Do you support Dixie's solution?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's not true. I have two gay siblings. Both support gay marriage issues but both feel that in the grand scheme of things and our national priorities and common sense, it's about 300th on their list of priorities. It would be nice to have the same freedoms that we do and they advocate this.

Just because many gays are not activist on this issue does not mean they are not involved or supportive of it.

As an example. I'm not an environmental activist and never really have been but I am a deeply committed environmentalist.

I can say from my own personal experience, the gay couple that I am close friends with, the ones who's wedding I attended in 1985, are moderate conservatives. They do not support the "Gay Marriage" thing, because they realize it is an affront to religion and religious customs and traditions of others. They also realize the idea is very unpopular and stands virtually no chance of becoming law anytime in the near future. They would love to have the benefits of a traditional married couple, and they support my idea because they understand it is something that could enable them to have those benefits, while still protecting religious sanctity, and it's also a pragmatic common-sense solution to the problem that could happen, people would support it, they could realize the benefits they desire through something like that, as opposed to this hopeless 'push' for Gay Marriage.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What you don't understand Dix is that most queers don't support gay marriage either. This is an issue supported by a militant fringe who have convinced enough socially liberal folk that this is somehow an issue of human rights. These lib-tards see this as a way to demonize social conservatives for political gain. I'm not buying any of it.

I think the responses of Prissy, Stringy, USFREEDOM and Apple will prove unequivocally, they are merely wanting to hold on to an issue rather than finding a solution. To them, this has become some partisan issue they can use as a catalyst for their hate-filled rhetoric toward the right, and it serves a functional purpose to them as an issue, they can't afford to lose it by solving the problem. If we resolve it, then they have no more issue to harp about, and call us racists and homophobes over. They could care less about what homosexuals want, that doesn't really matter one bit to them. It's about politics, it's about having some means to castigate the right, and smear shit on religious institutions. Their lack of rebuttal to my solution proves that.

Yes, I realize, as a percentage of the general population, this is not a big problem, and not that big of a deal, but I am understanding of the problems faced by gay couples in America, and I have friends who this directly effects. So, I can be compassionate toward their needs and wants, and I can understand the need to do something to remedy the problems they face. I also realize the religious sanctity aspects, and how this is effecting their needs and wants as well. But here's the thing... We have so many problems we simply can't find a 'compromise' solution for... Whether we are going to be Socialists or Capitalists is one... I don't have a freaking solution to satisfy all sides of that issue, I don't think one exists! But here is an issue that a solution IS possible, we CAN fix this.

This forum is probably well above the national average in terms of support for Gay Marriage, we see thread after thread devoted to it, and as a per capita percentage, we clearly have a slanted perspective toward Gay Marriage here, as opposed to the nation as a whole. Now, look at the response to this poll, with a larger than average contingent of support for Gay Marriage, my solution is polling above 80% approval, that should tell you something. People respond to common sense solutions, which address all sides of an issue, even when they aren't getting their way 100%, even when they have to compromise somewhat, because we appreciate real solutions. It's not a 'left/right' issue, it's an issue of right and wrong, and a matter of finding a viable solution to please all sides. That's what I have presented, and that is what the activist liberal asswipes continue to reject without even giving a valid reason for their rejection. I think it is stunningly revealing of where they are coming from, and I am glad they are exposing themselves for the frauds they are for the whole world to see.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

LOL... IT won't bother me one bit. As I said, IF they do, we pass a Constitutional amendment and render their ruling irrelevant. So, either way, you aren't going to have Gay Marriage. Maybe that's what needs to happen, so we can "evolve" to a point where reasonable people can settle the issue with a simple solution as I have articulated? If so, that's fine with me, I just wish gay couples could get the benefits they wish to enjoy, and I think it's a shame people like you are preventing that from happening now.

It really is sad that while you say you care about the situation, you are really a closet homophobe.
Just think. If you really cared; you would push for equality in marriages and then those who would have a same sex marriage, would be able to enjoy all the benefits that other married couples do.

It's going to be a shame that those "we", that you continue to speak of, are going to be so depressed when the Supreme Court rule that same sex marriages are legal and there won't be a need for an amendment to force you into the 21st century.

But then it's always been that way with bigots like you.

 

[NOVA]

I'm not ready to kowtow to the homos...they can, right now, go to any lawyer and arrange for a civil contract...stipulating any rights and privileges to each other as they see fit.....to say they are married to each other in the traditional sense is just ludicrous, ... absurd to the point of laughter...

If two men or two women want to have sex together, thats their own business, they can teabag in the privacy of their bedroom without interference. If they want special tax treatment, go for it.......but to claim marriage together is ridiculous...

