SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[BigRedBuster]

This was a example to base my "right to refuse service" belief on.

 

Dun?

 

I'm dun.

 

This is why I need to quit commenting on stuff in the politics forum. I know what I think. I'm just very bad at expressing it.

I think that is why many of us are here. I know it's why I'm here. Practice. Mental exercise.

 

This is a great place to discuss politics and religion and practice expressing yourself in a way other folks will properly interpret your full meaning. I don't know about you, but things can get heated and uncomfortable discussing these topics with friends and family. It's much safer here.

 

--

 

And sorry to pile on -- not my intention. I read the old posts like yours and wanted to chime in before I caught up with everything that posted - when in fact you and knapplc already said pretty much the same thing.

 

Screw you guys....I'm here to convert everyone over to my way of thinking so they can now live in peace knowing they are right.

 

When that happens, the world will be a better place.

[Count 'Bility]

I can't agree here. I didn't really have an adult male in my life until I was old enough to date one and I never felt any lack.

 

 

Not to discredit your opinion or thoughts in any way, Moiraine, but I grew up without a father also. He was gone long before I was born. I never felt a lack either, but the last 4-5 years I've been understanding and uncovering a lot of ways that I have been scarred by that. They weren't ever conscious or felt, but they've certainly existed, in profound ways, and I'm still healing from those things.

 

 

This helps explain the ponies.

Don't start.

[QMany]

And yet another reason for anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals:

 

Gay Man Escorted Out of Missouri Hospital in Handcuffs for Refusing to Leave Sick Partner’s Side

Missouri law does not explicitly protect it citizens from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

http://gawker.com/59...k-partners-side

[knapplc]

And yet another reason for anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals:

 

Gay Man Escorted Out of Missouri Hospital in Handcuffs for Refusing to Leave Sick Partner’s Side

Missouri law does not explicitly protect it citizens from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

http://gawker.com/59...k-partners-side

 

Thank goodness we're protecting society from such evil people. This man wanted to stay with his partner because he loved him. If there's something we need to stamp out of this society - by law if necessary - it's love and loyalty.

 

Tax dollars were spent on removing this man from his loved one's side. I'm so proud.

[QMany]

And yet another reason for anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals:

 

Gay Man Escorted Out of Missouri Hospital in Handcuffs for Refusing to Leave Sick Partner’s Side

Missouri law does not explicitly protect it citizens from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

http://gawker.com/59...k-partners-side

Thank goodness we're protecting society from such evil people. This man wanted to stay with his partner because he loved him. If there's something we need to stamp out of this society - by law if necessary - it's love and loyalty.

 

Tax dollars were spent on removing this man from his loved one's side. I'm so proud.

Dude had Power of Attorney and the hospital chose not to review his documentation. POA trumps family for adults. If he continues legal action, the bank is in trouble.

[strigori]

And yet another reason for anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals:

 

Gay Man Escorted Out of Missouri Hospital in Handcuffs for Refusing to Leave Sick Partner’s Side

Missouri law does not explicitly protect it citizens from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

http://gawker.com/59...k-partners-side

Thank goodness we're protecting society from such evil people. This man wanted to stay with his partner because he loved him. If there's something we need to stamp out of this society - by law if necessary - it's love and loyalty.

 

Tax dollars were spent on removing this man from his loved one's side. I'm so proud.

Dude had Power of Attorney and the hospital chose not to review his documentation. POA trumps family for adults. If he continues legal action, the bank is in trouble.

And it sounds like the hospital could get in trouble with any Federal funding they receive too.

[QMany]

For them to get in trouble with Federal funding, I think the gay couple has to be "married" or in a "civil union," I THINK. Since Missouri doesn't allow that nonsense, they dodge that bigoted bullet.

So this is similar to a an unmarried heterosexual couple, except for that pesky POA.

[strigori]

For them to get in trouble with Federal funding, I think the gay couple has to be "married" or in a "civil union," I THINK. Since Missouri doesn't allow that nonsense, they dodge that bigoted bullet.

So this is similar to a an unmarried heterosexual couple, except for that pesky POA.

The article stated civil union actually. Which ties back to the original topic. Now weather or not the methheads care is something else.

[Someone]

It seems to me that the Virginia Att Gen might have been onto something...

 

He wants to keep heterosexual (non-natural) sex illegal.

 

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/cuccinelli-wants-rehearing-virginias-anti-sodomy-law

 

If it's morally wrong the way the gys do it, it wrong for married couples to do it any way that isn't pro-creation style.

 

Right? Can I get an amen?

