"Republicunt": why use terms like this?

[Joods]

That is bigoted. It's extremely anti equal rights.

In your opinion.

It is also the courts opinion as well, otherwise they wouldn't have had same sex marriage legalized, you dolt. Clearly, you prove to anyone reading your drivel that you are the bigoted one here.

---

Except that my wish for my value system to be reflected in civil law does not extend misery to those oppressed and continue to deprive them of their rights.

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

You do understand that "specific sexual proclivities" isn't what equal rights is about, don't you?

In case you don't, let me educate you. Equal rights are about a married, same sex couple being entitled to the same marriage rights that traditional married couples enjoy such as the right to property if a spouse should die. Or adoption rights or health care rights etc. Once you understand that, how about removing your bigoted, rose colored glasses and learn how to love as your god commanded, not hate as you see fit to do.

[Amarok]

I love that bit . He says he's not bigot then reduces homosexuality to a  "sexual proclivities" as if it's no different then a fetish. Which is of course bullshit . Yup not a bigot .

[Joods]

I love that bit . He says he's not bigot then reduces homosexuality to a  "sexual proclivities" as if it's no different then a fetish. Which is of course bullshit . Yup not a bigot .

That's the ignorant for you.

[Ravenshire]

Except that my wish for my value system to be reflected in civil law does not extend misery to those oppressed and continue to deprive them of their rights.

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

You're still arguing this shit? So, sterile people can't get hitched, right along with the gays? Is that your seriously take? Because it certainly seems to be from the number of times you've claimed that a marriage must include the possibility of offspring.

On another note. Since you're such a traditionalist, Chad, are you willing to allow the Mormons their traditional marriages?!?

---

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

In the "good old days" gay couples were denied a lot of specific rights: hospital visitations, child custody, adoption, parenting rights, medical decision-making power, automatic inheritance, standing to sue for wrongful death of a partner, spousal and child support, access to family insurance policies, exemption from property tax upon death of a partner, immunity from being forced to testify against one’s partner, domestic violence protections, etc.

But you knew that. You also know that elderly heterosexual couples who marry are not going to produce offspring but we never denied them the right to marry, so that's a non-starter. I suppose you have no problem with "civil unions" for gay couples. But that seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Language and institutions change and not always for the worse.

Oh, no, Crossless. You're missing Chads very compelling point that gay people have always had the right to deny who they are and enter into a "traditional" marriage.

[Angrboda]

Insults are a form of social disapproval of whatever behavior the other is engaged in. It's a form of applying pressure for change.

[shadow]

Insults are a form of social disapproval of whatever behavior the other is engaged in.  It's a form of applying pressure for change.

So you think Republicans, upon reading 'Republicunt', will reflect upon their views and decide to become Democrats instead?

[Minimalist]

Who gives a flying fuck what they think.

They have much to answer for.

[GrandizerII]

Except that my wish for my value system to be reflected in civil law does not extend misery to those oppressed and continue to deprive them of their rights.

Just because some people with specific sexual proclivities don't want to enter the only kind of on-going commitment that includes the potential to produce offspring,...that personal reluctance doesn't mean they're being denied any specific right.

You get to be married to the person you want to spend your life with, and gay (and other) people want the same. All they're asking is that you mind your own business, be happy with your life, and leave them the hell alone because their life shouldn't be dictated by your personal standards.

[Minimalist]

You get to be married to the person you want to spend your life with

I pity her!

[Whateverist]

Insults are a form of social disapproval of whatever behavior the other is engaged in.  It's a form of applying pressure for change.

So you think Republicans, upon reading 'Republicunt', will reflect upon their views and decide to become Democrats instead?

It's kind of like clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive.  We all have to do it and with great enthusiasm.