'Fraiser' Star Reveals Secret Gay Marriage

Lynns Daughter wrote:

I meant to say, you cannot get a same-sex domestic partnership.

which should be the PRIMARY focus of the same-sex partnership agenda. Imagine how much farther along this agenda would be in it's SPIRIT (whcih is what the proponents of it CLAIM to be about when they scream "rights, rights, rights!" trying to convince everyone they have been robbed of something) if they were to make their focus something along THOSE lines (as they accomplished right off the bat in Vermont by acting reasonably and maturely) instead of DEMANDING that society re-define it's definition of marriage to suit them. I don't have a problem at all with domestic partnerships, be they same-sex or otherwise.

Lynns Daughter wrote:

<quoted text>
You cannot get a domestic partnership in every state in the US, there are only a couple. You are incorrect. If your only purpose is to sit there and say, "Nuh uh" then I'm wasting my time.

So the basis of you dismissing my argument is the rationale of saying that simply because something isn't offered in every single state that it's not valid.

How narrowminded of you. Spoken like a closet freak.

Georgie B wrote:

<quoted text>Try and convince?
Sorry, when a person gets incredibly hysterical about a particular issue and has tunnel vision that only George Soros can dream of, then anything that comes from their mouth will be left to coagulate in the dirt.
You are pompous individual, and I truly feel sorry for your partner.
She could have done much better with the selection she made.
Instead, she chose a slug. Which would be fine if she was a slug, but apparently those self-esteem issues raised their ugly head again, so she settled for someone like you.

So are you the President of the Flat Earth Society or just another member?

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>So are you the President of the Flat Earth Society or just another member?

Wow, what an insult?

Did you think of that one all by your lonesome self?

Or did you have to ask advice from your loved one?

Georgie B wrote:

<quoted text>Wow, what an insult?
Did you think of that one all by your lonesome self?
Or did you have to ask advice from your loved one?

Yep, I did think of it. So I take it from your answer, that yes, you are the President. There was a time that the world was thought to be flat. People were persecuted for thinking that it was round. It is in fact round, even though you do not believe that it is. There are even other things which, even though you do not think so, are in fact true.

Georgie B wrote:

<quoted text>So the basis of you dismissing my argument is the rationale of saying that simply because something isn't offered in every single state that it's not valid.
How narrowminded of you. Spoken like a closet freak.

It's clear from your posts and your tone that your only purpose in being here is to take advantage of the opportunity to call people freaks. Your need to minimize cognitive dissonance will cause you to dismiss any valid argument, so obviously for you, there is none. Good day.

Lynns Daughter wrote:

<quoted text>
It's clear from your posts and your tone that your only purpose in being here is to take advantage of the opportunity to call people freaks. Your need to minimize cognitive dissonance will cause you to dismiss any valid argument, so obviously for you, there is none. Good day.

I'm always having a good day.

However, I have an open mind as well.

And it's clear from your posts that you are as narrow minded as you claim other people to be.

The fact of the matter is, while I actually don't have a problem with gay marriage, the homosexual community at large (for the most part), gay co-workers, organizations that help the youth of today find whatever their identity may be, I do have a problem who are either stridently homophobic (like some posters here), or stridently anti-straight as it pertains to marriage.

Furthermore, I have serious problems with any dolt who tries to frame this a struggle for civil rights AND compares it to the valiant struggle that blacks had, and contiue to have, for basic human rights for the past 250 years.

So any argument I make here, is just as legitimate as any argument you make here.

Deal with it, sweetie pie.

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Yep, I did think of it. So I take it from your answer, that yes, you are the President. There was a time that the world was thought to be flat. People were persecuted for thinking that it was round. It is in fact round, even though you do not believe that it is. There are even other things which, even though you do not think so, are in fact true.

Like that you're a narrow minded bigot?

I didn't think it was true, but sure enough, you convinced me that it's true.

In fact, you persecute people for thinking that you aren't a bigot.

Georgie B wrote:

<quoted text>I'm always having a good day.
However, I have an open mind as well.
And it's clear from your posts that you are as narrow minded as you claim other people to be.
The fact of the matter is, while I actually don't have a problem with gay marriage, the homosexual community at large (for the most part), gay co-workers, organizations that help the youth of today find whatever their identity may be, I do have a problem who are either stridently homophobic (like some posters here), or stridently anti-straight as it pertains to marriage.
Furthermore, I have serious problems with any dolt who tries to frame this a struggle for civil rights AND compares it to the valiant struggle that blacks had, and contiue to have, for basic human rights for the past 250 years.
So any argument I make here, is just as legitimate as any argument you make here.
Deal with it, sweetie pie.

