and heterosexual from getting married? Only the religious who get married in a 'proper church wedding' get to call themselves married? And those who perform such 'proper church weddings' do end the ceremony with the words "by the power vested in me by the State of ______, I now pronounce you..." The State is already knee deep in religiously performed marriages. Need a marriage license from the State, don't you?

2. Allowing the people to define it: The Constitution was set up to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual, not the majority. This is blatantly evident in the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years when they did this. They foresaw such a possibility. They saw us as a unified nation of individuals, and it was the individual that was the most important, followed by the State.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by Arrowmancer

LOL, well, you did a bang up job! Nice playing 'chess' with you! Does this mean I get to say 'Check Mate'??? LOL!

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Simply most of the supporting information and resources would be well outside the purview of the thread.

For the purposes of the thread, the recognition of marriage by the state is currently in the power of the state.

DOMA is unconstitutionally defining a matter that is in the state's realm of jurisdiction.

Until the DOMA issue is brought to a conclusion the marriage-equality front is at a dead standstill and the entire basis of the this thread is limbo.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

To answer your response to question #1: No, I wouldn't, but I was pointing it out as a Constitutional loophole. That way gays that want to be "married" as opposed to "living together" can get married and those that want to live together monogamously without calling it "marriage" (which was historically performed in all ancient cultures by some sort of spiritual leader) can still do that by calling it a civil union.

I have a friend who has never been into religion, never went to church, never really thought about God, but, being a girl, wanted a "church wedding". She went from pastor to pastor looking for someone to marry her and all of them were surprised that she didn't just go to a JOP.

So I always find it perplexing why certain historical conventions are so important to people that don't adhere to the history or sentiment of them. If you are a spiritual person and want to have your union blessed by someone spiritual or religious then I can see wanting marriage as opposed to a civil union. My point was for those people there is the Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, ergo they can get "married" and the Government would have to accept it. If you aren't religious, and many people both heterosexual and homosexual are not...why bother with "marriage" and not just have a "civil union"?

Just curious.

To me it seems like instead of wanting "marriage" people want "acceptance" and you can't get that through legislation. Acceptance comes from people's hearts, and you can see from this board how accepting some people can be. *guffaws*

I hope I am explaining this correctly because I am trying to step lightly. It's like the Christmas and Easter Catholics, why bother going at all if you are only going because of the sentimentality of the holiday and not a real conviction? There are people that really truly believe in why they are there each week (realizing there are people that go every week and don't believe--don't understand them either).

So wanting the institution of "marriage" if you believe in it, to me, would be easy enough to get for homosexuals by exercising your first amendment right and have a Unitarian Universalist or Episcopal or some other tolerant faith marry you. Wanting the privileges that is afforded by marriage can be had in a civil union.

What you call yourself is up to you and your relationship, I would think. I know people who never had a church or legal service who consider themselves married. To them, it is their bond that is enough. Would a priest make Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn more married than they are now? Doubtful.

EDIT: I bring up my friend because I think this is true of heterosexuals, as well. Why have the church ceremony if you don't go to church? If its for the pictures, well, ...

[edit on 7-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by Arrowmancer

It's only dead until some couple challenges this, then it will be up to the Supreme Court.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by A Fortiori

They could call it anything they want, as long as the State calls all such unions, gay and straight, the same thing. Won't really matter what term the State uses, people will always call it marriage. Homosexual couples have been having commitment ceremonies for decades, and even though they did not have the State issued peice of paper legitimizing it, they still refered to themselves as married. It's not about the name, but the protections that come with it.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:38 PM
A couple doesn't have to challenge it. An individual can. YOU can.

Or any gay-rights advocacy group.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:57 PM
Here we come full circle to the point. It is being challenged constantly and in a variety of ways. Being bi and an oklahoman has given me a unique perspective on the entire gay marriage debate. That being one day it will happen, even here. I can still clearly remember when there were people (politicians, police, priests, even common folk) who did nearly everything in their power to make the lives of bi-racial couples as horrible as possible, up to and including trying to pass or suggest legal measures to 'protect marrage', when in reality they simply didn't want people of two races to marry.

Nowadays, no one bats an eye when a biracial couple walks by. This encourages me to know that day will come for a couple that just happens to be two gentlemen or two ladies as the norm.

While it seems bleak as this area I am in doesn't have a gay bar, no scene, forget the newspaper(that's begging for trouble), no venue whatsoever save for the internet for non-heteros, I continue on with my life happily. hell, my ex and I have given considerable thought to getting a grass roots lgbt chapter here in southern ok.

