Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

I haven't wasted any. How much have you wasted?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I haven't wasted any. How much have you wasted?

I haven't wasted any. Luckily all the fighting and legal fees are free.

 

[timschochet]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

 

[Steve Tasker]

righteous indignation

That's really sad.

I suspect those attitudes won't die entirely once SSM legality sweeps the country once and for all, but people like "Robby" look more and more foolish every day. History will not be on his side. Hopefully someday when he reflects on his life and prays to whatever god he prays to, he'll realize the error of his ways and ask for forgiveness.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

A civil union if it is defined differently would still be discriminatory. However, the big problem with your point of view is that many on the right fought against civil unions.

 

[UniAlias]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

Did you forget to log in to your Eminence alias before posting this?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

Did you forget to log in to your Eminence alias before posting this?

Not sure how that's anything like Em's stance. But that's cool.

 

[squistion]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

The term civil union sounds great in theory, but in practice, often means something less than marriage.

If civil union literally meant "marriage with the exact same rights but with a different name to appease the Bible thumpers", then I'm sure most wouldn't care so much about "the word".

 

[jon_mx]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

 

[squistion]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Are lesbian marriages twice as good as hetro marriages tehn?

 

[Koya]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Are lesbian marriages twice as good as hetro marriages tehn?

At least

 

[jon_mx]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Most of those rights were predicated on the idea that one person, usually the wife, would stay home and take care of the children.

Maybe that thinking is outdated since most mothers work now, but it really makes no sense in a gay relationship to give incentives for one partner not to work.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Are lesbian marriages twice as good as hetro marriages tehn?

Naturally.

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Most of those rights were predicated on the idea that one person, usually the wife, would stay home and take care of the children.

Maybe that thinking is outdated since most mothers work now, but it really makes no sense in a gay relationship to give incentives for one partner not to work.

 

[NCCommish]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Still people trying to get the Civil Rights Act overturned. Hatred knows few limits.

 

[jon_mx]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Another instance of the oh so many examples on this thread of righteous indignation from the pro-gay marriage side. By far the majority of the source in this thread.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Most of those rights were predicated on the idea that one person, usually the wife, would stay home and take care of the children.

Maybe that thinking is outdated since most mothers work now, but it really makes no sense in a gay relationship to give incentives for one partner not to work.

It is a legitimate point. Why should both partners in a childless same sex-marriage or any childless marriage for that matter, get extra social security benefits for not working. It only makes sense in a world where you have stay at home moms.

 

[Scoresman]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Most of those rights were predicated on the idea that one person, usually the wife, would stay home and take care of the children.

Maybe that thinking is outdated since most mothers work now, but it really makes no sense in a gay relationship to give incentives for one partner not to work.

dude, what about gay couple who adopt? Dont they have the same child raising obligations as straight couples?

 

[jon_mx]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Still people trying to get the Civil Rights Act overturned. Hatred knows few limits.

Yes, so many people. Nice straw-man.

 

[NCCommish]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Another instance of the oh so many examples on this thread of righteous indignation from the pro-gay marriage side. By far the majority of the source in this thread.

Yes the people supporting equal rights are the bad guys here. Won't someone think of the poor people who have absolutely nothing to do with the marriages they are trying to stop for no good reason at all?

 

[timschochet]

Question for you Jon: Last year, my father in law, who was 73, got married to a woman he had been dating for several months who was 68. They're not planning on having children, obviously. So is their marriage inherently inferior to a marriage of a young couple that does plan to conceive? Should we remove their right to be married?

 

[NCCommish]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Still people trying to get the Civil Rights Act overturned. Hatred knows few limits.

Yes, so many people. Nice straw-man.

Did I say there was millions? No I said there were still people trying. I understand why this statement upsets you though what people there are trying are on your side of the argument.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

They should be fine with a separate institution as long as they get equal rights?

 

[jon_mx]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Most of those rights were predicated on the idea that one person, usually the wife, would stay home and take care of the children.

Maybe that thinking is outdated since most mothers work now, but it really makes no sense in a gay relationship to give incentives for one partner not to work.

dude, what about gay couple who adopt? Dont they have the same child raising obligations as straight couples?

What percentage of gay couple adopt? I would bet a very small number. And that is the problem. Many of the rights doled out to married coupled were based on the nuclear family producing children and having a stay at home mom. Now we are still doling out benefits for a situation that probably is the exception instead of the rule.

 

[Koya]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Another instance of the oh so many examples on this thread of righteous indignation from the pro-gay marriage side. By far the majority of the source in this thread.

Oh please. Can't one inject a little humor here? Or does the underlying truth hurt too much?

I should add, calling out the want for equality as righteous indignation does not make it so. But if that helps peeps feel better about their anachronistic viewpoints that have already harmed far too many, knock yourselves out.

Like NC said, still plenty who don't accept the equality and humanity afforded by the Civil Rights Act and I'm sure they work to make themselves feel less bad about their thoughts and actions, too. Maybe you all could get together at a nice rally or something.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."