Reminds me of a women that has a sex change operation into a man and then claims, HES pregnant...its laughable on its face and ludicrous that some in the media actually goes along with the insanity and treats its as legitimate....its a world gone fuckin' bonkers to appease the lunatic fringe...

 

[Cypress]

I think the responses of Prissy, Stringy, USFREEDOM and Apple will prove unequivocally, they are merely wanting to hold on to an issue rather than finding a solution. To them, this has become some partisan issue they can use as a catalyst for their hate-filled rhetoric toward the right, and it serves a functional purpose to them as an issue, they can't afford to lose it by solving the problem.......

I love when republicans claim they are willing to “negotiate” in good faith for a solution.

I refer you to health care, wall street regulatory reform, stimulus bill, or climate change if you want to believe that hilarious baloney.

You know why I don’t think liberals don’t need to “negotiate” with you Dixie? For one, your “solution” won’t work. See my previous post for details.

The second reason is, that gay marriage is going to happen in the near future, with or without your support. The trajectory of the polls showing public support for it gains traction every year. It’s almost 50% support now. What was it like just a few years ago? Like 20%, or less?. The deal is that all you anti-gay old farts are dying off, and younger people are cool with gay marriage. In short, Professor Dixie, demographics and time are passing you by. Rapidly. You’re fighting a losing rear guard action. Why negotiate with your dumb “solution” when history is going to pass you by in a few years, and leave tire tracks across your face?

I love the canard you are floating, that republicans are totally on board with making civil unions legal. Please name some republican governors, and republican-led state legislatures in the flyover states who have proactively introduced and passionately supported legal civil unions for gays.

I won’t wait for you to google. Because I know the answer. Outside of the few remaining northeastern and progressive republican wing, there hasn’t been any.

You know it. I know it. So getting on a message board, and proclaiming that republicans are totally cool with singing Kumbaya on this issue is a phony charade.

To borrow your immortal words: “You’re getting gay marriage, damn it!”

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I pretty much agree with you for once Dixie. Having gay siblings it would be nice to see this option available to them. They have been in monogomous relationships for a long time. That should be respected. I also agree with you that I view marriage as a holy covenant between man/woman and their creator.

But let me ask you this Dixie, if a recognized Church, such as, the Anglican or the Methodist were to recognize gay unions as a holy covenant too, would you accept those as "marriages" in your eyes?

This was an issue that I hadn't broached with him yet; because it seems like Dixie feels Gay's can't be religious.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It really is sad that while you say you care about the situation, you are really a closet homophobe.
Just think. If you really cared; you would push for equality in marriages and then those who would have a same sex marriage, would be able to enjoy all the benefits that other married couples do.

It's going to be a shame that those "we", that you continue to speak of, are going to be so depressed when the Supreme Court rule that same sex marriages are legal and there won't be a need for an amendment to force you into the 21st century.

But then it's always been that way with bigots like you.

I guess I should let all my gay friends know I am a closet homophobe because some bigot on a message board said so, huh? They will be shocked to hear that revelation... hell, I'm shocked to hear it myself! I never knew!

And I guess you are just going to continue to ignore the fact that the SCOTUS does not trump a Constitutional amendment, and any ruling they may have, would not prevent passage of such an amendment. You are so stupid, you probably think the SCOTUS determines what amendments can be passed into law, or something. I have no idea why you keep bringing them up, as if they will ultimately decide on this.

I'm through discussing things with you, because 1.) you are stupid, and 2.) you are repeating the same stupidity over and over, with another layer of insults and ad homenim attacks. I don't have time to deal with that. Sorry, grow up and find a way to articulate a point that makes sense, and stop relying on petty insults to get you through a conversation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I honestly don't think that's Dixie's intent here. I know I pretty much share his views on this and all cynicism aside, I deeply belief that gays should have the same domestic partnership rights as heterosexuals, but to me marriage is a religious institution as well as a civil one.

Did you record your license with only the Church or with the Government??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I can say from my own personal experience, the gay couple that I am close friends with, the ones who's wedding I attended in 1985, are moderate conservatives. They do not support the "Gay Marriage" thing, because they realize it is an affront to religion and religious customs and traditions of others. They also realize the idea is very unpopular and stands virtually no chance of becoming law anytime in the near future. They would love to have the benefits of a traditional married couple, and they support my idea because they understand it is something that could enable them to have those benefits, while still protecting religious sanctity, and it's also a pragmatic common-sense solution to the problem that could happen, people would support it, they could realize the benefits they desire through something like that, as opposed to this hopeless 'push' for Gay Marriage.

