Issue is .... they are NOT the same legal benefits. I watched for three years as my uncle's partner struggled with some insane criteria that he'd never have had an issue with had he been his spouse. This debate is not only about the living and it's not only about tax benefits. Regardless of anyone's "belief" that civil unions share equal footing with marriages regarding protection of the spouse, they in fact do not. And since they do not, there's precedent that separate but equal is not a legal doctrine by the laws in the US.
You sound like a bigot to me in fact. You sound homosexual and probably hate straight people because they make you feel abnormal or something. I don't know what your problem is. If you think everyone that doesn't think "marriage" should include the definition of a "man to a man" or a "woman to a woman" is a bigot, then I guess I fit your bill. Definition of BIGOT : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance I think you are being intolerable and hate me for not agreeing to define marriage as also between homosexuals, so you sound like a "bigot" to me. I don't hate homosexuals or have intolerance for them. I just think marriage is between men and women.
I don't see how laws regarding civil unions can't be given the same criteria that marriage is. Regardless of how many people want to change it, marriage means something scared to millions of religious people in the US and around the world. Just for the record, I don't care about legal marriage myself. I would handle all of my intentions through powers of attorney, wills, contracts, agreements for the things I want to occur in life. I am actually speaking for what I know of how other religious people feel. One day the law might allow a man to marry a monkey, a dog or a horse...won't affect me at all.
No, my premise is based on the assumption that many people in 60's viewed and still view interracial relationships the same way you currently view homosexual relationships. I feel that who you are attracted to and fall in love with is not a choice regardless of whether it's interracial or homosexual. You've made it clear in your posts that you feel that being homosexual is a choice and that by choosing that lifestyle, which is viewed by you and many others as immoral (on par with be a p*rn star or prostitute), you're not entitled to the same laws and public respect as other discriminated against minorities. You also feel the gay movement is not as just as the civil or women's right movements. Why? All three causes are fighting against oppression and for the right to have total and complete freedom and equality, not only from a legal standpoint but also from a standpoint of social acceptance. And as far as offending all the extreme religious people who value false, man made interpretations of ancient scriptures over modern day issues and human rights, I say screw all those people, they can all go to hell (if there was such a place). Religious institutions and their greed are the primary reasons we have the problems we do today and are even debating this issue. And to go back to the root of this thread, and hopefully end this debate, I'll ask you the same question I asked in my previous post that you conveniently did not address: Is it acceptable for a white athlete, say Kevin Love, to publicly say "Chris Bosh was on me.....I ain't no ***** lover"? Should KLove be able to get away with that without being fined? If not, then why do you feel that's it's acceptable Hibbert to say "he was on me.....no homo"? A "***** lover" and a "homo", according to your logic, are both lifestyle choices. A "***** lover" in the 60's was viewed by many people no differently than a homosexual is today. Both phrases "no ***** lover" and "no homo" are demeaning and in the examples above are used in the same context.
I am married with a kid, so I would be shocked if I woke up one day and became a homosexual, although I suppose anything is possible. You are a bigot, you do not wish to extend rights to a group of people based on their sexuality.
