Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[kaz]

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.



So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

LOL, you summed up wytchy pretty well. she is a sick libtard lesbian.

She is not about equality, she is about having the govt FORCE her lifestyle on the rest of us.

she, like most libtards, wants the views of a minority to be shoved down the throats of the majority.

Can't discuss on the merits of your argument I see. Out of ammo and throwing the gun.

LMAO. From the lady who won't answer a simple question. Do you treat your partner as you advocate I treat mine?

 

[kaz]

Seawych,

Welcome to adulthood. Life is full of compromises. You can't always get what you want. But if you try some time, you just might find, you get what you need.

Let me explain relationships and adulthood to you.

Relationships

1) What doesn't work unless your partner is a doormat is that you never compromise, you demand that you never do anything any way other then your view. If your partner tells you they agree with you on every view, they are lying, you steamrolled them.

2) Better is compromise. Basically, every issue you try to meet in the middle.

3) Best is that you both get your way sometimes. Compromise means you never get your way. By using this method, you're actually both happier. You can't keep score, you just discuss and work it out. Generally the one who cares more about the issue gets their way. In a healthy relationship, you let your partner know how important this one is to you. And you listen to what they say. It only works when you both are willing and able to concede that wow, this one's more important to you, let's do it your way.

Government and religious Marriage is huge to my partner. She knows I don't think marriage should be a government function, I know it's a lot more important to her that we have government recognition. By rule 3, she wins.

Adulthood is that life is full of compromises. I don't believe in the IRS, but I am not willing to go to jail so I pay taxes and don't cheat. I make a choice what price I'm willing to pay. I own a business, but I do many, many things for government I oppose. Business taxes, unemployment, social security, ... If I think a speed limit is too low, I only go above it what I'm willing to risk to not get a ticket.

And if I have a general ideology that marriage isn't a government function, but I have been with my wife 26 years and we've been married 23, I'm not willing to devastate her to act on my view that government should go away on this one. By this rule, she wins. She wins by every rule except yours, never compromise or give in to your partner. Ever. I reject that rule.

This is totally condescending, I know you know this. However, it's a direct response to the position you claim you hold. My real question to you is that if you're telling me you're stupid and clueless and you don't understand relationships or even being an adult, isn't there something wrong with your argument?

I do have a question though. Do you treat your partner as you advocate I treat mine?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, you dumb bimbo. My wife needs validation. How many times can I tell you that I'm a libertarian, I'm against government. My wife is a ... wait for it ... wait some more ... CONSERVATIVE. My God woman, they want government just as much as you do, they just want different government.

And I also told you she's a religious conservative. Have you heard of Conservatives wanting government to control abortion, proposition, drugs, gambling and so on? Seriously, what is wrong with you? In what possible universe do you think religious conservatives don't want government validation of morality? Do you pay attention to politics at all as you're spending endless hours writing about it? Hello, is there anyone at home? My God.



So answer the question that you've dance, skipped and jogged around then once. Is that the standard you apply to your own life? If your ideology is contradictory to a deep conviction of your partner, you refuse to let her have her way. Ever. She will do it your way. That is the standard you hold me to. For the hundredth time, is that YOUR standard for YOURSELF?

Answer the question. If you can't, you've shown clearly what you are.

You aren't absolved from being a hypocrite no matter how you try to justify it or blame it on someone else. My spouse wouldn't force me to violate my personal morals nor would I hers. We would compromise. Your spouse felt more strongly than you did, and that's perfectly all right. You gave up your beliefs in favor of hers...you're an unwilling and saintly hypocrite. I'll put in a good word for your wings.

It's actually a far stronger conviction to me that my partner's values matter more than strictly following every single bit of my political ideology. To call following that "hypocrisy" is retarded. And if I were to believe you, you would clearly be arguing that gay marriage is less than straight marriage and that would destroy every argument you've ever made on the subject.

Though we both know you're a liar, you don't treat your partner as you advocate other people treat theirs. Hmm..there's a word for that. As for actually addressing the question as to whether you treat your partner as you advocate mine ...

... all she wants to do is, all she wants to do is



Liberalism, an odd ideology where if you believe their shallow lies you actually think they are more stupid then if you think they are lying. Not a game I'd ever play.

So, do you treat your partner as you advocate I treat mine? What about answering the question?

I did answer the question. I said we would compromise, my partner and I.

It's interesting that you wish to attribute to me the intransigence that it would appear your own spouse has instead.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why not leave this issue to the states? Or even the church?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why not leave this issue to the states? Or even the church?

1. Do you support the repeal of the federal DOMA and the federal government returning to pre 1996 and recognizing ALL legal Civil Marriages under State law?


2. Do you support the equal legal recognition of Different-sex and Same-sex Marriages performed by religious organizations?



