quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Demeaned? Any demeaning you feel will find it's roots within your own head. Your marriage certificate won't be changed ex post facto. It is what it is.

Why is it demeaning for a non-religious wedding to not have the same title as a religious wedding? Notice, too, how the only difference is rooted in it being a religious ceremony or not, and not in the genders involved in the wedding.

If your feelings are hurt because of a word, then, well, that's an issue you'll have to deal with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I was thinking of your biggest trading partner (which for those that dont realize it, that would be Canada) and the country to the north of you (again, for those that dont know).

The eu is the largest trading partner of the u.s..(for those who don't know

According to your US Census Bureau, Canada is the US's largest trading partner (larger than China), it lists the EU as individual countries (which is what they are)..
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top1212yr.html

Your post references "trading partner" not country. The record shows that the e.u. is the biggest trading partner of the u.s.
Should you choose to adjust your post to reflect realities of grammar and truth we would have no disagreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Demeaned? Any demeaning you feel will find it's roots within your own head. Your marriage certificate won't be changed ex post facto. It is what it is.

Why is it demeaning for a non-religious wedding to not have the same title as a religious wedding? Notice, too, how the only difference is rooted in it being a religious ceremony or not, and not in the genders involved in the wedding.

If your feelings are hurt because of a word, then, well, that's an issue you'll have to deal with.

color=#660099]DS, you're missing the point. The left doesn't want equality for same-sex partners. They want the issue . So, any little bullshit thing they can cry over and claim that the right is heartless is what they're after.

quote:

It doesn't matter that 60-some percent of people that describe themselves as "conservative" support same-sex unions. That's not good enough, anymore.

quote:

As usual ... just like in the past, the left has to tear things down.

quote:

It's not about building bridges.

quote:

It's about more division and more name-calling and baiting of the "poor unfortunates" who are being "oppressed".

quote:

Yeah, not so much. It's about politics and the left, leaving same-sex partners twisting in the wind while the mind-numbed minions wail and gnash their teeth in the hopes that it will help sweep the anti-Christ into office in '16.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your post references "trading partner" not country. The record shows that the e.u. is the biggest trading partner of the u.s.
Should you choose to adjust your post to reflect realities of grammar and truth we would have no disagreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
DS, you're missing the point. The left doesn't want equality for same-sex partners. They want the issue . So, any little bullshit thing they can cry over and claim that the right is heartless is what they're after.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I'm against "same sex marriage" but I strongly favor "same sex civil unions".

Sorry, there's a part of me that says that marriage is between a man and a woman and a part of me that says that everyone has a right to be treated equally. Therefore, I strongly support the government recognizing same sex couples that enter into some kind of legal union.

However, I do not favor couples being given advantages over single people. If we're going to argue 14th amendment and shit, let's do it right.

Why do married couples get tax breaks? That doesn't sound like equal treatment to me.

Why can only married couples enjoy survivor benefits?

Why can only "spouses" visit certain people in the hospital?

What gives?

I don't believe in "gay rights", "womens' rights", or "minority rights" of any kind. I believe in EQUAL rights.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Demeaned? Any demeaning you feel will find it's roots within your own head. Your marriage certificate won't be changed ex post facto. It is what it is.

Why is it demeaning for a non-religious wedding to not have the same title as a religious wedding? Notice, too, how the only difference is rooted in it being a religious ceremony or not, and not in the genders involved in the wedding.

If your feelings are hurt because of a word, then, well, that's an issue you'll have to deal with.

DS, you're missing the point. The left doesn't want equality for same-sex partners. They want the issue . So, any little bullshit thing they can cry over and claim that the right is heartless is what they're after.

It doesn't matter that 60-some percent of people that describe themselves as "conservative" support same-sex unions. That's not good enough, anymore. As usual ... just like in the past, the left has to tear things down. It's not about building bridges. It's about more division and more name-calling and baiting of the "poor unfortunates" who are being "oppressed".

