Laughable paradox of conservatives preaching their value from an escort review board

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Recognizing "Marriage" for heterosexuals and "civil unions" for gays is not disriminatory ; if civil union provides full public accomodation in contracts, medical issues, estate and other matters.

But civil unions do not provide the same protections.

Kinda like "Seperate but equal'' was a bag full of shit.

To say they provide the same protection is a flat out lie.

Provide them with the same protection and call it what you want but quit saying gays are just wanting others to be PC. They want equal protection under the law. Can you blame them?

The problem as I see it , is not that you righties are for discrimination, you just do not know the facts. Are you really for discrimination Whirly? I highly doubt it. In fact I doubt one sinle righty on here is for discrimination.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

But civil unions do not provide the same protections. No, you are wrong.

Kinda like "Seperate but equal'' was a bag full of shit. No, your analogy is wrong. As General Colin L. Powell said it best: “Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

To say they provide the same protection is a flat out lie.

Provide them with the same protection and call it what you want but quit saying gays are just wanting others to be PC. They want equal protection under the law. Can you blame them?

It's their choice. It's a behavioral choice the LBGT community makes, and nothing prevents them from entering into a traditional man-woman relationship. So where is the discrimination?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's their choice. It's a behavioral choice the LBGT community makes, and nothing prevents them from entering into a traditional man-woman relationship. So where is the discrimination?

Yes it is a choice. Just as a man and a woman marrying is a choice. Why discriminate one choice over the other? Civil unions do not have the same benefits as marriages do. That is a fact

[timpage]

Please. The right are the righteous. Sorry repukes, but you're the ones advocating discrimination against the gays because of your moralistic position. You can call it anything you want but it boils down to you treating somebody different because they are different than you.

It's always the same: Newt Gingrich (divorced how many times?) telling everybody he's the religious conservative. Rush Limbaugh (divorced how many times?) talking about the democrats making war on marriage.

Face it: the religious right controls the republican party. It must make the true intellectual conservatives insane to see those witch-hunters dictating GOP doctrine based on abortion policy, hate the gays policy, arrest the illegals policy, etc etc, rather than concentrating on the things that true conservatives have always focused on: smaller government, free markets, blah blah blah. Instead, their candidates spend all their time dancing around screaming about being pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-god.

[Guest123018-4]

It is simply just another part of the communist agenda.l
Traditional marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. Call it anything you want but a union between two queers is not a marriage.

The plain old truth is that it is about money and the ability of one of the two partners to either be the husband or the wife in the eyes of the law. I say let them be husband and wife and put it on paper so that the world will know which is which and people can quit wondering which is which. Who is the strp-on and who is the strapee. Who is the peter and who is the puffer.
It only makes sense. Once we get to this point we can decflare the family unit as it once was known as dead and chalk up another score for the commies.

[CuteOldGuy]

How does gay marriage help the commies? I don't get it.

It seems like some oppose gay marriage simply because we haven't had gay marriage. I don't see the harm. To me it's a non-issue being challenged only to curry favor with the religious right.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage. I think the 9th and 10th amendments would say this should be left up to the individuals to decide.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yes it is a choice. Just as a man and a woman marrying is a choice. Why discriminate one choice over the other? Civil unions do not have the same benefits as marriages do. That is a fact

Originally Posted by timpage

Please. The right are the righteous. Sorry repukes, but you're the ones advocating discrimination against the gays because of your moralistic position. You can call it anything you want but it boils down to you treating somebody different because they are different than you.

It's always the same: Newt Gingrich (divorced how many times?) telling everybody he's the religious conservative. Rush Limbaugh (divorced how many times?) talking about the democrats making war on marriage.

Face it: the religious right controls the republican party. It must make the true intellectual conservatives insane to see those witch-hunters dictating GOP doctrine based on abortion policy, hate the gays policy, arrest the illegals policy, etc etc, rather than concentrating on the things that true conservatives have always focused on: smaller government, free markets, blah blah blah. Instead, their candidates spend all their time dancing around screaming about being pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-god.

