Another perv congressman?

[K Frame]

"It's a behavior.  It's something you do, not what you are."

Oh God... You've gone and done it now...

[Perd Hapley]

You're in a car wreck and a determination needs to be made about your medical care - your wife gets to make the call.

How does that work for a lesbian couple?

That's another specious argument.  The answer to your question is simple.   Every state has a provision for appointing an 'Agent for Healthcare'. Fill out a form, sign it, and have it notarized. Name anyone you want as your agent, legal POA.  And everyone, including heterosexual married couples, should have an Advance Healthcare Directive.

True.  And if homosexuals and their political allies really cared about those issues, they would have gone about it in an inclusive way, seeking to change laws for everyone.  They would never have screwed up the whole crusade by tying it to "gay" sex.  But this push isn't about marriage or love or family, etc.  It's about using the political process to change moral views and behaviors. 

[Pew pew pew]

Hey, let me take this time to apologize to you all for us homosexual's pet beliefs being such a huge burden on you all. I mean, I know it's pretty hard to imagine some people wanting to get married to the person they are in love with, or serve in the military without hiding any romantic relationship they have, or adopt children. Sorry about that. We'll work on not wanting to do that anymore so we don't have to inconvenience you with our pet legislative projects.

[Strings]

>How does that work for two good friends who live together, but don't have sex?  Or for two old widowers who have been taking care of each other since their wives passed away?  If this issue needs to be addressed, do it in a way that treats everyone equally, not in a way that grants special privileges based on odd sexual practices. <

 Honestly, for all that I agree with the concept of letting two or more consenting adults do whatever they wish together, this statement by fistful makes absolute sense.

 I just agreed with fistful. Yes, Armegedon is here...

[Euclidean]

It's so simple, just dissolve marriage as a legal entity.  The government should treat all people the same regardless of their marital status anyway.  Everybody wins.

[The Rabbi]

Hey, let me take this time to apologize to you all for us homosexual's pet beliefs being such a huge burden on you all. I mean, I know it's pretty hard to imagine some people wanting to get married to the person they are in love with, or serve in the military without hiding any romantic relationship they have, or adopt children. Sorry about that. We'll work on not wanting to do that anymore so we don't have to inconvenience you with our pet legislative projects.

Actually you could apologize for the demonizing of people who disagree as bigots and homophobes.  Then you could apologize to the Civil Rights Movement for co-opting their moral achievements.  Then you could apologize for making most of America spend time debating an issue that is of importance to about 5% of the population.
And AIDS.
And Rue Paul.

[Manedwolf]

Richard Simmons was an unforgivable offense.

As for the names, yes. Homophobe seriously annoys me.

I shut someone up on that quite abrubtly, once. I simply said "Phobe nothing. I'm not afraid of you. I just don't like you."

Do what you like in the privacy of your bedroom. I don't care, it doesn't affect me. But if you try to bring to the street, to equate a sexual preference that ought be one's own business with a public state of being like one's race, then you're annoying me, and belittling the accomplishments of people who fought to not be judged by the color of their skin.

I'm sorry, but if you equate being black with the choice to prance about with a lisp (which is completely learned behavior), delight in telling everyone you're "gay", publically read "gay fiction" in a deliberate attempt to signpost, wear homosexuality-proclaiming clothing and then ask not to be judged...it's not going to happen. You just look like a clown. It's not a freaking religion. Quit acting like you're somehow superior because you've "embraced" some sort of made-up "lifestyle".

That's what really gets to me, the sorts who have made it into a cult, complete with cult symbols (triangles, rainbow flags), push an agenda of exposing more people to that cult in popular entertainment, evangelize about that cult, and then proclaim themselves to be the victims the moment someone objects.

I'm sure I know some homosexual people, but I'd never know it, because they don't make their bedroom preferences part of their professional life. And that's as it should be.

[wmenorr67]

"And everyone, including heterosexual married couples, should have an Advance Healthcare Directive."

I keep meaning to do that, but I'm terrified that if I name Mtnbkr as my AHD individual, he'll finally let Abby tee off on me to get my guns and money...

Hell Mike, to hear you and Mtnbkr tell it, as soon as she finds out what a will is and that she is in it that will happen anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

Pew pew,

I apologize to you for believing that homosexual marriage is a fantasy in which govt. should not be involved.  I apologize for saying that public schools should not undertake to teach children that some people are happy being homosexuals.  I apologize for putting military efficiency ahead of the romantic entanglements of a few soldiers.  I also apologize for my hateful belief that children should not be placed with adoptive parents who flaunt their sexual perversions. 

[wooderson]

Wow! That's a shock!

