Politics On Politics.

[7 VII 7]

Is that a serious question?

It's socially acceptable to hate the Klan, Hitler, and any other bigot. Just the same as it is to hate someone who opposes another's free choice. If a business spoke out against a particular race's civil rights, I'd expect their to be outrage. If a business came out in support of a certain race, I don't expect there to be too much fuss. Maybe a few high-fives and a protest by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Let's cut to the chase because I know where this is going already. If we call it "civil union", remove any religious aspect of it, and leave the term marriage to whatever church you attend, then can it be legal? Or do you believe "It aint right"?

Edited to change my analogy to something less dramatic.

So we are comparing people that support traditional marriage to the KKK and Hitler? I am not talking about hating someone. Is on of the reasons that there is a want for marriage equality is because of benefits?

Religion = a free out to hide your bigotry. You just say "My god said it's evil."

It really is a civil rights issue and it's stupid gay people can't marry. Mainly because the majority of this country is full of retards who believe a magic man in the sky who controls everything said it's an "abomination."

So if a person does not support gay marriage and does not believe in God or religion, then what is he/she?

[caanglin]

So if a person does not support gay marriage and does not believe in God or religion, then what is he/she?

A bigot.

[7 VII 7]

A bigot.

lol

[Fudge_Brownie]

So we are comparing people that support traditional marriage to the KKK and Hitler?

They are not even close to being on the same "level". I was hoping you wouldn't cheapen things. They were just obvious examples that quickly came to mind. It's almost as if you picked at the easy part of the post instead of paying attention to the part I specifically edited to use a better example (racial civil rights) and skipped answering my question.

I am not talking about hating someone. Is on of the reasons that there is a want for marriage equality is because of benefits?

That would be one aspect yes. But don't let yourself think "oh they just want to get married to save a couple bucks". Besides being able to file taxes as married, they would be able to share health care plans. Another reason is hospital visitation. Hospitals won't talk to someone they consider a friend without your consent. Then there's the moral issue on whether or not their relationship is any less significant than a hetro marriage just because they are the same gender.

[7 VII 7]

They are not even close to being on the same "level". I was hoping you wouldn't cheapen things. They were just obvious examples that quickly came to mind. It's almost as if you picked at the easy part of the post instead of paying attention to the part I specifically edited to use a better example (racial civil rights) and skipped answering my question.

That would be one aspect yes. But don't let yourself think "oh they just want to get married to save a couple bucks". Besides being able to file taxes as married, they would be able to share health care plans. Another reason is hospital visitation. Hospitals won't talk to someone they consider a friend without your consent. Then there's the moral issue on whether or not their relationship is any less significant than a hetro marriage just because they are the same gender.

Not trying to cheapen things, just stated who you compared them to. I know some companies, including mine allow benefits for partners and not just married hetro. For Hospitals, is that more of a HIPAA policy or a case by case hospital policy? I would say they could change that to people that either live together/benefits or share a child.

If homosexual couples could get married throughout the country, do you think they would get married to "save a couple bucks" like hetro couples do? I think so.

so you are saying... race = sexuality as far as civil rights are concerned?

[caanglin]

If homosexual couples could get married throughout the country, do you think they would get married to "save a couple bucks" like hetro couples do? I think so.

so you are saying... race = sexuality as far as civil rights are concerned?

Who cares why they get married, they should be allowed the right to.

Race = sexuality as rights? Pretty much, who cares?! If some transgender person wants to marry a man, woman or other transgender person, why should anyone care.

It all just comes down to discrimination/hate in the end.

[Fudge_Brownie]

For Hospitals, is that more of a HIPAA policy or a case by case hospital policy?

If homosexual couples could get married throughout the country, do you think they would get married to "save a couple bucks" like hetro couples do? I think so.

I'm actually not sure what the root cause is. I think it's a combination of HIPAA and hospital opinion.

And sure some would. Does that change anything? You're going to restrict the rights of a group of people in the fear that some are going to do it for the tax write off?

so you are saying... race = sexuality as far as civil rights are concerned?

Absolutely. Born that way, just like race, and therefore are considered equal as a hetro couple. But let's say you don't believe that. I still don't see why their ability to be legally be recognized as partners should be restricted. Wtf is the point of restricting their life?

[7 VII 7]

I'm actually not sure what the root cause is. I think it's a combination of HIPAA and hospital opinion.

And sure some would. Does that change anything? You're going to restrict the rights of a group of people in the fear that some are going to do it for the tax write off?

Absolutely. Born that way, just like race, and therefore are considered equal as a hetro couple. But let's say you don't believe that. I still don't see why their ability to be legally be recognized as partners should be restricted. Wtf is the point of restricting their life?

I will see what I can dig up.

I am not saying that the tax write off is a reason to not let them, I am saying it is a reason for them wanting to get married.

The born that way is a thing that I think most people are not sold on. I can see someone born with dark skin or light skin. If a person goes hetro their whole life and then starts dating the same sex, were they born hetro and then "truned' homosexual? I think that is a big part also. What about the other way, dating same sex their whole life and then going hetro?

[ErikS]

I am not saying that the tax write off is a reason to not let them, I am saying it is a reason for them wanting to get married.

People get married for all sorts of reasons, why do you care why? Why did you get married?

[Burn-E]

Is that a serious question?