Again, your entire premise of sexual attraction being equal to race is a false one to me, but I will address it anyway. You all have boiled the whole gay rights issue down to "marriage equality", and that's really it for you all. No one is arguing or cares about discrimination and crimes against gay people, because you know that law are either on the books or being created to protect those things. So the bottom line and ground zero for the gay movement from your perspectives is "marriage equality". And if a person can not agree that gay people can marry just like straight people, then they are a bigot. This is one reason why this false equivalence is not the same as the civil rights struggle for African-Americans. Our struggle was for voting, economics, freedom, commerce, etc, etc, etc; in no particular order. We fought for many rights that were being denied to us starting from slavery. It was never about whether we could marry a white person or not as our primary focus for our civil rights. That was just one of the by product of laws that came from the violations of other civil rights. Sure there are people who hate gay people and want them put in jail and criticized in public, I have made it clear to you that I am NOT one of those people. I know that this is not enough for some of your supporters, because they also want me to redefine marriage and state openly in public that I love gay sex and those that engage in it. That's not going to happen any more than many people are going to stand up and say that they are attracted to multiple partners and like threesomes and orgies, etc. People just have different values and are willing to live and let live....but that's not good enough for you. You believe in your world that being gay is more like being African-American than it is to other sexual practices such as polygamy, having multiple sex partners at once, or choosing to sell sex for a living; while I disagree because one can not choose to practice being African-American or any other race, while one can choose to not practice any sexual practice by being celibate. Nevertheless, I believe that people, born or not, should be free to have sex with any adult that they choose and that is wiling to have sex with them, whether they are same sex or not, or whether they are multiple partners or not (polygamy), or whether they are paid for it or not (prostitution). As a matter of fact, I think people practising polygamy should have a stronger argument to stand upon for "marriage equality" than homosexual couples do. You obviously hate and are bigoted towards "religious people" and their beliefs, so maybe your kind is the new oppressor of free speech and thought. I think your kind has an agenda to wipe out religion so that you can choose your own morals and religious people won't dislike you because they won't exist. That's not how freedom and free speech work, or otherwise the African-American civil rights movement would have been to get rid of all white people...that wasn't the goal btw. Your example from 1960 further continues to show the extremes that you will go to in order to support your cause by using bigoted terms in some so called effort to continue to make a parallel between black people and homosexual people. It is very offensive. I don't recall the women's movement using such tactics. They had their own leg to stand on and continue to make improvements for their causes without such horrendous tactics. So you example is still way off, but I won't bother to continue to address how it is because it's obvious that you won't get the point and will still try to continue to use race as being equivalent to being homosexual....a premise that I will never accept, and don't need to accept in order to support laws to prevent discrimination and crimes against homosexuals. If you think denying the term "marriage" from homosexuals is the worst oppression, then you will NEVER understand anything that I have just said.
You mean it's possible that you were born homosexual, but got married had a kid and woke up one day and realized that you were born gay? If so, how did you fight your natural desires to have sex with men and marry your wife instead? How did you even get it up and furthermore ejaculate inside your wife to make a baby if you were not attracted to her? Or are you really bisexual and not actually gay? Are you confused sir? Why not just be who you are from the beginning and live happily without marrying that poor woman and making a kid? If you say that anything is possible. Just some questions, I'm not assuming that any of this is true, only you know. If I don't want to define marriage as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and that makes me a bigot by your definition, then that's fine by me. But your calling me names will NOT make me hate gay people, treat them bad, or not fight for their civil rights as I see them being. You think being able to call their relationships a marriage is a civil right, I do not. We can agree to disagree. If the law gives them that right, then so be it, but I won't lose any sleep over it one way or the other. I support civil unions and all other laws to protect against discrimination and crimes against a person just because of their sexual preferences. You probably need more bigots (as you call me) like me in your corner to achieve your goals.
So I pose the questions again: Is it acceptable for a white athlete, say Kevin Love, to publicly say "Chris Bosh was on me.....I ain't no n***** lover"? Should KLove be able to get away with that without being fined? If not, then why do you feel that's it's acceptable Hibbert to say "he was on me.....no homo"?
So... rather than assume that "black" refers to the third definition on your list, you're gonna claim that it is meant to refer to a person who is soiled, gloomy, harmful, hostile, evil, disgraceful, marked by disaster, grotesque, undesirable, sub-standard? This is totally irrelevant, really, but now I see where so many of your arguments come from. You're just willing to make any argument, however silly, to defend your point. Cool, got it.
this shuldn't b a big deal..when ppl say no homo its cuz they didnt mean it in a gay way. fan speaking to lebron " you came (c*m) hard in this game...*awkward stare" "no homo"
it's no big deal... ..if you are in middle school, high school, or a college frat party. a grown man has no business saying that in his place of work.
Against my better judgment, I am going to respond to this entertaining argument. Since you seem so preoccupied with "defining" marriage (talk about irony), it's important to note also what marriage USED to mean. It used to carry with it specific gender roles, legal statuses and social norms. It used to prohibit a lot of things that are permitted today. We can sit here for hours and talk about which traditions carried over to the New World (and which ones you think should still apply), but the fact of the matter is the meaning of the term has continually changed and been adapted to today's society in a practical manner. In today's society, marriage is entirely a civil matter. Choosing to incorporate religion is voluntary hence the very essence of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Thus, I don't care about "offending" these religious groups that happen to oppose the idea of same-sex marriage (despite the fact that permitting such a thing won't affect them at all - even more mind-boggling). And calling a marriage a civil union, even with the same rights, is pointless and still discriminatory. Not a valid argument.