You seem to have missed the assertion that 'wingers weren't, in fact, behind politicization of gay rights.

Gays are the new black men!

Or gays are the new women.

Or gays are the new Chinese immigrants.

Or...

The fact is, denying the opportunity to marry is discrimination - no more or less than laws denying individuals the right to marry between races. (After all, to follow the standard argument about gay marriage: individuals were always free to marry within their race.)

That it's bigotry you find acceptable is irrelevant - it remains bigotry.

[Manedwolf]

The fact is, denying the opportunity to marry is discrimination - no more or less than laws denying individuals the right to marry between races.

No, actually, it's redefining the Western definition of marriage entirely.

[wooderson]

All those vicious things that you listed?  Those were responses to a vocal minority, pushing for change.  No matter what side of the issue you're on, you have to acknowledge the fact that the pro-homosexual movement started the discussion.

Again: It's not who raised the issue - as I've stated, an aggrieved party always speaks first.

It's about who uses the issue as a stick to beat others with.

Civil rights workers 'raised the issue.'
Dixiecrats used race to prolong their reign and to continue discriminating against black Americans.

How does that work for two good friends who live together, but don't have sex?  Or for two old widowers who have been taking care of each other since their wives passed away?  If this issue needs to be addressed, do it in a way that treats everyone equally, not in a way that grants special privileges based on odd sexual practices.

Standard red herrings.

Fact is, the state offers various benefits, privileges and protections to couples who've entered into a binding legal contract - that crazy little thing we call marriage.
Homosexuals are denied these benefits, privileges and protections - this is discrimination, plain and simple.

If all of these people above would like to enter into same binding legal contracts, regardless of their desire to bang, then they would receive the benefits, privileges and protections.

If they don't - as numerous straight couples do not, currently - then they would not receive them.

All very simple, actually.
 

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with DOMA or any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  But regardless, putting govt. in the business of licensing Steve and Lester to sleep together is a growth of govt.  Not to mention that govt. will be involved again when they divorce.

Government is already "in the business" of licensing Steve and Jane. Changing Jane to Lester changes absolutely nothing.

[wooderson]

Because homosexuality is indeed a behavior.  It isn't a state, or a condition, like being black or blind, or deaf or otherwise handicapped.

It's a behavior.  It's something you do, not what you are.

Would the state be legally justified in prohibiting marriage between Christians?

Religion is not a physical quality.
It doesn't impinge their freedom of religion - worship all they want, they just can't marry, right?

[Manedwolf]

Fact is, the state offers various benefits, privileges and protections to couples who've entered into a binding legal contract - that crazy little thing we call marriage.
Homosexuals are denied these benefits, privileges and protections - this is discrimination, plain and simple.

Then why don't the homosexual groups ever push for straight couples to be able to have the same benefits without marriage? When they cohabit? Their silence there is deafening. Selfishly so.

Also, this most certainly leads to the slippery slope. If that, why not polygamy? Group marriages? And so on and so on and so on.

There's also the fact that the agenda groups have used backhanded political methods to achieve their goals, which will result in a backlash. In NH, where the population overwhelmingly was against "civil unions", the homosexual agenda groups and Dem lawmakers managed to pass it anyway, without it being put to the voters! This has made everyone very angry. The Dems will be thrown out on their collective asses in the next election cycle, you can bet that, but the damage will take a while to undo.

[wooderson]

No, actually, it's redefining the Western definition of marriage entirely.

Howso? It's redefining the definition of marriage for this particular Western state.

It is not, again, forcing anyone to accept 'gay marriage' - or go out and have one themselves.
It is not, again, forcing any church with religious objections to perform ceremonies.

Do all of you really believe that the state should be in the business of regulating morality when the actions involved do not infringe on the rights of another individual?

[Manedwolf]

No, actually, it's redefining the Western definition of marriage entirely.

Howso? It's redefining the definition of marriage for this particular Western state.

It is not, again, forcing anyone to accept 'gay marriage' - or go out and have one themselves.

If I'm a small business owner and am forced to insure someone's newly defined "spouse", it sure is.

[wooderson]

Then why don't the homosexual groups ever push for straight couples to be able to have the same benefits without marriage? When they cohabit? Their silence there is deafening. Selfishly so.

The benefits and privileges are a function of entering a contract that homosexuals are not allowed to enter. Straight couples are allowed.

Insofar as 'homosexual groups' are 'pushing' for marriage - why would they campaign for unmarried straight couples?

Also, this most certainly leads to the slippery slope. If that, why not polygamy? Group marriages? And so on and so on and so on.

