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

[pinqy]

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.

So if A=B, then why do you have to call them seperate names? The semantical issue is all on the side of those opposed to same sex marriage. "Make everything exactly the same but call them different names" makes zero logical sense.

 

[KevinWestern]

As I am equally sure you belong on the set of The Hunger Games. Decadence isn't progress.

We can sit here all day defining what we consider "progress", but RDD is right; your view on gays is more similar to views held in the 1930's vs 2013.

I mean, they were pretty progressive back then, right? Just try not to pay attention to the black and white drinking fountains.

.

RDD is an idiot much like you, evidently. There is no sound reason the federal government should sanction same-sex marriages. The federal government had nothing to say about marriage for over 200 years, and now gays suddenly discover a constitutional right for them to marry.

That tired saw comparing gays to blacks just doesn't cut it. It demans black people and their struggles. Next they'll be prancing about singing Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.

Thanks for calling me an idiot, I can tell off the bat you're a real classy individual. Anyways, the sound reason your looking for comes down to "equality". Who are we to say that another woman can't fall in love with another adult woman and marry her?

Again, has no effect on either of us, so why stick your nose in there? What's compelling you (really I'm curious)?

.

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course gay marriage won't affect heterosexual marriages.

Who would even think such a thing?

I take that as a no to my suggestion then. So my next question would be.... if it wouldn't be good enough for you why should it be good enough for them?

Why should a same-sex union be recognized by the government at all? It does nothing for the common good, lessens government revenue and changes the law to accomodate a select few.

No children will come of such a union. It amounts to a government financial benefit for a special interest group.

My mother-in-law remarried with absolutely no intention of having children. She was pushing 60. My father remarried with the same intention. He was in his late 70's. Should they have not been allowed to marry? Should we do physical examinations on all potential married couples to confirm they are capable of having children? Should those same couples be required to sign an affidavit to the effect they will have children before they are issued a license?

If you say no to any of that, your argument is bullshit.

 

[g5000]

With the federal takeover of marriage, we see the exact same creeping incrementalism conservatives are always moaning about. Just a little expansion here, a little invasion there, and then one day, years down the road, a complete government takeover of our private lives.

A little tax break here, a Social Security gift there, little by little, year after year, creeping along ever so slowly, gifting here and there to make a section of the population dependent on the government for those cash and prizes. Sound familiar, folks?

Then one day, the government rises up and DEFINES BY LAW who gets to receive the cash and prizes, and deliberately excludes others. Pitting one group against another. Classic.

That is right out of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Seriously. If you have read that book, you know exactly what I am talking about.

Wake up, kids. The government has taken over marriage, and you are actually defending it because you have become dependent on the government's largesse.

You are weak and dependent now, bowing down to the government. Even your church is bound to the state. Mission accomplished.

 

[KevinWestern]

I disagree as in my personal life I know two gay couples, one male, one female. Both couples delight in walking while holding hands on Sunday mornings and every week they talk about kissing outside one christian church in town or another.

That is "rubbing it in the face of the christians", and for no other reason than to do so.

Sure, there's going to be examples of both. But at the same token, the Christians do a pretty f***ing good job at marginalizing gay people, including making homosexual teenagers feel like there's something horribly wrong with them. Have you ever checked out the suicide rates of gay teens? How many derogatory terms do you know for gay people (vs how many do you know for Christians)?

Anyways, that's beside the point...

The way I see it, I'll still be able to be married to my wife, raise my kids based on MY OWN values, send them to a school of my choosing, ect if gay people are allowed to marry. So who the heck am I to stop them?

Why do you care so much, and what do you gain from preventing gay marriage?

.

you are projecting. Show me where I said I was against gay marriage.....

I am against bad behavior by anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Allowing gays to marry is just codifying what has been going on with about 12% of the population since time began......

Explain a bit more.

Are you or are you not against two gay adults being recognized as married under the law?

.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We can sit here all day defining what we consider "progress", but RDD is right; your view on gays is more similar to views held in the 1930's vs 2013.

I mean, they were pretty progressive back then, right? Just try not to pay attention to the black and white drinking fountains.

.