>>>>

 

[kaz]

So, do you treat your partner as you advocate I treat mine? What about answering the question?

I did answer the question. I said we would compromise, my partner and I.

It's interesting that you wish to attribute to me the intransigence that it would appear your own spouse has instead.

OK, well at least you moved from relationship step 1 to step 2. You're proposing compromise, not doing it your way. One day you'll hit heterosexual level 3. But let's take it from where you are now. Whatever you disagree on, split the difference.

Last time you said that, I asked what you propose that I propose to my wife to "compromise." She wants government validation, I don't think government has a role in marriage, their validation means nothing to me. What exactly is the middle position? How to you "compromise" between being government married and not being government married.

Last time you tried to answer the question you proposed that I propose we have a church marriage and not a government marriage. I pointed out that's not a compromise, that's actually what I want. Ooops, we're back to step 1. Honey, I thought it over, and we're doing it my way. We'll have a church marriage, but not a government one. I'm sure if I let her know someone on the internet said my way isn't my way, it's a compromise, she'll be very swayed by that. Especially when I let her know you said she's an extremist for insisting on not doing it my way.

Have you come up with an actual compromise between how we can be in the "middle" between having a government marriage and not having one? Do you have an actual position this time in the "middle" that isn't just my position like last time?

 

[Seawytch]

So, do you treat your partner as you advocate I treat mine? What about answering the question?

I did answer the question. I said we would compromise, my partner and I.

It's interesting that you wish to attribute to me the intransigence that it would appear your own spouse has instead.

OK, well at least you moved from relationship step 1 to step 2. You're proposing compromise, not doing it your way. One day you'll hit heterosexual level 3. But let's take it from where you are now. Whatever you disagree on, split the difference.

Last time you said that, I asked what you propose that I propose to my wife to "compromise." She wants government validation, I don't think government has a role in marriage, their validation means nothing to me. What exactly is the middle position? How to you "compromise" between being government married and not being government married.

Last time you tried to answer the question you proposed that I propose we have a church marriage and not a government marriage. I pointed out that's not a compromise, that's actually what I want. Ooops, we're back to step 1. Honey, I thought it over, and we're doing it my way. We'll have a church marriage, but not a government one. I'm sure if I let her know someone on the internet said my way isn't my way, it's a compromise, she'll be very swayed by that. Especially when I let her know you said she's an extremist for insisting on not doing it my way.

Have you come up with an actual compromise between how we can be in the "middle" between having a government marriage and not having one? Do you have an actual position this time in the "middle" that isn't just my position like last time?

You're so full if shit. You claim your libertarian ideals wants government out of marriage, but you got legally married anyway. You then claim it was because your partner wanted it only her way, but you want to paint me as the intransigent one because my spouse and I would compromise on an issue of ideals and morals.

So you want me to come up for a compromise for you? Okay...don't take advantage of any of those cash and prizes.

Of course, if anything happens to either of you...you couldn't really turn down all those survivor benefits that are there to protect your family.

What legislation have you pushed for or supported that would take away all those benefits and protections instead of just trying to keep gays from those same protections?

 

[bendog]

I did answer the question. I said we would compromise, my partner and I.

It's interesting that you wish to attribute to me the intransigence that it would appear your own spouse has instead.

OK, well at least you moved from relationship step 1 to step 2. You're proposing compromise, not doing it your way. One day you'll hit heterosexual level 3. But let's take it from where you are now. Whatever you disagree on, split the difference.

Last time you said that, I asked what you propose that I propose to my wife to "compromise." She wants government validation, I don't think government has a role in marriage, their validation means nothing to me. What exactly is the middle position? How to you "compromise" between being government married and not being government married.

Last time you tried to answer the question you proposed that I propose we have a church marriage and not a government marriage. I pointed out that's not a compromise, that's actually what I want. Ooops, we're back to step 1. Honey, I thought it over, and we're doing it my way. We'll have a church marriage, but not a government one. I'm sure if I let her know someone on the internet said my way isn't my way, it's a compromise, she'll be very swayed by that. Especially when I let her know you said she's an extremist for insisting on not doing it my way.

Have you come up with an actual compromise between how we can be in the "middle" between having a government marriage and not having one? Do you have an actual position this time in the "middle" that isn't just my position like last time?

You're so full if shit. You claim your libertarian ideals wants government out of marriage, but you got legally married anyway. You then claim it was because your partner wanted it only her way, but you want to paint me as the intransigent one because my spouse and I would compromise on an issue of ideals and morals.

So you want me to come up for a compromise for you? Okay...don't take advantage of any of those cash and prizes.

Of course, if anything happens to either of you...you couldn't really turn down all those survivor benefits that are there to protect your family.

What legislation have you pushed for or supported that would take away all those benefits and protections instead of just trying to keep gays from those same protections?

