I am fiscally conservative. I believe in smaller, more effective gov't. The gov't should stay out of most everything. The number one thing they should stay out of is religious matters. The gov't can call it whatever it wants, but they deserve the same rights as another couple. Just because it isn't traditional doesn't mean it isn't real.
Apathy is really all GLBT are asking for. To be free to be who they are without prejudice from the law. If you have a friend that gets gay-married I hope you'll support them for the benefit of the friendship, but otherwise it's not support gays are after. It's just equality.
Don't need a special name for it, just write a contract for whatever you want (shared assets, power of attorney, multiple parties, whatever) and file it with a court. Nothing more insufferable then gay marriage supporters with their inflated sense of moral superiority. Only thing worse are atheists. You're so enlightened and tolerant because you have a slightly more expansive definition of state sanctioned marriage than someone else. Whatever. The right answer is that you shouldn't care if the state blesses your marriage at all. I find it sad that people need that for validation.
Haha look at this tap dancer. Should gay people be allowed to marry people of the same sex, yes or no?
So in other words yes you are opposed to gay marriage, and fall into the same line of thinking that white supremacists used to try and stop interracial marriage. Odd that you would use a similar line of reasoning to white supremacists. You've been blown out of the water on these issues so many times before it's not even a challenge or worth the effort anymore. disgraceful effort on your part.
UH...it's not just for validation. Newsflash--- http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm Yeah, I suppose if you gave it the EXACT same amount of benefits, and then changed the name to "buggyaboo ceremony" to appease the homophobes, well, we'd live in quite a ridiculous state, would we? Well, turns out we have people who think the debate about marriage is about a name, and validation, so I suppose we already do live in that ridiculous state.
What is a "conservative" anyway? I used to think I was a conservative, but many people on the right these days would probably accuse me of being a flaming liberal now that they've gone off the deep end. As for the subject, I oppose gay marriage as a Christian. My faith is the most important thing in my life and dictates everything else, and I believe it is against the teachings of the bible. That said, I believe that in a constitutional/democratic system such as America's, it is untenable and probably unreasonable to attempt to legislate certain kinds of morality. For example, I also believe that lying, manipulation, seduction and adultery are morally wrong, but it is unreasonable to legislate against such things. I do not like the fact that everywhere I turn I have to hear about gay people and their rights -- I much rather would just see somebody as a fellow citizen, no matter what their sexual orientation is and not treat them any differently from another. I do think that the so-called Christian right has their approach to this (and many other issues) all wrong. Our mission is to reach the world with love, and you just can't win by going about dictating to people how to live their lives. It's just not our job to do. Change comes from within. That's the great thing about Christianity. It's not about deciding to live life by a particular set of living rules, it's about responding to the immense love of the Father by loving Him and loving others, and His grace empowering us to show that love by doing the things that please Him. Without that element, any "thou shalt not" you try to impose on another person is a waste of time, and most likely counterproductive. Many "evangelicals" today have become like the Pharisees of old, going about telling people how horrible they are for transgressing the law, whereas Jesus himself went out of his way to hang out and party with the outcasts of his day -- prostitutes, greedy tax collectors, etc. We have it all backwards.
For someone who campaigns on a constant theme of "equality is the denial of ambition, do not drag everyone into the same misery, QED SOCIALISM is wrong", you don't seem to have a problem dragging everyone into the same miserable pool when it comes to marriage benefits. This shouldn't be a fight to remove benefits to claim some perverted "equality" of desolation, free market citizen.
Why must I be compelled to marry to receive a particular benefit? Why should I be denied benefits for choosing not to marry?
Nobody is compelling you to marry. These are merely MARKET incentives, so that the supply curve for (hetero-normative) marriages moves up. you see, in GOOD OL AMERICA, marriages (or at least heterosexual ones) are good. for some magical reason. I dunno. Parties are always fun, even if they end in 50% disaster. so given that it's written somewhere that people should get married, well, an agent will happily provide for that possibility. except for well, anyone who is not a heterosexual. really Commodore, nobody forces anyone to marry anyone, or even to have sex with them. I have never been forced at gunpoint to have sex or to marry or to enter relationships, but there are incentives to the three (all of which kinda revolve around the first, BUT REGARDLESS). this is how a free market works. you choose according to the price, according to your marginal costs and benefits. Interesting how you are against free market incentives in this case; you compare them to compelled force, which begs the question whether or not you think, for example, Third World labor choosing between starvation and subsistence level wages (a much more drastic decision) is compelled force...rather than the free flow of incentives in a market structure. duly noted for crossing the bounds of market ideology, free market citizen.
haha you didn't even bother to read the thread. Intellectual laziness on your part It's not the same as interracial marriage, as I kindly pointed out to Bats
