good luck getting this passed in the south or midwest. (spare me your take on Iowa) although, I wont doubt for a second that money wont be thrown at those states either.
I guess it would apply if I was a conservative. no. I don't like when elected politicians who recieve money from lobbyists decide what the people want. whether they are Republicans or Democrats.
asinine point. we aren't making homosexuals sit in the back of the bus or drink from different water fountains. and marriage is far from a civil right.
Of course it is. Just like it was a civil right when interracial marriage was allowed in those same backwards voting states. It is discrimination in terms of law, so it is a civil rights. With respect to hospital visitation, insurance benefits, tax code, inheritance, etc. they are definitely discriminated against in this regard.
Yet the discrimination from the anti-gay rights crowd is appalling. Probably stems from some sacred obsession with masculinity in our culture...but I digress. What I see when I read your posts is this: I have this right, but YOU should be denied this right. Because of MY beliefs/morals, YOUR life should be affected. This is treating someone as if they are subhuman and not worthy of what you have...a position suspiciously similar to the southern struggles opposing integration. How would your life be affected adversely if two people who loved each other and were committed to each other could get married?
You talk of lobbyists, but in California, special interests brought Proposition 8 to the ballot box, and they raised $44m (a good bit more than the "pro-Gay-marriage" side) to advertise and get their Proposition passed. How is that not what you decry? Not only did they raise $44M, a good chunk of that came from out of state. I understand you do not want gay marriage, and that is fine. But arguing that it's some sort of elite money-driven thing fighting good decent citizens who do not make campaign contributions is... false.
no, what you see when you read my posts is: This guy opposes what my party believes in. again, marriage is not a civil right. it's not a right of any sort (sans religion). it's just that heterosexuals enjoy benefits of being married that homosexuals do not. I can give you a secular reason why, but really....whats the point? this liberal laden board will naturally dismiss it and not even consider any plausibility it may offer. and of course, the right wing nut-job blasts will follow suit.
I'd say that the greatest benefit of being married is being able to pursue happiness through a committed relationship, no? If you truly believe in your reason, and your convictions are strong...post it. I promise I won't dismiss it, even though I feel very strongly for the other side. Plausibility, naturally, is a plus.
Marriage may not be a right but what is silly is that government benefits are derived from marriage. Fine, religious institutions can choose who they want to marry but why are things like tax benefits, visitation rights, etc.. tied to marriage? That's the bigger issue involved. I have no problem if a church decides that it will only marry heterosexual couples. What bother me (and most people who are in favor of gay marriage) is the fact that marriage is a prerequisite to government benefits. Marriage may not be a civil right but why arent government benefits that are tied to marriage.
The hypocritical part is here. Changing the definition of marriage by gender but not being open to numbers is arbitrary. The only definitions are 1. Adults 2. Number 3. Genders Changing the adult is impossible because children marriage pretty much accepted as immoral. Number and gender when dealing with adults is mostly considered OK.
