For God’s sake, stop coming to the zoo to shit!
I don’t give a damn where you get insurance coverage. If the insurance company wants to sell it to you and you want to buy it, have at it.
You can take that coward remark and shove it up your ass.
Who’s trying to persuade anyone about anything? I simply posted a fact. Deal with it.
My conservative values include free speech.
Sigh. A perfect example of a liberal jackass braying stupidity.
You are to Conservatives what ElvisL1ves is to gun control advocates.
And the unrepentant usage of ethnic slurs, based on your posting history.
I’m pretty good at picking out the next stool sample to get banned, and, well…you’re it.
Even before Okrahoma, but only because he’s a ninja and you’re not.
I’m pretty sure the person you’re addressing has you on ignore.
I am too – and the reason he has me on ignore is because I asked him about his usage of ethnic slurs. He says he only puts people on ignore if they act like jerks to him, but he’s lying about that.
Except when it’s too uncomfortably true. Then you put it on Ignore.
Hey, Clothahump, you missed a spot.
As long as you have time to waste responding to my inconsequential admonition, how about responding to a genuine challenge? Prove to us that you are not in fact a coward.
Also, as long as you’re sticking around to hurl insults at the OP, how about doing him the courtesy of responding to his actual question, instead of dodging like a not particularly brave person.
Your person and rights are not defined by your sexual preference. That could work both ways.
Huh?
I know you’re putting this to the OP, but, huh?
What is that last part supposed to mean?
I’m straight, married, and a bit of an ass man.
I’m trying to understand what that statement would mean if someone directed it to me.
What would it mean if someone said that to you?
Maybe going out on a limb here, but are you suggesting that the OP is demanding rights or privileges over and above what most folks have?
Best to look at it in the context of faith and religion. Your God doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ who or what you lust for as long as you don’t break any explicit law.
In society, basic rights are not defined by gender or any kind of preference. Religious beliefs and practices are long in getting inclusion. But marriage? Much of our society regards marriage as a religious ceremony, though laws iron out kinks (age, consanguinity, capacity issues, etc.) The law can give you (a gay couple) full inclusive rights by those arguments. But it could also invoke existing laws that certainly exclude gay couples. Or, it could interpret marriage as a strictly heterosexual union, citing the present structures in society supporting married couples (mainly related to conception, child birth, upbringing, inheritance, etc.)
Beyond that, I’m just babbling (a lot harder to take a middle stance than you think.)
You were babbling before that too.
I think you’ve muddied your argument by bringing religion into it, but leaving that aside . . .
I *may *understand what you mean, but I still have no idea what you’re getting at. (So, I’m shifting from a straight “huh?” to a “hmmm?”)
If I understand the basic gist of your argument, you’re essentially saying that the law will or won’t afford you rights and the protecting thereof according how it is written and interpreted, regardless of your sexuality?
As far as I can see, Fervour is not claiming entitlement to any special benefits because he is gay. Fervor and his husband are two legally married men. They should therefore be entitled to all the rights that the law extends to a married couple, regardless of what may set their hearts aflutter.
As to what you are *driving at *with your comment that “it could work both ways”, as I said, I still have no idea.
Thank you, Not Carlson.
My issue with the Texas Supreme Court is that it was totally in their purview to make the right decision. My guess is that for political reasons they chose to pass the decision to someone else.
But I do appreciate Bricker and Scumpup humanizing people who have differing views from me.
This is the only thread that I am following due to my current health issues. I had said to myself that I wasn’t going to post again. It’s funny how your friends can get you to say something that your adversaries could never get you to admit.
I DO have health insurance through my husband’s policy in my state. Apparently my particular version of arthritis won’t kill you----it just torments you. I empathize with people who are caught in limbo while other people have an academic conversation. Mercifully, I am not one of those who are caught in limbo.
Fervour, sorry to hear about your health troubles.
I can understand how that would make the court’s passing the buck on this issue particularly galling.
Just reading that there are people out there fighting to deprive others of their equal right to health insurance sticks in my craw, even when it doesn’t affect my own life.
Anyway, best wishes to you and yours.
No, Morgenstern, the only thing you are good at is being a braying jackass. You bring nothing of value to a discussion.