Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

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

Says who? And it you are going to get into that whole procreation thing again, then I will ask you this: is procreation the only purpose of sex?

 

[martybegan]

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?

That's acceptance, not equality.

 

[Boss]

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?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the fucking problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

 

[Iceweasel]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

 

[Boss]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

 

[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

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.

Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella

 

[Pop23]

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

Says who? And it you are going to get into that whole procreation thing again, then I will ask you this: is procreation the only purpose of sex?

Should it be

I think your showing how delusional you are.

Singles can have all the pleasurable types of sex they want

 

[Pop23]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

What they want is a social issue they can polarize the electorate with because they believe this wins elections for liberals. Having the issue is more important than resolving the issue. You can't get people all worked up into an emotional frenzy over a resolved problem.

They can train people to be enablers by doing so.

It's a beautiful plan, don't ya think?

The delusioned harvesting enablers.

 

[Pop23]

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

Says who? And it you are going to get into that whole procreation thing again, then I will ask you this: is procreation the only purpose of sex?

You do realize that only one of the affected demographic groups have to concern themselves with sex induced pregnancy right?

No same sex coupling had ever caused a pregnancy.

I wonder if stating the obvious makes me a bigot?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's clearly against the will of the people in most places. I'm all for citizens in a state defining marriage however they want but it's tyranny for a minority to define society for everyone else.

No, it is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop continues to be unhappy because he can't change what he doesn't like.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Correct, 'polygamy' is a red herring, having nothing to do with marriage.

 

[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.

Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella

So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?

 

[Czernobog]

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

Says who? And it you are going to get into that whole procreation thing again, then I will ask you this: is procreation the only purpose of sex?

You do realize that only one of the affected demographic groups have to concern themselves with sex induced pregnancy right?

You do realize that no demographic has to be concerned about sex induced pregnancy, right? Because pregnancy is not the goal, or purpose of sex.

No same sex coupling had ever caused a pregnancy.

I wonder if stating the obvious makes me a bigot?

No. Your unreasonable hatred of homosexuals is what makes you a bigot. Your overwhelming need to justify that hatred that causes you to jump through through these logistical hoops suggests that you are ashamed of your bigotry, and are trying to find a way to make it not bigotry.

 

[Pop23]

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

Says who? And it you are going to get into that whole procreation thing again, then I will ask you this: is procreation the only purpose of sex?

You do realize that only one of the affected demographic groups have to concern themselves with sex induced pregnancy right?

You do realize that no demographic has to be concerned about sex induced pregnancy, right? Because pregnancy is not the goal, or purpose of sex.

No same sex coupling had ever caused a pregnancy.

I wonder if stating the obvious makes me a bigot?

No. Your unreasonable hatred of homosexuals is what makes you a bigot. Your overwhelming need to justify that hatred that causes you to jump through through these logistical hoops suggests that you are ashamed of your bigotry, and are trying to find a way to make it not bigotry.

If I were a bigot I might be ashamed of that. I stand hand in hand with biology on this one though

And you remain delusional

 

[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

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.

Singles don't get those benefits

Clear enough fella

So, it is your position that if homosexuals want to access the benefits of being married, they should marry people of the opposite sex, correct?

Go with that Mr. Spock

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

 

[Czernobog]

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

Says who? And it you are going to get into that whole procreation thing again, then I will ask you this: is procreation the only purpose of sex?

You do realize that only one of the affected demographic groups have to concern themselves with sex induced pregnancy right?

You do realize that no demographic has to be concerned about sex induced pregnancy, right? Because pregnancy is not the goal, or purpose of sex.

No same sex coupling had ever caused a pregnancy.

I wonder if stating the obvious makes me a bigot?

No. Your unreasonable hatred of homosexuals is what makes you a bigot. Your overwhelming need to justify that hatred that causes you to jump through through these logistical hoops suggests that you are ashamed of your bigotry, and are trying to find a way to make it not bigotry.

If I were a bigot I might be ashamed of that. I stand hand in hand with biology on this one though

And you remain delusional

Only if you're delusional enough insist that procreation is the sole, or even primary, goal of and purpose of sex.

 

[martybegan]

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?

That's acceptance, not equality.

So you're saying that heterosexuals only seek civil marriage for societal acceptance? That had nothing to do with why I got civilly married.

Civil unions or civil marriage for all. It's that simple. That is equality.

Its your desire to be accepted by people who don't want to accept you, or barring that to make them such pariahs that you get some smug satisfaction over fucking them over.

Your posts imply this, shoutingly imply it.

 

[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?

Some cases are winning and some are not winning. The only cases which ever have nationwide impact are SCOTUS cases.

You didn't propose shit.
Oh, but I did. Now, I won't get into a pissing contest over who suggested it first, as I said when I proposed it, the idea is not my own, it comes from a gay couple I know personally, who are opposed to gay marriage.

What we will not allow to happen is gays get civil unions, straights get civil marriage.
I didn't propose a "separate but equal" solution, so why are you accusing me of that? Yes, I know gays would be fine with my solution, so would most churches and religious people. That's the great thing about it, we resolve the fucking problem.

but anti gay states wrote into their anti gay legislation...
I don't know of any "anti-gay" state. People who oppose gay marriage are not automatically "anti-gay" and it is insulting for you to label them as such. I am opposed to gay marriage, and I am always going to be opposed to the government defining marriage.

I am actually proposing the solution to the problem that gives everybody what they want. It is YOU who are pushing this 'all-or-nothing' agenda, who seem to not give two shits about actual gay couples. How many more years are you going to hold them hostage as you demand social justice? How much are you interested in resolving the problem as opposed to maintaining the issue so you can clobber conservatives and religious people over the head with it?

Yes, they are. Anyone that opposes marriage equality IS a bigot. States that intentionally wrote prohibitions against civil unions into their anti gay marriage laws are bigoted laws based SOLELY on animus.

Go ahead and get civil unions for all passed. We aren't going to wait for that though, but I do applaud your efforts.

Fighting for our equality punishes no one. My civil marriage punished no one.