If you remove religion and emotion from the equation, polygamy and group marriages between consenting adults are fairly easy to deal with legally. Everyone signs the contract, and anyone can leave at any time by breaking the contract. You know, just like divorce today.

Division of assets might be a pain in the ass, but they get to hire their own lawyers to deal with that.

[wooderson]

If I'm a small business owner and am forced to insure someone's newly defined "spouse", it sure is.

You're not required to insure anyone's "spouse," gay or straight.

[Manedwolf]

Then why don't the homosexual groups ever push for straight couples to be able to have the same benefits without marriage? When they cohabit? Their silence there is deafening. Selfishly so.

The benefits and privileges are a function of entering a contract that homosexuals are not allowed to enter. Straight couples are allowed.

Insofar as 'homosexual groups' are 'pushing' for marriage - why would they campaign for unmarried straight couples?

Also, this most certainly leads to the slippery slope. If that, why not polygamy? Group marriages? And so on and so on and so on.

If you remove religion and emotion from the equation, polygamy and group marriages between consenting adults are fairly easy to deal with legally. Everyone signs the contract, and anyone can leave at any time by breaking the contract. You know, just like divorce today.

Division of assets might be a pain in the ass, but they get to hire their own lawyers to deal with that.

Ah, here we see the admission, polygamy and group marriages are "okay". No, they're not.

Basically, you've taken your sexual proclivities and made them into a political movement and cult religion. And a lot of people are fed up with that.

[wooderson]

Ah, here we see the admission, polygamy and group marriages are "okay". No, they're not.

Why not? How far should the tendrils of the state reach?

Basically, you've taken your sexual proclivities and made them into a political movement and cult religion. And a lot of people are fed up with that.

My 'sexual proclivities' are actually that I'm a straight guy with no interest in polyandry, polygamy, bigamy or any other -y. In fact, I don't see any particular use for marriage at all.

But if the state is going to offer privileges to those who wish to get married, those privileges must be extended as widely as possible.

[One of Many]

This is a case where one man (a police officer) made an accusation against another man, with no other witnesses or physical evidence to corroborate the charge being made.  I have a problem with this type of arrest, and the presumption of guilt just because the person making the allegation is a police officer, and therefore must be telling the truth.

This is similar to the police issuing tickets for speeding, driving erratically, making illegal turns, etc.  One man's word VS another man's word, with no supporting evidence.  If there had been video cameras and voice recorders that captured the alleged inappropriate conduct, then the charges would be legitimate (and there would be no plea bargain - plea bargains are where there is insufficient evidence to assure a conviction based on evidence, and people want to avoid the inconvenience of appearing in court for an unspecified period of time, and the associated expenses for lawyers fees).

I had someone contact the police claiming I forced them off the road, and ended up in court. Their vehicle had damage that might have been a result of contact with another vehicle, or might have been from backing into a pole; my vehicle had no damage corresponding to the alleged contact with the other vehicle.  My lawyer said that the best thing was to accept a plea to a lessor driving offense and pay a small fine; the alternative was to spend a lengthy period of time in a court battle, with very high expenses, and no assurance that I would be found innocent of the alleged offense. My insurance company decided it was cheaper to pay the damage claim for the other vehicle, than to support me in defending against the bogus claim.  What did I do? I decided to accept the advice of my lawyer and plea down, even though it still rankles me that scum like the guy that filed that charge can get away with that stuff. It sure leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, that never goes away, when the legal system is used as an assault weapon to take advantage of you, by a stranger for his personal gain.  Theft by court action, instead of robbery with a gun.

Why did my lawyer offer the advice that he did? The person that filed the complaint against me had friends or relatives that were in powerful positions in the political and legal community. I had just moved into the state (in fact my vehicle had out of state plates when the complaint was filed - the guy thought I was passing through, and was an easy target for his scam).

I see striking similarities between my own case of being victimized by unscrupulous persons abusing the legal system, and what is reported about Senator Craig.  I am not passing judgment on the basis of what has been reported. The charges as reported may not be true, and unless it goes to court, the truth may never be known. The one thing that is sure, is that the system is weighted against the person being charged, and the Senator is being tried in the court of public opinion, without hard evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Senator.  Just because a cop says so, does not make it so. Show me the evidence.

[Pew pew pew]

Actually you could apologize for the demonizing of people who disagree as bigots and homophobes.  Then you could apologize to the Civil Rights Movement for co-opting their moral achievements.  Then you could apologize for making most of America spend time debating an issue that is of importance to about 5% of the population.
And AIDS.
And Rue Paul.

