Landmark night for civil rights

[Rams]

you don't get immigration rights just for being married to a u.s. citizen.  go stand in line with everybody else.

yeah, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

false.

no, it's severely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

I'll bite. why?

[sys]

because you are arguing that an american citizen, should he or she choose enter into a legally sanctioned monogamous relationship with a foreign national, should not be allowed to live with his or her legally sanctioned monogamous partner within the united states for years.  and in many cases should never be allowed to live with his or her legally sanctioned monogamous partner within the united states.

[Rams]

because you are arguing that an american citizen, should he or she choose enter into a legally sanctioned monogamous relationship with a foreign national, should not be allowed to live with his or her legally sanctioned monogamous partner within the united states for years.  and in many cases should never be allowed to live with his or her legally sanctioned monogamous partner within the united states.

clearly you're not getting this. : facepalm:

[sys]

clearly you're not getting this. : facepalm:

no, i think you have no idea what you're talking about.  at least i hope you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Panjandrum]

the federal government has no right or reason to recognize "marriage" under any definition or in any capacity.

immigration, taxes.  i imagine there are other issues but those are huge.  if the laws are going to exist, then the govt needs to not apply them in a discriminatory basis.

A guy I know had a commitment ceremony with his partner several years ago, and he considered himself married.  He and his partner went to New York and got legally married solely because they wanted to make sure they had the same rights to death benefits, asset allocation, and medical decision making that heterosexual couples had.

I always knew that was a huge part of the issue, but it struck me as sad that you could spend your entire life with someone building a home, accumulating wealth, etc. and if that person were laying in bed on a respirator, you didn't have the legal right to decide the outcome of that person should the worst case scenario come to pass.  And if it did, you wouldn't necessarily have a right to their benefits after they died.

I had never really been for or against gay marriage until we had a frank conversation about it.  I've been pretty staunchly for it ever since.

[Rams]

clearly you're not getting this. : facepalm:

no, i think you have no idea what you're talking about.  at least i hope you have no idea what you're talking about.

you just made an argument that the united states government should grant special immigration privileges to someone because they claim to be in a "monogamous relationship" 

[sys]

you just made an argument that the united states government should grant special immigration privileges to someone because they claim to be in a "monogamous relationship" 

yes.  i think american citizens should be allowed to marry whomever they want, not be de facto forced to marry other citizens or permanent residents. 

[sys]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20224677


liberte, egalite, fraternite.   

[ednksu]

Hopefully luked

But have we discussed Tammy Baldwin?

[MakeItRain]

Hopefully luked

But have we discussed Tammy Baldwin?

yep, page 1

[Cire]

the federal government has no right or reason to recognize "marriage" under any definition or in any capacity.

immigration, taxes.  i imagine there are other issues but those are huge.  if the laws are going to exist, then the govt needs to not apply them in a discriminatory basis.

A guy I know had a commitment ceremony with his partner several years ago, and he considered himself married.  He and his partner went to New York and got legally married solely because they wanted to make sure they had the same rights to death benefits, asset allocation, and medical decision making that heterosexual couples had.

I always knew that was a huge part of the issue, but it struck me as sad that you could spend your entire life with someone building a home, accumulating wealth, etc. and if that person were laying in bed on a respirator, you didn't have the legal right to decide the outcome of that person should the worst case scenario come to pass.  And if it did, you wouldn't necessarily have a right to their benefits after they died.

I had never really been for or against gay marriage until we had a frank conversation about it.  I've been pretty staunchly for it ever since.

That's because you aren't a hate monger

[DQ12]

Are people really bringing up the argument that the Invisible Hand should guide Civil Rights policies?

 

[MakeItRain]

Why do Salinans (Salinians? Salinese?) want landlords to be able to kick someone out of their house because they are rough ridin' someone of the same sex?  Or a boss be able to fire a guy because he goes home to his boyfriend at night? It's rough ridin' wrong, and there should be a law against it.

Aren't you reading stormnut's aka bob strawn jr?  Most of them don't have the mental capacity to think critically.

Of course it's rough ridin' wrong. Does it need to be legislated out is my one and only debate.

every other post you're spouting off about how discrimination doesn't even exist for gays, bro you're a bigot

Have you personally witnessed discrimination against gays in Kansas MIR?

Nope, what's your point?  I've also never witnessed a 13 year old being sodomized either.  Should we just do away with those laws too?  I mean its pretty rare for a 13 year old to be sodomized and we all agree, at least publicly, that sodomizing 13 year olds is reprehensible.  So why the need for those laws?

[DQ12]

Why do Salinans (Salinians? Salinese?) want landlords to be able to kick someone out of their house because they are rough ridin' someone of the same sex?  Or a boss be able to fire a guy because he goes home to his boyfriend at night? It's rough ridin' wrong, and there should be a law against it.

Aren't you reading stormnut's aka bob strawn jr?  Most of them don't have the mental capacity to think critically.

