Hillary wins OH, TX, RIFollow

Um... Which any two people can gain via simple power of attorney.

It's amazing how poorly you understand the law. I mean most people don't understand the intricacies, but you just perpetually get it SO SHOCKINGLY WRONG it's almost difficult to take seriously.

Well, you've just lost any remaining credibility when you start playing your precious logic cards.

I voted for Obama. I largely agree with him on gun control. My vote for Obama had absolutely nothing to do with his stance on gun control.

Feel free to apply that same scenario to other issues and other board members.Go for it. Be sure to ask him why he's supporting his choice though rather than drawing your own conclusions to match your poorly thought out arguments.

Edited, Mar 11th 2008 1:17am by Jophiel

They want to be a married couple, just like their parents were a married couple. They want to raise their children as a married couple, and be a family. They want to be able to say, "this is my husband" and "this is my wife", just like their friends, family, and neighbors. By and large, they want to have the word, just like we do. They don't need it to be recognized as being any more religious than I needed mine to be. They don't need it to be sanctioned by God, just the government, just as mine was. My relationship with my ex husband was no more stable or concrete or protective of my daughter's right to grow up in an unbroken home just because I have a ****** and he has a *****.

Nexa

So, to restate, you believe that what gay marriage advocates want "overwhelmingly" is to be able to make the same hospital visits which they can already do now. And this is why they want bona fide gay marriage. So they can get what they already have.

Well! I guess you sure showed me! Thank you for your insightful look into gay rights.

They don't need the US government, or any government body to do this. Marriage has been around longer then the US has.




But not with the people they had those children with? So, not exactly "like their parents", eh?




I'm not aware of any law that prevents them from saying that. Freedom of speech and all of that...

The very idea that you must have a legal status to allow you to say something is kinda backwards, don't you think?



And by and large, nothing is preventing them from calling their relationship a "marriage".




Yup. Which seems to be Obama's take. I agree with him on this point.




Why? Why do you "need" the government to "sanction" your marriage? Since when does the government give you permission to love someone?

You do see how this assumes that the government should have control over who can be in a relationship with whom, right? This is where I disagree. I don't think the government has anything to do with it at all.




You could just as easily replace "because I have a ****** and he has a *****" with "because the government sanctioned our marriage".

Didn't make a difference there, either, did it?


The point is purely semantics. What you are calling "marriage" in your post has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with two people choosing to spend their lives together. No government action is required for that.


The government granted status of "marriage" is not the same as what you've just described. It's actually a status that conveys specific benefits. It is not "marriage", but rather a set of incentives to get people to do those things you listed above. The status exists because there is a presumed social benefit to having men and women form into civil/social/economic units when they share their lives in that way. It reduces the likeluhood that children will be produced with no "family" support for them.


This problem simply does not exist for homosexual couples. Under no conditions can they ever produce children as a natural consequence of the relationship you described. They may choose to have children via other means, but never as a result of their relationship with their partner.

The government has no reason to deny them this (ie: they should be allowed to form such relationships and enter into any civil/social/economic arrangements they wish), but it has absolutely no need to provide an incentive for it. Certainly, there's no need to reward gay couples for marrying. The government neither gains or is harmed by gay marriage, and so should not be involved in any way.


As I said. It's a semantic issue. Should gay couples be allowed to marry? Of course they should. But I'm talking "marriage" in the traditional sense. Should the government grant them the *status* of marriage? Absolutely not. Because that's not needed for them to be "married", and conveys benefits that aren't needed to be married, but exist purely as a means to try to get heterosexual couples to do so. It's simply inapplicable to gay couples...

You could just as easily replace "because I have a ****** and he has a *****" with "because the government sanctioned our marriage".

Didn't make a difference there, either, did it?


The point is purely semantics. What you are calling "marriage" in your post has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with two people choosing to spend their lives together. No government action is required for that.

Exactly. Your entire argument is spurious because of just this fact. Actively denying someone a semantic point can't be defended. It's identical to persisting at calling black people "nigger". It's just a semantic point, after all, isn't it? Yet you don't do that, but you'd actively support denying gays EQUAL USE OF AN ALREADY EXISTING STATUTE that many people would agree is just an arcane semantic distinction. Not courts, of course, or churches, or schools, or adoption agencies, credit reporting agencies, or law enforcement agencies, but you know, many single white men no one can tolerate long enough to consider marrying.

