Cross another hypocrite off the list

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with your whole premise. I think that the vast majority of people have no problem with a person being gay. But by the same token, the vast majority of people are not in favor of gay marriage. Just because a person is not in favor of gay marriage, that does not make the person a bigot. I don't think that most people care about what other people are doing in the bedroom. But that is a different issue than marriage.

Just because there are certain laws, that does not mean that the government is telling you what to do in your bedroom. I am not allowed to have 5 wives. You may think that this means that the government is sticking their head in my bedroom. I don't see it that way. The government is not telling me that I can't sleep with 5 women. They are only telling me that I can't be married to 5 different women. There is a big difference.

Rupert,
I'm not gay, so let me take that out of the debate.
Here's the "reality".
Do hetero-couples get a tax advantage on their IRS filing?
Do hetero-couples have determination as to their estates?
Do hetero-couples have a say in the medical care of their partners?
Can hetero-couples designate health care to their partners on their insurance policies?
If you answered yes to the above questions, you are correct.
So, why should others, because of their preferences, be denied the same rights?
As Danzig stated, the same rights and priveleges should, must, be provided for all. To do otherwise is unjust.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Wrong to the above.

Married couples are permitted to receive the above benefits.

Cardus,
For clarification purposes...
hetero= male/female partnerships.
homo= male/male,or female/female partnerships.

I guess either I'm wrong, or you don't know what these terms mean.

I'm also still waiting for your answers to my two questions.
If you are defeated in this debate, at least have the courtesy to admit it.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

If you are defeated in this debate, at least have the courtesy to admit it.

There is no way to really "win" this argument. I, for one, am for gay marriage but can completely see why people would be against it.

I think that civil unions are the answer, as they would give all the same rights to a couple, but would not use the word "marriage."

Sadly, most of my liberal brethren would not be happy with that, because they're so far gone that they would still think that was unequal, which means that we would be fighting for equality in words -- which is a most absurd notion when every right equal to marriage would be bestowed on these couples.

The reality is, that this issue just won't ever stop being an issue. But my generation is full of a disproportionate percentage of people who are for gay marriage -- so it's only a matter of time before we're the majority....and then true equality will occur.

[Danzig]

the thing i ca't figure out is...what would it hurt any person to know that gays can marry? what affect would it have to anyone other than the gay people who could legally commit to another person? would i still have the life i have? sure would. would my kids? well, yes.
as for 'respect for the sanctity of marriage' as an argument, that is fairly easy to dispute, knowing how many marriages end in failure. if hetero couples are so easily swayed from a supposed commitment, just how holy is matrimony anyway??
in your religion, if your church feels a certain way regarding marriage, that's one thing...
but as far as this country, and as far as church and state being separate, and as marriage is considered a 'legal agreement', than i would think the govt has no right to declare rights for some, but not all.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

the thing i ca't figure out is...what would it hurt any person to know that gays can marry? what affect would it have to anyone other than the gay people who could legally commit to another person? would i still have the life i have? sure would. would my kids? well, yes.
as for 'respect for the sanctity of marriage' as an argument, that is fairly easy to dispute, knowing how many marriages end in failure. if hetero couples are so easily swayed from a supposed commitment, just how holy is matrimony anyway??
in your religion, if your church feels a certain way regarding marriage, that's one thing...
but as far as this country, and as far as church and state being separate, and as marriage is considered a 'legal agreement', than i would think the govt has no right to declare rights for some, but not all.

which is exactly why you call it a "civil union" and then watch the mayhem that ensues. Anyone still against it would out themselves as an extremist. This way, homosexuals get the rights -- which they claim is the only thing they're after, and the Christian right gets to hold on to the semantics. Then, your left-wingers who still insisted it be called marriage would prove that they were lying the whole time, and that their agenda is about beating the Christian right, and not getting equal rights. Those on the Christian right who still wouldn't back it, would expose themselves as judgmental and proponents of inequality -- and therefore expose themselves as terrible Christians to begin with.

End of story -- everyone wins!

[Danzig]

i just don't understand why anyone really gives a rats behind about what others do.

what is that saying about when they went after a group, i said nothing...and then another, i said nothing... and then i was the one they came for, and there was no one left to speak up. a rather crude version, but essentially correct.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i just don't understand why anyone really gives a rats behind about what others do.

what is that saying about when they went after a group, i said nothing...and then another, i said nothing... and then i was the one they came for, and there was no one left to speak up. a rather crude version, but essentially correct.

The problem with calling it a "civil union" or for that matter a "grilled cheese sandwich" is that it denotes a difference! Semantics can be important if wording is used to promote certain concepts...in this case that gay folks are "different". I don't hide my opinion...I'm rather straight forward! It's not about "beating" some group or ideology...there's room on this planet for different religions, philosophies, and ideologies as long as everyone respects the rights of others (unfortunately that's the fly in the ointment...well, more like the elephant in the fridge). I use to support the idea of "civil unions" as a first step but unfortunately...a person is either accepting of others or not, there is no middle ground here...well, "middle ground" is occupied by the hypocrites who call themselves "liberal" in many (no, not all) cases. Accepting a "compromise" when it comes to equality is akin to accepting "less than human" status...and that's simply not the path out of this mess!