What contract? I don’t have a contract with my wife.
Ya… That’s why you both sign that little certificate as does the priest (or whoever) and, iirc, it’s notarized.
1 Like
That would be “YOU’RE” stupid
1 Like
Probably referring to the marriage license… the one they want “equal rights” to obtain in places where the yokels don’t protest too much?
Thx for the clarification. Us gen X’rs don’t always get online humor
What I was TRYING to say is that I’d walk if sensitivity training was demanded. And I’d find another job ya dork!
Against their existence? You honestly think that? I don’t care if they exist or not. I just want the constant whining to stop! And civil rights? They can have their civil rights, and apparently added some to the standard list, as long as no one messes with my right to be uncivil about it 
Oh they’re persistent buggers I’ll give 'em that.
If only!
You mean the marriage license? The license the state gave us to authorize our marriage, and put us into a contract as laid out in the state statutes, subject to change at any time by the state legislature, without our consent?
If not for similar procedures across the country, how many marriages across the country would really have a contract, and more importantly how would propose protecting a spouse that perhaps dedicated her life to homemaking, only to have her husband leave for someone younger during midlife and taking his income and assets with him?
You want to know why the gays feel the need to continue demonstrating publicly. I tried to explain that, despite finally obtaining the legal right to be married, homosexuals continue to feel (justifiably) that this right is not secure. Seemingly once every week or two (28 bills in 2016, 16 bills so far in 2017) a state legislature introduces a bill that attempts to roll this back in some way; most recently, the form has been to say “Fine, you gays can be married, but the local clerk/magistrate/justice doesn’t have to give you a license if they don’t feel like it” - which is pretty nakedly discrimination.
Given that, it shouldn’t be terribly surprising that homosexuals continue to demonstrate publicly. Stop introducing bills that threaten their equal rights, and there’s no need for ongoing demonstrations. Keep introducing those bills, and yeah, they’re gonna keep protesting.
Um, yes. Putting homosexual marraige aside, there are a fair number of countries in the world where same-sex sexual activity is grounds for imprisonment.
If you just peruse the history of this website, you can find plenty of threads where people called homosexuality a disease or personality disorder. Like, um, this guy:
Calling someone’s sexual preferences a mental DISORDER isn’t that far of a cry from saying that they shouldn’t exist.
What civil rights do homosexuals have added to the standard list?
As noted earlier in the thread: my wife is a musician, a community that has a higher-than-usual representation of homosexual men. So I do have a reasonably large number of gay acquaintances. Most of them just want to be left the fuck alone, just like you. Sit around the campfire with Bubba and Billy Ray and whine about the fags all you want; none of them will complain about that. Introduce a law in the state legislature that pushes back against their right to get married - which they’ve only recently gotten and is still tenuous enough to feel threatened until my generation totally replaces yours - and don’t be surprised that they might have a few words on the matter.
Yup, that’d be the one. License/Contract, it’s just semantics. It is what it is, we can discuss if the state should be involved at all if you’d like, but what you wrote is simply the way it is.
I think most would have an implicit contract under common law as far as I understand it (not a lawyer), which offers some protection in the event of your example.
I’m really not suggesting anything radical. I’m simply suggesting we separate the concept of marriage and the concept of the union/contract in the eyes of the law so that churches get what they want and, uh…, progressives (a good enough term I guess) get what they want.
K so if my religion causes me to not be ok with facilitating a gay marriage (or (x)) on the job then I shouldn’t have my religious freedom recognized? Kind of like the lawsuit against the county clerk in Louisville, Ky? Or any number of caterers who have been sued for not catering a same sex “marriage?” Screw that.
[quote=“ActivitiesGuy, post:670, topic:204383”]
Ok then get “gender dysphoria” removed from the DSM and we can take the “T” off the LBGT. And how many letters are going to end up added anyway?! Geeez, I hope it doesn’t start going by the genus and species of the sweet boys’ favorite bouquets!
That’s Billy Joe dammit!
I hope to hell I am dead long before any shit like that happens.
