How Long

[Bright Raven]

Queer covers both sexes, no need in all the other slang names for the same thing. IMO
If seeing two queers hugging and kissing don't want to make you puke, your weird.

Nope. I only notice it is not normal reproductive courtship. If normal is the correct term.

 

[Bright Raven]

Bright Raven you say, "Tolerance is not difficult. It is a function of being secure in yourself, respecting other's liberties and rights, and self discipline."

It must be difficult, because people in general, don't possess the qualities you say are required for that result.

Maybe tolerance can be easily defined, but much more difficult to practice?

Read bball's post. He nailed it as good as I can.

 

[XXX10]

thanks

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

thanks

You're welcome.

 

[greybeard]

thanks

search.php?author_id=27319&sr=posts

 

[D2Cat]

Greybeard, he's a deep thinker!

 

[Allenw]

Queer covers both sexes, no need in all the other slang names for the same thing. IMO
If seeing two queers hugging and kissing don't want to make you puke, your weird.

Just another issue to distract the people. What's more important two people of the same sex kissing and making out. or the choice between the fast road to socialism from on side or the slow road to socialism from the other?

Don't forget to support the few willing to stand up to the mess we're in.

 

[TexasBred]

As long as you don't try to force your lifestyle on others and expect them to validate, praise, pay for it and expect preferential treatment

To force anyone to validate, praise, pay for or give preferential treatment would infringe upon their liberties and rights. Tolerance is not asking for any of those items. In fact, tolerance endorses those causes.

Whether it be Islam, homosexuality, transgender, race and so on it seems tolerance is one-sided.
They preach tolerance, acceptance and peace, but demand special treatment. If they aren't accommodated they are rioting in the streets.
They don't want equal treatment.
They want special treatment

For some reason these people don't feel like they can really practice their 1st amendment rights without restricting yours and mine.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Queer covers both sexes, no need in all the other slang names for the same thing. IMO
If seeing two queers hugging and kissing don't want to make you puke, your weird.

Just another issue to distract the people. What's more important two people of the same sex kissing and making out. or the choice between the fast road to socialism from on side or the slow road to socialism from the other?

Don't forget to support the few willing to stand up to the mess we're in.

Exactly, this past election was full of misdirection. Both sides talked a bit about education, jobs, infrastructure, etc. But neither side really offered any solutions that were actually realistic. However, we did hear a whole lot about abortion, gay marriage, etc. And the biggest problem is how entrenched people are with their thoughts on it. For what? So two people want to get married? Well, it can't do anything but help the economy, more florists, DJ's, caterers, marriage counselors, divorce lawyers, limo drivers, etc, etc. But a failing education system? Nah, who cares?

 

[Nesikep]

I find it equally rude when a heterosexual couple have their toungues down each others throats in public... get a room!

If people just kept their private lives private, whatever the orientation it would be a lot more agreeable for everyone

Bball. .. well said... it takes concious effort to analyze things and be rational about them and not give in tho knee jerk , populist reactions

 

[True Grit Farms]

Queer covers both sexes, no need in all the other slang names for the same thing. IMO
If seeing two queers hugging and kissing don't want to make you puke, your weird.

Just another issue to distract the people. What's more important two people of the same sex kissing and making out. or the choice between the fast road to socialism from on side or the slow road to socialism from the other?

Don't forget to support the few willing to stand up to the mess we're in.

Exactly, this past election was full of misdirection. Both sides talked a bit about education, jobs, infrastructure, etc. But neither side really offered any solutions that were actually realistic. However, we did hear a whole lot about abortion, gay marriage, etc. And the biggest problem is how entrenched people are with their thoughts on it. For what? So two people want to get married? Well, it can't do anything but help the economy, more florists, DJ's, caterers, marriage counselors, divorce lawyers, limo drivers, etc, etc. But a failing education system? Nah, who cares?

Everything is open for discussion and the people have spoken loud and clear. If our POTUS can elect two more Supreme Court Justices we'll be in good shape for awhile. Like it or not this country was founded on principles, and one of the main principles is marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Everything is open for discussion and the people have spoken loud and clear. If our POTUS can elect two more Supreme Court Justices we'll be in good shape for awhile. Like it or not this country was founded on principles, and one of the main principles is marriage is between a man and a woman.

But who really cares? How does it effect you? Let me phrase it like this: If you're out fixing fence, does gay marriage matter? If you're on your boat, does it matter that two women say "I do" 500 miles away? How has your marriage gotten worse now that gays can get married (I only ask b/c there's an argument that I've seen that it will ruin marriages)? Aren't there more important issues at hand? Over crowding of jails, the endless war in Afghanistan, our education system, lack of jobs, infrastructure issues. There's got to be something on that list I just provided that, surely, is more important than gay marriage.

Finally, it is unconstitutional to deny two people of the same sex the right to get married if straight people are allowed to marry. Article 14; section 1 of the US Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you want to deny people the same rights that are guaranteed to you in the constitution under Article 14, then you must lay down your arms and deny yourself the rights in Article 2 because others in society cannot have guns. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to use and disregard. The Constitution is an all or nothing document.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Everything is open for discussion and the people have spoken loud and clear. If our POTUS can elect two more Supreme Court Justices we'll be in good shape for awhile. Like it or not this country was founded on principles, and one of the main principles is marriage is between a man and a woman.

But who really cares? How does it effect you? Let me phrase it like this: If you're out fixing fence, does gay marriage matter? If you're on your boat, does it matter that two women say "I do" 500 miles away? How has your marriage gotten worse now that gays can get married (I only ask b/c there's an argument that I've seen that it will ruin marriages)? Aren't there more important issues at hand? Over crowding of jails, the endless war in Afghanistan, our education system, lack of jobs, infrastructure issues. There's got to be something on that list I just provided that, surely, is more important than gay marriage.

