Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Syriusly]

Gay marriage is morally wrong and should not be legalized. It is inappropriate, its not right, its disgusting in every way. It stops kids from being born, gay men relations spread NASTY diseases. I can continue, if you want.

Hmmm how does it stop kids from being born?

Why should you thinking gays are icky have anything to do with what is morally right or wrong?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?

They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that.

Unless of course it is the Conservatives suing business's.

If people of faith weren't being dicks to homosexuals, then this whole issue would be moot.

So you define following one of the major religions on this planet as "being a dick"

Look who is being intolerant here.

People of faith can be dicks also.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, you don't get to expand the definition of bigotry to suit your interests. At that point you are a bigot for disrespecting a religious person's belief that your lifestyle is sinful.

So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?

They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that.

Unless of course it is the Conservatives suing business's.

If people of faith weren't being dicks to homosexuals, then this whole issue would be moot.

So you define following one of the major religions on this planet as "being a dick"

Look who is being intolerant here.

People of faith can be dicks also.

So?

 

[Syriusly]

Also the 'tradition argument' is legally invalid.

...which is why there's no basis for two person marriages in gay states. Try to keep up.

What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?

 

[Syriusly]

So all those atheist marrying is disrespectful to the religious...obviously we must only have civil unions for them, right?

They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that.

Unless of course it is the Conservatives suing business's.

If people of faith weren't being dicks to homosexuals, then this whole issue would be moot.

So you define following one of the major religions on this planet as "being a dick"

Look who is being intolerant here.

People of faith can be dicks also.

So?

Indeed- so.

 

[Iceweasel]

What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?

Huh?

 

[martybegan]

They aren't the ones trying to force bakers to bake cakes against their will. They are however using the courts to be dicks to people of faith, so I guess you assholes share that in common.

Actually lots of people use the courts to force business's to comply with the law.

Conservatives hate that.

Unless of course it is the Conservatives suing business's.

If people of faith weren't being dicks to homosexuals, then this whole issue would be moot.

So you define following one of the major religions on this planet as "being a dick"

Look who is being intolerant here.

People of faith can be dicks also.

So?

Indeed- so.

Missing the point. Why is the government in the business of punishing people for "being dicks" to someone else? Especially when such "being dicks" is easily rectified by going to someone else for the non essential service.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PA laws have nothing to do with essential or non-essential services.

 

[ShackledNation]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

Nope. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer.

As a gay man myself I couldn't care more. Your post is a flaming load of horse crap. Allowing gay couples to marry has no effect on you or anyone else who hates gays whatsoever. The only people trying to cram anything down society's throat are people like you. You want everyone to fit into your own view of marriage and what it is.

You don't want to give people the freedom to be who they actually are and marry who they actually want to love. Sorry, but nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

Yet this is EXACTLY what you support! My solution REMOVES government from the issue entirely and allows PEOPLE to decide for themselves.

I don't hate gay people. It's offensive to me for you to continue accusing me of hating gay people when you have presented absolutely NO evidence to support that allegation. I am the one who is presenting a reasonable solution to the problem which resolves it forever. My viewpoint comes from an actual gay couple who have been together 30 years and are close personal friends of mine.

YOU are the intolerant bigot who wants to use the courts and government to impose your will on society, and I reject that.

False. Same-sex marriage, which I support, does not force morals on anybody. Nobody is forced to enter into a same-sex marriage. Nobody is prohibited from practicing traditional marriage. With same-sex marriage legal, gay couples are free to marry and straight couples are also free to marry. Marriage rights are expanded, and traditional marriages are not effected one bit.

Same-sex marriage bans do force morality on people. Anybody who wants to get married is forced to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. Gay couples are prohibited from marrying each other. Gay couples are not free to marry, but straight couples are. Marriage rights are restricted to straight couples, and same-sex marriages are illegal stripping gay couples of rights, dignity, and equal protection.

In only one case are morals being forced on anyone. And that is with same-sex marriage bans, not marriage equality. If you see both as equally forcing morality on society, then you have a completely bogus understanding of force.


