[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Separating one type of union from another as though there's a difference between the two (when there isn't) is more than just semantics. If marriage and civil unions are the same, why call one "A" and one "B"? Finally, you act as though only straights care about marriage. If marriage didn't mean anything to gays then it wouldn't be such a huge f***ing deal to them, now would it?
Theokhoth
This is my point. There is a different to those of us who are religious. It's not semantics.
If they received the exact same rights as straight couples who are married, and you are not religous, why the hell would you care what term is used?
Atheists can get married. And atheists would probably get pissed if their marriages were considered "different" or having "less meaning" than those of religious couples. Religious people do not have any monopoly on marriage or the meaning of marriage. If you believe marriage is different, whatever, have fun with that; your religious views have no place in the legal sphere of things.why do they need the state to recognize that they are married?? why not just have a ceremony and say they are? if its just about two people being together no one is stopping them
This is my point. There is a different to those of us who are religious. It's not semantics.
If they received the exact same rights as straight couples who are married, and you are not religous, why the hell would you care what term is used?
mems_1224
Atheists can get married. And atheists would probably get pissed if their marriages were considered "different" or having "less meaning" than those of religious couples. Religious people do not have any monopoly on marriage or the meaning of marriage. If you believe marriage is different, whatever, have fun with that; your religious views have no place in the legal sphere of things.why do they need the state to recognize that they are married?? why not just have a ceremony and say they are? if its just about two people being together no one is stopping them Because the state grants over a thousand rights and privileges to couples they recognize as being married.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Atheists can get married. And atheists would probably get pissed if their marriages were considered "different" or having "less meaning" than those of religious couples. Religious people do not have any monopoly on marriage or the meaning of marriage. If you believe marriage is different, whatever, have fun with that; your religious views have no place in the legal sphere of things.Theokhoth
Atheists getting married don't really mean anything. Marriage is more than just a term, but I'll leave it at that. That's quite. . .brazen of you to just dismiss hundreds of millions of marriages with the waving of your hand, but I suppose an exercised hand makes for good ego-stroking. In any case, I repeat: your religious views have no place in the law, and marriage is not just a term for those fighting for it. If you can't understand this, whatever; gaze with confusion as society passes you by.
That's not what I meant, but when someone gets upset they see what they like.
And you can repeat all you want, means nothing to me.
[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Atheists can get married. And atheists would probably get pissed if their marriages were considered "different" or having "less meaning" than those of religious couples. Religious people do not have any monopoly on marriage or the meaning of marriage. If you believe marriage is different, whatever, have fun with that; your religious views have no place in the legal sphere of things.Theokhoth
why do they need the state to recognize that they are married?? why not just have a ceremony and say they are? if its just about two people being together no one is stopping them Because the state grants over a thousand rights and privileges to couples they recognize as being married.so? the state isn't saying the cant be together
Results from the survey were based on telephone interviews conducted May 5-8, 2011 among a national probability sample of 1,007 adults age 18 and older. The overall margin of error is +/- 3.0 percentage points.
What state were these 1k people from? I don't like surveys for this reason, they are not accurate when they don't explain all their data.
GabuEx
Every national telephone poll uses randomly selected telephone numbers from anywhere in the nation in order to get a representative sampling. They don't say as much because that's basically implied; the whole point of a (honest) poll is to get a representative sampling.
I thought cold calling was illegal? More maybe thats just for sales?
I'm all for gay marriage, butgay adoption is wrong. That poor kid is going to get bullied and ridiculed for the first 20 or so years of his/her life.ROFLCOPTER603
[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Atheists can get married. And atheists would probably get pissed if their marriages were considered "different" or having "less meaning" than those of religious couples. Religious people do not have any monopoly on marriage or the meaning of marriage. If you believe marriage is different, whatever, have fun with that; your religious views have no place in the legal sphere of things.Theokhoth
why do they need the state to recognize that they are married?? why not just have a ceremony and say they are? if its just about two people being together no one is stopping them Because the state grants over a thousand rights and privileges to couples they recognize as being married. And why does the state do so? Seriously.
Somehow, I get the feeling that a guy who bragged about defending genocide of gays in Uganda will always find something to complain about when it comes to surveys indicating majority favor of gays. Just a hunch.Theokhoth
Also I just saw this, please stop falsely accusing me of doing things.
