NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



The point is that when McGunn and I got married we didn't have to jump through all those hoops, it was all pretty much automatic. And living wills can, and ARE, contested.

You're right, that's part of the point.

Now, if you want to create a category of "civil union", with the exact same "benefits", I'd be up to considering that.

Ask Anna Nicole Smith if being married is ever contested. You know what, she's not the only one. Contested is a moot point - everything can be contested.

Than change all the hetero unions to "civil unions" as well. I couldn't care less what you call it; as long as there is equal protection.

So we seem to agree? Why on earth do you argue soo much if it's all about the word?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I'm sorry; I didn't know every gay person in the country needed to march to DC to combine you they care...

I neither said nor implied that.

I said I don't think much of the community is as up in arms about it as non-homosexuals are. I also said I don't think anecdotal evidence holds any meaning.

I know what you said; I can read. I was obviously over exaggerating to make a point

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Than change all the hetero unions to "civil unions" as well. I couldn't care less what you call it; as long as there is equal protection.

So we seem to agree? Why on earth do you argue soo much if it's all about the word?

I'd be for changing everything, sure.

But, I don't think we agree. You think Coke and Pepsi are the same thing, I live in reality.

It's about more than the word.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



I know what you said; I can read. I was obviously over exaggerating to make a point

I'm trying to remain unbiased. Another difference in our style of discussion, apparently.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Than change all the hetero unions to "civil unions" as well. I couldn't care less what you call it; as long as there is equal protection.

So we seem to agree? Why on earth do you argue soo much if it's all about the word?

I'd be for changing everything, sure.

But, I don't think we agree. You think Coke and Pepsi are the same thing, I live in reality.

It's about more than the word.

But you're fine with equality as long as no one says their married right?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I know what you said; I can read. I was obviously over exaggerating to make a point

I'm trying to remain unbiased. Another difference in our style of discussion, apparently.

Yes, I'm horribly biased

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



But you're fine with equality as long as no one says their married right?

You can't equate Pepsi and Coke, they're not the same thing. But, they can be handled the same way.

So, yes, I'm all for handling each type of union as the voters see fit. I'd like to see a good reason to do so that's not based on a mis-perception, emotional outburst, but, yes.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Yes, I'm horribly biased

Do you open your mind to the concept you may be incorrect?

I do. That's why I'm willing to compromise my principles for legality.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



But you're fine with equality as long as no one says their married right?

You can't equate Pepsi and Coke, they're not the same thing. But, they can be handled the same way.

So, yes, I'm all for handling each type of union as the voters see fit. I'd like to see a good reason to do so that's not based on a mis-perception, emotional outburst, but, yes.

Answer the question: are you in favor of redefining 'marriage' to include gays as long as we say 'civil union'? It's a simple question.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Yes, I'm horribly biased

Do you open your mind to the concept you may be incorrect?

I do. That's why I'm willing to compromise my principles for legality.

Yep, as long as we're talking about things that can be defined as either correct or incorrect. Opinions are neither.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Answer the question: are you in favor of redefining 'marriage' to include gays as long as we say 'civil union'? It's a simple question.

I did answer the question.

Don't redefine a word for no reason. If you want to create a category for every potential type of relationship and find a compelling cause to have governmental recognition of that category, go for it. But, don't dilute the meaning of an institution just for expediency.

Remember California's Prop 8? See, homosexuals had all state benefits, equal to the state definition of marriage, but they weren't called "married". Their lobby (made up primarily of heterosexual liberals) decided that wasn't good enough, and got the state to vote on whether or not it was good enough. The people of the state said "don't redefine marriage", and the homosexuals then lost what they'd had. All for the specific word "marriage".

Categorize all possible types of unions, and do with them as you will. One type is already categorized - leave it alone. You don't let someone fly a plane because they have a motorcyle license - a motorcycle and a plane are both "vehicles", and "transportation", but they're certainly NOT the same thing. Don't give someone a "marriage" license to be in a homosexual relationship - it's equally similar, and equally dissimilar.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Yep, as long as we're talking about things that can be defined as either correct or incorrect. Opinions are neither.

Then, you have to lose your talking point about discrimination based on sexual orientation. No marriage license in the 50 states requires a sexual orientation for it to be gotten, so non-opinion, unbiased fact calls that opinion invalid.

 

[UNA]

I did answer the question.

Don't redefine a word for no reason. If you want to create a category for every potential type of relationship and find a compelling cause to have governmental recognition of that category, go for it. But, don't dilute the meaning of an institution just for expediency.