[sd'sker]

It seems to me that the Virginia Att Gen might have been onto something...

 

He wants to keep heterosexual (non-natural) sex illegal.

 

http://m.motherjones...anti-sodomy-law

 

If it's morally wrong the way the gys do it, it wrong for married couples to do it any way that isn't pro-creation style.

 

Right? Can I get an amen?

'non-natural', that is quite the qualifier.

[JJ Husker]

It seems to me that the Virginia Att Gen might have been onto something...

 

He wants to keep heterosexual (non-natural) sex illegal.

 

http://m.motherjones...anti-sodomy-law

 

If it's morally wrong the way the gys do it, it wrong for married couples to do it any way that isn't pro-creation style.

 

Right? Can I get an amen?

 

I'm a little naïve and innocent. Can someone, or maybe I should say somebody, explain what "pro-creation" style means specifically. Does that mean if the action cannot culminate in pregnancy then it's con-creation style? Or are we relegated to missionary only position? Is doggy ok? Oral? Just some of the things I am curious about. Those all seem pretty "natural" to me, as long as it's with a female.

[Count 'Bility]

It seems to me that the Virginia Att Gen might have been onto something...

 

He wants to keep heterosexual (non-natural) sex illegal.

 

http://m.motherjones...anti-sodomy-law

 

If it's morally wrong the way the gys do it, it wrong for married couples to do it any way that isn't pro-creation style.

 

Right? Can I get an amen?

 

I'm a little naïve and innocent. Can someone, or maybe I should say somebody, explain what "pro-creation" style means specifically. Does that mean if the action cannot culminate in pregnancy then it's con-creation style? Or are we relegated to missionary only position? Is doggy ok? Oral? Just some of the things I am curious about. Those all seem pretty "natural" to me, as long as it's with a female.

Are you serious? If so, I can help. My wife is catholic, and I had to go through all the catholic classes before getting married and such.

 

Pro-creation style is no withdrawel (pulling out as known to most) or use of contraceptives. Whether you get pregnant or not is irrelevant, so much as you dont try to prevent it.

[JJ Husker]

Mr. Accountability (told ya...)- I was only slightly serious. There were a couple things in "someone" post that seemed a bit off. 1- keep heterosexual (non-natural) sex illegal. ?? I guess I was not aware.....

2- and then the logic leap doozy "if it's morally wrong the way 'they' do it, then it's wrong for married couples to do it non pro-creation style"

 

Maybe it's just me but I've never thought the physical mechanics of it had any bearing on whether it was moral or natural. Personally I don't care what or how 'they' do it, none of my business. But, if somebody were to ask me, I'd say it is definitely not natural. I can't imagine "not pulling out" would change the naturalness or the morality of the action.

 

But, my first questions were tongue in cheek....

[Junior]

Mr. Accountability (told ya...)- I was only slightly serious. There were a couple things in "someone" post that seemed a bit off. 1- keep heterosexual (non-natural) sex illegal. ?? I guess I was not aware.....

2- and then the logic leap doozy "if it's morally wrong the way 'they' do it, then it's wrong for married couples to do it non pro-creation style"

 

Maybe it's just me but I've never thought the physical mechanics of it had any bearing on whether it was moral or natural. Personally I don't care what or how 'they' do it, none of my business. But, if somebody were to ask me, I'd say it is definitely not natural. I can't imagine "not pulling out" would change the naturalness or the morality of the action.

 

But, my first questions were tongue in cheek....

 

You need to read the Bible passage about spilling your seed.

[Count 'Bility]

Mr. Accountability (told ya...)- I was only slightly serious. There were a couple things in "someone" post that seemed a bit off. 1- keep heterosexual (non-natural) sex illegal. ?? I guess I was not aware.....

2- and then the logic leap doozy "if it's morally wrong the way 'they' do it, then it's wrong for married couples to do it non pro-creation style"

 

Maybe it's just me but I've never thought the physical mechanics of it had any bearing on whether it was moral or natural. Personally I don't care what or how 'they' do it, none of my business. But, if somebody were to ask me, I'd say it is definitely not natural. I can't imagine "not pulling out" would change the naturalness or the morality of the action.

 

But, my first questions were tongue in cheek....

 

You need to read the Bible passage about spilling your seed.

Yes. withdrawel-or pulling out-is viewed as a form of contraception. But yet, they have natural family planning where they basically show you how to determine when the right time is to have sex and not get pregnant. I've always viewed as a double standard and a way of preventing it as well. I've never understood, but I just go along with it. I love my wife and she is very set in her beliefs and that is fine with me.