Obama (finally) declares support for same-sex marriage.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

This a a reply to "all"

Other than it being "easy" why is making marraige between same sex so important?

For the legal benefits it provides.

For instance all retired professionals not receiving pensions who've saved enough to continue a middle class or better lifestyle in old age are millionaires. When a married one dies his or her spouse can maintain close to the same standard of living because the estate passes to them tax free. When one with a domestic partner dies after 2013 the survivor looses 55% of the domestic partner's retirement income beyond the first $40K.

Before then domestic partners with unequal incomes can't take advantage of the higher income cut-offs of education tax benefits like the tuition deduction and American Opportunity Credit.

Quote

I know it would be more work for our already disfunctional gov but would a federal law for civil unions fix the problem?

Not without changing all laws which currently read "married couple" to "married couple or domestic partnership"

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Not without changing all laws which currently read "married couple" to "married couple or domestic partnership"

Why not just a single law that defines "marriage", "husband" and "wife" as being without gender distinction for all legal purposes?

Much as I dislike messing with words to fit anyone's agenda, this would seem an easy way out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Not without changing all laws which currently read "married couple" to "married couple or domestic partnership"

Why not just a single law that defines "marriage", "husband" and "wife" as being without gender distinction for all legal purposes?

Much as I dislike messing with words to fit anyone's agenda, this would seem an easy way out.

Add in ambiguity regarding "species," "quantity" and "vitality" and you're all set.

Since "marriage" is a tribal/religious entity, there are commonly accepted rituals that do not work very well legally. Take, for example, the polygamous marriage to someone long deceased.

Absurd example, you say?

To quell any doubt, check out the ceremony by which one becomes a Catholic Nun. Each and every nun is thus married to Jesus Christ, with a white gown, wedding ring and the whole nine yards. Though necrophilia is not consummated in practice (AFAIK), the criteria of polygamous marriage to the dead are met rather well, indeed.

Then we turn these frustrated biddies loose, armed with rulers, to tend the young - yeek.

Since their vows include poverty and they are kept by the Church, I am unsure how this affects their tax status, but there is no hue and cry regarding the infinitely creepy lifestyle to which these people commit.

All things being equal, I suppose I would rather live amongst people who prefer a live adult human over marriage en masse one who is long dead. YMMV.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Also, the issue has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with legal equality.

It's remarkable how many opponents of same sex marriage seem to think that it's mainly about sex or sexual orientation. Of course this says more about them than about same-sex marriage.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Also, the issue has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with legal equality.

It's remarkable how many opponents of same sex marriage seem to think that it's mainly about sex or sexual orientation. Of course this says more about them than about same-sex marriage.

I don’t consider either of those in my opposition. It is a societal issue and more

And of course those who support this expose their arrogance and condescension toward others. Do you look down your nose at yourself in the mirror every morning?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I don’t consider either of those in my opposition. It is a societal issue and more

Hence the phrase: "many opponents of same sex marriage"

Quote

And of course those who support this expose their arrogance and condescension toward others.

Well, I'm not an American, of course, but condescending isn't the right word to describe my attitude towards my fellow Dutch who think my marriage should be disbanded because it doesn't fit their retarded religious views. It sort of boggles the mind that those people expect respect from me for those religious views. As far as I'm concerned they can stuff their views up their arse as long as they don't bother me with them.

Quote

Do you look down your nose at yourself in the mirror every morning?

You ask if I look at myself in the mirror in a condescending way.... Well, if you can't figure that out for yourself and you really want to know: The answer is no.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I don’t consider either of those in my opposition. It is a societal issue and more

Hence the phrase: "many opponents of same sex marriage"

Quote

And of course those who support this expose their arrogance and condescension toward others.

Well, I'm not an American, of course, but condescending isn't the right word to describe my attitude towards my fellow Dutch who think my marriage should be disbanded because it doesn't fit their retarded religious views. It sort of boggles the mind that those people expect respect from me for those religious views. As far as I'm concerned they can stuff their views up their arse as long as they don't bother me with them.

Quote

Do you look down your nose at yourself in the mirror every morning?

You ask if I look at myself in the mirror in a condescending way.... Well, if you can't figure that out for yourself and you really want to know: The answer is no.

Then why do you do it to anyone with whom you disagree?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Then why do you

I don't.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Then why do you

I don't.

I will then refer you back to your post #179

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I will then refer you back to your post #179

That isn't condescending towards (or even "disagreeing with" for that matter) DanG, and I don't see how it could ever be interpreted that way. I'm the first to admit I can be condescending at times, but I'm not condescending towards anyone I disagree with.

If you try a bit harder, it shouldn't be to hard to find a post of me being condescending towards someone I disagree with.

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

And of course those who support this expose their arrogance and condescension toward others.

In what way?

