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

[Seawytch]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

In which state or municipality is the ability to procreate a prerequisite for civil marriage?

How are children hurt by granting civil marriage to gay couples?

 

[Seawytch]

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

My partner and I have children. So do 40,000 gay couples in CA alone.

In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for legal, civil marriage?

 

[PJC]

and BTW, what's the difference between "government marriage" and marriage?

Actually it's an important distinction. People that use the term "marriage" alone are often being (a) lazy, or (b) intentionally ambiguous so as to be able to "muddy the waters" in the discussion. Use of the term "marriage" by itself lacks definative context on exactly what you are speaking about - I try to provide that context in ever post so that those that read what I say know I'm speaking of Civil Marriage.

"Marriage" actually exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is that bond established under the authorization of a religious institution. One need not obtain a Civil Marriage to be religiously married. A couple (man+woman, man+man, or woman+woman) can go to the religious institution of their choice and be "married", however without the license, that marriage is not recognized under the law. Religious Marriage is already available to everyone, in every state (same-sex or different-sex couples) equally, you just have to find a religious institution to perform the ceremony.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is that action granted and recognized under the law which creates a new legal status for those involved. Couples can be "religiously married" with not civil component. Couples can be "civilly married" with no religious component. But Civil Marriage must exist for the interaction between the couple and the government in treating them as one family unit that did not exist before.​

>>>>

I have nothing to add. You addressed his question perfectly.

Actually no, it didn’t. I figured the religious vs civil marriage argument would come up.

But this doesn’t answer my question as there are already civil marriages for gays which do not require anything relating to religion, hence since they are not religious marriages, and according to you they cannot be “government” marriages, then what kind of marriages are they? BTW, gays can and do currently have religious marriages, and civil marriages in some states; you have brought up a completely different way of classifying marriages with your post.

Are you saying there are two classifications of marriage? One classification has two types: religious and civil (we’ve already known about these). But since gays can and do have both of these types, this particular classification is irrelevent.

The other classification of marriage also has two types, “government” marriages, and “some other kind of” marriages that you say gays can have? So tell us the difference between “government” marriages and this “some other kind of” marriages.

 

[PJC]

That wasn't deflection it was ad hominem. Buy a dictionary, dumb ass.

You're a tool. Which makes you dull. I'm trying to read your responses, but my head keeps hitting my desk in boredom. Even at the end of the semester, your teachers didn't know you were in their class, did they?

You deflected BY using a ad hominem. It was very clearly said. And was quite correct.

I know, I was mocking the angry hippie for doing that. Which of course he didn't get.
Yeah, I’m calling bullshit on that one.

You weren’t “mocking” me. You were legitimately trying to claim that I was wrong and that it couldn't be an ad hominem and a deflection. Now, after you were proven wrong, you’re trying to save face by using the ole “I meant to do that/I was just joking” ploy. Sorry, brother, I ain’t buying your camel caca.

As for claiming I’m angry. Nope, not at all. What indicators do you base your assumption upon? My use of 3rd grade and rather inane barbs such as “dumb ass”, “tool” etc.? Oops, oh yeah, those were coming from you.

It’s quite apparent the only anger is emanating from you; thus you’re obviously projecting, my brother.

Though ad hominem is a far more descriptive word of what I did. Basically any fallacy is deflection since it's not addressing the real point, which means while accurate it's very non-descriptive when you say other fallacies are "deflection."

And here you go talking nonsense and tap dancing to try to save face, saying “Well, ….er…um… I knew it all along….yeah….um ….an ad hominem is a deflection….yeah….and I knew that….heh heh…I was just joking.”

I’ve been reading your posts. You get corrected on a routine basis; after which you tap dance and backpedal, backing out of your claim once you realize you were wrong. You’re very transparent.

I also bet that you’ve been swatted down in the past by your opponents’ use of logic, reason and critical thought. You figured since it worked so well for them, that you’d “adopt” their technique. The problem is you've adopted the words and terms, but without understanding the concepts themselves, now you frequently use the terms in error. when caught, you use a bit of deflection and deception.

You’re a bullshitter; with no logic, no reason, and certainly no common sense.

