how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[ScreamingEagle]

The state has no right to support or encourage anything like that in my eyes.....straight or gay.

But the state should not prevent it either.

Marriage is between two consenting individuals. The state should not give a crap about the sex of the two people.....but that is My opinion.

Yes...rare for a conservative...but I am not a religious conservative.....but as a conservative I dont feel anyone should tell me how to live my life and I refuse to be part of telling others how they should live theirs.

nobody is preventing you from living your life with another person of the same sex.....that is called "tolerance".....

however homosexuals are pushing for societal "acceptance"....and even "belief"......of and in their deviancy...

Deviancy to you maybe. That is for you to deal with.

As for me? What affect does it have on me? Heck...my wife and I are deviants in the eyes of many......I mean...if you saw what went on in our bedroom, you would probably call me sick. Thats ok with me.....becuase it is none of your business...and it has no affect on your life so I dont have to worry about how my actions hurt you.

I see men who ignore their wives and go out with the guys 5 nights a week and sit on the couch for 9 hours watching football as deviants.....but I dont tell them they are oputcasts.

They should have done what I did.....I taught my wife how to play craps and I also turned her into a major jet fan....my life is complete.

deviancy not to me but to society....

for society to condone/not condone deviancy or degeneracy in public life......that is a choice we make....via the democratic system....

the Left-wing obviously stands for deviancy and degeneracy......they wish to destroy the standards and morals of our country that we have had since its inception......

the Left-wing hates religion and any morals that have to do with religion......the Left-wing has no moral standards and the longer they are in power the more our country slides into oblivian....

the Left-wing wants to control the people through the State.....not through God-given morals......they do not even want to recognize the Creator.....or a Higher Power......other than the man-made State....

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage does not require a pastor or any religuious figure..

But it DOES require a state issued license...so there goes that theory.

I did not bring my boys up to be heterosexual either...it just worked out that way.

Would you love your child any less if he or she was gay?

Hopefully parents would love their children no matter what they were like, that doesn't mean accepting whatever disability, dysfunction or instability they had was normal.

Who decides what is normal? You? The government?

That's the point of these efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. No one gets to decide what is normal. It's all normal. Every kind and type of degeneracy and perversion is normal and we have to make sure everyone feels that way. The completely non-judgmental culture. Totally amoral. The future. Jerry Sandusky was born too early.

 

[Jarhead]

Really? So in all states, gay couples can go to the Justice of the Peace and get their marriage license? Gee when did that happen?

A marriage is a religious ceremony. You don't need a Justice of the Peace or any government offical to perform it.

When it comes to the legal stuff, any person can appoint another adult as power of attorney, ect.

Trying to get "gay marriages" recognized by government is an attempt to get society to condone the action and normalize it, when it is not.

Question for all you queer-enablers: Would you raise your children specifically to be gay?
Of course not, because even you libs know its a disgusting, unhealthy, and shameful act.

Ah, queer-enablers....reminds me of the 60s when the favorite epithet was "******-lover".

I remember back in the late 70's or early 80's there was a protest over a place in Rockland County, NY...it was called "Motel on the Mountain" and it was a known gay hangout.

A reporter asked one of the protesters "what is it that you have against a gay person" (I beleive the term gay was just getting traction at the time)

His response?

"Gay means happy. These people arent happy."

Then he said

"they should be called what they are....Queers"

It was hysterical. I laughed for hours.

He was one of the most naive sounding people I have ever seen interviewed.....well...until Obama hit the stage....but I digress.

 

[bodecea]

A marriage is a religious ceremony. You don't need a Justice of the Peace or any government offical to perform it.

When it comes to the legal stuff, any person can appoint another adult as power of attorney, ect.

Trying to get "gay marriages" recognized by government is an attempt to get society to condone the action and normalize it, when it is not.

Question for all you queer-enablers: Would you raise your children specifically to be gay?
Of course not, because even you libs know its a disgusting, unhealthy, and shameful act.