[QUOTE="mems_1224"]why do they need the state to recognize that they are married?? why not just have a ceremony and say they are? if its just about two people being together no one is stopping themmems_1224
Because the state grants over a thousand rights and privileges to couples they recognize as being married.so? the state isn't saying the cant be together No, they're just saying their marriage isn't valid and that gay couples can't visit eachother in the hospital.
[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]I'm all for gay marriage, butgay adoption is wrong. That poor kid is going to get bullied and ridiculed for the first 20 or so years of his/her life.scorch-62
God forbid the kid have parents.
I didn't say adoption is wrong, I said gay adoption is wrong.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Somehow, I get the feeling that a guy who bragged about defending genocide of gays in Uganda will always find something to complain about when it comes to surveys indicating majority favor of gays. Just a hunch.Espada12
Also I just saw this, please stop falsely accusing me of doing things.
I was part of that thread also, your opinion seemed pretty obvious.
I guess I am cynical, but I really don't care what the American public thinks until both are legal. I mean, I guess it's good news, but just because they are supportive doesn't really mean squat until it's allowed.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Sure. Apathy is only another way of supporting the wrong; remaining apathetic to women's voting rights, for instance, only serves to prolong the length of time in which women cannot vote.Theokhoth
It seems to me that people who are opposed to gay marriage could make the exact opposite assertion, that apathy passively supports gay marriage since an apathetic person is not going to vote against it.
Gay marriage isn't the status quo. And? Are seriously implying that the people who don't care about gay marriage are against it?
[QUOTE="mems_1224"]why do they need the state to recognize that they are married?? why not just have a ceremony and say they are? if its just about two people being together no one is stopping themfillini
Because the state grants over a thousand rights and privileges to couples they recognize as being married. And why does the state do so? Seriously. In order to recognize non-blood members of the family. When two people marry, they become family, entitled to all the rights and privileges of blood family members. If the state didn't grant these rights and privileges to married couples, there'd be legal and bureaucratic hell to pay. Imagine your spouse being disallowed from seeing you in the hospital because, according to the law, she's not related to you.
I guess I am cynical, but I really don't care what the American public thinks until both are legal. I mean, I guess it's good news, but just because they are supportive doesn't really mean squat until it's allowed.Ring_of_fire
It's not mentioned in the US constitution so it's up to the states on whether to allow it or not.
It seems to me that people who are opposed to gay marriage could make the exact opposite assertion, that apathy passively supports gay marriage since an apathetic person is not going to vote against it.
alexside1
Gay marriage isn't the status quo. And? Are seriously implying that the people who don't care about gay marriage are against it? No; simply that they allow those who are against it greater leverage.
[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]I guess I am cynical, but I really don't care what the American public thinks until both are legal. I mean, I guess it's good news, but just because they are supportive doesn't really mean squat until it's allowed.DroidPhysX
It's not mentioned in the US constitution so it's up to the states on whether to allow it or not. The federal government recognizes marriages as well and even defines it; in addition, the federal government grants basic rights and privileges to married couples. Plus, there have been Supreme Court (federal) rulings in the past pertaining to marriage. Ergo, it's not simply a state issue.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Gay marriage isn't the status quo.Theokhoth
And? Are seriously implying that the people who don't care about gay marriage are against it? No; simply that they allow those who are against it greater leverage. And?
[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]I'm all for gay marriage, butgay adoption is wrong. That poor kid is going to get bullied and ridiculed for the first 20 or so years of his/her life.scorch-62
God forbid the kid have parents. especially two gay dudes :?
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]I guess I am cynical, but I really don't care what the American public thinks until both are legal. I mean, I guess it's good news, but just because they are supportive doesn't really mean squat until it's allowed.Theokhoth
It's not mentioned in the US constitution so it's up to the states on whether to allow it or not. The federal government recognizes marriages as well and even defines it; in addition, the federal government grants basic rights and privileges to married couples. Plus, there have been Supreme Court (federal) rulings in the past pertaining to marriage. Ergo, it's not simply a state issue. The feds can't legally outlaw/recognize gay marriage...
[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]I guess I am cynical, but I really don't care what the American public thinks until both are legal. I mean, I guess it's good news, but just because they are supportive doesn't really mean squat until it's allowed.DroidPhysX
It's not mentioned in the US constitution so it's up to the states on whether to allow it or not.