Yeah, not so much. It's about politics and the left, leaving same-sex partners twisting in the wind while the mind-numbed minions wail and gnash their teeth in the hopes that it will help sweep the anti-Christ into office in '16.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
its not MY feelings that are hurt, for it to hurt, you would have to have some measure of importance in my life,, you lucked out there
I think your post is worthy of contempt simply because it attempts to change marriage to your concept only.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
You are wrong, I already have touched on this. The 60 percent of conservatives who support same sex unions are not uniform, last numbers i saw said about 30 percent of conservatives support same sex marriage, it is about 50-50 marriage and unions. Secondly, the problem with unions, that many of these conservatives know, is that they don't work, they are second class. The only way to get unions to work would be to get marriage the hell out of the law, because that word has magic, and even where the law, as in NJ, creates civic unions, same sex couples have to fight for the rights the law grants, where if you say the magic work, marriage, things fall into place. The NJ supreme court, over the objection of King King our dear governor who can't figure out that the Catholic Church is not the state religion, will probably rule that civic unions have failed to provide same sex couples with equal rights.
It is also interesting that conservatives who go on about the term marriage being sacred, kind of overlook the fact that lots of people get married by JP's, ship's captains, mayors, etc, in secular weddings..how come they don't object to a JP wedding being legal?
Do I think for some on the left this is a casus belli? Sure, the Clintons are prime examples, Hillary is about the worst friend any GLBT person could have, and Bill is not all that better, his behavior in office shows that. On the other hand, there are a lot of conservatives, including Ted Olsen and Bob Barr, who have come to see it for what it is, a rights issue, that the whole 'marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a woman' is inherently discriminatory and in violation of the rights under the constitution. Religious belief in law is a disaster area, and libertarians (unlike the Pauls, who are both phonies) recognize that, that the government should never have granted rights to marriage under that term.
If conservatives are so hyped up on marriage, then they should come up with laws that get marriage out of the law, and leave it to the churches, and make civic unions the law. Civic unions and the like supported by conservatives are supported as a smoke screen against their own stupidity; these same people claim their religious rights are voided all the time, yet they claim that gays legally marrying voids their faith, when they can't see that denying gays the right to marry is them forcing their beliefs on everyone else.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your post references "trading partner" not country. The record shows that the e.u. is the biggest trading partner of the u.s.
Should you choose to adjust your post to reflect realities of grammar and truth we would have no disagreement.

dude,.. you are so funny..

the US govt references "trading partners" as individual countries.. I am only going by your govt's info (the twue record) & how they categorize their best buds..

"Top Trading Partners - Total Trade, Exports, Imports
Year-to-Date December 2012
#1 Canada"

quote:

It doesn't matter that 60-some percent of people that describe themselves as "conservative" support same-sex unions.

quote:

Go into a hospital as a married spouse, and your spouse has the right to make medical decisions for you; go in with a civic union, and some dumb ass relative can step in front of you.

quote:

quote:

What is to be gained by allowing homosexual marriage?

In a word, dignity.*

Some of you have heard this story before, and I apologize for repeating myself. But it's the best answer I know to this question.

In 2006, my Aunt Brenda--witty, wise, wonderful, and amazingly kind to yours truly during some rough patches--died in upstate New York (which had not yet achieved marriage equality). Seconds after she flatlined, a doctor burst into the room, demanding to speak to the next of kin. Brenda's beloved partner, Melanie, who had seen Brenda through an agonizing decline at the hands of a brutal affliction called multiple system atrophy, introduced herself and explained that she held Brenda's power of attorney.

"That expired when she did," the doctor replied. "I need to talk to a member of the family."

I invite any of our eloquent posters on this issue to argue that that would have happened to a legal spouse.

And that's what "homosexual marriage" is all about, Charlie Brown. Being recognized, after years of loving and faithful union and in the most heartbreaking moment of one's life, as "a member of the family."

Edited for typo, alas.


* This one-word answer does not, of course, include the more than a thousand marriage-related rights and privileges conferred by U.S. law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
This is exactly what I'm proposing. "Marriage" ends up being a strictly religious term. Civil Unions take the place of "marriage" as it's used in law now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

most provinces made it legal before that but ok, a decade ago.. happy now? That wont happen here for another 20 years or longer.. and you will still be arguing about it then..

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

For your idea to work, then government would have to stop recognizing marriages, which is what they do in many countries. Marriage could be left to the churches as a religious right, but to get governmental rights, people would need a civic union, gay, straight, poly.......

I get your point about rights, but the reality is the whole 'marriage is the problem' is a smokescreen for many people (not saying you), where they say "I am against the term marriage being used, but okay with civic unions", because they know that the term marriage is legally loaded. Go into a hospital as a married spouse, and your spouse has the right to make medical decisions for you; go in with a civic union, and some dumb ass relative can step in front of you. Federal law only recognizes the term marriage, civic unions have 0 meaning federally, where a lot of the rights are (for example, if you made your same sex partner your beneficiary on a 401k, and you die, a relative could challenge your right to give that money to him (speaking hypothetically), but if you are legally married, they cannot (at least,they won't be able to if Scotus throws out DOMA), because 401k's are under ERISA).

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

It is interesting that no one has proposed doing what I am saying, throw out marriage completely as a legal term, and make everyone have a civic union, and re-write federal regs to recognize only civic union..problem is, that would give a lot of bigots no more excuses, since civic unions are not holy.....and if you want proof, take a look at the rednecks in North Carolina, who not only banned same sex marriage, they banned gays getting through contracts or other means, any of the rights of marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Why is it important that it be called a marriage, if benefits are conferred by it being a civil union?

Because it is a marriage: a loving, faithful commitment to building a life together. And, imho, gay folks' marriages deserve the same respect and dignity as others'. Part of that respect stems from nomenclature.
Why is it so important to you that the word "marriage" not be applied to same-sex couples? You're going through remarkable contortions, including an ahistorical redefinition of the term, just to keep from sharing the word with queers.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I'm surprised you keep using derogatory terms. I don't use them. Why are you?