Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Plasmaball]

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,

Just like a baker and a gay couple?

sigh....im not getting into that punt

Because you just got served Yo.

more punting

 

[martybegan]

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,

Just like a baker and a gay couple?

sigh....im not getting into that punt

Because you just got served Yo.

more punting

How is it punting when I don't have an issue with gay marriage as long as it is passed via State legislative action? The basic concept of Gay Marriage is not an issue for me, what is an issue is the use of courts to enforce some made up right on the individual States that don't want it.

 

[Seawytch]

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with:

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

You can't use the race dodge on those.

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

 

[martybegan]

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with:

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

You can't use the race dodge on those.

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with:

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

You can't use the race dodge on those.

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is not analogous to marriage equality for couples. Marty, nobody cares if you accept it. Your feelings don't matter. The law does.

 

[martybegan]

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy is not analogous to marriage equality for couples. Marty, nobody cares if you accept it. Your feelings don't matter. The law does.

It has more precedent to be allowed than SSM ever had.

 

[Seawytch]

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.

Wrong. Equality first and last. YOU don't want gays to be "married", only straights. I want us both to be whatever, either married or civil unioned. You want gays to be separate.

Since civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, it shouldn't piss off the religious. Does it piss them off when atheist get married? Do they get pissed off when swingers marry? Why should they give MORE of a fuck when gays get civilly married?

Churches are and will always be free to discriminate if they want to. I have no desire to change that through anything other than public opinion.

 

[Broncho4]

TheOldSchool: The word regulated in the 2nd amendment refers to the mechanism for proper functioning. As in, a well regulated engine is necessary for the performance of an automobile. That does not imply that regulation should be placed on it.

The Federal courts also have the authority to invalidate state measures that violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, something you and others on the right take no issue with, as in such cases you have nothing but contempt for the 'will of the people.'

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

Was this meant as a reply to another post? I have no idea what your statement has to do with the one I posted.

 

[martybegan]

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.

Wrong. Equality first and last. YOU don't want gays to be "married", only straights. I want us both to be whatever, either married or civil unioned. You want gays to be separate.

Since civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, it shouldn't piss off the religious. Does it piss them off when atheist get married? Do they get pissed off when swingers marry? Why should they give MORE of a fuck when gays get civilly married?

Churches are and will always be free to discriminate if they want to. I have no desire to change that through anything other than public opinion.

Bullshit. you start with punishing religious people for their beliefs, and you will move on to the organizations sooner or later.

Again, if a state wants to change the marriage contract via legislation I have no issue with it, if they don't they should be able to define it how they want to.

Again, acceptance. You keep trying to deny it, but it comes through more and more the more you post.

 

[Seawytch]

All the cases winning across the country are about specifics too. Two or more people at an impasse. When the court ruled on all three cases, Loving v Turner, Zablocki v Redhail and Turner v Safley, they also had nationwide impact. Convicted murderers all over the country could get civilly married. Divorcees all over the country could get civilly married.

You didn't propose shit. We've been saying that for years, civil unions for all, but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation language that also prohibits civil unions. Gays would be fine with civil unions ...as long as they applied to all civil marriages. What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage. Understand?

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.

Wrong. Equality first and last. YOU don't want gays to be "married", only straights. I want us both to be whatever, either married or civil unioned. You want gays to be separate.

Since civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, it shouldn't piss off the religious. Does it piss them off when atheist get married? Do they get pissed off when swingers marry? Why should they give MORE of a fuck when gays get civilly married?

Churches are and will always be free to discriminate if they want to. I have no desire to change that through anything other than public opinion.

Bullshit. you start with punishing religious people for their beliefs, and you will move on to the organizations sooner or later.

Again, if a state wants to change the marriage contract via legislation I have no issue with it, if they don't they should be able to define it how they want to.

Again, acceptance. You keep trying to deny it, but it comes through more and more the more you post.

No Marty, true shit. We want to be civilly married. We have always had equal access to religious marriage, it is not the issue. It is not us that has a problem with the religious, it is the religious that have a problem with us. Civil unions for all would be perfectly acceptable to gays and lesbians. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays is not.

I don't care what you have a problem with, I'm glad I live in a county where we can address our grievances through the judicial system.

 

[Pop23]

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

Okay, lemme try that question again, emphasizing the part you seemed to have missed. Actually, I know you didn't miss it. You just don't want to answer the question honestly, because you are well aware of the shitstorm you would open with an honest answer. But, I'm gonna keep asking the question until you either answer it honestly, or admit your position is bullshit:

So, you think in order to to access the benefits come with being married, gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, and marry someone of the opposite sex, correct?

If they don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Their choice

 

[Pop23]

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage? That is your position? And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

So...your way or the highway, eh?

Oh! It's more than that. I want him to say that he thinks they should marry people of the opposite sex. Because, the logical conclusion of that behaviour is gonna be all kinds of fun, which is why he won't actually say that.

Go for it czeesehead

 

[Pop23]

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.

Wrong. Equality first and last. YOU don't want gays to be "married", only straights. I want us both to be whatever, either married or civil unioned. You want gays to be separate.