Kind of. There's still a little meddling in the matter by the federal government.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] It's not mentioned in the US constitution so it's up to the states on whether to allow it or not. The federal government recognizes marriages as well and even defines it; in addition, the federal government grants basic rights and privileges to married couples. Plus, there have been Supreme Court (federal) rulings in the past pertaining to marriage. Ergo, it's not simply a state issue. The feds can't legally outlaw/recognize gay marriage... Yes they can; the existence of DOMA shows that the federal government can and does recognize and define marriage, and grants/withholds rights pertaining thereto. Even without DOMA, the feds have always granted rights to married couples. And again, the federal court has made rulings on marriage, such as Loving v. Virginia.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]I'm all for gay marriage, butgay adoption is wrong. That poor kid is going to get bullied and ridiculed for the first 20 or so years of his/her life.Fuhgeddabouditt
God forbid the kid have parents. especially two gay dudes :?
Do you know anyone with homosexual parents? If you do, they'll tell you that their life isn't exactly great. It's already tough being adopted, add in gay parents and you have one really stressful life.
Also I just saw this, please stop falsely accusing me of doing things.Espada12
You explicitly stated that you supported the genocide of gays in Uganda. Don't even try to lie about that.
I didn't say adoption is wrong, I said gay adoption is wrong.ROFLCOPTER603
In both scenarios, there's a couple of loving parents who want to adopt an orphan. However, in one scenario, you're depriving the orphan of loving parents.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The federal government recognizes marriages as well and even defines it; in addition, the federal government grants basic rights and privileges to married couples. Plus, there have been Supreme Court (federal) rulings in the past pertaining to marriage. Ergo, it's not simply a state issue. The feds can't legally outlaw/recognize gay marriage... Yes they can; the existence of DOMA shows that the federal government can and does recognize and define marriage, and grants/withholds rights pertaining thereto. Even without DOMA, the feds have always granted rights to married couples. And again, the federal court has made rulings on marriage, such as Loving v. Virginia. DOMA still doesn't outlaw gay marriage.....
[QUOTE="Ring_of_fire"]I guess I am cynical, but I really don't care what the American public thinks until both are legal. I mean, I guess it's good news, but just because they are supportive doesn't really mean squat until it's allowed.DroidPhysX
It's not mentioned in the US constitution so it's up to the states on whether to allow it or not. I am not saying it passes federally, I am just saying in general.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Somehow, I get the feeling that a guy who bragged about defending genocide of gays in Uganda will always find something to complain about when it comes to surveys indicating majority favor of gays. Just a hunch.Espada12
Also I just saw this, please stop falsely accusing me of doing things.
*Yawn* I'm look at the post right now, so don't even.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Because the state grants over a thousand rights and privileges to couples they recognize as being married.
Theokhoth
And why does the state do so? Seriously. In order to recognize non-blood members of the family. When two people marry, they become family, entitled to all the rights and privileges of blood family members. If the state didn't grant these rights and privileges to married couples, there'd be legal and bureaucratic hell to pay. Imagine your spouse being disallowed from seeing you in the hospital because, according to the law, she's not related to you. I'm pretty sure its because they can have kids, thus uniting their blood
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] The feds can't legally outlaw/recognize gay marriage... Yes they can; the existence of DOMA shows that the federal government can and does recognize and define marriage, and grants/withholds rights pertaining thereto. Even without DOMA, the feds have always granted rights to married couples. And again, the federal court has made rulings on marriage, such as Loving v. Virginia. DOMA still doesn't outlaw gay marriage..... It does for all intents and purposes outlaw gay marriage because it defines marriage to exclude gay couples and it withholds all the rights entitled to married couples.
[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]I didn't say adoption is wrong, I said gay adoption is wrong.scorch-62
In both scenarios, there's a couple of loving parents who want to adopt an orphan. However, in one scenario, you're depriving the orphan of loving parents.
Yes, except the kid adopted by straight parents isn't going to be made fun of throughout elementary, middle school, and maybe even high school. The gay parents could be the nicest people alive, but there are tons of bigots who could care less about their personalities and more about their sexual orientation.