At any rate, though, since it's SOOOOOOOO unimportant to you, the only possible reason that follows for you being so adverse to it is spite and homophobia. Which is just sad. Go suck some cock or whatever it is that's making you hate a class of people who have zero impact on your life. You live in California, not Idaho, it's ok. No one's going to hold it against you. If you want to @#%^ a twink in the *** and pull his hair then talk about the respiratory repercussions, go for it. You don't need to continue with the self hating gay bashing. The desperate rationalizations required are silly EVEN FOR YOU.

You like ****, we get it. Move on.



Edited, Mar 11th 2008 4:54pm by Smasharoo

I suppose there's nothing preventing me from saying I'm married to Smash, but saying it doesn't make it true, and I think most people would consider it a lie rather than an admirable exercise of freedom of speech.

Wait. It's ok that I refer to you as the "lead filly in my stable of fine ************* though, right?

If I were running for president I'd lie about my position on gay marriage, because I'm for it, and a very large % of the population isn't. I'd support civil unions to appease those who had reservations about gay marriage but were willing to make compromises that did not tread on their religious beliefs. I'd do this knowing that down the line, homosexuality would become more accepted (as it should be), people would realize that gay marriage wouldn't hurt a damn thing, and eventually it would be passed to law based on the groundwork that I helped lay.

I'd also probably lie about being a Christian in today's election, because to face the facts, lying to the ignorant is a hell of a lot more practical than educating them when you're trying to change the world. Honesty doesn't get rewarded with votes if people don't like the truth. Not that I'm suggesting that Obama isn't a Christian.

Funny. I could have sworn she was talking about gays having "marriage". Not "gay marriage", but "marriage".

I'm talking about what marriage is. What it is to a religious institution. What it is as a social institution. And what it is as a government granted status.


Those are three different things. Get it?

Nexa listed off a bunch of stuff that lie exclusively in the social institution of marriage. Which is what most people do when they talk about gay people and marriage. Which would be fine, except what the current movement is trying to do is change the definition and requirements for the government granted status.


See how those are different? If you want to argue that gay couples should receive the same benefits granted to heterosexual couples as a result of qualifying for the government status of married, then talking about that status, why it exists, and what it does is incredibly relevant, don't you think?

Edited, Mar 11th 2008 3:28pm by gbaji

Those three things USED to be inextricably intertwined, now only two of them are. I don't see what the validity of pointing out different aspects of the same issue are when you can't have one without the other. There are religious marriages in churches, there are civil marriages in various governmental offices or elsewhere as performed by government sanctioned entities. There are "social" marriages that are completely invalid by any institution, and what many gay couples resort to as a last measure, then spend SIGNIFICANT time and money going through MULTIPLE channels in order to be afforded SOME of the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy simply by having a marriage ceremony and sending in the paperwork.

You can tell me that you're fine with that, and that's one thing. But when you try to tell me it's not discriminatory against an entire group of people do to the majority's personal preference, that's bullsh*t. If you're happy to be a bigot, so be it, MANY people wear that flag with pride. Just don't try to convince me you're not by making up ridiculous excuses for why it's not discrimination.

Nexa

Edit: I can't spell and chew gum at the same time.

Edited, Mar 11th 2008 7:04pm by Nexa

It's true, and he baited me. I'm weak, and sorry.

Nexa

No. It hasn't been "proven untrue". I have yet to see a single one of you provide a shred of evidence to suggest that those pushing for gay marriage are voting for Hillary or McCain more then they are for Obama.

While Obama's position on gay marriage may not be the holy grail that some gay rights activists want, it's far and away their best bet. We were talking about which candidate those people will most support, right?

I never claimed he was the perfect candidate for them, with a position that gives them exactly what they want. He's only the best out of the field, and happens to give them about 85% of what they want.


The fact is (and yes, this is a "fact", not an opinion) that between Obama and Clinton, only Obama supports a "full repeal" of the DOMA. Clinton's position allows for half of DOMA to stand. Specifically the half that removes the requirement for states to recognize gay marriages in other states. Obama's position on the issue is that the whole thing should be repealed, meaning that a gay marriage in Mass must be recognized in Idaho.


Which, I suspect, certainly qualifies him as the candidate for those who "support full gay marriage"...

Only candidate to support full repeal of DOMA


We're done. You lose. Thank you for playing...