Oh, as for the countries where it’s legal, we ain’t one of them. I was deployed to one and not even I would want to live in such a place. How about that for a point of agreement?!
Well, shoot. I probably misinterpreted your first post then.
1 Like
Personally, I don’t really get the “sue the caterer” thing. If a baker doesn’t want to bake your wedding cake because they don’t believe in homosexuality, then I don’t really know why you would want that person baking your wedding cake (although I understand why it’s a legal point of contention; allowing the denial of services is an awful lot like denying people service at hotels and restaurants because of their race, a position from which we are only a few decades removed).
It’s a little different when it comes to a county clerk whose legal responsibility is granting marriage licenses. If your religion prevents you from doing something that is a legal part of your job as a public official, then yes, your “religious freedom” has been trumped. The “recognition of religious freedom” protection no longer applies if you literally cannot do a part of your job. As an ex-military man, let’s try this angle: if a member of your unit was given an order and refused to comply, citing their religious beliefs, would you have accepted a defense of “but my religious freedom…”
It happens, lol. We’re probably 99% in agreement if not more.
Stated much more clearly than my post. Thanks for writing it better than I could.
Totally depends on the situation, if it was a lawful order and:or lives are at stake, then the order must be followed (under penalty of death if in wartime.).
Of course the US military has their own law (UCMJ).
And a military unit must act as such (a unit) in order not only to win, but also to survive.
This kind of relates to the conversation. The “don’t ask/don’t tell” thing was being debated while I was active. I was opposed not on personal belief, but on the grounds of personal health risks. At the time most people, myself included, believed it was 99% homosexuals carrying the AIDS virus. Turned out we were incorrect. However, looking back I still think it would’ve been best if homosexuals weren’t allowed to serve but not due to religious convictions on my part, but because of the BS involved in “accommodating” them. And certainly many have served, some with distinction. But that was when the shit was in the closet where IMO it belongs. I fail to see y anyone would advertise it to start with. But then I’m antiquated in the estimation of “progressives” AKA the rainbow and unicorn coalition.
When I was in boot camp, there was a dude I’m pretty sure was homosexual. I was in the head on the commode and while I had one of those spontaneous boners, dude for some reason climbed up to look in and found it necessary to announce that.
Had I been approached for use of said boner, dude would still be trying to remove his combat boot suppository.
Point is, soldiers often live in very close quarters, and if you introduce a homosexual into tight spaces, a wrong word in their part creates a very hazardous situation that wouldn’t be there otherwise. Besides that, soldiers need to be on the same page and focused on the mission. One sweet boy who lacks restraint can blast the hell out of the unit cohesion while risking himself and others as a result. And although a man of honor wouldn’t do this, the guy also puts himself at risk of “friendly fire” rash.
Sorry but you brought up military and I had to respond to that part.
An aside, it could help make the enemy run (with butts covered) to encounter an all gay unit. That’s not a recommendation!
So you are basically obsessed with gay sex and now tell us you had a boner surrounded by dudes. Yeah I’m putting my chips in that you’re a ted haggard or mark foley. Always those that are the most anti-gay that you find diddling young men
You got a random boner surrounded by dudes…
Yeah that guy that called you out must have been TOTALLY GAY. You nailed it
1 Like
Oh sure u caught me 
I had a boner cause I was 18 years old. No different than waking with morning wood in the squad bay, where I’m betting the other guys dealt with the same thing.
But I see no need to defend myself here to you. The diddling little boys comment is repulsive. I’m a father and that shit disgusts me as bad as rape does, which by the way, both crimes should be ones for which vigilante justice is overlooked. And if the vigilantes didn’t catch the offender, tge shit should carry the death penalty. The mere thought of either makes me frickin cringe and get very angry.
I don’t have the time, and possibly not the words, to describe how violently I’d react if someone violated my wife or kids.
But yeah, toss your little hypothesis out. It’s often the case that a guy will “protest too much,” to which you show valid examples (congrats). But MY pecker belongs exclusively to my wife.
Ugh that whole comment you made is sooo disgusting!