Do you support Dixie's solution?

[USFREEDOM911]

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

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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...

Thank you; because after dealing with Dixie and his "75%", everything starts being looked at as suspicious.

This will probably make things even easier; because when the challange comes before the Supreme Court, they can just rule that #2 is discriminitory and Unconstitutional.

Legal same sex marriages will become recognized in Dixie's lifetime.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

And as I offered, elesewhere, that is what's part of living in a free society.
At no point has it ever been suggested that some people won't be offended.
At one time it was an affront to society for two people of different races to date and heaven forbid that they marry; but fortunetly, society has become more enlightened and no longer has to adhere to archaic "norms".

 

[NOVA]

Thank you; because after dealing with Dixie and his "75%", everything starts being looked at as suspicious.

This will probably make things even easier; because when the challange comes before the Supreme Court, they can just rule that #2 is discriminitory and Unconstitutional.

Legal same sex marriages will become recognized in Dixie's lifetime.

Its been 14 years...how long will we have to wait ?

I could believe it, the way the country is heading...polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality becoming legal is probably in our future too....but the pendulum returns to the center every time.... sooner or later....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Its been 14 years...how long will we have to wait ?

I could believe it, the way the country is heading...polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality becoming legal is probably in our future too....but the pendulum returns to the center every time.... sooner or later....

Look how long all other societal changes took to occur.

While polygamy has been around longer then recent history, trying to include pedophilia and bestiality into a discussion on same sex marriages is just hyperbole.

You're right about the pendulum returning to center; but you failed to recognize that the definition of "center" is constantly changing.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Sorry, but all I ever see from you are short little quips only you believe are funny, anti-god rants, and off-topic Grindspeak. I guess you must have been 'advocating' this on another board. But thanks for concurring with me anyway!

Okay, obviously you do not get my jokes, and yes, much of what I post is off-topic Grindspeak. But please do explain the bolded portion to me.

BTW, here's a quote from January of 2008:

I agree, hence my opposition to civil marriage. Without it, we wouldn't have people getting married who are lame enough to wind up in no-fault proceedings.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

Well, my solution gives all parties what they want and desire, and everyone would be happy, except for closed-minded intolerant bigots like you. Y'all won't be happy because you no longer have the issue to bash and trash religion with, but other than that, the gay people are happy and the religious folk are happy, and that is most of America.

I can't speak for everyone, but I will never accept that 'marriage' is between anything other than a man and a woman, and if the law is changed, I will actively lobby for a constitutional amendment to reject any other bullshit definition. It's as far as I am willing to go, to offer a solution that remedies all issues of all sides, can't do much better than that, can't be much more willing to meet in the middle to resolve an issue. It seems you are the one that doesn't want to respect the other side here, you aren't willing to budge one iota on what you want, even when you are given exactly everything you claim you want. That's not good enough for you, it's gotta be Gay Marriage and throwing shit in the face of religion and religious customs, or nothing! And you are going to literally push and push until that's what you get... or so you think. The problem is, people who disagree with you are numerous, and unwilling to go along with your views, and they will reject whatever you try to Fascistly impose on them through the courts by adopting a Constitutional amendment to silence your bigoted stubborn ass forever. I hate to see it come to that, amending the constitution is, in Joe Biden's words, a 'big fucking deal' and not something to be taken lightly, but if that's what it has to come down to, rest assured, it certainly will. I hope cooler heads will prevail and we can work together as responsible adults to solve the problem before that becomes necessary, but if not... no problem.

As for gay people and religion, the couple I have spoken of, who's wedding I attended in 1985, in Alabama, was performed by a Rastafarian minister, and they are devout Rastafarians. I don't know, maybe in your blind stubborn bigotry, you don't count that as "religious" but they certainly believe they are.

 

[NOVA]

Look how long all other societal changes took to occur.

While polygamy has been around longer then recent history, trying to include pedophilia and bestiality into a discussion on same sex marriages is just hyperbole.

You're right about the pendulum returning to center; but you failed to recognize that the definition of "center" is constantly changing.