On a side note: I find it funny(strange) that str8ies (esp males) seem to just *know* what we do.. without a way to know. Would it surprise anyone that not all bi & gay men enjoy anal. For some of us, there are other ways to please one another.

On the issue of general civil rights, well, this has been an uphill climb for about fifty years and still on going. I would honestly want the right to see my beloved if he was hospitalized, I would want the right to raise my kids all the same, regardless of who was my current partner. As a parent I am already prepared to enlighten and educate my kids. For that matter I would want my spouse to have the ability to adopt my children should something happen to their mother(I hope not!!) at least as a failsafe measure. Then there is estate laws should something happen to me.

People have this hangup of 'the gov't shouldn't get involved'.. news flash, the gov't been involved before religion even touched marriage. The problems lies with those ignorant of human history, the problems lie with those take their own rights as granted, forgeting that a.)The gov't stipulated those rights b.)rights are really an illusion.. there actually just privileges when you think about it, but that is another thread another day..

As far as being flamy.. not likely I am kinda butch actually lol

As far as 'pushing' my lifestyle(ask george carlin about the word lifestyle, it's worth the lulz!!) onto people. I don't. There is a line between being completely graphically detailed in public (which isn't the norm for anyone, but reactionaries are quick to put out there), and say just holding someone's hand in public. yes, it's been know to happen where I simply gave my bf a quick peck before I ran off to work in public, and some shaved gorilla goes.. hey can you keep that non-sense in the bedroom sicko!. Then said gorilla goes and gives his female the tongue while groping her body and expects no-one to bat an eye in public. wtf?!?

typical redneck hypocrite.

Even stranger still, if my wife who is also bi, gives her gf a quick peck before work in public, this same moron will exclaim loudly in public on how hot that was and if they could go somewhere with him. To which I laugh and go, sorry pal that's the benefit package, you ain't their type.. as I walk hand and hand and hand with the two of them to rejoin *our* boyfriend at the house.

This is only one example of how moronic some people can be in a place like oklahoma, but I know it happens everywhere.

For those of us who want true equality, who actually want the bad with the good, are going to have be out, proud, and not afraid to be ourselves, regardless of what others may think, even in spite of them simply taking their own rights for granted to the point of near invisibility to themselves and the exclusion of others.

This means being in public, functioning as all other (re:str8) couples would and not giving a damn. This means talking to local and state civil leaders and expound why these laws must be designed to protect a portion of society from circumstances overlooked due to being taken for granted by the majority. This also includes federal civic leaders as well. And if your Bi, don't be afraid to talk to gay/lesbian organization leaders about circumstances that are unique to us.. as gays/lesbians also tend to screw up with bi people easily too...

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Crysstaafur]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:11 PM
reply to post by Crysstaafur

In response to paragraph 1. There are STILL many people that don't condone biracial relations. Watch the movie "Bulworth" for the best portrait of biracial relations I've ever seen. Best line in the movie was "What do we gotta do, *!&$ til we're all one color?" Very humorous movie, but made an incredibly good point.

Nowadays, no one bats an eye when a biracial couple walks by.

Though your info says your from Texas, I'd challenge this in anywhere but a major metro area. Racial tension outside of the four largest cities is pretty high. Even in Houston, we see evidence of racial hatred on a pretty regular basis.

As far as paragraphs 4 and 5 go, we've discussed this at length, with the conclusion being DOMA is unconstitutional. DOMA is the current hang-up in the struggle. (Thank you Jax for forcing me to read more into the marriage-equality struggle than I had ever thought of doing...)

(ask george carlin about the word lifestyle, it's worth the lulz!!)

Rest in peace, man.

But yours is a perfect example of the 'other' side of the argument. If gay relations were sanctioned like straight marriages were, where would it end? Three or four people getting married? People marrying animals? I think that alotta naysayers take this one too far, but it has a good basic point. Care to expound?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Sorry, I think "outside the box". I just think it would be far easier to approach it from "marriage is religious" in order to get married (plus shut up the religious who want their own religious protections).

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:34 PM
You realize that two atheists can get married. Religion has nothing to do with this struggle.

Using religion as their vehicle would completely undermine what they are aiming for. They're looking for equality for themselves as they truly are. Hiding behind religion would conceal the message and motivations that drive them.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by Arrowmancer

Well considering that religion is the reason the majority of people who are against it cite I would find it highly appropriate that they use the First Amendment in this manner.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:01 PM
There is No God in Equal Rights.