If it was really libertaraian, it would be "do whatever you want, and don't tell me unless there's a reason I would want to know ... and I don't." LOL

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why not leave this issue to the states? Or even the church?

1. Do you support the repeal of the federal DOMA and the federal government returning to pre 1996 and recognizing ALL legal Civil Marriages under State law?


2. Do you support the equal legal recognition of Different-sex and Same-sex Marriages performed by religious organizations?



>>>>

1. Yes, give it to the states.
2. Let the church choose if they want too.

 

[High_Gravity]

Seawytch is more than welcome to force Lesbianism on me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why not leave this issue to the states? Or even the church?

1. Do you support the repeal of the federal DOMA and the federal government returning to pre 1996 and recognizing ALL legal Civil Marriages under State law?


2. Do you support the equal legal recognition of Different-sex and Same-sex Marriages performed by religious organizations?



>>>>

1. Yes, give it to the states.

Fair enough. All different-sex and same-sex Civil Marriage are recognized equally by the Feds.

2. Let the church choose if they want too.

They already can.

2. Let the church choose if they want too.

But...

Not what I asked. What I asked was whether the government would give the same legal recognition to different-sex and same-sex marriages performed by a religious organization?

If yes, it's that still the government treating same-sex couples the same as different-sex couples because they are now Civilly Married (one recognized under the law) even though it was performed by a religious institution. So what the difference is escapes me.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

I did answer the question. I said we would compromise, my partner and I.

It's interesting that you wish to attribute to me the intransigence that it would appear your own spouse has instead.

OK, well at least you moved from relationship step 1 to step 2. You're proposing compromise, not doing it your way. One day you'll hit heterosexual level 3. But let's take it from where you are now. Whatever you disagree on, split the difference.

Last time you said that, I asked what you propose that I propose to my wife to "compromise." She wants government validation, I don't think government has a role in marriage, their validation means nothing to me. What exactly is the middle position? How to you "compromise" between being government married and not being government married.

Last time you tried to answer the question you proposed that I propose we have a church marriage and not a government marriage. I pointed out that's not a compromise, that's actually what I want. Ooops, we're back to step 1. Honey, I thought it over, and we're doing it my way. We'll have a church marriage, but not a government one. I'm sure if I let her know someone on the internet said my way isn't my way, it's a compromise, she'll be very swayed by that. Especially when I let her know you said she's an extremist for insisting on not doing it my way.

Have you come up with an actual compromise between how we can be in the "middle" between having a government marriage and not having one? Do you have an actual position this time in the "middle" that isn't just my position like last time?

You're so full if shit. You claim your libertarian ideals wants government out of marriage, but you got legally married anyway. You then claim it was because your partner wanted it only her way, but you want to paint me as the intransigent one because my spouse and I would compromise on an issue of ideals and morals.

So you want me to come up for a compromise for you? Okay...don't take advantage of any of those cash and prizes.

Of course, if anything happens to either of you...you couldn't really turn down all those survivor benefits that are there to protect your family.

What legislation have you pushed for or supported that would take away all those benefits and protections instead of just trying to keep gays from those same protections?

You've had so many opportunities in this conversation to make real points. And pass every time. I'm good with content with people with a brain and good with insults with people who don't. You are what you are, a jealous, angry Dyke consumed with wealth envy.

BTW, when we got married 23 years ago, I was a Republican with libertarian leanings. The more time goes on, the more I realize how many things would be so much better if government were not involved in them. Marriage being on the list, but that was more recent that it became an area I realized government had no business.

As for your repeatedly calling my wife an extremist for wanting government marriage, which interestingly you want as well, I say Godspeed to your partner. She must be a saint to put up with someone like you who uses each and every opportunity to show what an uncompromising bitch you are. You're really not a lesbian, you're a narcissist. You just happen to be a woman. If you'd been born a man, you'd be a gay man for the same reason.

 

[hazlnut]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Separate but equal?

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

 

[kaz]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Separate but equal?

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

What a terrible analogy

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Separate but equal?

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

What a terrible analogy

Civil Marriage for different-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.

Civil Unions for same-sex couples which extend certain rights, responsibilities, and benefits through the establishment of a new legal and family relationship where one did not exist before.



Separate names for the same thing for different couples based on gender, sounds like a pretty accurate description.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

OK, well at least you moved from relationship step 1 to step 2. You're proposing compromise, not doing it your way. One day you'll hit heterosexual level 3. But let's take it from where you are now. Whatever you disagree on, split the difference.

Last time you said that, I asked what you propose that I propose to my wife to "compromise." She wants government validation, I don't think government has a role in marriage, their validation means nothing to me. What exactly is the middle position? How to you "compromise" between being government married and not being government married.