Hyperbole ? Guess that depends on your frame of reference...or just how far from our traditional norms your center is....like you say, it varies to a degree...
But I think homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality are just variations of the same thing.....deviations from our traditional normal sexuality....

Getting the rank and file to accept one deviation is just the beginning....

 

[apple0154]

I am not advocating that we give the gays civil unions while we keep marriage. If that were what I was saying, I could see your point.

So you think your Repub friends would agree to get rid of marriage all together?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Please tell me what the basis is for your parallel to segregation? I am not advocating that we give the gays civil unions while we keep marriage. If that were what I was saying, I could see your point. You've simply tuned out what I have to say because you are a partisan jerk who can't find a way to be open-minded. Prissy is full of shit just like you, and neither of you are offering ANYTHING to refute my idea, or tell us why you oppose it. And really, there is no reason to oppose it, other than to hang on to the issue because you believe you can get some political mileage out of it. Exploiting the adversity of gay couples for your own political interests... that's what you are doing here.

What's really astounding, is how loyal black people and gays are to Liberal activists like you and Priss. You don't really give a shit about their needs or concerns, you just pretend you do, while rejecting any sort of solution to the problems, and yammering on with your hate-filled rants at the right. When is America going to wake up and wise up to this?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well, my solution gives all parties what they want and desire, and everyone would be happy, except for closed-minded intolerant bigots like you. Y'all won't be happy because you no longer have the issue to bash and trash religion with, but other than that, the gay people are happy and the religious folk are happy, and that is most of America.

I can't speak for everyone, but I will never accept that 'marriage' is between anything other than a man and a woman, and if the law is changed, I will actively lobby for a constitutional amendment to reject any other bullshit definition. It's as far as I am willing to go, to offer a solution that remedies all issues of all sides, can't do much better than that, can't be much more willing to meet in the middle to resolve an issue. It seems you are the one that doesn't want to respect the other side here, you aren't willing to budge one iota on what you want, even when you are given exactly everything you claim you want. That's not good enough for you, it's gotta be Gay Marriage and throwing shit in the face of religion and religious customs, or nothing! And you are going to literally push and push until that's what you get... or so you think. The problem is, people who disagree with you are numerous, and unwilling to go along with your views, and they will reject whatever you try to Fascistly impose on them through the courts by adopting a Constitutional amendment to silence your bigoted stubborn ass forever. I hate to see it come to that, amending the constitution is, in Joe Biden's words, a 'big fucking deal' and not something to be taken lightly, but if that's what it has to come down to, rest assured, it certainly will. I hope cooler heads will prevail and we can work together as responsible adults to solve the problem before that becomes necessary, but if not... no problem.

As for gay people and religion, the couple I have spoken of, who's wedding I attended in 1985, in Alabama, was performed by a Rastafarian minister, and they are devout Rastafarians. I don't know, maybe in your blind stubborn bigotry, you don't count that as "religious" but they certainly believe they are.

Now the true Dixie comes out.
Everyone that doesn't agree with Dixie are "closed-minded intolerant bigots".
I wasn't aware that you had been appointed to be the Universal Judge of everyone else.

Now add in this, "...I will never accept that 'marriage' is between anything other than a man and a woman, and if the law is changed, I will actively lobby for a constitutional amendment to reject any other bullshit definition.", and you have Dixie's true meaning his agenda.

Dixie is a bigot and legal same sex marriages scare him.

You have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
YOU HAVE FAILED.

 

[NOVA]

And as I offered, elesewhere, that is what's part of living in a free society.
At no point has it ever been suggested that some people won't be offended.
At one time it was an affront to society for two people of different races to date and heaven forbid that they marry; but fortunetly, society has become more enlightened and no longer has to adhere to archaic "norms".

Thats true, the pendulum swings both ways,....but the point I was making is what Dixie said was clear.
He did not say homosexuals weren't religious or were non-believers of something...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So you think your Repub friends would agree to get rid of marriage all together?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I didn't advocate "get rid of marriage altogether" except from a legal governmental perspective. Churches would still perform marriage, people could still have weddings, there would be no difference.