Of course it's rough ridin' wrong. Does it need to be legislated out is my one and only debate.

every other post you're spouting off about how discrimination doesn't even exist for gays, bro you're a bigot

Have you personally witnessed discrimination against gays in Kansas MIR?

Nope, what's your point?  I've also never witnessed a 13 year old being sodomized either.  Should we just do away with those laws too?  I mean its pretty rare for a 13 year old to be sodomized and we all agree, at least publicly, that sodomizing 13 year olds is reprehensible.  So why the need for those laws?

Listen, libtard.  If some one wants to make a habit out of sodomizing kids, that's their business.  Is it wrong?  Of course.  But i don't need the government legislating what's "right" and "wrong."  Good luck to them trying to find a job and being able to support themselves.

[felix rex]

Why do Salinans (Salinians? Salinese?) want landlords to be able to kick someone out of their house because they are rough ridin' someone of the same sex?  Or a boss be able to fire a guy because he goes home to his boyfriend at night? It's rough ridin' wrong, and there should be a law against it.

Aren't you reading stormnut's aka bob strawn jr?  Most of them don't have the mental capacity to think critically.

Of course it's rough ridin' wrong. Does it need to be legislated out is my one and only debate.

every other post you're spouting off about how discrimination doesn't even exist for gays, bro you're a bigot

Have you personally witnessed discrimination against gays in Kansas MIR?

Nope, what's your point?  I've also never witnessed a 13 year old being sodomized either.  Should we just do away with those laws too?  I mean its pretty rare for a 13 year old to be sodomized and we all agree, at least publicly, that sodomizing 13 year olds is reprehensible.  So why the need for those laws?

Listen, libtard.  If some one wants to make a habit out of sodomizing kids, that's their business.  Is it wrong?  Of course.  But i don't need the government legislating what's "right" and "wrong."  Good luck to them trying to find a job and being able to support themselves.

This would be an exceptionally creepy application of the invisible hand law.

[Saulbadguy]

Lots of bigots outed in this thread.

[OK_Cat]

Lots of bigots outed in this thread.

you still haven't changed his name to "bigot"nut

[Trim]

I'm really glad MiR is a Kansan. They need more people like him.

 

[michigancat]

Oh, gee, you too, trim.

[michigancat]

Also, I saw gay discrimination in Kansas when 70% of Kansans voted for amendment 1.

[Trim]

Oh, gee, you too, trim.

No, it was about MIR's KS status.

[nicname]

Lots of bigots outed in this thread.

Oh, give me a break Saul.  Business, ie. renting a house or selling skittles is a mutual agreement between two parties.  So I think some bad person should have the right to rent or sell skittles to people based on any criteria he chooses, that doesn't make me a bigot.  That bad person's actions aren't mine.

And to DLew equating commerce to child sex abuse, well,  .

I'm not saying that there aren't cases where laws may need to be put in place for the sake of equality, but generally the situation causing the need was brought about by government intervention itself.  Racism, especially in America, didn't just come to fruition out of nowhere.  That crap was the product of centuries of governments destroying the liberties of one person for the advantage of another. 

Good grief.

[nicname]

I would say that it is bullshit that LGBT people are singled in the Hutch and Salina situations.  It effectively makes them pariahs when that shouldn't be the case.  It's also unforgivable that LGBT people still can't get married, and reap the many benefits of such a union in this day and age.   

I'm sorry for getting worked up earlier.

[DQ12]

Lots of bigots outed in this thread.

I'm not saying that there aren't cases where laws may need to be put in place for the sake of equality, but generally the situation causing the need was brought about by government intervention itself.  Racism, especially in America, didn't just come to fruition out of nowhere.  That crap was the product of centuries of governments destroying the liberties of one person for the advantage of another. 

Good grief.

Are you saying that business owners are having their rights infringed upon by the government forcing them not to discriminate?

[nicname]

Lots of bigots outed in this thread.

I'm not saying that there aren't cases where laws may need to be put in place for the sake of equality, but generally the situation causing the need was brought about by government intervention itself.  Racism, especially in America, didn't just come to fruition out of nowhere.  That crap was the product of centuries of governments destroying the liberties of one person for the advantage of another. 

Good grief.

Are you saying that business owners are having their rights infringed upon by the government forcing them not to discriminate?

Yes.  I would add that if there are laws preventing the discrimination of one person, then those laws should be on place for all people.   I don't think that having lgbt left out of that protection while others are afforded it is right.  I oppose that.  If i didn't oppose it, then I would be a bigot.  I oppose the laws equally for all people.

Edited: because I can't type on my phone for crap.

Also, just to clarify again:  I don't think there should be laws forcing any private entity to do business with another private entity, even in the effort to promote equality.  If there are such laws, i.e. fair employment laws, renters rights, etc.  they should be afforded to all people.  We can't pick and choose who benefits and who gets left out, and this applies to marriage etc. as well.