Last time you tried to answer the question you proposed that I propose we have a church marriage and not a government marriage. I pointed out that's not a compromise, that's actually what I want. Ooops, we're back to step 1. Honey, I thought it over, and we're doing it my way. We'll have a church marriage, but not a government one. I'm sure if I let her know someone on the internet said my way isn't my way, it's a compromise, she'll be very swayed by that. Especially when I let her know you said she's an extremist for insisting on not doing it my way.

Have you come up with an actual compromise between how we can be in the "middle" between having a government marriage and not having one? Do you have an actual position this time in the "middle" that isn't just my position like last time?

You're so full if shit. You claim your libertarian ideals wants government out of marriage, but you got legally married anyway. You then claim it was because your partner wanted it only her way, but you want to paint me as the intransigent one because my spouse and I would compromise on an issue of ideals and morals.

So you want me to come up for a compromise for you? Okay...don't take advantage of any of those cash and prizes.

Of course, if anything happens to either of you...you couldn't really turn down all those survivor benefits that are there to protect your family.

What legislation have you pushed for or supported that would take away all those benefits and protections instead of just trying to keep gays from those same protections?

You've had so many opportunities in this conversation to make real points. And pass every time. I'm good with content with people with a brain and good with insults with people who don't. You are what you are, a jealous, angry Dyke consumed with wealth envy.

BTW, when we got married 23 years ago, I was a Republican with libertarian leanings. The more time goes on, the more I realize how many things would be so much better if government were not involved in them. Marriage being on the list, but that was more recent that it became an area I realized government had no business.

As for your repeatedly calling my wife an extremist for wanting government marriage, which interestingly you want as well, I say Godspeed to your partner. She must be a saint to put up with someone like you who uses each and every opportunity to show what an uncompromising bitch you are. You're really not a lesbian, you're a narcissist. You just happen to be a woman. If you'd been born a man, you'd be a gay man for the same reason.

I'm not the one painting her as an extremist, you are. All the things you are derisively attributing to gays (gays just need validation, etc.) feels like misdirected anger to me.

It also feels like the real deal is that you simply do not think gay and lesbian relationships are on par with heterosexual relationships and are not deserving of the rights, benefits and protections you so bitterly enjoy.

 

[kaz]

I'm not the one painting her as an extremist, you are.

That so girlfriend...

It's interesting that you wish to attribute to me the intransigence that it would appear your own spouse has instead.

It also feels like the real deal is that you simply do not think gay and lesbian relationships are on par with heterosexual relationships

Actually you said that. Repeatedly. You keep saying that my partner is nothing, I am to ignore her. Your choice is that you're a complete hypocrite who would never do that in your own life what you openly advocate others do in theirs, or you're a complete cad who has zero feeling for your partner's feelings. So .. which is it .. wytch?

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not the one painting her as an extremist, you are.

That so girlfriend...

It's interesting that you wish to attribute to me the intransigence that it would appear your own spouse has instead.

It also feels like the real deal is that you simply do not think gay and lesbian relationships are on par with heterosexual relationships

Actually you said that. Repeatedly. You keep saying that my partner is nothing, I am to ignore her. Your choice is that you're a complete hypocrite who would never do that in your own life what you openly advocate others do in theirs, or you're a complete cad who has zero feeling for your partner's feelings. So .. which is it .. wytch?

OMG Drama Queen I've done nothing of the sort. I called you a hypocrite for wishing to deny others what you so angrily enjoy, that's all. You're the one that decided that means I'm an unfeeling cad...when it's really your spouse you're angry at for forcing you into a government institution you want nothing to do with...allegedly.

Admit it...this Libertarian thing is just a front so you don't have to appear the homophobe. Come Kaz, embrace your homophobia.

 

[Spoonman]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Separate but equal?

Hmmm... where have I heard that before?

Malcolm X, you know, the black guy

 

[kaz]

OMG Drama Queen I've done nothing of the sort. I called you a hypocrite for wishing to deny others what you so angrily enjoy, that's all. You're the one that decided that means I'm an unfeeling cad...when it's really your spouse you're angry at for forcing you into a government institution you want nothing to do with...allegedly.

Admit it...this Libertarian thing is just a front so you don't have to appear the homophobe. Come Kaz, embrace your homophobia.

Wow, serious projection. One thing I can tell you is that if you give in to your mate once in a while instead of demanding everything be split down the middle in as you say "compromise," particularly for things that are bigger to her than you, it'll do a lot for your relationship. It's far better to get your way on the things you care the most about then to get half of what you care about and half about what isn't that big a deal to you. And your partner will get the same and be happier too. Saying once in a while, you know what? Let's do it your way. Actually with the right attitude that will make you both happy.

A great book you may want to check out is "Getting to Yes." It's directly about business, but it's actually pretty useful in life in general.