Sure, it must be so hard for ya'all. I mean, after you get called a homophobe, it must really damage you. And I also apologize to the civil rights movement for co-opting their achievements. I know that religion is a choice is protected by laws in our society, and even though most gay people are silly enough to believe they were somehow born that way (the nerve of those bastards!) we really should listen to what other people are saying who aren't gay. Sorry!

I'm also sorry for taking up America's precious time. So sorry! There's not a whole bunch of us, so who cares, right? I don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I'll go try and convert some more of your sons and daughters in order to make us a majority, that way our lives and how we live them can be important for America.

Rue Paul is on your hands.

I'm sorry, but if you equate being black with the choice to prance about with a lisp (which is completely learned behavior), delight in telling everyone you're "gay", publically read "gay fiction" in a deliberate attempt to signpost, wear homosexuality-proclaiming clothing and then ask not to be judged...it's not going to happen. You just look like a clown. It's not a freaking religion. Quit acting like you're somehow superior because you've "embraced" some sort of made-up "lifestyle".

I'm no prancing nancy-boy. Hell, I'm not interested in marriage or adoption. (The military is another story.) I have gay friends who would make great parents. I have gay friends who would like to get married. They are good people. I cannot fathom why they aren't allowed to.

You know those asshats you see on TV? Yeah, they're the ones that make us look bad. Just like everyone I talk to envisions beer-swigging hillbilly slobs as the only gun-nuts. But even then, a lot of those people are good people, too. I just don't agree with the way they approach politics and activism because I do believe it alienates people. Don't think I don't get at least that much.

I apologize to you for believing that homosexual marriage is a fantasy in which govt. should not be involved.  I apologize for saying that public schools should not undertake to teach children that some people are happy being homosexuals.  I apologize for putting military efficiency ahead of the romantic entanglements of a few soldiers.  I also apologize for my hateful belief that children should not be placed with adoptive parents who flaunt their sexual perversions.

The government stands to make money off the marriage deal and it does not effect you. YARGH. I'll agree with you to the school thing to a point, even if I do like playing devil's advocate with it. The military? Military efficiency? Did you serve in the same military I did?

Children not placed with people who flaunt their sexual perversions Give me a break. What if they don't practice the right religion? What if they don't believe in gun rights? Are you going to allow children to be placed with them?

Look, I don't look at married people and think to myself, "GEE! He likes to F*** people in the P****! GROSS!" I don't even squeam when a guy and a girl kiss in front of me. Believe it or not, it's about a lot more then sex.

[The Rabbi]

But if the state is going to offer privileges to those who wish to get married, those privileges must be extended as widely as possible.

Why?
States have traditionally recognized marriage as a privileged state and built laws of inheritance and taxation around it.  And it's true that the single greatest predictor for criminal behavior comes from growing up in a single-parent household.  So the traditional two-parent family does have value to society as a whole.  Almost all problems in society have post-dated the break-up of the traditional family.
But if gay couples want to have the same, or similar, rights they could push for some civil union situation, similar to a business partnership.  But they don't.  They want "gay marriage". So there is more on the agenda than mere equality.

[Nitrogen]

What's exactly WRONG with giving people of the same sex in a loving, comitted relationship the same rights that people of different sexes have?

I'll go out on a limb here and use some strong language.  Anyone that's against giving homosexuals these rights is just as bad as the racists before them.  Your ignorance clouds your judgement.

[wooderson]

Why?
States have traditionally recognized marriage as a privileged state and built laws of inheritance and taxation around it.  And it's true that the single greatest predictor for criminal behavior comes from growing up in a single-parent household.  So the traditional two-parent family does have value to society as a whole.

Not sure what the latter has to do with gay marriage in the least.

As to tradition - times change.

Almost all problems in society have post-dated the break-up of the traditional family.

This is absurd. Since the 'break-up' of the 'traditional family' (which was never that traditional anyway), we've made enormous strides in education, gender equality, racial equality, basic decency, technology, on and on and on.

The idea that there was some golden age when everyone had two parents and an idyllic childhood is a myth. There are benefits to having two parents, just as there are benefits to growing up upper-middle class: but to blame an entire 'social breakdown' on the family just doesn't hack it.

Even if we stipulated to this argument, we can't determine whether or not a "same sex two-parent" union would have the same benefits because same-sex couples have never had the same marriage and family abilities as 'traditional' couples.

But if gay couples want to have the same, or similar, rights they could push for some civil union situation, similar to a business partnership.  But they don't.  They want "gay marriage". So there is more on the agenda than mere equality.

A 'civil union' without the exact same privileges is not equivalent to marriage and thus discriminatory.
A 'civil union' with the exact same privileges is, itself, 'marriage' - and thus it boils down to meaningless semantics and the people in opposition are doing so merely because they're offended by homosexuality.