Marriage today is a legal license by the government to protect rights and property of 2 people joining as one household.

Marriage today is about as religious connected as throwing a virgin off a cliff is connected to fertility.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by A Fortiori

What so many do not see is that marriage transcends religion. It's not a religious institution, it's a human institution.

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:25 PM
Jaxon and gays for same sex marriage have employed the following arguments in their attempt to promote the legal recognition for same-sex "marriages” I said this is where it gets good,

1) Gays, lesbians and bisexuals are being "discriminated against" when denied marriage.
This was one of Jaxons assertions but it has to be one where you can single gays out on the basis of equality where he is not permitted because he is Gay. That has NEVER happened. NO ONE has been turned down because they are gay. They don’t qualify for marriage as many supreme courts have defined it. One man, one woman.

But more than that is Less than thirty years ago interracial couples were prohibited from marrying. What Jaxon and all gays have tried to do is attach their marriage issue to the argument which he and gays supporting same sex marriage must prove a legal equivalency between skin color or race and "sexual orientation."

2) Marriage is a "basic human right" and choice of marriage partners should NOT be regulated by government

The presumption in this flawed idea is that "sexual orientation" is fundamentally like every other, and relationships involving any and all "sexual orientations" are the choice made by individuals in those chosen relationships where Gays insist they should be recognized without question by the state

Civil Unions and religious mandated marriages will remain separate institutions if same-sex marriages are legalized. The state should not dictate which marriages any religion performs or recognizes, just as religions should not dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state This assumes their will be little to no impact on heterosexual constructs of religion and society in general.

Ok so far?

Jaxon has argued that the emotional needs of homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual and that this isn’t about comparing apples which will lead to oranges or words to that effect. He claims this is an issue about equality and NOT one on sexual behavior. He slipped up when he said I endorsed a loveless marriage where if Jaxons love is only as good as he has the capacity to be in lust and have sexual relations with his partner. This is where the difference is between what gays think marriage is about and what straights do but Ill get into that in a moment as long as we realize, Gays do exist and that they have the same emotional needs and earthly temptations as heterosexuals, there is no reason to oppose homosexual marriage and many reasons to support it.

Those Three presumptions are critical to the gay agenda for same sex marriage the most important is the presumption that homosexuals are a "minority." This is why we have seen this being said by gay activist’s because it is critical to their case. Minority" status will enable gays to achieve its political goals more expedient, including same sex marriage
In addition to convincing us that gays are a "minority," the general public must be safe in assuming homosexuality is "normal and poses no threat "

This was quite a hurdle for gays and is why the yare on such a kick to prove they are born homosexuals but are "just like everybody else having needs for sex love and companionship. That their choice of same gender partner notwithstanding, they are like you and me so their should be no reason to deny them marriage.

That if gays are like everyone else, then gay‘s should get to have the exact same benefits the same kind of marriages perks as everyone else. That married gay unions will have negligible effects if any at all on society as a whole Gays then treat all the suppositions I mentions as a fiat or assume the are case law in their favor .

Whether or not Vermont or Hawaii has decided this or that, to make this a federally recognized marriage condition by each state, it is imperative they achieve "minority"/suspect status as it is this component of what the supreme court of the united states will be looking at REGARDLESS of many of the specious manner in which many court decisions have been adjudicated. This component is the foundational keystone; homosexuals need to even begin to achieve the rest of their political goals.

The argument was posed by Jaxon when he said he was hit by a bottle when coming out of a gay bar, someone I think it was driving by, threw a bottle hitting him in the head.

Jaxon thinks this is equivalent to the civil rights struggle Blacks in this country have. Hell, doesn’t even know who threw the bottle much less if they were a gay hating bigot, knew Jaxon was because he had is Gay Pride Tee shirt on emblazoned on a rainbow across his chest. For all he knows, it could have been a jealous ex-lover of someone Jason was seeing or any number of things.

That This is a necessity for gays to constitute a “suspect class” distinction or "oppressed minority" which would allow gay activists, via tax subsidized lawsuits, the mechanism to silence and / or punish dissenting commentary and force business, Church’s and society, award benefits to their lover or partners. In fact it is so clearly written in the law that one must feel hated by such bigotry that, like those law suits where atheist have said God offends them making them feel alienated from the United States, they actually have to say the words “offended” and alienated to use this law to bludgeon Christians into removing such icons as the ten commandments from court house etc, Gays are required the same detail must be said and is why we hear those very words they use to describe it as hatred and bigotry.
Supreme Court decisions on Civil Rights that were handed down after 1964 added limitations to balance the incentive for those seeking suspect class status.