Since civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, it shouldn't piss off the religious. Does it piss them off when atheist get married? Do they get pissed off when swingers marry? Why should they give MORE of a fuck when gays get civilly married?

Churches are and will always be free to discriminate if they want to. I have no desire to change that through anything other than public opinion.

Bullshit. you start with punishing religious people for their beliefs, and you will move on to the organizations sooner or later.

Again, if a state wants to change the marriage contract via legislation I have no issue with it, if they don't they should be able to define it how they want to.

Again, acceptance. You keep trying to deny it, but it comes through more and more the more you post.

No Marty, true shit. We want to be civilly married. We have always had equal access to religious marriage, it is not the issue. It is not us that has a problem with the religious, it is the religious that have a problem with us. Civil unions for all would be perfectly acceptable to gays and lesbians. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays is not.

I don't care what you have a problem with, I'm glad I live in a county where we can address our grievances through the judicial system.

Equality through biology can't be obtained, so try as you may to circumvent it, the law can't change that

 

[Pop23]

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage? That is your position? And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

So...your way or the highway, eh?

Oh! It's more than that. I want him to say that he thinks they should marry people of the opposite sex. Because, the logical conclusion of that behaviour is gonna be all kinds of fun, which is why he won't actually say that.

You want logic?

Males having sex with females is logical.

Your going to argue logic?

Good lord

 

[martybegan]

So even though in that case separate but equal would actually BE separate but equal, unlike segregation as applied in the american south, you would not accept it. Over a single word, even if the contracts were identical.

As I have stated before, this just shows that this isn't just about equality, its about acceptance.

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.

Wrong. Equality first and last. YOU don't want gays to be "married", only straights. I want us both to be whatever, either married or civil unioned. You want gays to be separate.

Since civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, it shouldn't piss off the religious. Does it piss them off when atheist get married? Do they get pissed off when swingers marry? Why should they give MORE of a fuck when gays get civilly married?

Churches are and will always be free to discriminate if they want to. I have no desire to change that through anything other than public opinion.

Bullshit. you start with punishing religious people for their beliefs, and you will move on to the organizations sooner or later.

Again, if a state wants to change the marriage contract via legislation I have no issue with it, if they don't they should be able to define it how they want to.

Again, acceptance. You keep trying to deny it, but it comes through more and more the more you post.

No Marty, true shit. We want to be civilly married. We have always had equal access to religious marriage, it is not the issue. It is not us that has a problem with the religious, it is the religious that have a problem with us. Civil unions for all would be perfectly acceptable to gays and lesbians. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays is not.

I don't care what you have a problem with, I'm glad I live in a county where we can address our grievances through the judicial system.

Still looking for that acceptance you so desperately desire. Its almost Freudian.

 

[Iceweasel]

The gays should thank God that they didn't have two daddies instead of a heterosexual couple. If two dads could produce offspring then the union would be equal.

 

[Seawytch]

That's right we won't. We would have a while back...in a lot of places we did. It wasn't gays shutting the door on civil unions.

No, it shows that it is exactly about equality. We don't give a flying fuck what it's called, it just has to be the same. YOU care about what it's called so the onus is on YOU to change it...for everyone.

Again, acceptance over equality. Deep down you know it pisses of religious folk of a certain ilk, and that gives you the warm and fuzzies.

Wrong. Equality first and last. YOU don't want gays to be "married", only straights. I want us both to be whatever, either married or civil unioned. You want gays to be separate.

Since civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage, it shouldn't piss off the religious. Does it piss them off when atheist get married? Do they get pissed off when swingers marry? Why should they give MORE of a fuck when gays get civilly married?

Churches are and will always be free to discriminate if they want to. I have no desire to change that through anything other than public opinion.

Bullshit. you start with punishing religious people for their beliefs, and you will move on to the organizations sooner or later.

Again, if a state wants to change the marriage contract via legislation I have no issue with it, if they don't they should be able to define it how they want to.

Again, acceptance. You keep trying to deny it, but it comes through more and more the more you post.

No Marty, true shit. We want to be civilly married. We have always had equal access to religious marriage, it is not the issue. It is not us that has a problem with the religious, it is the religious that have a problem with us. Civil unions for all would be perfectly acceptable to gays and lesbians. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays is not.

I don't care what you have a problem with, I'm glad I live in a county where we can address our grievances through the judicial system.

Still looking for that acceptance you so desperately desire. Its almost Freudian.

Repeating a lie does not make it true. We want equality. If you get civil unions, they're fine for us. If you get civil marriage, that's what we get too. Why do you insist we meed to create something separate for gays?

 

[Czernobog]

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

Okay, lemme try that question again, emphasizing the part you seemed to have missed. Actually, I know you didn't miss it. You just don't want to answer the question honestly, because you are well aware of the shitstorm you would open with an honest answer. But, I'm gonna keep asking the question until you either answer it honestly, or admit your position is bullshit:

So, you think in order to to access the benefits come with being married, gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, and marry someone of the opposite sex, correct?

If they don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Their choice

And they can still claim all of the benefits that come with being married? What must gays do to claim those benefits? I told you I'm not going to quit asking his question until you answer it.