WorldWatcher
Gold Member
I didn't repeat what I said, I explained the obvious to you.
You don't grasp that when they argue:
1) They are in favor of having government marriage
2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights
3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage
That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.
I can speak only form myself of course:
1) They are in favor of having government marriage
I'm in favor of equal treatment of citizens by the government barring a compelling government interest which warrants otherwise. If government is going to have Civil Marriage contracts, there is no reason to bar same-sex couples. I'm fine with the government dissolving all laws pertaining to Civil Marriage, but the reality is that there are purposes and functions that exist as part of Civil Marriage and they would just be replaced with more expensive alternatives.
2) They are opposed to extending those tax breaks, privileges to straights
Straights can already get married and therefore obtain those "tax breaks" and privileges and - as long as Civil Marriage contracts exist - have no desire to deny them to myself and other straights.
3) They want to add gay couples to government marriage
False. Allowing same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage contracts makes them part of the "government". What is true is that I think same-sex couples should be treated equally by the government as different sex couples.
That means they want to extend marriage to gays and then freeze it.
You were wrong on #1. You were wrong on #2. Your literal words on #3 were wrong, but if I assume what you meant is what I corrected - then #3 is correct.
I have no opposition, from a legal stand point, for Civil Marriage not to be "frozen" after same-sex couples achieve Marriage Equality. I recognize though that it will up to those proponents to make their case for further changes, if needed, and for opponents to present their case in opposition. That while there is no compelling government reason for discriminating against same-sex couples there may be different reasons applicable to other situations.
I have no opposition, from a legal stand point, for Civil Marriage not to be "frozen" after same-sex couples achieve Marriage Equality. I recognize though that it will up to those proponents to make their case for further changes, if needed, and for opponents to present their case in opposition. That while there is no compelling government reason for discriminating against same-sex couples there may be different reasons applicable to other situations.
Instead of incorrectly stating my position in the future, please ask instead.
>>>>