RDD is an idiot much like you, evidently. There is no sound reason the federal government should sanction same-sex marriages. The federal government had nothing to say about marriage for over 200 years, and now gays suddenly discover a constitutional right for them to marry.

That tired saw comparing gays to blacks just doesn't cut it. It demans black people and their struggles. Next they'll be prancing about singing Swing Low. Sweet Chariot.

The federal government injected itself into the institution of marriage. It's funny how conservatives don't mind the government taking over marriage and instituting collectivism and social behavior modification when it suits them.

Married people did not get tax breaks from the federal government for 170 years after the Constitution was ratified. It was not until the 1950s when the government began taking over marriage.

WTF is government suddenly doing in our marriages? WTF is the government doing with DOMA, defining what marriage is? THAT IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF MARRIAGE!!!

It now hands out a thousand prizes and cash to married people, unless they are gay.

Gay people are taxed extra, just for being gay. That is a simple fact. Could you imagine the outrage if blacks were taxed extra just for being black?

So only single straight people should pay taxes at that rate? What a moron you are.

DOMA was set into place to prevent gay activists inficting gay marriage on the country via the 14th Amendment. They don't give two shits about the will of the people, they just want to be treated like they're married when they are not.

I am glad that you pointed out that the real reason for the gay marriage movement is to get tax breaks, though.

Since those tax breaks were put into place to benefit children, and children most assuredly cannot be the issue of a gay marriage, it follows that those tax benefits are not due them, no?

Do single parents get tax deductions for their children? I believe they do.

So don't go whining about turkey basters, artificial insmenation and adoption. Gays are treated the same under the law as anyone else.

 

[slackjawed]

I am for equal, let 'em marry who they wish.
I eat what I want, and let others eat what they want. That may be a crude way of expressing it, but thats the simple way to say it.
As I posted in a previous post, those that wish to can set themselves apart by declaring they have a "covenant marriage".
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me that would please everyone while treating everyone equally.

 

[PratchettFan]

RDD is an idiot much like you, evidently. There is no sound reason the federal government should sanction same-sex marriages. The federal government had nothing to say about marriage for over 200 years, and now gays suddenly discover a constitutional right for them to marry.

That tired saw comparing gays to blacks just doesn't cut it. It demans black people and their struggles. Next they'll be prancing about singing Swing Low. Sweet Chariot.

The federal government injected itself into the institution of marriage. It's funny how conservatives don't mind the government taking over marriage and instituting collectivism and social behavior modification when it suits them.

Married people did not get tax breaks from the federal government for 170 years after the Constitution was ratified. It was not until the 1950s when the government began taking over marriage.

WTF is government suddenly doing in our marriages? WTF is the government doing with DOMA, defining what marriage is? THAT IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF MARRIAGE!!!

It now hands out a thousand prizes and cash to married people, unless they are gay.

Gay people are taxed extra, just for being gay. That is a simple fact. Could you imagine the outrage if blacks were taxed extra just for being black?

So only single straight people should pay taxes at that rate? What a moron you are.

DOMA was set into place to prevent gay activists inficting gay marriage on the country via the 14th Amendment. They don't give two shits about the will of the people, they just want to be treated like they're married when they are not.

I am glad that you pointed out that the real reason for the gay marriage movement is to get tax breaks, though.

Since those tax breaks were put into place to benefit children, and children most assuredly cannot be the issue of a gay marriage, it follows that those tax benefits are not due them, no?

Do single parents get tax deductions for their children? I believe they do.

So don't go whining about turkey basters, artificial insmenation and adoption. Gays are treated the same under the law as anyone else.

You don't get tax benefits for children if you don't have children. The benefits of filing a joint return are not predicated upon having children. Your argument is nonsense.

 

[hunarcy]

No, they are after equality.

Again, why do you care if two gay adults spend their life together, and the government waives things like the estate tax when the other dies? Can't you just get along with your own business?


.

I don't care if two gay adults spend their lives together and I think it's only fair that the government waives the estate tax when one partner dies.

However, I think that should be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage.

 

[g5000]

DOMA was set into place to prevent gay activists inficting gay marriage on the country via the 14th Amendment. They don't give two shits about the will of the people, they just want to be treated like they're married when they are not.