I don't know what "Republicans" would agree to, but I think most reasonable mainstream Americans would support my idea overwhelmingly, as they have in this poll. I personally don't care about a political party or what they want, I understand that is where your primary loyalty lies, but honestly, some of us don't have our head up a political party's ass so far we can't be reasonable.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Hyperbole ? Guess that depends on your frame of reference...or just how far from our traditional norms your center is....like you say, it varies to a degree...
But I think homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality are just variations of the same thing.....deviations from our traditional normal sexuality....

Getting the rank and file to accept one deviation is just the beginning....

Your inclusion of everything into the same variation now places you into the same category of those that object to certain sexual acts between hetrosexual couples.
Just thougth I'd point that out, to you.

 

[apple0154]

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.

Fine, Dixie. As long as any proposed law included "any and all benefits bestowed on married couples must also apply to civil union couples and legal interpretations of "marriage" and "civil unions" must be interchangeable."

Then, no problem. That would ensure no special privileges for one.

Agreed?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

My solution to the "Gay Marriage" issue, which gives everyone what they claim to want, and solves all the problems:

1. Governments no longer issue "Marriage" licenses.
2. They are replaced with a Civil Union contract instead.
3. Churches can continue to "marry" whoever they please.
4. CU contracts would be between two consenting adults regardless of their relationship.
5. Tax breaks, insurance, and other benefits associated with "married" couples, would then apply to any couple with a CU contract.
6. Old "Marriage Licenses" would be recognized as a CU contract.

This solution removes any issue of sexuality, and any issue of religious beliefs. It puts the issue of "gay marriage" to rest forever, and removes our government from the sanctioning of a religious tradition and custom or basing laws on sexual behaviors. There is no 'slippery slope' and there is no 'discrimination' and everyone is happy! Problem Solved!

Do you support this solution? If not, please explain why.

Civil marriage isn't the same as religious marriage already. I don't really care if it's called a "civil marriage" or a "civil union". There just needs to be a legal system put in place to deal with these situations.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Thats true, the pendulum swings both ways,....but the point I was making is what Dixie said was clear.
He did not say homosexuals weren't religious or were non-believers of something...

He was the one that kept tossing out the idea of religion; but he failed to take into account that even religious norms continue to change.

 

[NOVA]

Now the true Dixie comes out.
Everyone that doesn't agree with Dixie are "closed-minded intolerant bigots".
I wasn't aware that you had been appointed to be the Universal Judge of everyone else.

Now add in this, "...I will never accept that 'marriage' is between anything other than a man and a woman, and if the law is changed, I will actively lobby for a constitutional amendment to reject any other bullshit definition.", and you have Dixie's true meaning his agenda.

Dixie is a bigot and legal same sex marriages scare him.

You have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
YOU HAVE FAILED.

I don't if you are religious or what doctrine you adhere to, but one can use that ""closed-minded intolerant bigots" line to describe any of those that don't agree with you....

You seem to be guilty of the very intolerance you accuse Dixie of, can't you see that?

Some will never accept Jesus Christ as God or befriend a Jew or vote for a Morman...thats the way it is....
but I accept their right to believe as they see fit and not judge them as only as bigots....personally, I don't care unless it directly affects me....as in Government kowtowing to another special interest....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now the true Dixie comes out.
Everyone that doesn't agree with Dixie are "closed-minded intolerant bigots".
I wasn't aware that you had been appointed to be the Universal Judge of everyone else.

Now add in this, "...I will never accept that 'marriage' is between anything other than a man and a woman, and if the law is changed, I will actively lobby for a constitutional amendment to reject any other bullshit definition.", and you have Dixie's true meaning his agenda.

Dixie is a bigot and legal same sex marriages scare him.

You have been weighed and measured and found to be wanting.
YOU HAVE FAILED.

I've said this all along, I've made no secret of my personal views. Stop acting like I have hidden this and suddenly you have discovered it. I also didn't say if you disagree with me you are a closed minded intolerant bigot, but if you can't articulate a coherent reason for opposing a rational and reasonable idea to resolve an issue, and you stubbornly cling to your viewpoint without respect or regard for any other, what the fuck else would you call that? It's textbook BIGOTRY!