So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

That was never a viable option, because the federal government grants something like over 1000 rights to couples who are married and doesn't consider civil unions the same thing under the law.

Also interracial marriages were prohibited in many states until Loving v Virginia and it is not realistic to believe interracial couples would have settled for the term civil union instead with the argument being "It really is the same thing, you are just discussing semantics here". Separate but equal as far as civil rights are concerned has been shown not to be equal.

There also is no womb in a male-male gay marriage, so there is a naturally inherent reason the relationship is not equal.

Most of those rights were predicated on the idea that one person, usually the wife, would stay home and take care of the children.

Maybe that thinking is outdated since most mothers work now, but it really makes no sense in a gay relationship to give incentives for one partner not to work.

dude, what about gay couple who adopt? Dont they have the same child raising obligations as straight couples?

What percentage of gay couple adopt? I would bet a very small number. And that is the problem. Many of the rights doled out to married coupled were based on the nuclear family producing children and having a stay at home mom. Now we are still doling out benefits for a situation that probably is the exception instead of the rule.

Maybe more will adopt once states are forced to let them.

 

[jon_mx]

Question for you Jon: Last year, my father in law, who was 73, got married to a woman he had been dating for several months who was 68. They're not planning on having children, obviously. So is their marriage inherently inferior to a marriage of a young couple that does plan to conceive? Should we remove their right to be married?

Where did I say inferior? I was talking about doling out benefits in situations that do not make sense. In this case, lets say the guy is on his death bed and he agreed to marry her simply so she could collect survivor benefits from social security. Is that right?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

They should be fine with a separate institution as long as they get equal rights?

Why not? We do it all of the time. And again, since I've somehow brought out the pitchforks against me, I'm not saying one way is right. My whole point is that we, as a nation, have been fighting this for a ridiculous amount of time.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't understand your point Iron Sheik. What is it that you want to see happen with regard to this issue?

I'm condemning both sides here. Marriage is just a word. "Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?" "No thank you. We want the word."So much money being wasted over such a silly word. People who are fighting for it. And people who are fighting against it. It's mind blowing to me that we've spent this much time and effort over something so silly.

As I've said in the past, I have many gay friends. Very good friends. And I want them to have equal rights. But I feel like we're just splitting hairs at this point.

They should be fine with a separate institution as long as they get equal rights?

Why not? We do it all of the time. And again, since I've somehow brought out the pitchforks against me, I'm not saying one way is right. My whole point is that we, as a nation, have been fighting this for a ridiculous amount of time.

If it's just a word then there would be no fight. But it isn't. It is a symbol. And people want that symbol to show their relationship is the same as any married couples. No better or worse. Those fighting it don't believe that. They think somehow their marriage is superior and is sullied by gay people using the word. Just like they felt when whites and blacks wanted to marry and were prevented. The quotes from those debates look an awful lot like the quotes we hear today from those fighting gay marriage. Sometimes word for word. I have no pitchfork out for you but I don't think you are grasping the symbolism here.

 

[joffer]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Another instance of the oh so many examples on this thread of righteous indignation from the pro-gay marriage side. By far the majority of the source in this thread.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

 

[Steve Tasker]

Why not? We do it all of the time. And again, since I've somehow brought out the pitchforks against me, I'm not saying one way is right. My whole point is that we, as a nation, have been fighting this for a ridiculous amount of time.

The word "marriage" has a lot greater meaning than you're implying it does, and I know you know that.

 

[CBusAlex]

"Would you like civil unions that offer you the same things as marriage, but just isn't called marriage?"

If it makes you feel any better, exactly $0 has been spent fighting this from the pro-gay marriage side, because it's never actually been the case anywhere.

 

[jon_mx]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Another instance of the oh so many examples on this thread of righteous indignation from the pro-gay marriage side. By far the majority of the source in this thread.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

Righteous does not necessarily mean religion. I would define it as showing a disgust or anger over the actions of others based on your moral viewpoint. In this thread there is a lot of anger towards anyone who would dare challenge the idea of gay marriage because in their minds it is the morally correct position. i am sure we can find numerous definitions and parse words endlessly though and mock each other for being so dumb. That is the typical MOE in this forum on these types of disagreements.

 

[Koya]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Another instance of the oh so many examples on this thread of righteous indignation from the pro-gay marriage side. By far the majority of the source in this thread.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

Righteous does not necessarily mean religion. I would define it as showing a disgust or anger over the actions of others based on your moral viewpoint. In this thread there is a lot of anger towards anyone who would dare challenge the idea of gay marriage because in their minds it is the morally correct position. i am sure we can find numerous definitions and parse words endlessly though and mock each other for being so dumb. That is the typical MOE in this forum on these types of disagreements.

My perspective is not a moral one at all. It is one of equality under the law.

Some, because of THEIR moral code, believe that freedom and equality should not be extended to those who do not agree with said morality.

I guess if I have some set of morality here, it is equality. And granted, you can prefer to not extend equality to all, but that just seems an utterly mean thing to do.