And there it is. That kind of sums up the whole banana right there. Bigots do not recognize gay marriages. Behind all of this is nothing but pure hate.

I am glad that you pointed out that the real reason for the gay marriage movement is to get tax breaks, though.

Since those tax breaks were put into place to benefit children, and children most assuredly cannot be the issue of a gay marriage, it follows that those tax benefits are not due them, no?

I guess you have never filed a married tax return. The government does not require you to have children to file a married tax return.

The government does not require you to have children to collect Social Security survivor benefits.

The government does not require you to have children to recieve health insurance benefits as the spouse of a federal employee.

And so forth, and so on.

You are wronger than wrong.

 

[g5000]

Anti-gay bigots have become dependent upon the free gifts they receive from the government. They have allowed themselves to become dependent and weak, and they don't want anyone else horning in on their cash and prizes. The government has taken over the institution of marriage and they and their churches are just fine with that.

They are no different than the negroes who receive food stamps UnConservatives go on and on about.

Look how an anti-gay bigot's church will step in to defend the government cash and prizes for them. Look how a black church steps in to protect food stamps for blacks.

I see no difference. The government has fostered an incredible amount of dependence, and our churches go right along with it.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Why can't you drop your ridiculous prejudices? Especially when it has absolutely ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, 0.00% impact on you and your life.

Why?

I'm not being prejudice, you didn't even read my ******* posts, I said amend civil unions to give them full legal rights, but to leave marriage alone.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Why not just eliminate marriage from the law entirely and call them all civil unions.

marriages should only aply to churches that do them, civil unions should be for all nonbelivers and non practicing people.

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Aren’t couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)? They aren’t equal, so unless you’re out there in Washington trying to amend “some aspects” you should probably just quit worrying about the whole thing and get on with your own business.

You don’t have to like gay marriage, you don’t have to support it, you don’t have to teach your kids that it’s an OK option – that’s your prerogative. But when it comes to the lives of other people, why do you have to stick your nose in their business?

,

Damn it, I said amend civil unions to give them full rights, but don't give them marriages.

 

[g5000]

Think about it.

If the government had not intruded itself into marriage and taken it over, would we even be having this conversation?

Nope!

 

[Flaylo]

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.

Well, the DOMA kind of prevents that. I agree that the answer to the problem is to let straights keep the "marriage" name and give "Civil Unions" every right and privilege legally, that married couples have.

So separate but equal is your answer? I somehow doubt that such a decision will be forthcoming from the SC, but given some of its current members it would not suprise me. Would the right next go after interacial or interfaith marriage? Would you support making the bond between a Christian Bride and her Athiest Husband a Civil Union?

Its not separate but equal, if the have the same rights under a civil union how the **** can they bicker about inequality? This is no way compares to Jim Crow laws. Civil Unions aren't just for gays, they for heteros as well and I believe they should be for all non-religious people.

 

[Flaylo]

Think about it.

If the government had not intruded itself into marriage and taken it over, would we even be having this conversation?

Nope!

If people would have kept marriage as a sacrament for the religious and not degraded and distorted the shit as a free for all we would have this talk. Gays over here have civil unions and don't ***** and bicker about marriages, only in the good ol USA do they do that.

 

[Michelle420]

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.

Who owns marriage>?

 

[slackjawed]

Think about it.

If the government had not intruded itself into marriage and taken it over, would we even be having this conversation?

Nope!

Bingo! But since that is the situation we find ourselves in I believe we should pursue financial equality. IMHO that is the only reason govt got into marriage in the first place.

Child support is big business for state governments and supported by federal law.

 

[Flaylo]

Well, the DOMA kind of prevents that. I agree that the answer to the problem is to let straights keep the "marriage" name and give "Civil Unions" every right and privilege legally, that married couples have.

So separate but equal is your answer? I somehow doubt that such a decision will be forthcoming from the SC, but given some of its current members it would not suprise me. Would the right next go after interacial or interfaith marriage? Would you support making the bond between a Christian Bride and her Athiest Husband a Civil Union?

Yes, separate but equal. That's fair. Gay's are separate, that is what they want, but they also want to be equal, and I believe they should be.

Again, if they have the same rights under a civil union whats the ******* problem? Your argument makes no sense and is about semantics, not equality.