Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by S Landreth

another one. waay down south

Federal judge (Callie Granade) rules Alabama same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

What is up with this absurd obsession with hijacking the definition of the term 'equal'

It used to be women insisting that they were equal to men which they obviously are not.

Just as women are not equal to men so 2 men engaging in a long term legally recognised committed relationship is not the same as a man and a woman engaging in a long term legally recognised committed relationship.

Are 2 men entitled to live together in a committed and legally recognised relationship? Of course, why not, this is the 21st century. Is that the same thing as a man and a woman living together? Of course it is not.

Homosexuals are male but they are not men.
Boys grow into men, homosexuals don't.
Saying 'gay man' etc is the purest definition of the word oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Looper

Are 2 men entitled to live together in a committed and legally recognised relationship? Of course, why not, this is the 21st century.

What a vacant justification ! it's like saying ''of course, why not, it's 11:15 am''

Gays forfeit all human rights, when they announce they are no longer trying to cure themselves.

Still I agree with your observation about homos silly obsession with 'equal' etc , but what can you expect from a group who all seem permanently stuck at that awkward adolescent phase of a puebecent spotty 14 years old .
Forever looking to shock and for lame rebellions.

Originally Posted by blue

What a vacant justification ! it's like saying ''of course, why not, it's 11:15 am''

It is not a vacant justification.

It was OK 100 years ago to imprison and otherwise punish gay men for their sexuality.

It was OK 100 years ago to deny employment based on race.

It was OK 100 years ago to be cruel to animals.

It was OK 200 years ago to keep human slaves.

Now these things are not OK.

As the human race matures and grows more confident we include more and more outsiders into our circle of acceptance and accord them rights.

Now it is the turn of gay couples but they are not and never will be 'equal' to heterosexual couples.

Hahaha! It is no surprise that Blue is ranting against gay marriage. Climate change deniers and homophobes go hand in hand. Idiots.

Originally Posted by Looper

Now it is the turn of gay couples but they are not and never will be 'equal' to heterosexual couples.

Operative sentence in this thread.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Hahaha! It is no surprise that Blue is ranting against gay marriage. Climate change deniers and homophobes go hand in hand. Idiots.

You come out with the most incredible bollocks. WTF has questioning climate science got to do with gays...or gay marriage or anything else for that matter.

You make the absolute stupidest connections of anybody on this entire board. You really should be banned from posting in any threads outside the DH.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by S Landreth

another one. waay down south

Federal judge (Callie Granade) rules Alabama same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

What is up with this absurd obsession with hijacking the definition of the term 'equal'

It used to be women insisting that they were equal to men which they obviously are not.

Just as women are not equal to men so 2 men engaging in a long term legally recognised committed relationship is not the same as a man and a woman engaging in a long term legally recognised committed relationship.

Are 2 men entitled to live together in a committed and legally recognised relationship? Of course, why not, this is the 21st century. Is that the same thing as a man and a woman living together? Of course it is not.

you've completely missed the point.....it's about equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to the constitution.

essentially, it guarantees everyone equal justice.

everyone......not just 60+ year old hetero, white guys.

Originally Posted by raycarey

you've completely missed the point.....it's about equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to the constitution. essentially, it guarantees everyone equal justice.

So if someone wants to fuck goats or engage in polygamy they are entitled to equal justice under the 14th amendment?

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by raycarey

you've completely missed the point.....it's about equal protection clause in the 14th amendment to the constitution. essentially, it guarantees everyone equal justice.

So if someone wants to fuck goats or engage in polygamy they are entitled to equal justice under the 14th amendment?

you're not very bright, are you?

So homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law as individuals but they recognise that despite some similarities there are also substantial differences between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship?

Is that a fair summary?

Originally Posted by bsnub

Hahaha! It is no surprise that Blue is ranting against gay marriage. Climate change deniers and homophobes go hand in hand. Idiots.

Bsnub makes an interesting observation, though inadvertently ,
ie the brainwashed clowns that support bent 'marriage' will also always be:
man made climate change freaks,
believe in open borders and mass immigration,
be utterly convinced that all races are dead equal every which way...

I guess its like music, some fool with bad taste gets into rap music, then have to have all its silly add-ons too - like to a nylon track suit , childish trainers etc, just like all the others sheep in their tribe .

I wonder if Condoleezza will sign it also?

More Than 300 Republicans Call on Supreme Court to Recognize Gay Marriage Nationally

Signers include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sens. Susan Collins and Mark Kirk and Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker

More than 300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants have filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage late Thursday.

The amicus brief, organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, was filed for the four same-sex marriage cases the Court will hear on April 28 that could legalize the unions nationwide. In 2013, Mehlman marshaled a similar effort for the case that overturned California’s Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage in the state.

