Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

[natrone23]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_L_EuOiew

 

[CrackerJax]

The attempt to relate as synonymous the civil rights movement and the marriage issue is disingenuous. Apples and oranges my friend.

Hardly disingenuous my friend. Both are examples of a minority group petitioning the majority for equal opportunities. No flaw there. i didn't say they were to be treated equally against each other. Simply an illustration to make a point. Which still stands.

As for calling it something else but meaning the same (civil union). What's the point of that? Isn't that just semantics? Just let any poor bastard that wants to get married .. get married! Honestly, I don't think the sky will fall. I don't think you would even notice any change whatsoever. Just an improvement in the lives of minority group. Horrors!


out.

 

[ccodiane]

Hardly disingenuous my friend. Both are examples of a minority group petitioning the majority for equal opportunities. No flaw there. i didn't say they were to be treated equally against each other. Simply an illustration to make a point. Which still stands.

As for calling it something else but meaning the same (civil union). What's the point of that? Isn't that just semantics? Just let any poor bastard that wants to get married .. get married! Honestly, I don't think the sky will fall. I don't think you would even notice any change whatsoever. Just an improvement in the lives of minority group. Horrors!


out.

I'm against gay marriage......

Gay marriage is synonymous with civil rights......

I'm against civil rights......

Weak dude.

A minority group lobbying for a law to be enacted is different than a minority group demanding a law be enacted, while doing a little lobbying on the side in case the demand is not met.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I think string-of-asterisks-guy doesn't like your OPINIONS, TBT.

Ah.. but NPOs enjoy that status after going through an extensive and rigorous qualification procedure. Then, they must show exactly how their monies are being spent. And that's just the beginning. A church is definitely not the same as an honest-to-goodness NPO. With an NPO it can take YEARS to gain such status. A church merely has to open up a storefront and hire a preacher, et voila, non-taxable status.

Something is amiss! Make a church go through the exact same process, with the exact same oversights, and they, too, can enjoy NPO status, as long as they follow their own protocol, goals, and guidelines that gained them NPO status in the first place.

I disagree, if we are going to tax Churches, then we should tax all NPOs. And why not. These NPOs are often paying their executives 6 figure salaries, high six figure salaries, like 200 - 300+K /year.

Non profit? Non profit my ass, just another method for the greedy to milk the system.

 

[joepro]

I disagree, if we are going to tax Churches, then we should tax all NPOs. And why not. These NPOs are often paying their executives 6 figure salaries, high six figure salaries, like 200 - 300+K /year.

Non profit? Non profit my ass, just another method for the greedy to milk the system.

I wonder what the net worth of the Vatican is, anyone?

 

[ViRedd]

Vatican nothing ... what's the net worth of the universities in this country. And, why no outrage over the salaries of those who run the universities?

University President Salaries Soar Into the Millions - The Tech

Vi

 

[Seamaiden]

I don't know. But, the NPOs I've worked with might have annual budgets that approach six figures. That can hardly be spent on a single "executive's" salary and still be able to show anything for the money spent.

Something is amiss. Your understanding of the role religion plays in this Judao/Christian society we have inherited, as well as your understanding of the role of the government, regarding religious tolerance, and the punitive function taxes play.


ACORN is a NPO. They support the messiah. Should they be taxed, too? (rhetorical)

How so? What's ACORN and their voter registration machinations got to do with Proposition 8? If you're going to attack my argument, you're going to have to come up with something that's got more meat in it than that.

(snipped the funny bit, but know it was read and appreciated)All kidding aside, it's about money. Marriage is a financial as well as a social compact. To deny ANY citizen the ability to enter into these contracts is discrimination. There are all kinds of benefits to being married. If you want to keep gays out of marriage, then remove the perks from marriage. Since that is NOT going to happen, the only option is to allow same sex misery, er, I mean marriage.

I debate bolding this, because all of it is true.

It's about equality, not fairness. Sometimes equality must be meted out by the Government and or courts, when the MAJORITY of people are against a MINORITY. Civil Rights would be a good example. Were you against that?


out.

Don't let him spin you on this. It is about fairness, equality, rights, and discrimination. It is about ALL of it.

Equality of outcome is your desire. Equality of opportunity already exists.

Bullshit, and the first flaw in your own understanding and argument against allowing same sex marriage. Which is a RIGHT, afforded to you by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, because you were born heterosexual. It is no longer acceptable to discriminate against a group of people who had a hand in selecting their own sexuality about as much as you did.

How about this...if the benefits associated with marriage are rights, why doesn't everybody, gay couples, straight couples, single straight dudes, gay 17 year old chicks, yada yada, everybody, already get those benefits, I mean, rights?

You're trying to muddle the picture because of your own prejudices. There is a presumed right to pursuit of happiness, I know you're familiar with that term. In one's pursuit of happiness it is often, if not always, automatically presumed that such pursuit includes choosing your own mate, your own friends, etcetera. In this specific regard is where homosexuals are unable to exercise their right (pursuit to happiness) in a manner that heterosexuals are able to exercise their right.

Why doesn't everybody, automatically, get a welfare check every month? Food stamps every month? Free medical care? Etc. etc. Because we're not yet a socialist society. If we keep turning our personal lives and personal decisions over to the courts and government to decide for all of us, as one voice, we're screwed.

Apples and oranges. Denying the right to marry means that benefits as applied to married partners are denied. One of those "benefits" is being "next of kin". Must I explain all that this means to you? Shall I dig up the thread where I explained how the courts themselves have defined the legal differences between "marriage" and civil unions? I know you can find that information yourself, if you want to.