So individual Gay's can't be religious or have religious customs??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I think the responses of Prissy, Stringy, USFREEDOM and Apple will prove unequivocally, they are merely wanting to hold on to an issue rather than finding a solution. To them, this has become some partisan issue they can use as a catalyst for their hate-filled rhetoric toward the right, and it serves a functional purpose to them as an issue, they can't afford to lose it by solving the problem. If we resolve it, then they have no more issue to harp about, and call us racists and homophobes over. They could care less about what homosexuals want, that doesn't really matter one bit to them. It's about politics, it's about having some means to castigate the right, and smear shit on religious institutions. Their lack of rebuttal to my solution proves that.

Yes, I realize, as a percentage of the general population, this is not a big problem, and not that big of a deal, but I am understanding of the problems faced by gay couples in America, and I have friends who this directly effects. So, I can be compassionate toward their needs and wants, and I can understand the need to do something to remedy the problems they face. I also realize the religious sanctity aspects, and how this is effecting their needs and wants as well. But here's the thing... We have so many problems we simply can't find a 'compromise' solution for... Whether we are going to be Socialists or Capitalists is one... I don't have a freaking solution to satisfy all sides of that issue, I don't think one exists! But here is an issue that a solution IS possible, we CAN fix this.

This forum is probably well above the national average in terms of support for Gay Marriage, we see thread after thread devoted to it, and as a per capita percentage, we clearly have a slanted perspective toward Gay Marriage here, as opposed to the nation as a whole. Now, look at the response to this poll, with a larger than average contingent of support for Gay Marriage, my solution is polling above 80% approval, that should tell you something. People respond to common sense solutions, which address all sides of an issue, even when they aren't getting their way 100%, even when they have to compromise somewhat, because we appreciate real solutions. It's not a 'left/right' issue, it's an issue of right and wrong, and a matter of finding a viable solution to please all sides. That's what I have presented, and that is what the activist liberal asswipes continue to reject without even giving a valid reason for their rejection. I think it is stunningly revealing of where they are coming from, and I am glad they are exposing themselves for the frauds they are for the whole world to see.

But I did offer a solution.
Allow Gay's to have same sex marriages and thereby allowing them to have all the benefits that come from it.
You seem to ignore this; because it scares you.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I guess I should let all my gay friends know I am a closet homophobe because some bigot on a message board said so, huh? They will be shocked to hear that revelation... hell, I'm shocked to hear it myself! I never knew!

They probably allready suspected it; but were to polite to mention it to you personnally.

And I guess you are just going to continue to ignore the fact that the SCOTUS does not trump a Constitutional amendment, and any ruling they may have, would not prevent passage of such an amendment.
You are so stupid, you probably think the SCOTUS determines what amendments can be passed into law, or something. I have no idea why you keep bringing them up, as if they will ultimately decide on this.

I've always been amazed when bigots find it necessary to try and get an Amendment to protect their archaic views; but I"m not concerned, because it's not going to happen.

I'm through discussing things with you, because 1.) you are stupid, and 2.) you are repeating the same stupidity over and over, with another layer of insults and ad homenim attacks. I don't have time to deal with that. Sorry, grow up and find a way to articulate a point that makes sense, and stop relying on petty insults to get you through a conversation.

It is truly a shame that you are so scared of oppossing views that you want to hide from the truth.

 

[NOVA]

But I did offer a solution.
Allow Gay's to have same sex marriages and thereby allowing them to have all the benefits that come from it.
You seem to ignore this; because it scares you.

Your beef is with your messiah....petition his holiness....
in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Your beef is with your messiah....petition his holiness....
in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.

Why would my beef be with GOD??
I don't believe that he has backed any of the marriage laws we currently have.

Anyway, back to the discussion; would you care to show this definition that absolutely used the verbage you have presented.

 

[NOVA]

Why would my beef be with GOD??
I don't believe that he has backed any of the marriage laws we currently have.

Anyway, back to the discussion; would you care to show this definition that absolutely used the verbage you have presented.

I don't have a copy of the "Defense of Marriage Act" that was passed in Clintons term, but I understand that is what is says....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I love when republicans claim they are willing to “negotiate” in good faith for a solution.

I am not a Republican, I am an Independent. And if you'll notice, two prominent righties have posted to my proposal, and I don't think they support me on this. So, the idea this is a "republican" thing, is totally baseless. This is MY idea, and MY proposal to solve a problem. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with Republicans or what they support or advocate, as you will go on to point out further down in your comments. Not many fucktards contradict their own point in the same post, leave it to you to do so!

You know why I don’t think liberals don’t need to “negotiate” with you Dixie? For one, your “solution” won’t work. See my previous post for details.

I addressed your previous post, you are full of horse shit. Nothing you said was valid, and nothing you pointed out would not be remedied by my solution. It would indeed work to get gay couples everything they claim to want, and I think it would stand a very good chance of being accepted by mainstream Americans. Whether Republicans would embrace it or not, I have no idea, but it's obvious the godless liberal sycophants don't want to accept ANY solution, they just want to keep pounding the issue for pure political reasons.