Personally, I find the people that think that their way is the only way and no-one else should be allowed to do it a different way even if it doesn't affect them at all to be the most arrogant. YMMV.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Marinus 0]

Arrogant? I would call it pathologically rude. It wouldn't even occur to me to dictate people how to life their private lives.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Arrogant? I would call it pathologically rude. It wouldn't even occur to me to dictate people how to life their private lives.

Then why do you do it?

And if you see my other posts I stated

It is none of my business what two adults do

It is none of my business if they wish to spend the rest of thier lives together. I dont care


I also believe that same sex couples should have the same legal rights when it comes to medical visitation, inhereitance, medical decisions ect


My only beef is with marriage

That is between a man a worman

There is no reason to redefine that other than to tear down an istitution and blurr the lines between what is a man, and what is a woman. No reason at all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

so you want them to be equal but different.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

so you want them to be equal but different.

yes

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

so you want them to be equal but different.

YAY - racially charged phrases.
Here's one from Obama on the subject - "States' rights"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[dmcoco84 5]

Within Our Republic...

The role of government, is to Regulate = to maintain/keep regular, the Law = Original Intent.

Whether state or federal, the government should have absolutely no role in defining marriage, issuing licensure, or overseeing (whether religious or “civil”) ceremony in any degree.

The role of the government is to uphold and protect, contracts, and the Rule of Law.

In taking government out of marriage... you would then have “Intimate Partnership” contracts (or whatever name is given to a contract that legally binds TWO individuals, in the same way marriage does). This would eliminate all of the current issues, and would abide by the Constitution.
(This is not S of C and S)

Because you can’t change the Marriage Equation, based on YOUR morals...



I reluctantly post this video, due to the bigotry of many ...who fail to judge by the content of character... but he does explain it the best.

Santorum did a poor job.

The (Gay) Marriage Equation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGZVfm8r1dM



Bolas is spot on...

What about polygamy?

What about bi-sexuality?

What if someone likes this today, and that tomorrow... why can’t someone marry a man and a woman? Why can't three consenting adults marry?

Why can’t someone marry a giraffe?

Quagmire did on the recent Tea Party episode.

Which is interesting... because in the beginning they stated the platform of the Tea Party is low taxes and Limited Government... All True.

But then they go into every Tea Party stereotype, including disbanding the local government... calling for, No Government! (Peter and others bash a guy holding a sign that says "a little bit of government")

Limited Government does not equally No Government.

Nor is the true argument, Big vs Small... it is Big vs Limited. It is the scope of influence.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4058065#4058065


Low taxes, responsible spending, Limited Government... and Follow the Constitution, the Tea Party platform, does not equal No Government.

Very funny episode though!

And no, I am not a Tea Party member.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Why can’t someone marry a giraffe?

Quagmire did on the recent Tea Party episode.

Which is interesting... because in the beginning they stated the platform of the Tea Party is low taxes and Limited Government... All True.

But then they go into every Tea Party stereotype, including disbanding the local government... calling for, No Government! (Peter and others bash a guy holding a sign that says "a little bit of government")

Dude, Family Guy bashes everyone...

It's politically correct to hate everyone equally.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Marinus 0]

Quoted from the vid: "If you don't tolerate somebody else's point of view, then you are a bigot"

So I don't tolerate any POV that says that Negroes are a species of monkeys.

Am I a bigot now?

Bigots will always whine how people are intolerant of their bigoted opinions.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

My only beef is with marriage

That is between a man a worman

This statement is particularly ignorant if you consider the fact that you're making it in a discussion with a guy who's married with another guy. You and your invisible sky daddy may not like that, but that doesn't make my marriage any less real. Besides that, same sex marriage isn't even far-fetched in a world where marriage is, among other things, defined as being between a woman and a tree.
http://www.indianetzone.com/27/marriage_with_trees_plants_inanimate_objects_indian_custom.htm

Quote

There is no reason to redefine that other than to tear down an istitution and blurr the lines between what is a man, and what is a woman. No reason at all

Carefull, your paranoid hatred for The Geyz, which is the sole reason you don't want them to marry, is showing.

[dmcoco84 5]

I had an English teacher who used to say, when people asked stupid questions...

Reading is Fundamental.

Yes... and so is listening.

I guess your post makes sense, in taking the statement out of context.

[Gravitymaster 0]

You can only be a bigot when you are wrong.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Arrogant? I would call it pathologically rude. It wouldn't even occur to me to dictate people how to life their private lives.

Then why do you do it?

Give it up, man.
I think somebody hacked Marinus' account. What he's been saying here is light years away from the norm from him.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

You can only be a bigot when you are wrong.

That could across the board to everyone if you add, "IMO".

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

In taking government out of marriage... you would then have “Intimate Partnership” contracts (or whatever name is given to a contract that legally binds TWO individuals, in the same way marriage does). This would eliminate all of the current issues, and would abide by the Constitution.

Yeah, but....what happens to all the 'marriage tax' monies the goobermint currently steals? Gooby will never go for it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239