"Efforts underway to change the GOP on same sex marriage"

Civil rights should not be bargained with

 

republicans are always talking about how they want to marry their brother or sister or a goat... just don't get it, take it to court if that is what you really want

ban anonymous adoptions if you fear brother and sisters marrying so much

.

 

YOU are easily IGNORED by the RNC, Grok....I know it, the RNC knows it, YOU know it.

If the GOP Party Platform changed nothing else....but came out in favor of gay marriage rights?

You'd still vote a straight Republican ticket despite your "morals". Reince Priebus knows he's got your vote in his hip pocket....forever.

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't long ago, blacks couldn't vote in the South and had to use separate washrooms.

And I'm sure you feel the same way about them as gays.

 

And yet, they were never diagnosed as mentally ill.

Not at all.
I feel sorry that blacks were forced to the back of the bus, to drink from distant water fountains, and suffer lynchings.... based on something they couldn't control.

It's not like they went around having to show/tell people they were black.

 

Would you support civil unions for gay couples if the institution of marriage were to be placed back in the sole hands of the religious community?

[video=youtube;6VDs_0lckwU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VDs_0lckwU[/video]

I just wish people were concerned with the sanctity of marriage before their 3rd divorce.

 

If they're legal, they're legal.... why is it so important for everyone to "support" them ?

I couldn't care less if they marry, so I don't fight against it.... but I have no interest in fighting for it either.

 

Respecting all families would involve extending marriage to any two consenting adults excluded by law from marriage. Extending marriage to only gays is about promoting homosexuality.

 

No, I might support civil unions for consenting adults who desire such a union. Making them available exclusively to gays merely demonstrates the true intent, promoting homosexuality

 

Different considerations. We don't let surgeon's operate on their children, jurors or judges preside over their parents, and the FTC looks at financial transactions between siblings different than those between unrelated people. We still let gays be doctors, judges, and business men.

Saying there's no reason not to allow marriages to have the same legal standing regardless of the couples gender doesn't set aside the concerns about influence and consent that apply to the idea of marrying your parent, child, or sibling.





​

 

1. No.....they were given syphillis.

2. So you think homosexuality is "chosen"....like religious affiliation?

 

dixon CLAIMS he'd support civil unions if it was open to incest.

But basically, he just hates the fact that when gay marriage is legal nation-wide, his ex-sister-in-law who is lesbian might marry her girlfriend and she has custody of his nephews.

 

Your thinking is way off. It does no more promote homosexuality than a man in the moon. The extension of marriage rights to a same-sex couple should be a given and automatically granted under the Fourteenth Amendment. Frankly, what I don't understand is why it isn't being done already and why there has to be this kind of discrimination and fight because that's exactly what it is since it is denying certain American citizens what others already have and currently enjoy.

 

But why "civil unions" when they are fully entitled to same-sex MARRIAGE. In a wave of recent Federal Court and Appellate rulings the judges are overwhelmingly ruling that they are certainly entitled to MARRIAGE and not Civil Unions which is designed to knock some sense into the majority that continues to think that they have a right to interfere with and make decisions for a minority of American Gay citizens. The courts are overwhelmingly saying "No, You Don't!"

 

Well, he has been talking about marrying his brother for a few years now.





​

 

Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association up until 1973.
Things don't change overnight.

It takes time to change laws that have existed a long time, and it's happening.
I don't know why there's so much complaining and impatience.

 

If you haven't figured that out by now I feel sorry for you. Try telling Gay and Lesbian citizens that things don't change overnight when they already know that they are fully entitled to the very *same* rights you have under the Fourteenth Amendment, if you're straight, and see what they tell you.

 

Mariage isnt limited to men and women because they are "straight". One or even both of them could be homosexual. And two men are excluded, even if they are straight. Government has no concern as to the sexual orientation of the participants. Marriage is limited to men and women because they are of the opposite sex, regardless of their sexual orientation which is irrelevant.

 

Because I would have no constituional argument against marriage between any two consenting adults. Marriage EQUALITY, as opposed to purposeful discrimination for the benefit of the gays.

 

I would have no constituional argument against marriage between any two consenting adults. Marriage EQUALITY, as opposed to purposeful discrimination for the benefit of the gays.

 

This is his other part of that....claiming he has no Constitutional argument against marriage between two consenting adults......and he DOESN'T.

But saying that giving that right to gays is "discrimination".....against all the brothers and sisters, and grandmothers and granddaughters who want to marry.

It's disengenuousness, naturally. Like the so-called "liberatarians" who claim "I want Government out of marriage entirely"....but who know that's not going to happen, it's just their way of supporting the homophobic Social Cons while PRETENDING to still be "libertarians".

Doesn't matter...as noted in the OP...the Republican Party now sees no "profit" (electorally) in pandering to these guys.

 

Well, I didnt say their intent was going to be effective. From the Califonia case, In re Marriage.

They want more "respect" from society for gays and more "dignity" for them. "Promoting homosexuality".

- - - Updated - - -

String together a few words to state why, if you can.

 

No ones asking you to discriminate for the benefit or harm based on religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation.





​

 

Get off it already will you. You protest way too much. You are obsessed with homosexuality and it would be interesting to know why you are? After all, if you aren't Gay yourself it shouldn't be bothering you as much. The only ones who should really be affected and bothered by the slow action on receiving their fully deserved rights are members of the LGBT community because it directly affects them and their families and status. As for all others, best advise is don't poke your nose into other people's business that does not directly concern you.

 

Only thing that obsesses me is adhering to the Constitution and it sickens me to see the tortuous twisting of the facts and law used to enable them to ignore it and reach the results they would prefer. Sickens me to see the Federal courts insisting that it is the role of government to win more "respect" and "dignity" for homosexuals, and using purposeful discrimination to bring it about. Sickens me that the government cant promote mothers and fathers providing and caring for their children together as opposed to the alternative of only one or neither of them doing so, because it offends the oh so delicate sensibilities of homosexuals who cant participate.

 

LOLOL! Says the guy who insists that government poke their nose into homosexual relationships with licensing and regulation, that have never been licensed and regulated before.