And that's a problem with apathy. I bet there are lot of things in life that you're apathy with it. Equal rights not being one of them. I take a vocal stand on all matters pertaining to social equality regardless of whether or not I fall into the targeted demographic.
I posted a Nate Silver blog post that showed some polling data that showed the majority to support gay marriage.
The fight's not over, but atleast some of the closet anti-gay marriage folks (and some that are not in the closet about their opposition) can stop hiding behind the "majority" argument.
Do you know anyone with homosexual parents? If you do, they'll tell you that their life isn't exactly great. It's already tough being adopted, add in gay parents and you have one really stressful life.ROFLCOPTER603
I've never heard of such a claim. Please explain yourself, preferably with links to relevant research.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"] [QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]I didn't say adoption is wrong, I said gay adoption is wrong.ROFLCOPTER603
In both scenarios, there's a couple of loving parents who want to adopt an orphan. However, in one scenario, you're depriving the orphan of loving parents.
Yes, except the kid adopted by straight parents isn't going to be made fun of throughout elementary, middle school, and maybe even high school. The gay parents could be the nicest people alive, but there are tons of bigots who could care less about their personalities and more about their sexual orientation.
None of this is a valid reason to outlaw gay adoption. "The kid will be bullied! Better for him to be an orphan!"
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Yes they can; the existence of DOMA shows that the federal government can and does recognize and define marriage, and grants/withholds rights pertaining thereto. Even without DOMA, the feds have always granted rights to married couples. And again, the federal court has made rulings on marriage, such as Loving v. Virginia. DOMA still doesn't outlaw gay marriage..... It does for all intents and purposes outlaw gay marriage because it defines marriage to exclude gay couples and it withholds all the rights entitled to married couples. At a federal level. The power to define marriage wasn't given to the feds. 10th amendment gives it to the states. The feds can't ban gay marriage (gays from being married not gays receiving benefits) without a constitutional amendment. Bush tried that in '06 and failed.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="fillini"] And why does the state do so? Seriously.
DivergeUnify
In order to recognize non-blood members of the family. When two people marry, they become family, entitled to all the rights and privileges of blood family members. If the state didn't grant these rights and privileges to married couples, there'd be legal and bureaucratic hell to pay. Imagine your spouse being disallowed from seeing you in the hospital because, according to the law, she's not related to you. I'm pretty sure its because they can have kids, thus uniting their blood Not all married couples have kids. :roll:
Yes, except the kid adopted by straight parents isn't going to be made fun of throughout elementary, middle school, and maybe even high school. The gay parents could be the nicest people alive, but there are tons of bigots who could care less about their personalities and more about their sexual orientation.ROFLCOPTER603
I don't see how that's a reason to deprive orphans of a home.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] DOMA still doesn't outlaw gay marriage..... It does for all intents and purposes outlaw gay marriage because it defines marriage to exclude gay couples and it withholds all the rights entitled to married couples. At a federal level. The power to define marriage wasn't given to the feds. 10th amendment gives it to the states. The feds can't ban gay marriage (gays from being married not gays receiving benefits) without a constitutional amendment. Bush tried that in '06 and failed. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It explicitly defines marriage and it is a federal law passed by the Clinton administration.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] It does for all intents and purposes outlaw gay marriage because it defines marriage to exclude gay couples and it withholds all the rights entitled to married couples. At a federal level. The power to define marriage wasn't given to the feds. 10th amendment gives it to the states. The feds can't ban gay marriage (gays from being married not gays receiving benefits) without a constitutional amendment. Bush tried that in '06 and failed. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It explicitly defines marriage and it is a federal law passed by the Clinton administration. So then states that have legalized gay marriage should be expecting a lawsuit from the federal gov't for violating federal law?
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] In order to recognize non-blood members of the family. When two people marry, they become family, entitled to all the rights and privileges of blood family members. If the state didn't grant these rights and privileges to married couples, there'd be legal and bureaucratic hell to pay. Imagine your spouse being disallowed from seeing you in the hospital because, according to the law, she's not related to you. Theokhoth
I'm pretty sure its because they can have kids, thus uniting their blood Not all married couples have kids. :roll: "Because they CAN have kids" Most married couples have kids I would assume
:lol: Here comes the eyerolling to belittle every contribution someone brings to the discussion thats not explicitely 100% pro-gay
Log in to comment