Among the signatories are 23 current and former Republicans members of the House of Representatives and Senate and seven current and former Governors. Sens. Susan Collins and Mark Kirk have signed onto the brief, as has Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Other notables include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and billionaire GOP mega-donor David Koch.

The 2013 brief included 131 signatures, featured many former top aides to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, including his general counsel and two senior advisors. The list has now grown to 303 signatories.

In an interview with TIME, Mehlman pointed to the growing national consensus and within the GOP on the issue. “There’s been an increase since the last time in public support for marriage equality across all ideological, racial, and political groups,” he said.

The brief makes a conservative case for the court to strike down same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, arguing they are “inconsistent with amici’s understanding of the properly limited role of government.”

“Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and responsibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Constitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process,” the brief states.

Some aides to Republican presidential candidates are hoping that if the Court’s rules in favor of the unions it will provide cover for their bosses, who are hoping to avoid talking about the issue. After the party’s 2012 electoral defeat, its autopsy found that gay rights issues are a gateway subject not just for LGBT voters, but also for young voters of all stripes. “We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too,” the Growth and Opportunity Project report stated.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie both dropped opposition to same-sex unions in their state after court rulings forced their hand, but they remain personally opposed. After marriages began in his state in January, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called for respect from all sides. “I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue — including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty,” he said.

More conservative Republicans may seek to cater to Iowa and South Carolina’s large evangelical primary blocks in order to attract votes, setting the stage for potential clashes. But the political ground is shifting. According to an NBC/Marist survey last month, roughly half of likely GOP caucus and primary voters in Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire find opposition to same-sex marriage “mostly” or “totally” unacceptable.

Mehlman said he was not concerned that the Court’s ruling could prompt a backlash among conservative voters that might alienate moderates.

“Republicans traditionally have great respect for court decisions, particularly the Supreme Court,” he said. And pointing to rapid shifts in public opinion in states that have legalized same-sex marriage, he predicted Republicans wouldn’t drum up the base against the Court should it overturn the marriage bans. “The data shows that public acceptance increases very quickly, and very significantly.”

better late than never

Boycott this

Corporate America tells the Supreme Court that gay marriage is good for business

On Thursday, an amicus brief was filed with the US Supreme Court on behalf of 379 American corporations, asking the court to end the confusion and make gay marriage legal throughout the country.

An amicus curiae, literally “friend of the court,” is a filing by someone who is not a party to a case, but who claims to have a substantial interest in it. In other words, it’s advice. And as advice, the court is under no obligation to take notice of it.

But we have a feeling the court will take heed in this instance.

If all you paid attention to were the latest news reports coming out of Alabama, where the state’s supreme court is defying a federal court order that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, then it might not be clear to you how in the rest of the country, gay marriage is no longer even controversial.

When Coca-Cola and PepsiCo both sign the same document urging the court to end the bigotry against gay Americans who simply demand the same right to marry that everyone else has, how much more mainstream can it get?

Sure, the hipster tech companies are all on board — Amazon, Apple, Dropbox, eBay, Electronic Arts, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter — but you knew they were all a bunch of queers already.

But even Republicans are going to have to pay attention to some of the old-school firms that put their names on this thing, including financial services companies: Accenture, Aetna, Bank of America, Barclays, Goldman Sachs — you know, the places that buy your CEO a round of golf and a weekend getaway from time to time. And how about these classics: Colgate-Palmolive, ConAgra, General Electric, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Kimberly-Clark, Levi Strauss & Co, and the Walt Disney Company.

Conservatives, take note. Some of the names on the list include companies that also support ALEC, the corporate-interest cabal that supplies Republican state legislators with model legislation: AT&T, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Comcast, DirecTV, Dow Chemical, Dupont, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Verizon, and Visa.

Signatories even include airlines — Alaska, American, Delta, JetBlue, and United — and three professional sports teams: The New England Patriots, San Francisco Giants, and Tampa Bay Rays.

But what’s really touching is to see the tiny companies that also signed on. You practically want to pick them up and give them a hug:

– Arbor Brewing Company “is a privately owned brewpub and microbrewery in Michigan that employs 100 people and distributes its beer in three states.”

– Billy’s Farm “is an organic Christmas tree farm located in Wilton, California.”

– Ralph’s Regal Weddings “performs wedding ceremonies for all couples in the Spokane, Washington and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho areas.”

It’s pretty incredible to see all of these very different companies come to total agreement on one issue. But there’s no ambiguity in their message.

“Inconsistent marriage laws force companies to divert significant time and money to the creation and maintenance of complex administrative systems needed to differentiate treatment of otherwise indistinguishable employees based on the different marriage laws of the places where they live. These differences can create rifts in the employer-employee relationship. Employers are better served by a uniform marriage rule that gives equal dignity to employee relationships. Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty, and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law treatment.”

Now that’s smart. These companies aren’t butting in to say that one form of marriage is more “traditional” than another, or that allowing gay marriage is a logical extension of the Fourth Amendment, or some other legal tactic that has been used in countless court fights now.

