DOMA is no more!!

whats wrong with you?

 

Close but the reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be a problem hear yet

 

If this post was an attempt at humor, congrats, it was funny. If it was just more poor spelling, too bad.

 

so about the aids your just trying to be insulting right?

 

Stop right there. Why should they be content with being less than equal in their own society? You are portraying yourself as possessing a misplaced sense of your own superiority. It's arrogant and offensive.

No one has any obligation to give such deference to another's belief that they make themselves that person's inferior. You are acting like they're stealing something from people who don't actually have any valid claim of exclusive ownership. Apparently the beliefs of gay people mean nothing in this equation. It's apparently all about the poor, "impinged upon" heterosexuals. Boo effing hoo. I'm perfectly willing to respect anyone's right to hold a belief I find repugnant, but the demand that I accord that belief with a respect I do not honestly feel is ridiculous. Respect people - yes. Respect their beliefs to the point where I must give up my own and grovel at their feet? No effing way.

Then we are at an impasse, because I do not believe in helping heterosexuals preserve their place of superiority in our society at my expense. You don't want fair, you want to maintain separateness which cannot exist without becoming marginalization. You want a right for heterosexuals to disassociate from homosexuals. They can certainly do that socially, but NOT as a matter of law. We will not stand for this any longer.

 

Our elected representatives are not delegated the power to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States of our Union.

 

Well, if you're of the mind to deny heterosexuals their own , distinct, ceremonies based upon their traditions and beliefs then the aggressor is you , chum . My advice to you would be to enjoy the gains you've made and not to pursue heterosexuals into their own tents- or you'll be creating enemies you'll wish you'd never had. Moderates- like myself- will start to classify aggressive homosexuals as something our carefully-constructed societies can do without.

You've not really had any intellectual opposition as yet. You're really not going to like it.

 

Except for purely religious, private, and spiritual reasons, why would any any civil person in our republic need any "distinct, ceremonies based upon their traditions and beliefs" for purposes of civil marriage in our Union?

 

Well, from this point on you can add- ' to put down aggressive homosexuals '. You'd think that, of all people, homosexuals would be willing to ' live and let live '. But no. Some want compulsory homosexuality.

 

Certainly, in many Christian denominations, heterosexuals will always have their own distinct ceremonies based upon their traditions and beliefs. The fact remains, however, that many committed Christian denominations already celebrate the sacrament of marriage between same sex couples and many more WOULD if it were legal. If straight people want their own distinct ceremony, all they need to do is get married in a church that does not accept same sex marriage. That's what straight folks in the seven states that allow same sex marriage do already.

 

Bearing false witness to our own laws is a moral failure; should we petition a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists to inquire into the moral rectitude of politicians claiming those religious moral values, instead of a drug test?

 

Well, I was imagining a scenario wherein all churches, offices, States, whatever , universally accepted homosexuals' right for union. Looking at Perriquine's aggressive position I'm more inclined to work to deny homosexuals any such right. If they refuse to accept heterosexuals' right to be different under law then it's best to deny homosexuals any middle ground- as a first line of defence. I'm certainly not daft enough to fight for their rights whilst they're determined to remove mine.

 

Review my prior posts. Heterosexuals can have whatever kinds of ceremonies they want. They do not, however, have the privilege of telling same-sex couples what kinds of ceremonies they can have. You have argued on more than one occasion that this should be a matter of law, and that goes completely against the way we do things in the USA. You are saying we should carve out a special privilege for heterosexuals, using the law to do so. The law here does not control who can have what kind of ceremony - nor should it. If a church etc. believes in marrying both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, they should be able to do so using the wedding rites consistent with their beliefs, and if those rites are the same, that's their business. Likewise, any church etc. that does not wish to provide the same wedding rites to same-sex couples - or does not wish to provide ANY wedding rites for same-sex couples - is free to act according to their beliefs. All as it should be.

I am the one supporting freedom, here. You are the aggressor, seeking to use the law to control wedding rites and create special privileges for heterosexual couples. I say they already have the equal privilege of having whatever rites they choose. It's not a matter of law, nor should it become one.

 

Ah, now the bigotry rises to the surface. This is utter twaddle.

 

Wow, that's some imagination you've got there. It's not the case, and I don't expect it ever will be in the USA.

I doubt anyone here believes that one person has the power to so completely change your mind. I don't believe for a moment that you came in here feeling supportive and that my disagreement with you over what does or doesn't belong in the law caused you to do a 180 degree turn on the issue.

My position is not aggressive toward the end of limiting heterosexuals' actual rights. It is however very firm in protecting what I consider my own, and likewise firm in opposing special rights for heterosexuals aimed at keeping homosexuals marginalized through the tool of shared law. If my refusal to grovel for your crumbs is so offensive that you feel inclined to oppose my equality, then I assert you were only pretending to be supportive in the first place.

A right to be different - yes of course. A right to use the law to maintain a position of superiority through special rights - not in the least. You will lose on that point every time with me.

 

I am confused. What rights of YOURS do you believe that homosexuals are determined to remove?

 

Indeed, I'd like an answer to this question as well.

 

<<<response to deleted post edited>>>>

 

So it would appear that intolerance on the part of homosexuals creates gay-bashers. I've wondered how it came about. Bigoted and arrogant homosexuals beware. How about ' BAAHs' as a labor-saving acronym ?

 

Moon do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

 

You should be asking a homosexual. How could a heterosexual know ?

 

Moon.... do you have an answer for this:

 

Are you saying that you want to go bash a homosexual now?

What sort of response did you expect to get regarding that statement? Seems like you were flamebaiting. And you have the nerve to call me arrogant and intolerant?

Plain fact: I am not going to pretend to be anything less than your equal.

 

This is a mistake.

 

Not all homosexuals are baahs . Let's establish that straightway. Most appear content to be respected in their own right and respect heterosexuals in turn. However, the example of bigoted and aggressive homosexuality evidence here sounds a warning to heterosexuals that their rights are under attack. One of those rights, imo, is the right to be exclusively heterosexual and to be recognized as such. That has to be protected from baahs, it now emerges. OK ?