Finally, it is unconstitutional to deny two people of the same sex the right to get married if straight people are allowed to marry. Article 14; section 1 of the US Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you want to deny people the same rights that are guaranteed to you in the constitution under Article 14, then you must lay down your arms and deny yourself the rights in Article 2 because others in society cannot have guns. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you want to use and disregard. The Constitution is an all or nothing document.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There's no beating around the bush and guessing what was meant in the second amendment. Some things just aren't right and queers getting married is one of them.

 

[Bestoutwest]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There's no beating around the bush and guessing what was meant in the second amendment. Some things just aren't right and queers getting married is one of them.

So, 1) You're telling me that the most pressing issue in America today is whether or not two dudes can get married? and 2) Where is the Georgia State Militia located out of? The only militias that I know of are hardcore right-wingers who go and practice in the woods. Everyone else is National Guard which is, as you know, a subsidy of the national government.

We can both agree that you don't want same-sex couples to be wed (and I will never try to convince you that you should feel otherwise, that's not my prerogative), but what I'm really getting at is that it's not constitutionally OK to bar them from doing so because it denies them the same rights (ie legal protections for spouses) that you're granted, and, on the grand scheme of things is it really that pressing of an issue compared to the nightmare that is healthcare, education, infrastructure, the economy (including national debt), etc?

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There's no beating around the bush and guessing what was meant in the second amendment. Some things just aren't right and queers getting married is one of them.

So, 1) You're telling me that the most pressing issue in America today is whether or not two dudes can get married? and 2) Where is the Georgia State Militia located out of? The only militias that I know of are hardcore right-wingers who go and practice in the woods. Everyone else is National Guard which is, as you know, a subsidy of the national government.

We can both agree that you don't want same-sex couples to be wed (and I will never try to convince you that you should feel otherwise, that's not my prerogative), but what I'm really getting at is that it's not constitutionally OK to bar them from doing so because it denies them the same rights (ie legal protections for spouses) that you're granted, and, on the grand scheme of things is it really that pressing of an issue compared to the nightmare that is healthcare, education, infrastructure, the economy (including national debt), etc?

Why weren't Civil Unions good enough for them?

 

[Bestoutwest]

Why weren't Civil Unions good enough for them?

You'd have to take that up with them. I'm more concerned with the Constitutionality of denying any citizens of the US rights that one group has over another, because at some point the shoe may be on the other foot and I'd rather my rights not become infringed.

 

[TexasBred]

Why weren't Civil Unions good enough for them?

You'd have to take that up with them. I'm more concerned with the Constitutionality of denying any citizens of the US rights that one group has over another, because at some point the shoe may be on the other foot and I'd rather my rights not become infringed.

Then you need to differentiate between "rights" and "privileges"............"inalienable and unalienable".

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Short story.

I'm a mortgage lender by trade and 4-5 years ago I did a loan for a cute young couple (tongue in cheek) who were married in NY state and moved to Tennessee to buy a home. These ladies were mortified that the Great State of Tennessee would not recognize their out of state marriage certificate. So after closing they took swift and decisive action and filed suit against the state saying their civil rights had been violated. That didn't go too far but about a year and a half later they each called me, behind the back of the other, to let me know they were getting a divorce and one wanted to keep the house and refinance it solely into her name and the other wanted me to help her purchase a house "as far away from that evil blankety blank blank...." you get the picture, as possible and still have a reasonable commute to work. Never have I encountered two such bitter people as their relationship crumbled.

The whole episode makes me smile to this day to think that they fought so hard to have the right to marry and ended up finding out it's not all it's cracked up to be. Divorce really stinks.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Why weren't Civil Unions good enough for them?

You'd have to take that up with them. I'm more concerned with the Constitutionality of denying any citizens of the US rights that one group has over another, because at some point the shoe may be on the other foot and I'd rather my rights not become infringed.

Then you need to differentiate between "rights" and "privileges"............"inalienable and unalienable".

Is it a right or a privilege to decide end of life care for a spouse? To stay in the room while one is in critical condition? To receive their pension? I could go on. Whether it's a right or a privilege, doesn't matter, it should be equal across the board.

I'm also a big proponent for the ability for businesses to refuse to do gay weddings. Why not? If they want to deal with the negative press afterward, more power to them. If it where me, I'd take the money. Around here a lot of the beer distributors are Mormons. Also, churches should be able to deny the couple a service under their roof, BUT they need to not be a non-profit organization if they'd like to do that. I'm all for the government taking a big step backward out of everyone's way. It would save us, the taxpayer, a chunk of money that's for sure.

 

[TexasBred]

You'd have to take that up with them. I'm more concerned with the Constitutionality of denying any citizens of the US rights that one group has over another, because at some point the shoe may be on the other foot and I'd rather my rights not become infringed.

Then you need to differentiate between "rights" and "privileges"............"inalienable and unalienable".

Is it a right or a privilege to decide end of life care for a spouse? To stay in the room while one is in critical condition? To receive their pension? I could go on. Whether it's a right or a privilege, doesn't matter, it should be equal across the board.

I'm also a big proponent for the ability for businesses to refuse to do gay weddings. Why not? If they want to deal with the negative press afterward, more power to them. If it where me, I'd take the money. Around here a lot of the beer distributors are Mormons. Also, churches should be able to deny the couple a service under their roof, BUT they need to not be a non-profit organization if they'd like to do that. I'm all for the government taking a big step backward out of everyone's way. It would save us, the taxpayer, a chunk of money that's for sure.

You can't answer a question with a question. Good try though. What's beer distribution got to do with Mormons?? Is it illegal? Around here a lot of beer drinkers are Baptist. No skin off my a$$ except when they don't offer me one. ;-)