The second reason is, that gay marriage is going to happen in the near future, with or without your support. The trajectory of the polls showing public support for it gains traction every year. It’s almost 50% support now. What was it like just a few years ago? Like 20%, or less?. The deal is that all you anti-gay old farts are dying off, and younger people are cool with gay marriage. In short, Professor Dixie, demographics and time are passing you by. Rapidly. You’re fighting a losing rear guard action. Why negotiate with your dumb “solution” when history is going to pass you by in a few years, and leave tire tracks across your face?

Gay Marriage has failed miserable in every ballot initiative. I don't know why you are trying to delude yourself into believing otherwise. Why do you think even the most radical liberals like Obama, are not in favor of it? It's because they KNOW it would be political suicide to support Gay Marriage. No, it's not going to happen, and if by some miracle the SCOTUS is packed with left-wing kooks and they rule on it, we will pass a Constitutional amendment to render their ruling irrelevant. Like I said, maybe that is the road we need to go down, and then, after it's part of the Constitution, people like you and USF will come crawling to me with your hat in hand, asking... Now what was that idea you had again, Dix? Of course, by then, I might change my mind on the whole thing and tell you to go suck a fucking egg!

I love the canard you are floating, that republicans are totally on board with making civil unions legal. Please name some republican governors, and republican-led state legislatures in the flyover states who have proactively introduced and passionately supported legal civil unions for gays.

I won’t wait for you to google. Because I know the answer. Outside of the few remaining northeastern and progressive republican wing, there hasn’t been any.

You know it. I know it. So getting on a message board, and proclaiming that republicans are totally cool with singing Kumbaya on this issue is a phony charade.

Ahh, so your opening line about "when republicans claim they are willing to 'negotiate' in good faith" was a flat out LIE on your part. Glad you revealed your LIE for everyone in the same post, it saves me the time and effort pointing it out to everyone. I don't recall saying "republicans are on board" with my idea, in fact, as I pointed out, two 'repubs' have weighed in on this thread, with less than enthusiastic support for my idea.

To borrow your immortal words: “You’re getting gay marriage, damn it!”

Uhm, no... that's not going to happen anytime soon, sorry Prissy!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But I did offer a solution.
Allow Gay's to have same sex marriages and thereby allowing them to have all the benefits that come from it.
You seem to ignore this; because it scares you.

Can't do it because it doesn't respect all sides of the issue. You are a bigot who only sees one side, your side, and all other sides are irrelevant to you. That's where the fundamental problem lies, with YOU and your bigoted view.

I don't know why you keep saying I am "scared" of something. I guess this makes you feel tough or strong or something, I am unclear on that. I can assure you, nothing much scares me, particularly not gay activists. I am "concerned" about gay couples receiving the benefits they desire, and I am willing to work toward a viable solution to their problems, but Gay Marriage is not an option, and never will be as long as there is religion in America.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't have a copy of the "Defense of Marriage Act" that was passed in Clintons term, but I understand that is what is says....

You UNDERSTAND that is what it says!!

Gotcha

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Can't do it because it doesn't respect all sides of the issue. You are a bigot who only sees one side, your side, and all other sides are irrelevant to you. That's where the fundamental problem lies, with YOU and your bigoted view.

I don't know why you keep saying I am "scared" of something. I guess this makes you feel tough or strong or something, I am unclear on that. I can assure you, nothing much scares me, particularly not gay activists. I am "concerned" about gay couples receiving the benefits they desire, and I am willing to work toward a viable solution to their problems, but Gay Marriage is not an option, and never will be as long as there is religion in America.

That's one of the drawbacks of living in a free society. Not everyone is going to be happy about decisions; but hopefully those like you will be adult enough to accept this, when you are shown to be in error.

You seem to suggest that a Gay person, or a gay couple, can't be religious.

 

[NOVA]

You UNDERSTAND that is what it says!!

Gotcha

You have a clever way of ignoring the facts, don't you/

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act"]Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States." src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/140px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/140px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png[/ame]

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

In a June 1996 interview Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

I "understand" he has since change his tune some....
I hope YOU now have some 'understanding' also...

 

[NOVA]

That's one of the drawbacks of living in a free society. Not everyone is going to be happy about decisions; but hopefully those like you will be adult enough to accept this, when you are shown to be in error.

You seem to suggest that a Gay person, or a gay couple, can't be religious.

And you're obviously having a little trouble with the written word...
Dixie said:
" because they realize it is an affront to religion and religious customs and traditions of others."

Now notice the words "OF OTHERS" in his post ?

that should clarify what he meant....as opposed to what "you think" he meant.