Now to your argument. If government was out of marriage, that would be great. But that is not where things are going, expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples is a far better alternative than the status quo. Your solution is impractical and unrealistic. I too would love government out of marriage, but I recognize the reality of politics today. Marriage licenses aren't going anywhere. They exist in all 50 states, and a repeal of them in all 50 states would take decades and decades. In the meantime you would be fine granting special rights to opposite sex couples but denying them to same-sex couples. That is not an acceptable solution. Period.

My number one choice would be to get rid of the marriage licenses, just like you. But marriage equality is the next best option. You, on the other hand, seem to see the next best option as granting rights to one group and not another until the marriage license is gone (which will never happen). Not to mention that or all intensive purposes your solution is entirely semantic, as I have said before.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where is marriage equality forcing anyone to say that same sex marriage is moral?

 

[Boss]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

Nope. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer.

As a gay man myself I couldn't care more. Your post is a flaming load of horse crap. Allowing gay couples to marry has no effect on you or anyone else who hates gays whatsoever. The only people trying to cram anything down society's throat are people like you. You want everyone to fit into your own view of marriage and what it is.

You don't want to give people the freedom to be who they actually are and marry who they actually want to love. Sorry, but nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

Yet this is EXACTLY what you support! My solution REMOVES government from the issue entirely and allows PEOPLE to decide for themselves.

I don't hate gay people. It's offensive to me for you to continue accusing me of hating gay people when you have presented absolutely NO evidence to support that allegation. I am the one who is presenting a reasonable solution to the problem which resolves it forever. My viewpoint comes from an actual gay couple who have been together 30 years and are close personal friends of mine.

YOU are the intolerant bigot who wants to use the courts and government to impose your will on society, and I reject that.

False. Same-sex marriage, which I support, does not force morals on anybody. Nobody is forced to enter into a same-sex marriage. Nobody is prohibited from practicing traditional marriage. With same-sex marriage legal, gay couples are free to marry and straight couples are also free to marry. Marriage rights are expanded, and traditional marriages are not effected one bit.

Same-sex marriage bans do force morality on people. Anybody who wants to get married is forced to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. Gay couples are prohibited from marrying each other. Gay couples are not free to marry, but straight couples. Marriage rights are restricted to straight couples, and same-sex marriages are illegal with same-sex couples stripped of rights and dignity.

In only one case are morals being forced on anyone. And that is with same-sex marriage bans, not marriage equality.


Now to your argument. If government was out of marriage, that would be great. But that is not where things are going, expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples is a far better alternative than the status quo. Your solution is impractical and unrealistic. I too would love government out of marriage, but I recognize the reality of politics today. Marriage licenses aren't going anywhere. My number one choice would be to get rid of the marriage license, but marriage equality is the next best option. Not to mention for all intensive purposes your solution is entirely semantic as I have said before.

Yes, you are forcing your morals on society via the courts and government, and I don't support that. I'm glad you agree my solution would be your number one choice, I'm just miffed at why you think it is "impractical and unrealistic"? You didn't expound.

You see.... I think it is very practical and realistic in context of the conservative philosophy of less government and more individual liberty. I think my solution would be wildly popular across party lines because, as I pointed out, it resolves the issue for all parties and ends the problem forever. There is truly not a better solution, and you agree with that.

So we both agree on an amicable solution, but you want to continue pushing for something I cannot and will not ever support. Which one of us is being intolerant?

 

[Seawytch]

So Boss...have you called your congresscritter to "get the gubmint out of the marriage biz"? What was the response?

 

[Boss]

Where is marriage equality forcing anyone to say that same sex marriage is moral?

There is not marriage inequality. If there were, I would favor equality. You are trying to make something marriage that is not marriage and then say it's inequality. I could do the same thing with marrying children, marrying animals, multiple partners, dead people, inanimate objects... on and on and on. Just because you want to call something marriage doesn't make it marriage.