It's the behavioral choice that the LBGT community makes, and nothing prevents them from entering into a traditional man-woman relationship. There is no the discrimination.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by ekim008

far as am concerned both sides are fucked up,however isn't it the conservative side is the moral ones?

The conservatives are the moral ones when it comes to protecting every man and woman’s right to only have missionary sex the same way until they both die of boredom; hatin’ on the gays; starting bogus wars; using boring sex as contraceptives and gushing love on puppies and kittens.

The liberals are the moral ones when it comes to ensuring every person in the United States has cell phones; the poor are taxed into health insurance because it’s good for them; supporting bogus wars; and providing for every last nuance of social welfare for everyone regardless of need or cost and gushing love on puppies and kittens.

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

…………Just because you have values does not mean that you want or will impose a certain morality upon another.
……………………….I really do not care if you are an atheist or have a belief in something, just dont go putting your bullshit on me or infringing my right to believe the way I choose.
Right now I believe I need to get laid.

Amen on all three accounts

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's the behavioral choice that the LBGT community makes, and nothing prevents them from entering into a traditional man-woman relationship. There is no the discrimination.

If the wheels were turned. If only gays could marry and recieve benifits, would you then think it was discrimination?

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

It is simply just another part of the communist agenda.l
Traditional marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. Call it anything you want but a union between two queers is not a marriage.

.

Yea the commies are big on gay marriage!

Tradition is a cop out 2Dogs. Slavery used to be a tradition in the South.

Call it untraditional marriage but give them the exact same rights that straight couples have. Then it is not discrimination , it is just semantics.

[Randy4Candy]

Looks like the OP struck a nerve what with all you parriotriotic "defenders of the republic" scurrying around like cats covering up shit to justify yourselves and defend your overly judgemental outlooks. Your threads and bluster are just funny simply because most of your stuff isn't workable in the real world.

Listen up, dumbfu*ks - everyone's got a little hypocrite working. You TPtards are so ate up with it that you can't even bring yourselves to reality long enough to stop ignoring the obvious. That's just another reason to discount almost anything any of you have to say.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

If the wheels were turned. If only gays could marry and recieve benifits, would you then think it was discrimination?

Once again, another bad analogy. Natural law would have brought an end to such a society in short order. Homosexuals cannot procreate sexually.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Once again, another bad analogy. Natural law would have brought an end to such a society in short order. Homosexuals cannot procreate sexually.

I was not aware that you had to be married to procreate. Is that a natural law that is new to science?

Furthermore, if society choices not to have kids, what business is it of the State/Church?

To not give the same benifits to two couples that both want to get married is discrimination. You can try and justify it with a tradition debate but that is for the old and set in their way crowd.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

The conservatives are the moral ones when it comes to...

The liberals are the moral ones when it comes to...

What about the people who think they're holier than both sides?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I was not aware that you had to be married to procreate. Is that a natural law that is new to science?

Furthermore, if society choices not to have kids, what business is it of the State/Church?

To not give the same benifits to two couples that both want to get married is discrimination. You can try and justify it with a tradition debate but that is for the old and set in their way crowd.

You created the bad analogy; not vice versa.

Furthermore, no where have you established that Civil Unions do not provide the same legal benefits enjoyed by traditional married couples.

Every year thousands of Japanese, Indians, Englishmen and Aussies visit and immigrate to the U.S., and they rent or buy automobiles. They are inclined to drive on the left side of the roadway because that's what they find behaviorally familiar. However, U.S. laws require them to drive on the right side of the road. By your analogy, this subset of people are being discriminated against for a behavioral action. By your analogy, they should be allowed to drive on the left if they are behaviorally inclined to do so lest, as you insist, they be discriminated against.

Sexual orientation is a human behavioral characteristic: it's the LBGT community's choice. It's a behavioral choice the LBGT community makes, and nothing prevents them from entering into a traditional man-woman relationship. So where is the discrimination?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You created the bad analogy; not vice versa.

Furthermore, no where have you established that Civil Unions do not provide the same legal benefits enjoyed by traditional married couples.
?

http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.