Ah, queer-enablers....reminds me of the 60s when the favorite epithet was "******-lover".

I remember back in the late 70's or early 80's there was a protest over a place in Rockland County, NY...it was called "Motel on the Mountain" and it was a known gay hangout.

A reporter asked one of the protesters "what is it that you have against a gay person" (I beleive the term gay was just getting traction at the time)

His response?

"Gay means happy. These people arent happy."

Then he said

"they should be called what they are....Queers"

It was hysterical. I laughed for hours.

He was one of the most naive sounding people I have ever seen interviewed.....well...until Obama hit the stage....but I digress.

Let me guess...you admired that person.

 

[Jarhead]

nobody is preventing you from living your life with another person of the same sex.....that is called "tolerance".....

however homosexuals are pushing for societal "acceptance"....and even "belief"......of and in their deviancy...

Deviancy to you maybe. That is for you to deal with.

As for me? What affect does it have on me? Heck...my wife and I are deviants in the eyes of many......I mean...if you saw what went on in our bedroom, you would probably call me sick. Thats ok with me.....becuase it is none of your business...and it has no affect on your life so I dont have to worry about how my actions hurt you.

I see men who ignore their wives and go out with the guys 5 nights a week and sit on the couch for 9 hours watching football as deviants.....but I dont tell them they are oputcasts.

They should have done what I did.....I taught my wife how to play craps and I also turned her into a major jet fan....my life is complete.

deviancy not to me but to society....

for society to condone/not condone deviancy or degeneracy in public life......that is a choice we make....via the democratic system....

the Left-wing obviously stands for deviancy and degeneracy......they wish to destroy the standards and morals of our country that we have had since its inception......

the Left-wing hates religion and any morals that have to do with religion......the Left-wing has no moral standards and the longer they are in power the more our country slides into oblivian....

the Left-wing wants to control the people through the State.....not through God-given morals......they do not even want to recognize the Creator.....or a Higher Power......other than the man-made State....

Really? You sure of that?

Is it only the left that likes to watch porn?

Just left leaning guys love to watch girl on girl?

Just the left smokes pot?

Just the left likes to drive 100 MPH when they have the chance?

No...this has nothing to do with what you say.

It has to do with not accepting people that are different than you.

 

[Jarhead]

Ah, queer-enablers....reminds me of the 60s when the favorite epithet was "******-lover".

I remember back in the late 70's or early 80's there was a protest over a place in Rockland County, NY...it was called "Motel on the Mountain" and it was a known gay hangout.

A reporter asked one of the protesters "what is it that you have against a gay person" (I beleive the term gay was just getting traction at the time)

His response?

"Gay means happy. These people arent happy."

Then he said

"they should be called what they are....Queers"

It was hysterical. I laughed for hours.

He was one of the most naive sounding people I have ever seen interviewed.....well...until Obama hit the stage....but I digress.

Let me guess...you admired that person.

Bite me.

 

[bodecea]

Hopefully parents would love their children no matter what they were like, that doesn't mean accepting whatever disability, dysfunction or instability they had was normal.

Who decides what is normal? You? The government?

That's the point of these efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. No one gets to decide what is normal. It's all normal. Every kind and type of degeneracy and perversion is normal and we have to make sure everyone feels that way. The completely non-judgmental culture. Totally amoral. The future. Jerry Sandusky was born too early.

I sometimes find it hard to believe that some people cannot understand the difference between behavior between consenting adults that hurts no one and behavior that is harmful to others.

And then I read posts like yours and realize that there ARE people like that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Who decides what is normal? You? The government?

That's the point of these efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. No one gets to decide what is normal. It's all normal. Every kind and type of degeneracy and perversion is normal and we have to make sure everyone feels that way. The completely non-judgmental culture. Totally amoral. The future. Jerry Sandusky was born too early.