Interestingly, I am able to make my point without resorting to insults and name-calling. This seems to be difficult for you.

As for your "argument," it seems little more than you running around with your fingers in your ear screaming, "NANANANANAAAAA! I can't hear you!"

There's not legal reason for homosexuals to be denied this civil right, pure and simple, and it's unconstitutional to do so. When the proper test case presents itself, all attempts to deny this civil contract to all consenting, non-related adults will be overturned.

Is anyone really surprised that the Frazier star is gay? Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably a duck.

Georgie B wrote:

<quoted text>Like that you're a narrow minded bigot?
I didn't think it was true, but sure enough, you convinced me that it's true.
In fact, you persecute people for thinking that you aren't a bigot.

Don't you just hate it when someone nails you down.....and the only thing you can do is attack the person and not the argument. Ad Hominem attack...typical LOSING position.

Interestingly enough, you don't read all of my posts. Just because I insulted a particular poster here, doesn't mean that I do it all the time.

And again, my arguments don't consist of me running around with my fingers in my ears. I leave that to the gay activists such as yourself, who chose to ignore legitimate dissension to their viewpoints.

Lynns Daughter wrote:

<quoted text>
Interestingly, I am able to make my point without resorting to insults and name-calling. This seems to be difficult for you.
As for your "argument," it seems little more than you running around with your fingers in your ear screaming, "NANANANANAAAAA! I can't hear you!"
There's not legal reason for homosexuals to be denied this civil right, pure and simple, and it's unconstitutional to do so. When the proper test case presents itself, all attempts to deny this civil contract to all consenting, non-related adults will be overturned.

And again, marriage is not, repeat, not a civil right.

Never was, and never will be. To claim that marriage is a right is to claim that driving is a right as well.

Marriage, like a driver's license, is a privilege.

Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:

<quoted text>Don't you just hate it when someone nails you down.....and the only thing you can do is attack the person and not the argument. Ad Hominem attack...typical LOSING position.

Actually, you haven't nailed me down.

And from what I read here, you haven't presented any kind of argument beyond insulting everyone here who has viewpoint different from yours.

Ad Hominem attack indeed.

Georgie B wrote:

Interestingly enough, you don't read all of my posts. Just because I insulted a particular poster here, doesn't mean that I do it all the time.
And again, my arguments don't consist of me running around with my fingers in my ears. I leave that to the gay activists such as yourself, who chose to ignore legitimate dissension to their viewpoints.<quoted text> And again, marriage is not, repeat, not a civil right.
Never was, and never will be. To claim that marriage is a right is to claim that driving is a right as well.
Marriage, like a driver's license, is a privilege.

A privelege can be revoked. Can you provide any instance in the history of heterosexual marriage when a government officieal revoke a marriage license? Unless a law is broken when obtaining the license, the government cannot do this, as it can a driver's license, becuase they aren't the same thing.

It can, however, be canceled by one of the parties involved. Thus, it is a civil contract, which two adults enter into willingly, and only they can cancel it.

You haven't provided a good legal reason why GLBT persons should not be allowed to marry. I haven't heard one yet from you. I'm still waiting.

I never said that they couldn't marry.

I have said the following, and will keep saying the following, until the day I die:

I don't believe in gay marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Having said that, I also believe that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships should be strengthened to the point of being the same as a marriage.

Lynns Daughter wrote:

<quoted text>
A privelege can be revoked. Can you provide any instance in the history of heterosexual marriage when a government officieal revoke a marriage license? Unless a law is broken when obtaining the license, the government cannot do this, as it can a driver's license, becuase they aren't the same thing.
It can, however, be canceled by one of the parties involved. Thus, it is a civil contract, which two adults enter into willingly, and only they can cancel it.
You haven't provided a good legal reason why GLBT persons should not be allowed to marry. I haven't heard one yet from you. I'm still waiting.

And since we're on the subject of marriage, let me tell you a few things that you may not know about gay marriage as it generally applies to the state of Connecticut, specifically state workers who are gay.

State workers who are gay and are currently in a Domestic Partnership, can and did put their partners on their health insurance.

With the passing of the Gay Marriage Act, this same individuals now must now either get married in order to put their partners on thier insurance or if they're already in a Domestic Partnership, they have to get married by November 2009.

Now this is not an automatic given that every single gay person in a Domestic Partnership is gonna jump at the chance at getting married.

Since they wanted to be treated the same as everyone else, it is quite possible that one person in the relationship could get cold feet (much like a straight person who's in a long term relationship) and decide not to get married. In this instance, they would be dropped by the health insurace companies as per state law.

If you want equality for all, then you must suffer the consequences of your actions. Not everything in this world will be peaches and cream.

Sometimes, you just need a moldy bananna.