You’ll be easy to swat down, bruh. Yuk yuk yuk

 

[PJC]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Explain how. (using fact and logic this time, not fallacy and prediction based solely upon your prejudices and presumptions.)

We'll wait.....

 

[PJC]

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

Since gays also have families with children, the benefits would help them stay together just as much as they would help straight families stay together.

How many gays do you know stay at home eating bonbons and watching/reading pornography all day?

Or perchance, are you merely making an assumption based upon prejudice?

Eh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and BTW, what's the difference between "government marriage" and marriage?

Actually it's an important distinction. People that use the term "marriage" alone are often being (a) lazy, or (b) intentionally ambiguous so as to be able to "muddy the waters" in the discussion. Use of the term "marriage" by itself lacks definative context on exactly what you are speaking about - I try to provide that context in ever post so that those that read what I say know I'm speaking of Civil Marriage.

"Marriage" actually exists in two realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is that bond established under the authorization of a religious institution. One need not obtain a Civil Marriage to be religiously married. A couple (man+woman, man+man, or woman+woman) can go to the religious institution of their choice and be "married", however without the license, that marriage is not recognized under the law. Religious Marriage is already available to everyone, in every state (same-sex or different-sex couples) equally, you just have to find a religious institution to perform the ceremony.

Civil Marriage on the other hand is that action granted and recognized under the law which creates a new legal status for those involved. Couples can be "religiously married" with not civil component. Couples can be "civilly married" with no religious component. But Civil Marriage must exist for the interaction between the couple and the government in treating them as one family unit that did not exist before.​

>>>>

Not necessarily.

Since it’s common knowledge (or should be…) that the 14th Amendment applies only to pubic sector jurisdictions, not private entities such as religions organizations, there should be no need to distinguish between the two ‘marriages.’

Moreover, the term ‘civil marriage’ may be understandably misconstrued to mean ‘civil union,’ which would indeed muddy the waters of debate.

In its legal context, therefore, ‘marriage’ is understood to mean marriage laws as written and authorized by the state, administered in state courts, having nothing to do with marriage in the context of religious doctrine and dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

My partner and I have children. So do 40,000 gay couples in CA alone.

In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for legal, civil marriage?

The ones that forbid infertile opposite-sex couples from marrying, and mandate opposite-sex married couples divorce once the wife realizes menopause.

 

[PJC]

because its not about equal civil rights, its about forcing the population to accept homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle.

Incorrect. It is not about acceptance, it is about equal rights.

That is unless you've talked to all the gays everywhere and they've told you that they just want to be accepted???

If not, and you're not psychic, then you're making an assumption based upon nothing more than your misconceptions and prejudices.

Next?

civil unions and mutual support contracts give them equal rights. Calling it a marriage does not increase those rights in any way.
Incorrect. There are over 1100 benefits and privileges for married couples. How many of theose 1100+ benefits and privileges can as gay couple have with civil unions and mutual support contracts?

you are wrong, I am right. This is part of the left wing agenda to force the majority to accept the views of a very small minority.

Wrong again. there is no "left wing agenda" to force the majority to accept anything, any more than there is a "right wing agenda" to force the majority to accept anything.

 

[PJC]

Yeah, those left handed dudes and redheaded chicks...they're just not normal i tell ya. And they're creepy too.

Oh......um.....sorry.....er......weren't we talking about lefties and redheads not being normal????


[/COLOR]

So you agree with me that homosexuality is not normal.

Yep, it's not normal; just like lefties, red heads, Southern Baptists, Floridians, Methodists, Episcopalians, people with AB- blood type, and Marines are not normal.

should we discriminate against all them because they are not normal?

 

[PJC]

civil unions and mutual support contracts give them equal rights. Calling it a marriage does not increase those rights in any way.

you are wrong, I am right. This is part of the left wing agenda to force the majority to accept the views of a very small minority.

Even if the were the same, and they're not, (http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf) it's still separate but equal. That doesn't work here. We tried it.

you are wrong, sea-twitch, I really find it amusing that you post something from a gay website as validation of your position.

Simply proclaiming someone else is wrong without providing facts to support your proclamation is worthless.