No homosexual is being denied the right to marry. But marriage is the union of a man and woman, not same sex couples. Forcing society to accept your parameters for marriage is unacceptable to society, and they have repeatedly told you this in one ballot initiative after another across the country.

So what we need to do is start looking at this from another perspective and try to find a way we can resolve the problem for all sides... That's what I have presented, but you want to stubbornly cling to the issue itself. We need to then ask, why do you oppose a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties and ends the problem?

 

[Boss]

So Boss...have you called your congresscritter to "get the gubmint out of the marriage biz"? What was the response?

Well, my state representatives think it's a good idea and thanked me for it. My federal representatives maintain it's not a federal matter since the Fed doesn't issue marriage licenses. But the thing about this is, like any initiative, it will take a solid grass roots coalition effort, and that starts right here with us. I can't change the laws by myself.

 

[Syriusly]

What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?

Huh?

Here is what you said:
..which is why there's no basis for two person marriages in gay states. Try to keep up.

I quoted you- shouldn't have been hard to figure that out

What is a gay state? And which states don't allow marriages between two persons?

 

[jillian]

You conflate support for an ideological concept with no real world application, to fighting for recognition of actual people to make their own personal choices. Allow me to be clear: I support the ideological concept of marriage equality - including that of incestuous marriage, and polygamy. I will not waste my time trying to gain government recognition of that view until, and unless, someone, like the "homos" you so despise, comes forward wishing to practice such.

See how the delusional justify their delusions?

Incest and polygamy is acceptable because it's the only way I get benefits while humping another dudes ass.

The same sex marriage supporters are the ones who claim that two consenting adults should marry even if they are of the same gender because not allowing it is somehow violating their rights. However, the same ones justify how type sof marriage they disagree with shouldn't be allowed all the while claiming they support equality.

No one is doing that. Show me where I was have claimed that I "disagree" with incestuous, or polygamous marriage. The only claim that I have made is that there is no one demanding the "right" of polygamous, or incestuous marriage in the United States, so there is no one on who's behalf to demand those rights. You are trying to force a fight for rights for people who do not exist.

Your claim about no one demanding one of those types of marriages is false. If, as you say, those people don't exists, why are there laws prohibiting something you say no one wants? Governmental bodies didn't just think of writing them out of the blue.

Cite them. Cite one person who has petitioned the court for the right to marry a close relative, or more than one spouse. No? that would be because you are full of shit.

he also misses the point of "equal protection". multiple partners is not "equal" to being allowed to marry the consenting adult of our choice.

 

[Syriusly]

So what we need to do is start looking at this from another perspective and try to find a way we can resolve the problem for all sides... That's what I have presented, but you want to stubbornly cling to the issue itself. We need to then ask, why do you oppose a reasonable solution that resolves the issue for all parties and ends the problem?

If you want to eliminate legal marriage for all- that would be equitable to everyone but not necesarily fair.

At one time a reasonable solution was proposed- 'Domestic Partnership'- that was fought tooth and nail by Conservatives to ensure that Domestic Partnerships did not have the same legal rights as marriage.

So to hell with compromise- I am all for marriage equality- I see no reason why Bob and Bill or Jane and Jill should not be able to be married exactly as my wife and I are.

 

[jillian]

So Boss...have you called your congresscritter to "get the gubmint out of the marriage biz"? What was the response?

Well, my state representatives think it's a good idea and thanked me for it. My federal representatives maintain it's not a federal matter since the Fed doesn't issue marriage licenses. But the thing about this is, like any initiative, it will take a solid grass roots coalition effort, and that starts right here with us. I can't change the laws by myself.

no doubt a fellow rightie would agree with you.

but no one ever said the right had any concept of equal protection

 

[JakeStarkey]

Righties, get over it.

Marriage equality is here and it takes nothing from you.

 

[Seawytch]

Righties, get over it.

Marriage equality is here and it takes nothing from you.

Yeah, but it makes them feel icky.