Remember California's Prop 8? See, homosexuals had all state benefits, equal to the state definition of marriage, but they weren't called "married". Their lobby (made up primarily of heterosexual liberals) decided that wasn't good enough, and got the state to vote on whether or not it was good enough. The people of the state said "don't redefine marriage", and the homosexuals then lost what they'd had. All for the specific word "marriage".

Categorize all possible types of unions, and do with them as you will. One type is already categorized - leave it alone. You don't let someone fly a plane because they have a motorcyle license - a motorcycle and a plane are both "vehicles", and "transportation", but they're certainly NOT the same thing. Don't give someone a "marriage" license to be in a homosexual relationship - it's equally similar, and equally dissimilar.

Then fine, call them ALL civil unions. It's the whole separate but equal thing that screws it all up. Just take the word 'marriage' out of it and leave that in the churches where it belongs. NONE of us are married, we all have civil unions. Done.

Somehow, if it were ONLY about the word, there would be a lot less fighting about it. If the solution were that simple it would have been done.

And as far as the liberals in CA are concerned, I do not speak for them...I'm not a liberal They're just as nuts as the conservatives

 

[UNA]

Then, you have to lose your talking point about discrimination based on sexual orientation. No marriage license in the 50 states requires a sexual orientation for it to be gotten, so non-opinion, unbiased fact calls that opinion invalid.

So if I was gay, and walked into Chuck Co Court House with another woman, they would have given me a valid and equal marriage license?

 

[This_person]

So if I was gay, and walked into Chuck Co Court House with another woman, they would have given me a valid and equal marriage license?

No, you wouldn't have met the requirement for a marriage license.

But, if you were homosexual, and you walked into the Chuck Co Court House with a man, and the two of you met all of the requirements for a marriage license, you could have gotten one - regardless of your sexual orientation.

 

[McGinn77]

Then, you have to lose your talking point about discrimination based on sexual orientation. No marriage license in the 50 states requires a sexual orientation for it to be gotten, so non-opinion, unbiased fact calls that opinion invalid.

You really are an idiot.

 

[McGinn77]

I did answer the question.

Don't redefine a word for no reason. If you want to create a category for every potential type of relationship and find a compelling cause to have governmental recognition of that category, go for it. But, don't dilute the meaning of an institution just for expediency.

Remember California's Prop 8? See, homosexuals had all state benefits, equal to the state definition of marriage, but they weren't called "married". Their lobby (made up primarily of heterosexual liberals) decided that wasn't good enough, and got the state to vote on whether or not it was good enough. The people of the state said "don't redefine marriage", and the homosexuals then lost what they'd had. All for the specific word "marriage".

Categorize all possible types of unions, and do with them as you will. One type is already categorized - leave it alone. You don't let someone fly a plane because they have a motorcyle license - a motorcycle and a plane are both "vehicles", and "transportation", but they're certainly NOT the same thing. Don't give someone a "marriage" license to be in a homosexual relationship - it's equally similar, and equally dissimilar.

There is a reason, people want to get married to the person they love. THAT IS A REASON!

 

[bcp]

It is pursuit of gay marriage that have given us $4 a gallon gas.

It is pursuit of gay marriage that collapsed the housing market.

It is pursuit of gay marriage that caused 9/11.

It is pursuit of gay marriage that is responsible for runaway immigration.

It is pursuit of gay marriage that has caused healthcare to skyrocket.

It is pursuit of gay marriage that has enriched Wall Street beyond imagination, bailed out failed corporations and all around lead to a sense entitlement regardless of how poor your performance and/or decisions.

It is pursuit of gay marriage that has lead to not one but two (going on three) UN style military misadventures by the US.

It is pursuit of gay marriage that has lead to mass expansion of social entitlement programs desperately in need of reduction.

And, collectively, all of this, obviously, has lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it and the decline of the West.

.

I thought you were smarter.
let me explain this to you.
The Gays are not the cause of any of the above listed issues.

All of the above examples are clearly without any doubt,, George W Bush's fault.

 

[McGinn77]

What percentage of the homosexual community does it take to classify?

I'm guessing of the 3% or so of the population, about 3% of them care about this issue. About 90% of liberals do, and about 25% of conservatives do.

Guessing seems to be what you do best since you have no real data, or a clue.

 

[UNA]

No, you wouldn't have met the requirement for a marriage license.

But, if you were homosexual, and you walked into the Chuck Co Court House with a man, and the two of you met all of the requirements for a marriage license, you could have gotten one - regardless of your sexual orientation.

'Round and 'round and 'round and 'round we go...

Didn't we agree a few minutes ago that if we were in charge of everything we'd just rename the whole thing and include everyone? Why are you still arguing?