Back up your claim by showing that "civil unions and mutual support contracts" provide gay couples the exact same rights, privileges, and benefits as marriage does.

If you cannot, then you cannot say they are equal; hence your proclamation is baseless and therefore worth diddly squat.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Even if the were the same, and they're not, (http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf) it's still separate but equal. That doesn't work here. We tried it.

you are wrong, sea-twitch, I really find it amusing that you post something from a gay website as validation of your position.

Simply proclaiming someone else is wrong without providing facts to support your proclamation is worthless.

Back up your claim by showing that "civil unions and mutual support contracts" provide gay couples the exact same rights, privileges, and benefits as marriage does.

If you cannot, then you cannot say they are equal; hence your proclamation is baseless and therefore worth diddly squat.

who gives a shit? dont swordfight and you wont have to worry about it, Guys should order the pink taco and chicks should order the sausage....

 

[PJC]

homosexuality is not found in the animal kingdom. and remember when it comes down to it we are just animals with large brains.

can you show me a picture of a gay elephant or horse or monkey or cat? or any other mammal?

Your knowledge of science has astounded us so far...how could you be wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

did you even read the article? yes, some young animals have been shown engaging in various forms of homosexual experimentation, much like most humans do in their early years. then the vast majority of them mature and grow out of it. There has never been a study that showed mature mammals other than humans engaged in homosexual behavior.

but we have been round and round on this before. we will never agree so why waste time?

Wrong.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

You seem to be wrong quite often.

 

[PJC]

homosexuality is not found in the animal kingdom. and remember when it comes down to it we are just animals with large brains.

can you show me a picture of a gay elephant or horse or monkey or cat? or any other mammal?

You mean other than the 1,500 species that do practice homosexuality?

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

apples and oranges.

No, applese and apples.

some living organisms display both male and female sexual organs and activities. that is not the same as human homosexuality.

You're using a straw man and you obviously didn't read the article.
In part:
"Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples."

nice try, but FAIL

Does failing come to natural to you, or is it that you've had extensive training and experience?

Cause yer awful good at it.

 

[PJC]

you are wrong, sea-twitch, I really find it amusing that you post something from a gay website as validation of your position.

Simply proclaiming someone else is wrong without providing facts to support your proclamation is worthless.

Back up your claim by showing that "civil unions and mutual support contracts" provide gay couples the exact same rights, privileges, and benefits as marriage does.

If you cannot, then you cannot say they are equal; hence your proclamation is baseless and therefore worth diddly squat.

who gives a shit?

Apparently some of ya'll do; you sure spend an awful lot of time bitching about gays. why is that?

dont swordfight and you wont have to worry about it,

Translation, assimilate into the majority and you won't be discriminated against. Which kinda sorta sounds like: "Quit bein' a jew and we won't throw you in the concentration camp." Or "Submit to Islam, and we won't blow you up for being an infidel.

Bigots, they're the same all over the world and throughout time; just the targets of their hatred differ. tsk tsk

Guys should order the pink taco and chicks should order the sausage....

And if a guy orders the sausage or a chick orders the pink taco, why do you give a shit? Eh??

 

[logical4u]

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

If marriage "benefits" are granted to same sex unions, elderly people will marry the same sex relatives to avoid inheritance tax and game Social Security for "survivor benefits". It will bankrupt Social Security. It will reduce the amount of tax income to the gov't (not that reduction in taxes would be a bad thing, but it would result in the gov't taxing others to make up the difference, so much for the "fair share" theory). When Social Security benefits are reduced or eliminated as a result, how "generous" do you think the elderly will be towards those on welfare and food stamps. Those "charitable" programs will end up cut also. This will leave the "children" of the unmarried in utter poverty. Society will be an absolute mess. The country will be bankrupt and people will directly blame the homosexuals. It will be really ugly.

 

[logical4u]

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

My partner and I have children. So do 40,000 gay couples in CA alone.

In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for legal, civil marriage?

Most "traditional marriages" have children as a result of the marriage. If it is a marriage in later years, the spouses, typically are supporting children from one or both spouses. Homosexuals cannot produce children from each other. They make a conscience choice to bring a child into the world without a "real" parent (the gender they reject). They are not burdened with the financial responsibility of children, unless they go to great efforts to do so.