People, voting people, can and do change their minds. Tyrants rarely do. As a new generation is born into a free society, they have the opportunity make their own rules, new rules, the rules that they let govern them. This is what we do. We vote.

Therein lies the need for damn good pieces of paper such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta.

What's next? Who does the next demand come from? Who do we, the American voter, kowtow to next?

Laugh my ass off! Come on, cc, no one's asking you to drop trou and let them suck your dick or take it up the ass. It is no skin off your nose if anyone else gets married, but especially some gays. It costs you zero. It imposes nothing upon you (other than acceptance, tough shit on that, people had to learn to accept those with swarthy skin, and wimmin-folk, too).

So polygamists should be able to marry multiple wives?

Consenting adults, why not? Really. What skin off of your nose is it if it works for them and they produce happy, healthy, non-criminal productive members of society? Or if they produce nothing but their own monkey sweaty love? What the hell do you care?

Children should be able to marry, if they want to? People can arrange marriages for others without the participants consent?

(sigh) See above. Sheesh, are common sense guidelines so difficult a concept?

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

I wonder what the net worth of the Vatican is, anyone?

More than we'll ever see.

 

[ccodiane]

I don't know. But, the NPOs I've worked with might have annual budgets that approach six figures. That can hardly be spent on a single "executive's" salary and still be able to show anything for the money spent.

How so? What's ACORN and their voter registration machinations got to do with Proposition 8? If you're going to attack my argument, you're going to have to come up with something that's got more meat in it than that.

I debate bolding this, because all of it is true.
Don't let him spin you on this. It is about fairness, equality, rights, and discrimination. It is about ALL of it.Bullshit, and the first flaw in your own understanding and argument against allowing same sex marriage. Which is a RIGHT, afforded to you by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, because you were born heterosexual. It is no longer acceptable to discriminate against a group of people who had a hand in selecting their own sexuality about as much as you did.
You're trying to muddle the picture because of your own prejudices. There is a presumed right to pursuit of happiness, I know you're familiar with that term. In one's pursuit of happiness it is often, if not always, automatically presumed that such pursuit includes choosing your own mate, your own friends, etcetera. In this specific regard is where homosexuals are unable to exercise their right (pursuit to happiness) in a manner that heterosexuals are able to exercise their right.
Apples and oranges. Denying the right to marry means that benefits as applied to married partners are denied. One of those "benefits" is being "next of kin". Must I explain all that this means to you? Shall I dig up the thread where I explained how the courts themselves have defined the legal differences between "marriage" and civil unions? I know you can find that information yourself, if you want to.
Therein lies the need for damn good pieces of paper such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta.
Laugh my ass off! Come on, cc, no one's asking you to drop trou and let them suck your dick or take it up the ass. It is no skin off your nose if anyone else gets married, but especially some gays. It costs you zero. It imposes nothing upon you (other than acceptance, tough shit on that, people had to learn to accept those with swarthy skin, and wimmin-folk, too).
Consenting adults, why not? Really. What skin off of your nose is it if it works for them and they produce happy, healthy, non-criminal productive members of society? Or if they produce nothing but their own monkey sweaty love? What the hell do you care?
(sigh) See above. Sheesh, are common sense guidelines so difficult a concept?

States rights sweetie.....just like your precious "no death penalty" states. What if big bad Bush said, "I declare that the death penalty must be enforced for capital offenses under the following set of circumstances,...." You'd be all torn up, hun. States rights. I'd rather have 50 independent decisions than 1 final decision. Difference of opinion, I guess.

 

[ccodiane]

A simple Power of Attorney would suffice to clear up many of these "lost privileges" arguments. Not all, but most.

 

["SICC"]

I aint got nothing against gays, but i dont think its right, being gay is a choice, your not born that way, you dont hear people protesting against haveing more than one wife do you? so how is gay marriage any different, they both wrong, thats just how it is

 

[wannabe grower]

I think the Bible is about to be banned for hate mongering any minute. Also of note the Torah, Quran, (insert fictional religous text here) etc.

 

[wannabe grower]

Are you a "down low" my brotha?

 

[hom36rown]

yeah being gay is so unethical [QUOTE="SICC";1482706]I aint got nothing against gays, but i dont think its right, being gay is a choice, your not born that way, you dont hear people protesting against haveing more than one wife do you? so how is gay marriage any different, they both wrong, thats just how it is[/QUOTE]

 

["SICC"]

not it that sence, i was using that as an example of how stupid it is, but its just my opinion, again i aint got nothin against them

 

[hom36rown]

but you dont think they should have the same rights as heterosexuals?

 

[wannabe grower]

Hey CCOdiane, are you by chance from Alaska and a member of Todd Palin's group wishing to secceed from the US?

 

["SICC"]

but you dont think they should have the same rights as heterosexuals?

the only right denied is getting married, again its there choice to be gay, i mean have you heard of a person who stated that they were "born" gay and did not want to be gay?

 

[hom36rown]

So then you do think they should be denied rights....yet you have nothing against them, thats wierd. Actually I think most homosexuals will tell you they didnt have much of a choice in it. Im sure many homosexuals wish they were straight, it would make their life a lot easier.

 

[joepro]

some don't understand why they are attracted to a short women or a fat women, big asses, small titties......
It's like having the choice of liking fried liver and onions or not, it's not really a choice at all.

Faramones(sp?) smiply explains a humans behaviour in picking a mate.