My "agenda" is simple, to RESOLVE a problem. To find a SOLUTION to an issue, that gives all sides what they claim to want! I think I have presented that, and I think you have played a good game of 'duck and dodge' with it, to avoid admitting why you won't accept the solution I proposed. It is YOUR agenda that seems to be hidden here, and I think we are beginning to see, it's certainly NOT about the plight of homosexual couples, or anything other than your bigoted prejudice against religion and the right. Otherwise, you could be like Mott and set aside your partisanship for this, and realize it is a solution to the problem, and gives homosexual couples every single thing they want. You can't do that, because you are an intolerant bigot, mired in your own hatred for the right and religion, and you will fight to the death to keep this issue going, so you can continue to insult and hurl your hatred for others with impunity. You're just a disgusting individual with no morals and no principles, and devoid of any ability to compromise in any way.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I don't if you are religious or what doctrine you adhere to, but one can use that ""closed-minded intolerant bigots" line to describe any of those that don't agree with you....

You seem to be guilty of the very intolerance you accuse Dixie of, can't you see that?

Some will never accept Jesus Christ as God or befriend a Jew or vote for a Morman...thats the way it is....
but I accept their right to believe as they see fit and not judge them as only as bigots....personally, I don't care unless it directly affects me....as in Government kowtowing to another special interest....

"...Government kowtowing to another special interest...."

As in Universal Health Care, Freddy and Fanny Mac, HUD, Food Stamps, the Civil Rights Movement, voting for women, Interracial marriages, etc.??

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Fine, Dixie. As long as any proposed law included "any and all benefits bestowed on married couples must also apply to civil union couples and legal interpretations of "marriage" and "civil unions" must be interchangeable."

Then, no problem. That would ensure no special privileges for one.

Agreed?

Absolutely, that is exactly what I am proposing. There would be no "separate but equal" bullshit, as far as federal and state government goes, they would recognize only one thing, a CU contract. All current 'marriages' would effectively become CU contracts as far as the government is concerned, and all CU contracts would be subject to the same consideration as traditional marriages are now given, in any and all legal matters. It's just a real simple idea and solution, and it gives all sides what they want. I'm glad you finally came around to seeing what I am saying here.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I've said this all along, I've made no secret of my personal views. Stop acting like I have hidden this and suddenly you have discovered it. I also didn't say if you disagree with me you are a closed minded intolerant bigot, but if you can't articulate a coherent reason for opposing a rational and reasonable idea to resolve an issue, and you stubbornly cling to your viewpoint without respect or regard for any other, what the fuck else would you call that? It's textbook BIGOTRY!

My "agenda" is simple, to RESOLVE a problem. To find a SOLUTION to an issue, that gives all sides what they claim to want! I think I have presented that, and I think you have played a good game of 'duck and dodge' with it, to avoid admitting why you won't accept the solution I proposed. It is YOUR agenda that seems to be hidden here, and I think we are beginning to see, it's certainly NOT about the plight of homosexual couples, or anything other than your bigoted prejudice against religion and the right. Otherwise, you could be like Mott and set aside your partisanship for this, and realize it is a solution to the problem, and gives homosexual couples every single thing they want. You can't do that, because you are an intolerant bigot, mired in your own hatred for the right and religion, and you will fight to the death to keep this issue going, so you can continue to insult and hurl your hatred for others with impunity. You're just a disgusting individual with no morals and no principles, and devoid of any ability to compromise in any way.

You just want to resolve it, to your own ends; you've just tried to hide your agenda in your pleas of "compassion" and "caring".

You have shown yourself as one who cares nothing about the Gay situation; because if you did, you would put aside your own personal bigotted feelings and work towards them having the ability to have legal same sex MARRIAGES, which would allow them the same rights and priviliges offered to those who aren't Gay.

Methinks thou doth protest to much and you should remove the plank from thy own eye first.