 

[NCCommish]

I do have to give credit where credit is due in regard to those who still stand against equality and humanity...

It was one thing to be against equal rights of marriage for all when that was the popular opinion. But to have SO many people and institutions (heck, even the catholic church) change their stance and recognize the inherent wrong and associated pain that they were perpetuating and STILL stand up for such antiquated beliefs... that does take gumption.

It's not easy to be against equality and doing the right thing when you are quickly becoming an island in the evolution of humanity.

Another instance of the oh so many examples on this thread of righteous indignation from the pro-gay marriage side. By far the majority of the source in this thread.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

Righteous does not necessarily mean religion. I would define it as showing a disgust or anger over the actions of others based on your moral viewpoint. In this thread there is a lot of anger towards anyone who would dare challenge the idea of gay marriage because in their minds it is the morally correct position. i am sure we can find numerous definitions and parse words endlessly though and mock each other for being so dumb. That is the typical MOE in this forum on these types of disagreements.

My perspective is not a moral one at all. It is one of equality under the law.

Some, because of THEIR moral code, believe that freedom and equality should not be extended to those who do not agree with said morality.

I guess if I have some set of morality here, it is equality. And granted, you can prefer to not extend equality to all, but that just seems an utterly mean thing to do.

And you should have to have a better reason than you feel icky thinking about it.

 

[jon_mx]

Morals are your principles for determining right from wrong. You put treating others equally at a very high level, at least when it comes to gays. That is a moral. Others see the issue based from other perspectives. Some with a more religious viewpoint value sexual morality more. And while it sounds nice to say you value equality for all, that is very far reaching and there are probably cases where you don't.

 

[the moops]

What percentage of gay couple adopt? I would bet a very small number. And that is the problem.

Yea, that's the problem

 

[jon_mx]

What percentage of gay couple adopt? I would bet a very small number. And that is the problem.

Yea, that's the problem

nice job with the context.

 

[njherdfan]

Morals are your principles for determining right from wrong. You put treating others equally at a very high level, at least when it comes to gays. That is a moral. Others see the issue based from other perspectives. Some with a more religious viewpoint value sexual morality more. And while it sounds nice to say you value equality for all, that is very far reaching and there are probably cases where you don't.

But if we're being honest, people opposed to gay marriage only value certain types of sexual morality. I'd have a lot more intellectual respect for the arguments against gay marriage if they wanted to make divorce and adultery illegal, or say that marriages that don't lead to children shouldn't lead to the same rights. Of course that's an insane argument, but so is picking ONE "moral" and using that as the grounds for denying loving couples equal rights.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Morals are your principles for determining right from wrong. You put treating others equally at a very high level, at least when it comes to gays. That is a moral. Others see the issue based from other perspectives. Some with a more religious viewpoint value sexual morality more. And while it sounds nice to say you value equality for all, that is very far reaching and there are probably cases where you don't.

But if we're being honest, people opposed to gay marriage only value certain types of sexual morality. I'd have a lot more intellectual respect for the arguments against gay marriage if they wanted to make divorce and adultery illegal, or say that marriages that don't lead to children shouldn't lead to the same rights. Of course that's an insane argument, but so is picking ONE "moral" and using that as the grounds for denying loving couples equal rights.

 

[bigbottom]

I have no problem characterizing my feelings in support of marriage equality as "righteous indignation."

 

[jon_mx]

Morals are your principles for determining right from wrong. You put treating others equally at a very high level, at least when it comes to gays. That is a moral. Others see the issue based from other perspectives. Some with a more religious viewpoint value sexual morality more. And while it sounds nice to say you value equality for all, that is very far reaching and there are probably cases where you don't.

But if we're being honest, people opposed to gay marriage only value certain types of sexual morality. I'd have a lot more intellectual respect for the arguments against gay marriage if they wanted to make divorce and adultery illegal, or say that marriages that don't lead to children shouldn't lead to the same rights. Of course that's an insane argument, but so is picking ONE "moral" and using that as the grounds for denying loving couples equal rights.

Selective morality is a problem. I am not sure why it is common for some Churches to put homosexuality above other sins. I guess it is just popular because it is easy for some people to say, at least I am not a homo. But Christian Churches should know better than anyone than to try to be self-righteous.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I have no problem characterizing my feelings in support of marriage equality as "righteous indignation."

I also agree with this.

 

[roadkill1292]

Dance, jon, dance!

 

[jon_mx]

Dance, jon, dance!

Have no idea what you mean.

 

[joffer]

HUCKABEE: "A lot of Republicans, particularly in the establishment and those who live on the, either Left Coast, or those who live up in the bubbles of New York and Washington are convinced that if we don't capitulate on the same-sex marriage issue, and if we don't raise the white flag of surrender and just accept the inevitable, then we're gonna be losers.

"I tell you Tim, it is the exact opposite of that. And if the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just — abdicate on this issue. And while you're at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn't matter either. Because at that point, you lose me, I'm gone, I'll become an independent. I'll start finding people that have guts to stand, I'm tired of it."