Instead, they are weighing in from their business perspective: All of this bigotry and nonsense is bad for American business. Let the gays marry, let everyone be happier in their home lives, and let’s all be productive and make a ton of money.

You’d think even Antonin Scalia could comprehend that one.

The Obama administration thinks the Supreme Court should rule that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, according to a brief filed by Justice Department lawyers on Friday. The administration takes the position that those laws violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to find such bans "incompatible with the Constitution" because they "exclude a long-mistreated class of human beings from a legal and social status of tremendous import."

The court will hear oral arguments in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges in April.

I am in favour of homosexuals being able to share a legally recognised union but hijacking the word 'marriage' is just another example of a previously oppressed minority taking the legal recognition of their rights too far by trying to insist that their thing is 'equal' to something else when it is not equal it only bears some similarities.

There should be a different term for a legally recognised homosexual partnership.

^ Operative words here: not state sanctioned.

^^ Governments shouldn't be involved in the marriage business at all. They should dispense civil partnerships for any gender couple who apply. Leave the marriages to the religious organizations to perform as they wish.

Originally Posted by Looper

I am in favour of homosexuals being able to share a legally recognised union but hijacking the word 'marriage' is just another example of a previously oppressed minority taking the legal recognition of their rights too far by trying to insist that their thing is 'equal' to something else when it is not equal it only bears some similarities.

There should be a different term for a legally recognised homosexual partnership.

Don't be so fucking petty.

It's pretty well only a legal term these days anyway.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Isn't this lovely!

WORLD’S FIRST THREE-WAY GAY MARRIAGE TAKES PLACE IN THAILAND



Valentine’s Day 2015 will be infamous for more than the release of the film version of 50 Shades of Grey.

Takes me back (from the first page of this thread),………

Originally Posted by S Landreth

I was gonna wait a week before awarding a prize (more like a TD title). I didn’t think it would get any better than quoting scripture but this comment has got to take the cake (I don’t think anyone will do better than this),………

Originally Posted by RickThai

Who cares?,.....That's why I love Thailand, I can escape the insanity of the USA.

RickThai

A Valentine's Day marathon: Gay Thai couple break TWO-DAY world record for longest kiss

A gay couple celebrated Valentine's Day by breaking the world record for the longest ever kiss after managing to keep their lips locked together for an incredible 50 hours, 25 minutes and one seconds.

Nontawat Jaroegenasornsin, 31, and his partner Thanakorn Sittiamthong, 28, beat the previous winners of the Guinness World Record longest continuous kisstoday by just over four hours.

They were one of just seven Thai couples to enter the annual Ripley's Believe It or Not longest kissing challenge in the resort town of Pattaya, Thailand, which started on Sunday.

Come to Thailand to escape : Valentine's Day 2012: Gay Thai couple break TWO-DAY world record for longest kiss | Mail Online

Videoed interview: Video: Valentine's Day: Male couple win kissing competition with world record 50-hour embrace - Telegraph

What a fuckin’ idiot that Rick Bedroom Special Ops Thai was.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Don't be so fucking petty.

Put the pacifier back in your ass Harry.

It is not petty it is common sense. It is offensive to the traditional institution of marriage (which is between a man and a woman) to have homosexuals hijack the term for their partnerships which are in some ways similar but also substantially different.

Originally Posted by misskit

They should dispense civil partnerships for any gender couple who apply. Leave the marriages to the religious organizations to perform as they wish.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Don't be so fucking petty.

Put the pacifier back in your ass Harry.

It is not petty it is common sense. It is offensive to the traditional institution of marriage (which is between a man and a woman) to have homosexuals hijack the term for their partnerships which are in some ways similar but also substantially different.

Originally Posted by misskit

They should dispense civil partnerships for any gender couple who apply. Leave the marriages to the religious organizations to perform as they wish.

I agree.

Here are some of those sacred marriage law traditions, but I don't here anybody supporting these backward traditions. Why...? Because they are obviously backward and would expose the supporters as somewhat Taliban in their principles.

Marriage is a legal contract, not a religeous one, and if it is religeous, please stop trying to impose your religion on everyone else.

Within the household marriage laws denied women:
property rights
custody rights
political positions
economical opportunities
educational opportunities

Historical Context - Women's Rights In Marriage (1800's)

Please stop trying to impose your politically correct religion on everyone else.

Originally Posted by blue

Please stop trying to impose your politically correct religion on everyone else.

What religeon...?
Oh. Nevermind. You're one of those that never has anything sensible to say.

Originally Posted by Looper

Are 2 men entitled to live together in a committed and legally recognised relationship? Of course, why not, this is the 21st century. Is that the same thing as a man and a woman living together? Of course it is not.

Of course it's not. One is a man and a woman and the other is a man and a man.
Try to keep up.