So the Supreme Court added somewhat of a legal barrier like a gate to access suspect status, so that the status remained only for those who are genuinely and honestly “disadvantaged” and in politically powerless class distinctions that are in “dire” need government protection. They setup criteria of three explicit, clear and specific markers to determine if the request for said status meets those three specific.

  • 1)suspect classes should have a history of “extreme” oppression, and evidenced by a class averaged inability to obtain economic prosperity of the average individual for income, education, and opportunity.

  • 2) suspect classes should, averaged as entire classes, show and prove political powerlessness.

  • 3)suspect classes should display an obvious or distinguishing characteristics, such as race, color, gender etc, that can readily define them as a group or as groups.

INCOME and Opportunity:
Homosexuals have an average annual income of $36,800 to $44,000 moreover 55% of gays earn over $50,000 per year. They don’t meet the criteria


Twice as many college males identify themselves as gay as do males having no College Education, Unlike blacks thirty years prior, gay’s suffer no economic deprivation. They are employed at the highest levels of corporate society, politics, government, entertainment, media, and legal professions.

POLITICALLY Disenfranchised:

This one you have GOT to be kidding. The Gay lobby is one o the most powerful having won many more victories for gays and the gay agenda than they have lost. No one can honestly admit that it is any fun winning against them either for the usual in your face, militant reprisals, and many times violent backlash that ensues. They are a formidable opponent and are taken very serious where many times it takes MILLIONS o dollars to oppose any legislation where winning doesn’t mean you can rest. They come back harder the next time and will use ANY means necessary to arrive at their objectives.


As I have said, sexual orientation can and does change is an observed fact.

The Kinsey Institute claims 84% of homosexuals and 29% of heterosexuals changed their "sexual orientation" at least once in a lifetime; 32% of homosexuals reported a second shift; and 13% of homosexuals claimed at least five changes in sexual orientation during their lifetimes. The U.S. Constitution protects all speech, including differing points of view about homosexuality. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that public schools cannot restrict speech simply because it may be perceived by some as controversial or because the speaker or writer may happen to have a religious perspective. Gay-advocacy groups like GLSEN make an unprincipled argument when they pressure schools to censor ex-gay or post-gay messages. School officials should be aware that materials and events being marketed to schools by gay advocacy groups often make negative or biased statements about particular denominations and religions, while at the same time seeking to shut out opposing viewpoints. Not only is this an approach, but it is legally incorrect.

Science articles on primates and humans are filled with evidence of a permanent change from homosexual orientation to exclusive heterosexual orientation

“The myth that homosexuality is untreatable still has wide currency among the public at large and among homosexuals themselves....There is little doubt that a genuine shift in preferential sex object choice can and does take place in somewhere between 20 and 50 per cent of patients with homosexual behavior who seek psychotherapy “ - Dr. Judd Marmor, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of

“I have recently had occasion to review the result of psychotherapy with homosexuals, and been surprised by the findings. It is paradoxical that even though politically active homosexual groups deny the possibility of change, all studies from Schrenk-Notzing on have found positive effects, virtually regardless of the kind of treatment used...a considerable percentage of homosexuals became heterosexual.... “- Dr. Reuben Fine, director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training

More astounding is the evidence available from gay and lesbian activist sources.
According to "Queer Nation" founder Jonathan Ned Katz:

Contrary to today's bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable. In other words, human beings make their own different arrangements of reproduction and production, of sex differences and eroticism, their own history of pleasure and happiness.

For Jaxons arguments favoring same-sex "marriage" to be valid, the presupposition, gays are "just like everyone else, except for their desire for same-sex partners" must be proved valid. Jaxon must prove that there are no essential differences between the way "gays and straights" conduct their lives and loves. They have often tried to head off this type of objection by saying “It does no harm to you OR what is it to you who we want to love”.

Yet one can compare these two sexual distinctions using gays own evidence regarding lifestyle behaviors.