I sometimes find it hard to believe that some people cannot understand the difference between behavior between consenting adults that hurts no one and behavior that is harmful to others.

And then I read posts like yours and realize that there ARE people like that.

That's because you are willfully stupid. What consenting adults do is not my concern and I have seen consenting adults do some pretty bizarre things that end up with someone in prison. It has to do with what I am to consider normal behavior and how perverted normal behavior is becoming. This is not going to stop with homosexuality, it is going to go right on down the drain.

 

[bodecea]

I remember back in the late 70's or early 80's there was a protest over a place in Rockland County, NY...it was called "Motel on the Mountain" and it was a known gay hangout.

A reporter asked one of the protesters "what is it that you have against a gay person" (I beleive the term gay was just getting traction at the time)

His response?

"Gay means happy. These people arent happy."

Then he said

"they should be called what they are....Queers"

It was hysterical. I laughed for hours.

He was one of the most naive sounding people I have ever seen interviewed.....well...until Obama hit the stage....but I digress.

Let me guess...you admired that person.

Bite me.

Nom Nom Nom

 

[bodecea]

That's the point of these efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. No one gets to decide what is normal. It's all normal. Every kind and type of degeneracy and perversion is normal and we have to make sure everyone feels that way. The completely non-judgmental culture. Totally amoral. The future. Jerry Sandusky was born too early.

I sometimes find it hard to believe that some people cannot understand the difference between behavior between consenting adults that hurts no one and behavior that is harmful to others.

And then I read posts like yours and realize that there ARE people like that.

That's because you are willfully stupid. What consenting adults do is not my concern and I have seen consenting adults do some pretty bizarre things that end up with someone in prison. It has to do with what I am to consider normal behavior and how perverted normal behavior is becoming. This is not going to stop with homosexuality, it is going to go right on down the drain.

I'm not the stupid one. I am very clear on the difference between what consenting adults do that harms no one and what adults do to non-consulting participants and/or hurts others.

Your posting has shown that you don't know the difference...because you keep comparing these two things as if they were comparable.

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. A "contractual arrangement" does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. On Civil Marriage does that.

- There should be no death tax

2. A "contractual arrangement" does not allow for exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

- There should be no death tax

3. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

- Sure it could. The existence of any private marriage contract could be used as the standard.

4. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

- Sure it could, see #3.

5. A "contractual arrangement" does not convey parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

- A marriage contract doesn't prove paternity either. If there is a divorce then parents have to fight about custody. Marriage solves little here anyway.

6. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

- Nor should it. Why should that be a marriage function? We should be able to have anyone we want do this. Our spouse, a relative. We could make it easier to establish who we want to speak for us legally.

7. A "contractual arrangement" cannot waive the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

- Irrelevant. Private employers should offer the benefits they chose, not the benefits government choses.

8. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

- No one has a right to taxpayer money, BFD.

9. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

- Of course it could.

10. Even with a "contractual arrangement" and a will, not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.​

- So clarify probate laws. There is no need for "marriage" for this.

That being said their are currently hundreds if not thousands more elements on the law dependent on Civil Marriage to define "rights, responsibilities, and benefits" associated with that situation that cannot be duplicated with a "contractual arrangement".

Abominations all - government's unequal treatment of citizens. These should be eliminated and it should be made easier for all citizens to say who they want to have what rights based on themselves.

You need a trust. No family member can step in and challege anything. Not even if the laws of the state specifically permit family challenges to Wills.

And how much more expensive are the lawyers needed to create a trust then the cost of a $50 marriage license that does the same thing.

Marriage does not transfer property tax free only part of it. The surviving spouse in a community property state holds one half as separate property. Without provisions to the contrary, they can only inherit one half of the deceased spouse's property. The other half goes to children or other heirs. Hold property as joint tenants, which is exactly the way married couples hold real property.

Federal law, not State.

If a gay couple wants to protect their property, they need to see a decent estate planning lawyer, which is exactly what married couples have to do.

