|
Post by mrsp on Feb 9, 2007 15:48:34 GMT -5
The gay agenda is all about getting recognition, representation, political clout and social mainstreaming. Exactly. Its not a hidden agenda at all. They are seeking equal treatment under the law. Something they are entitled to under the Constitution IMO.
|
|
|
Post by lestercat on Feb 9, 2007 15:49:10 GMT -5
Well, cat. How did that work out? Not using rectal reaming, I mean. You know me, smoke's about the only thing I'm puttin' up someones a$$...at least that what she keeps tellin' me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:55:39 GMT -5
The gay agenda is all about getting recognition, representation, political clout and social mainstreaming. Exactly. Its not a hidden agenda at all. They are seeking equal treatment under the law. Something they are entitled to under the Constitution IMO. They have equal treatment under the law.
|
|
|
Post by lestercat on Feb 9, 2007 15:57:16 GMT -5
The gay agenda is all about getting recognition, representation, political clout and social mainstreaming. Exactly. Its not a hidden agenda at all. They are seeking equal treatment under the law. Something they are entitled to under the Constitution IMO. I can't play professional basketball because I'm too short and can't shoot. I can't play professional football because I'm too small and not quick enough. My rights are not being violated, these leagues do not "owe me" a right to participate. No ones rights are being violated....anyone can get married (to someone of the opposite sex). Is every single person in this country being violated because married people get certain bennies? NO. Gays categorically rank as "coupled" single people, just like room mates, best friends, dorm partners etc.. You are only married as one man and one woman other than that you are a wannabe looking for marriage benefits that you have no right to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 15:57:41 GMT -5
Uh, no. The other required criteria includes their being of the opposite sex, or did you miss that somehow? Apparently YOU missed it. You said, "If they are of opposite sex and meet the other required criteria sure." So I pointed out that they are the same sex BUT meet the REST of the criteria. Try keeping up. Okay, two dogs could meet the "other required criteria" too. You all for that also?
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 15:58:53 GMT -5
I disagree. I just think you're hard-headed as hell. It's almost always about power, or money!! Social change means redistribution of wealth, and power. The gay agenda is all about getting recognition, representation, political clout and social mainstreaming. You are being naive if you don't believe that. Gay marriage is just another "hot button" to gain headlines to promote the true hidden agenda. Yes, I believe that. Isn't that the same thing people said about giving women equal rights? About giving Black people equal rights? I never denied that monetary gain isn't a part of it. After all, there is social and political clout in heterosexual marriage. Widows and widowers have been known to fight their children and step-children over assets when a spouse dies. There are incredible battles over property when they get a divorce. A married person has more clout in the political arena than a single one does. Some peole still don't think women should be allowed to vote, or to own property, or to be treated equally in the workplace... but do you think they can pass laws the take those rights away? Some people still don't think a black man should be allowed to marry a white woman... but are they going to push for a law to keep them from doing so? No matter how you WANT to spin it, the fact remains that the primary reason for same-sex unions is so that the spouse has the same pull in legal situations as a het couple would have. Is it fair to shut a man out of his partner's hospital room because he's not a recognized spouse... even though they've been together for 30 years? Is it fair to deny a woman property of her deceased partner, regardless of what the will says, just because her long-time relationship is not considered "valid"? Is it right to discriminate against a same-sex couple, just because they're of the same sex in anything? Yes, there -are- militant, in-your-face homosexuals in the community. But there are militant, in-your-face morons in EVERY group. Don't judge them all by the blatant, idiotic actions of a few. What is so wrong with allowing two people who love and cherish each other, and have made a commitment to each other to have the same benefits that all married people enjoy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 16:00:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 16:00:37 GMT -5
Exactly. Its not a hidden agenda at all. They are seeking equal treatment under the law. Something they are entitled to under the Constitution IMO. They have equal treatment under the law. NO THEY DON'T! If they did, they'd be allowed to marry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 16:02:47 GMT -5
They have equal treatment under the law. NO THEY DON'T! If they did, they'd be allowed to marry. Read Lester's post. #183 They have the same rights to marry as I do and as you do.
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 16:03:44 GMT -5
Apparently YOU missed it. You said, "If they are of opposite sex and meet the other required criteria sure." So I pointed out that they are the same sex BUT meet the REST of the criteria. Try keeping up. Okay, two dogs could meet the "other required criteria" too. You all for that also? Hey, whatever floats your boat, Grumps. I've heard of people marrying two dogs to each other. At least it remains within the same species. ... You -are- talking about canines, right? Not ugly people? Disclaimer: This is not to say I don't think ugly peole should marry... ugly people deserve to be loved, too.
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 16:04:15 GMT -5
NO THEY DON'T! If they did, they'd be allowed to marry. Read Lester's post. #183 They have the same rights to marry as I do and as you do. The -DO NOT- have the same rights to marry the person of their choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 16:05:29 GMT -5
Glad you cleared that up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 16:06:25 GMT -5
Read Lester's post. #183 They have the same rights to marry as I do and as you do. The -DO NOT- have the same rights to marry the person of their choice. Uh, neither do I should I choose some guy. Same rights, get it?
|
|
|
Post by heathenesque on Feb 9, 2007 16:06:41 GMT -5
And once again, just because you are disgusted by it does not mean it should be outlawed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2007 16:08:10 GMT -5
And once again, just because you are disgusted by it does not mean it should be outlawed. It's already outlawed.
|
|