It's socially acceptable to hate the Klan, Hitler, and any other bigot. Just the same as it is to hate someone who opposes another's free choice.

Wow, way to turbo the whole conversation and prove Godwin's law in the first post to respond Alden. That really takes effort. You, not Dave did cheapen the conversation by making the comparison even if that's apparently not what you intended.

I'm sorry but I agree with Dave, it's not bigotry to state that you believe that marriage is a union created first by God and only secondarily recognized by the State. This is not the same as a civil rights issue no matter how you want to couch it so long as the State is willing to provide equal benefits under the law to unions of all types.

You want civil unions have at it and give them all the benefits the State (local and Federal) offer to a married couple. But the word marriage has a connotation and etymology that will be completely redefined if we broaden the word to envelop same sex unions.

Now, why does the State offer benefits to married couples? Because it has a vested interest in protecting and encouraging the development of the nuclear family which prior to scientific intervention was only really possible through man-woman relations. The State has an interest in supporting the family because the proper care for those children and family inures to the benefit of society. With society moving in the direction of being fractured families in the majority I would have no qualms with removing those benefits from all unions so long as treatment was equal across the board.

Dave, the restrictions on hospital rights and benefits speak to State and Federal laws that are in place as a result of how unions are structured. Marriage from a State perspective institutes specific rights and obligations and these could easily be adjusted to same sex unions if the people of the State were willing to do so:

(Just pulling this from wikipedia because it helps outline fairly concisely what those rights / obligations are)

• Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse's sexual services, labor, and property.
• Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse's debts.
• Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
• Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse's affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
• Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent's child.
• Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
• Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

[Fudge_Brownie]

it's not bigotry to state that you believe that marriage is a union created first by God and only secondarily recognized by the State. This is not the same as a civil rights issue no matter how you want to couch it so long as the State is willing to provide equal benefits under the law to unions of all types.

You want civil unions have at it and give them all the benefits the State (local and Federal) offer to a married couple. But the word marriage has a connotation and etymology that will be completely redefined if we broaden the word to envelop same sex unions.

Half the problem with the whole debate is that many people use marriage and civil union interchangeably. Some of them believe the church should recognize homosexual marriage, while others are not aware of the difference in terms. I don't see why we should keep the term marriage at all in the state. Leave it to the church, and anyone who get's married implies civil union.

Now, why does the State offer benefits to married couples? Because it has a vested interest in protecting and encouraging the development of the nuclear family which prior to scientific intervention was only really possible through man-woman relations.

Adoption?

The State has an interest in supporting the family because the proper care for those children and family inures to the benefit of society. With society moving in the direction of being fractured families in the majority I would have no qualms with removing those benefits from all unions so long as treatment was equal across the board.

Agreed. Also gets us one step closer to flat tax :tup:

[ErikS]

I'm sorry but I agree with Dave, it's not bigotry to state that you believe that marriage is a union created first by God and only secondarily recognized by the State. This is not the same as a civil rights issue no matter how you want to couch it so long as the State is willing to provide equal benefits under the law to unions of all types.

You want civil unions have at it and give them all the benefits the State (local and Federal) offer to a married couple. But the word marriage has a connotation and etymology that will be completely redefined if we broaden the word to envelop same sex unions.

Now, why does the State offer benefits to married couples? Because it has a vested interest in protecting and encouraging the development of the nuclear family which prior to scientific intervention was only really possible through man-woman relations.

Yeah, it is bigoted. You are saying only hetero people "own" the word marriage. Hetero atheist get married all the time, their union is not with God but each other. Kind of fucks up your argument.

[Burn-E]

Oh see here I thought all along the conflict was over rights. Is it possible to be bigoted when stating a fact with clinical precision?

Erik, it's only bigoted if you believe that words have fluid meanings and no anchor to their etymology or historical context. What is the meaning of the word "is" for instance as Clinton taught us. So if we live in Humpty Dumpty's world then yes you are absolutely correct we can change the meaning of words at will. Since you feel I am pedantic in my explanations I'll leave it for you to go pull out the historical context that validates my statement. Just realize that the world you believe in looks an awful lot like one Orwell anticipated with newspeak where misogyny really means philogyny.

[caanglin]

Do really believe the reason gay couples can not marry is because "it is not in the best interest of society/doesn't fit the nuclear family mold?" Really? You're sure it's just not people hiding behind their religion to disguise their "bigotry".

[ErikS]

Oh see here I thought all along the conflict was over rights. Is it possible to be bigoted when stating a fact with clinical precision?

Erik, it's only bigoted if you believe that words have fluid meanings and no anchor to their etymology or historical context. What is the meaning of the word "is" for instance as Clinton taught us. So if we live in Humpty Dumpty's world then yes you are absolutely correct we can change the meaning of words at will. Since you feel I am pedantic in my explanations I'll leave it for you to go pull out the historical context that validates my statement. Just realize that the world you believe in looks an awful lot like one Orwell anticipated with newspeak where misogyny really means philogyny.

Look at it this way, your definition of marriage means man and woman, God has to be involved as well. Two different sex couples who are agnostic/atheist can be "married", but two god fearing christian, mormon ... or whatever same sex couples cannot.

What right do you have to impose your beliefs on others who don't believe the same and want to marry? Major fallacies, I say ...