I provided multiple examples, an "estate planner" cannot make a non-spouse eligible for Security only a spouse can. An "estate planner" cannot make a non-spouse eligible for "married" tax exemption of a deceased spouse only a spouse can. An "estate planner" cannot make a non-spouse eligible to be buried in a National Veterans Cemetery, only a spouse can.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

I sometimes find it hard to believe that some people cannot understand the difference between behavior between consenting adults that hurts no one and behavior that is harmful to others.

And then I read posts like yours and realize that there ARE people like that.

That's because you are willfully stupid. What consenting adults do is not my concern and I have seen consenting adults do some pretty bizarre things that end up with someone in prison. It has to do with what I am to consider normal behavior and how perverted normal behavior is becoming. This is not going to stop with homosexuality, it is going to go right on down the drain.

I'm not the stupid one. I am very clear on the difference between what consenting adults do that harms no one and what adults do to non-consulting participants and/or hurts others.

Your posting has shown that you don't know the difference...because you keep comparing these two things as if they were comparable.

I am not comparing behavior. I am comparing what behavior will someday be considered normal behavior.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They failed to mention that "gay marriage" is 100% legal in all states. Just because certain state governments won't recognize it, doesn't mean the "couple" was denied the right to marry.

No state jails, imprisons, or denies homosexuals from exchanging wedding vows.


Next strawman....

Really? So in all states, gay couples can go to the Justice of the Peace and get their marriage license? Gee when did that happen?

A marriage is a religious ceremony. You don't need a Justice of the Peace or any government offical to perform it.

Actually not, using the term "marriage" buy itself evades what the discussion is about which is "Civil Marriage" which is separate from "Religious Marriage". You can be Civilly Married in this country without the need for the intervention of any religious organization.

(And for the sake of discussion we will ignore the fact that there are religious organizations that perform religious marriages for members of the same-sex.)

When it comes to the legal stuff, any person can appoint another adult as power of attorney, ect.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4543783-post298.html


Please read the above post simply substitute "power of attorney" for "contractual agreement".


Trying to get "gay marriages" recognized by government is an attempt to get society to condone the action and normalize it, when it is not.

Question for all you queer-enablers: Would you raise your children specifically to be gay?
Of course not, because even you libs know its a disgusting, unhealthy, and shameful act.[/QUOTE]


>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

All you're saying is that its stupid to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals. I agree.

Why is it stupid? Are you not in favor of the State supporting and encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones?

No, I couldn't care less. Of what benefit to society is it if gay couples form lasting stable relationships? That only matters when children are involved.

 

[Katzndogz]

1. A "contractual arrangement" does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. On Civil Marriage does that.

- There should be no death tax

2. A "contractual arrangement" does not allow for exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

- There should be no death tax

3. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

- Sure it could. The existence of any private marriage contract could be used as the standard.

4. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

- Sure it could, see #3.

5. A "contractual arrangement" does not convey parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

- A marriage contract doesn't prove paternity either. If there is a divorce then parents have to fight about custody. Marriage solves little here anyway.

6. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

- Nor should it. Why should that be a marriage function? We should be able to have anyone we want do this. Our spouse, a relative. We could make it easier to establish who we want to speak for us legally.

7. A "contractual arrangement" cannot waive the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

- Irrelevant. Private employers should offer the benefits they chose, not the benefits government choses.

8. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

- No one has a right to taxpayer money, BFD.

9. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

- Of course it could.

10. Even with a "contractual arrangement" and a will, not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.​

- So clarify probate laws. There is no need for "marriage" for this.

That being said their are currently hundreds if not thousands more elements on the law dependent on Civil Marriage to define "rights, responsibilities, and benefits" associated with that situation that cannot be duplicated with a "contractual arrangement".

Abominations all - government's unequal treatment of citizens. These should be eliminated and it should be made easier for all citizens to say who they want to have what rights based on themselves.

