Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your analogy makes no sense.All the gay marriage "rights" can be accomplished with existing laws and power-of-attorney agreements. The gays are committed to tearing down societal morality so they want to shove gay marriage down our throats.
And a black person can get a drink of water at a "blacks only" water fountain.
So?
You've changed your argument. Gays have long had the ability to enjoy all the same rights by filing the proper legal papers without offending a large majority of Americans by changing the definition of marriage.
I'm not changing my argument, Glock, I'm saying that homosexuals want equality. Not contrived, sort of, but a different kind of equality. Heterosexuals get married and that's it. They get all the rights, benefits, and official status that one gets when one enters into the institution of marriage. Homosexuals get married and the Federal Government and State Governments don't recognize it. In order to have the same rights and benefits they have to get power of attorney. And that doesn't give them the same so-called tax benefits that married couples enjoy, which whether or not they enjoy it doesn't matter. Homosexual married couples want to be taxed the same has heterosexual married couples, even if it sucks. Homosexual married couples want the same divorce protections that heterosexual married couples have.
Society might not accept homosexuals, their lifestyles, their marriages, or their status - but the government should treat all people the same. It does not do that now. Even though homosexual couples can get some of the same benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy through power of attorney, it is not equal.
There is no such thing as separate but equal. We already learned that in this country.
Your opinion is interesting... however, your third point, at least, sets forth an incorrect basic premise. Marriage is not a relationship in "support of child rearing". Marriage is a relationship established by the state to create and define property rights and various other rights and obligations, none of which necessarily have anything to do with childrearing. Disposition of child support and custody issues generally does not occur until the TERMINATION of the marital relationship.
As far as tolerance of gays, you might be right. I'd suspect that depends on where one lives and that someone like Matthew Shepard would have disagreed strongly.
Finally, giving someone equal rights no more elevates them than ending "separate but equal" education "elevated" blacks.
All the gay marriage "rights" can be accomplished with existing laws and power-of-attorney agreements. The gays are committed to tearing down societal morality so they want to shove gay marriage down our throats.
Why do homosexuals want to tear down societal morality? Because Satan is their master?
How do they shove gay marriage down your throat? By making you have a gay wedding?
C'mon, Glock. You just sound like a homophobic Christian fundamentalist. Clint ain't afraid of those candy-asses.
Again, I wouldn't agree on that motive, since they can do that through simple legal channels available to them for some time now. Most gay couples do exactly that, and its only the ones who want to attract attention to themselves that insist on changing the very bedrock of civilized society for their own selfish desires. Their true motives must be different, and I simply offered you a plausible theory on what it actually is.
Its not just the legal rights and benefits that is the issue. Its also equality. Heterosexual couples can marry the consenting adult that they desire and it is officially recognized. Homosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they desire but it isn't officially recognized. This effectively lowers homosexuals' status to that of second class citizens.
For the 5th time, you can't legislate "status".Its not just the legal rights and benefits that is the issue. Its also equality. Heterosexual couples can marry the consenting adult that they desire and it is officially recognized. Homosexuals can marry the consenting adult that they desire but it isn't officially recognized. This effectively lowers homosexuals' status to that of second class citizens.
Not social status, but official status. Governmental recognized status can be legislated. You don't have to agree to personally accept homosexuals or their marriages, but the government should so that homosexuals, in the eyes of the ruling bodies, have the same level of citizenship as heterosexual married couples.
Both examples, women's rights and others have become professional grievance industries. There is nothing conspiratorial to it.
What do you mean? NAACP? Non-profits? ACLU? As far as I know, these people don't make much money. They work in this field because they believe in what they are doing. Not much of an industry. What percentage of the GDP do these industries make? How much are their profits? Oh, $0. Their non-profits.
Just finished commenting in another forum on this topic. Many participants were highly exercised and wildly misinformed in some instances.
Here is my view which I believe is shared by many people in flyover country.
- Marriage in our society and across the globe is the formalization of a relationship in support of child rearing. If it makes gays feel better about themselves to be married, fine. But neither side of that arguement has any right to impose their viewpoint on any one, any group, or upon society as a whole.
Single people do not have the same tax benefits as married people either. People with no children do not have the same tax benefits as people with children, and I could go on. Therefore, homosexuals have no corner on the market there.
Logic is definitely subjective for you, Newby.
Homosexual single people have the same tax benefits as heterosexual single people.
A = B
Homosexual people with children have the same tax benefits as heterosexual people with children.
C = D
Homosexual married couples do not have the same "official" status, and so therefore do not have the same tax benefits, as heterosexual married couples have.
E < F
Can I make it any more logical for you than that?
Ah, no you can't. Why can't the single person complain about the same thing? Why can't the couples w/o children? They are a 'group' just as much as homosexuals are a group, why should they have to pay different tax rates and be discriminated against in the tax code?
There is no such thing as a homosexual married couple, so your argument is moot.
Oh, boy. Newby, newby, newby. There is just no point in communicating with you. You are so blind and so dogmatic in your own opinions, and you don't even know it.
If you want to be constructive and open to having a discussion, then we can communicate. But, this continued criticism of my posts and close-mindedness is just going to make an communication between us pointless.
...
...
- American society has been tolerant of gays for a very long time and still is; few rational people are carrying any guilt around with them on this. In contrast it is the policy of many governments, past and present, in the world to confine and even execute gays.
Logic is definitely subjective for you, Newby.
Homosexual single people have the same tax benefits as heterosexual single people.
A = B
Homosexual people with children have the same tax benefits as heterosexual people with children.
C = D
Homosexual married couples do not have the same "official" status, and so therefore do not have the same tax benefits, as heterosexual married couples have.
E < F
Can I make it any more logical for you than that?
Wrong. Homosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex have the same official status and tax benefits as heterosexuals married to someone of the opposite sex (and yes, there are homosexuals married to people of the opposite sex). And a heterosexual cohabiting with someone of the same sex has the same tax status as a homosexual doing so.
Once again, the law does not care about your motivations or warm fuzzies on this subject.
Seriously ... the word marriage is more than just some contract ... nuts marry bolts for example. It's a mechanic not a contract, the joining of two things, nothing more.
Seriously ... founded on religion ... how odd then that they made specific laws to keep religion from making laws ...