If "same sex unions" are legalized, how will you prevent people that are the same sex (that do not want an intimate relationship) from abusing the system. Social Security will be a prize that will have more elderly scammed or abused to get. Relatives will marry to get those benefits, as well as avoid inheritance tax (incest does not apply for same sex). Our country is $16,000,000,000 in debt. There is not money for "new" gov't handouts. There will not be money to take care of the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped in the future. It appears the homosexuals are selfishly trying to take from those people because of choices they made for themselves.

 

[logical4u]

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Those benefits are there to "grow" the country (children). Have same sex unions or whatever false name you want to give them and you hurt millions and millions of children and their families.

Explain how. (using fact and logic this time, not fallacy and prediction based solely upon your prejudices and presumptions.)

We'll wait.....

Explain to us how much civil unions will cost the taxpayers (that means less for the "poor children", the elderly, and the handicapped). Explain how you or the gov't will stop people of the same sex from marrying to get benefits when there is no intimate relationship [example 2 bachelors get married, by a huge place, live as room mates, have girlfriends, have babies (no daddy means welfare), get tax breaks, when their children are grown, they can sell the house, divorce, marry their grown children, and start a new cycle].

I cannot provide you with facts. In the history of the world, same sex "legal unions" have never been part of societal foundations. It has never had widespread acceptance. That might be because you must be "corrupt" (not honorable) to participate in homosexual acts. If the corruption is in the most basic part of your person, it spreads into other areas of your life as well.

There are no "homosexual cities, counties or countries" to use as a standard. It is another example of some "intellectual elite" saying "communism is a great system". On paper, it looks great, in reality...... not so much.

 

[logical4u]

Your knowledge of science has astounded us so far...how could you be wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

did you even read the article? yes, some young animals have been shown engaging in various forms of homosexual experimentation, much like most humans do in their early years. then the vast majority of them mature and grow out of it. There has never been a study that showed mature mammals other than humans engaged in homosexual behavior.

but we have been round and round on this before. we will never agree so why waste time?

Wrong.
"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

You seem to be wrong quite often.

Yeah, and some animals piss on their faces to attract a mate. Still others eat their mate or their young. If someone calls a homosexual "not right", you want to compare yourself to animals, and you think you are making sense?

 

[Seawytch]

Benefits are so a family with children can stay together. They do not exist so the "gay" other can stay home eating bonbons and watch/read pornagraphy all day.

My partner and I have children. So do 40,000 gay couples in CA alone.

In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for legal, civil marriage?

Most "traditional marriages" have children as a result of the marriage. If it is a marriage in later years, the spouses, typically are supporting children from one or both spouses. Homosexuals cannot produce children from each other. They make a conscience choice to bring a child into the world without a "real" parent (the gender they reject). They are not burdened with the financial responsibility of children, unless they go to great efforts to do so.

You sure about your claim...that "most" heterosexual married couples have children? (http://www.examiner.com/article/being-marriaged-and-having-or-not-having-chidren) And you didn't answer the question. In which state or municipality is procreation a prerequisite for civil marriage? Are the elderly or the sterile prohibited from legal marriage in ANY state?

If "same sex unions" are legalized, how will you prevent people that are the same sex (that do not want an intimate relationship) from abusing the system. Social Security will be a prize that will have more elderly scammed or abused to get. Relatives will marry to get those benefits, as well as avoid inheritance tax (incest does not apply for same sex). Our country is $16,000,000,000 in debt. There is not money for "new" gov't handouts. There will not be money to take care of the elderly, the poor, and the handicapped in the future. It appears the homosexuals are selfishly trying to take from those people because of choices they made for themselves.

Nothing is stopping people from doing that now. You don't mind if I marry a guy do you? That would be okay with you, right? Isn't that the right y'all say "the gheys" already have, we can marry someone of the opposite sex? (Even though we have no desire to do so) Nothing is stopping me from marrying a gay guy,right?

I can't believe you are seriously trying to use SS as a reason not to give gays equal access to legal marriage.

You must be a non-religious homophobe.