You need a trust. No family member can step in and challege anything. Not even if the laws of the state specifically permit family challenges to Wills.

And how much more expensive are the lawyers needed to create a trust then the cost of a $50 marriage license that does the same thing.

Marriage does not transfer property tax free only part of it. The surviving spouse in a community property state holds one half as separate property. Without provisions to the contrary, they can only inherit one half of the deceased spouse's property. The other half goes to children or other heirs. Hold property as joint tenants, which is exactly the way married couples hold real property.

Federal law, not State.

If a gay couple wants to protect their property, they need to see a decent estate planning lawyer, which is exactly what married couples have to do.

I provided multiple examples, an "estate planner" cannot make a non-spouse eligible for Security only a spouse can. An "estate planner" cannot make a non-spouse eligible for "married" tax exemption of a deceased spouse only a spouse can. An "estate planner" cannot make a non-spouse eligible to be buried in a National Veterans Cemetery, only a spouse can.


>>>>

Can those things be changed without normalizing same sex relationships and demanding that everyone treat and consider same sex couples normal married couples?

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. A "contractual arrangement" does not provide for the tax free transfer of real property to a spouse when the other spouse is deceased and relief from the resulting tax liabilities. On Civil Marriage does that.

- There should be no death tax​

OK, but until then there is. That's reality.

2. A "contractual arrangement" does not allow for exemption form the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. This cannot be duplicated with a power of attorney.)

- There should be no death tax

OK, but until then there is. That's reality.

3. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spousal privilege in the case of a criminal prosecution.

- Sure it could. The existence of any private marriage contract could be used as the standard.

"Could" but doesn't. OK, but until then there is. That's reality.

4. A "contractual arrangement" cannot provide for a spouse to be buried in a National Cemetery next to a spouse who was an honorably serving veteran of the United States.

- Sure it could, see #3.

"Could" but doesn't. OK, but until then there is. That's reality.

5. A "contractual arrangement" does not convey parenthood upon the birth of a child. A $50 marriage license does, for non-Civilly Married couples it would require a formal adoption costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

- A marriage contract doesn't prove paternity either. If there is a divorce then parents have to fight about custody. Marriage solves little here anyway.

I didn't say a Civil Marriage proves paternity I said a Civil Marriage provides "parenthood upon the birth of a child" - similar but a distinct difference. Paternity involves a genetic relationship, parenthood is a legal status under the law. Some examples to clarify:

Ex A: An unweb mother gives birth, since she is unweb she is the only legal parent of the child (not use of "legal parent"). To prove paternity, she would have to get the likely father to submit to a DNA test and then (after the birth) have the individual declared the parent).

Ex B: A married different-sex couple has a child, under the law of most states the opposite gender spouse is automatically (at birth) the legal parent of the child (no paternity test required). Not adoption procedures are required.

Ex C: In states that have the parenthood at birth law and have Same-sex Civil Marriage, then when a same-sex couple has a child (think IVF here) then both spouses are the legal parents of the child at birth (again no adoption required).​

I can't believe I'm going to type this ( ) ) but legally speaking, Heather will literally have two Mommies.

6. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship recognized under the Family Medical Leave Act so that a person can care for their spouse (or be cared for by them) in times of medical emergency.

- Nor should it. Why should that be a marriage function? We should be able to have anyone we want do this. Our spouse, a relative. We could make it easier to establish who we want to speak for us legally.

Yes it should, yes a Civil Marriage establishes in the eyes of the law a famility relationship. Husband and wife/Husband and Husband/Wife and Wife are a family.

We could, but that's what we've got.

7. A "contractual arrangement" cannot waive the tax penalty for employer provided health insurance for a spouse of the same gender. (Same-sex Civilly Married couples are charged this extra tax on employer benefits where Different-sex Civilly Married couples are not.)

- Irrelevant. Private employers should offer the benefits they chose, not the benefits government choses.