AIDS research released in 1982 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical gay man interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a 20-year span. Gay people with AIDS studied averaged more than 1,100 "lifetime" partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. (A psychologist we interviewed personally told of counseling a gay clergyman who admitted to having had more than 900 sexual partners to date.) From perhaps the most comprehensive study of gay lifestyles ever undertaken before 1980, we learn that:

• 43% of white male homosexuals estimated they'd had sex with 500 or more different partners

• 75% had had 100 or more sexual partners; 28% (the largest subcategory) reported more than 1,000 partners

• 79% said more than half their partners were strangers
70% said more than half their sexual partners were men with whom they had sex only once

Studies by Bell and Weinberg Indiana University 1981 indicated that only 3% of gay men they surveyed had had fewer than 10 "lifetime" sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either "monogamous"."

"...The cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples." - Gay activist marketing firm, experts Kirk and Madsen

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, the authors-a gay couple themselves- could find no gay relationship in which fidelity was maintained but more than that is the idea that it even should be. Gays by and large do NOT want monogamous marriages. This again is antithetical to the marriage ideal

"the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together."

How bad can it get?

Hold on to your butts

USA Today (November 21, 1984) this was at the Height of the AIDs epidemic when fear was laced with ignorance of AIDS yet how did gays deal with it and how much of a dent did their taking responsibility for their depravity and debased bathhouse bang brothels, do to curb the disease?

Back them it indicated that fear of AIDS had lowered gay men's promiscuity rate from 70 different partners in 1982 to 50 partners per year by 1984. Even at this "safer sex" rate, a gay male would still total over 600 sexual partners.

Jay and Young's Gay Report revealed that 38% of lesbians surveyed claimed to have had between 11 and more than 300 sexual partners in a lifetime

In 1992, more than half of men and women in America between the ages of 18-26 had had just one sex partner in the past year, and another 11% had none. The same kinds of results are reported in British and European sex surveys Same Sex Marriage would cost the Government Billions in changes to accommodate them to force the rewriting of business employment policies, insurance actuarial tables and government regulations at every level of society. Not going to impact us in any way is it? THINK AGAIN from income tax and estate tax law, communal property, inheritance and probate, divorce, child custody, most lawyers will make a bundle but they have a HUGE mess coming their way.

Even scarier is that if this gets where Gays want it, then there is no legal mandate to argue against brother and sister getting married or gay brothers, polygamists. And although Jaxon gives me a fruity comparison (no pun), comparing apples = doesn’t equal oranges was his defense that it wasn’t going to be about apples etc, it was going to be based on “equality”

That my friend will be the polygamist’s comeback too.

Does jaxon Roberts want to stretch marriage barriers to include all kinds of relationships and combinations of same that would not now be accepted under that same judicial precedent? NOT harm society in any way huh?

Gays Are NOT stupid:
You may think they are crazy, hehe yeah crazy like a FOX . As long as gay activists can "claim discrimination" on some grounds, they can and will use government taxpayer dollars to sue others and advance gay activist interests, we have seen atheist’s do this with the ACLU also. "Marital status" will serve as well as suspect status in many states for that purpose.
Jaxon has posted a lot of case law and shows us that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" (see Skinner vs. Oklahoma, 1942; Zablocki vs. Redhail, etc However, this is and has been visted and re-visited many times and will until it is seen by the US supreme Court regarding the suspect class distinction gays are desperate to win at all costs. Even if it means besmirching Christians using Gay High School murder victim Matthew Shepard as an example of hate crimes when Mats murderer was bisexual himself and had shared methamphetamines with him at parties,

There's no civil right to marry whomever you want.

Gay and lesbian couples aren't the only ones who can't get marriage licenses. You can't get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can't get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can't get a license to marry a child etc, et-cetera et-tedious,cetera

Every man and woman in has the exact same right to get married. It just has to be to an individual of the opposite sex who is of age, is not a close relative and is human.

If men and women are treated the same Jaxon Roberts, there's no sex discrimination

Unless of course you can prove that gay men and lesbian women are the third and fourth genders.

Good Luck with that

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Stylez]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by Stylez

WOW, did you come up with that long list of BS by yourself, or did your 'think tank' help you??? And you proved in that post that you pay little attention or just like to twist facts. I was hit in the head with a bottle while coming out of a gay owned restaurant during lunch hours, and (pardon me mods) the ignorant coward that threw it screamed 'Die faggot' as he and his ignorant buddy drove away. As to what I was wearing, a black 'Blair Witch Project' tee shirt and jeans. By the way, it may have been gay owned, and in a gay section of town, but plenty of straight people eat there all the time. See, that's the difference. We have no problem if you come into our businesses, and into our communities. Maybe you could learn a little about tolerance from that. Way to ass-u-me, dude!

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in