Please read the above again, it's not what the employer or the insurance company decide to offer, it about the difference in how the government taxes the individual. If you are Civilly Married, you are not taxed. If you are not Civilly Married and the employer chooses to provide partner benefits (non-Civilly Married) then there is an additional tax by the government because the additional employers portion is treated as income for the partner benefits, but not for spouse benefits.

8. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship under Social Security whereby the surviving spouse can receive benefits at the working spouses rate if higher then their own.

- No one has a right to taxpayer money, BFD.

Never said they did, however people have the right to equal treatment under the law barring a compelling government interest.

It would be interesting to watch the shit-storm that would ensue if a political party tried to cut off social security for elderly spouses of working people that had died. I'm sure that would go over really well.

9. A "contractual arrangement" does not establish a family relationship where a spouse can then sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes.

- Of course it could.

"Could" but doesn't. OK, but until then there is. That's reality.

10. Even with a "contractual arrangement" and a will, not being Civilly Married allows for other relatives to step in and challenge a will under probate court and in some states allows those family members to over ride the decrees of the will.

- So clarify probate laws. There is no need for "marriage" for this.

Go for it, I'm explaining reality not what "could be".

Abominations all - government's unequal treatment of citizens. These should be eliminated and it should be made easier for all citizens to say who they want to have what rights based on themselves.

Eliminate property transfer to spouses, kick people off of social security, remove tax deduction for the sale of a home, do not allow military members to move their spouses and household goods on permanent change of station orders, etc., etc.

Have you ever thought of running for office?



>>>>

 

[Dragon]

All you're saying is that its stupid to extend the privilege of marriage to homosexuals. I agree.

Why is it stupid? Are you not in favor of the State supporting and encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones?

No, I couldn't care less. Of what benefit to society is it if gay couples form lasting stable relationships? That only matters when children are involved.

Even if that were true, which it's not, children often are involved. Surely you know that. Or do you think that, because a couple cannot have biological children of their own, they can't adopt children, or have children by a previous relationship? In these respects a gay couple is no different from a straight couple that happens to be infertile.

And besides, you're wrong. Stable relationships contribute to overall prosperity and to public health. They reduce the incidence of domestic violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and all the crimes resulting from these things. All of that makes it of legitimate public interest.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can those things be changed without normalizing same sex relationships and demanding that everyone treat and consider same sex couples normal married couples?

Honestly speaking, probably. But at what cost to re-write all applicable federal law and state laws to eliminate "marriage" and replace it with some other mechanism that would apply to all equally just to change the name from "marriage" to "union" so we have Civil Unions instead of Civil Marriages.


I'd prefer politicians work on rolling back the size of government and figuring out ways to get the hell out of the way so the private section can create more jobs which will improve the economy instead of re-writing laws just so some people aren't upset because Civilly Married same-sex couples are treated the same as Civilly Married different-sex couples.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Why is it stupid? Are you not in favor of the State supporting and encouraging gay couples to make lasting stable relationships with their loved ones?

No, I couldn't care less. Of what benefit to society is it if gay couples form lasting stable relationships? That only matters when children are involved.

Even if that were true, which it's not, children often are involved. Surely you know that. Or do you think that, because a couple cannot have biological children of their own, they can't adopt children, or have children by a previous relationship? In these respects a gay couple is no different from a straight couple that happens to be infertile.

And besides, you're wrong. Stable relationships contribute to overall prosperity and to public health. They reduce the incidence of domestic violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and all the crimes resulting from these things. All of that makes it of legitimate public interest.

Unfortunately marriage does not mean stable relationship for straight couples any more than for gay couples. They all have domestic violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and all the crimes resulting from these things, pretty much equally!

 

[Dragon]

Unfortunately marriage does not mean stable relationship for straight couples any more than for gay couples. They all have domestic violence, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and all the crimes resulting from these things, pretty much equally!

Not equally with unmarried people, no, which is what I was saying.