I guess the entire western world, all democratic nations, are bigots too
We accuse and shame all communist nations.
I guess if you stand for ANY opinion, ANY belief, someone can come and claim you a bigot because by consequence, if you have an opinion and take a stand on a belief, someone will disagree with you. By virtue of your refusal to waver on your beliefs, you are now 'intolerant of other people's beliefs' and can be labeled a bigot
So please, spare me your childish name calling.
It matters not.
I guess I'm a bigot for denouncing communism.
They have a different creed than I do, and I think communism is a disgusting abuse of power, that leads to the exploitation of the people, and a totalitarian form of government.
Boy, I am sure glad we are all bigots for taking a stand on that issue.
Well, my point was that the government would stop handling 'marriages' entirely. Everything would move into the civil union umbrella, including all the rights granted under marriage today. Then if you want to go to church and do that whole other parade that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and call that marriage, then so be it.
I think the fact that you consider a normal, law abiding, tax paying group disgusting and perverted makes me you think in fact, you are the simpleton. You must not have met many because every one I've talked to/met are just normal people. Wow they have sex differently. Who cares
We're not suppressing legal rights to communists, so your analogy is full of fail. If you said that you advocate removing 1st amendment rights to a communist, THEN you would be being a bigot.
The Fail in you is strong.
Your stipulations have no place here
TO QUOTE AUSSIE
I don't think I ever said they don't know how to function in society, or aren't nice people.
What I said was that they are confused and disgusting for their sexual perversions.
Can anyone please give me stimulating or intelligent reasoning in support of sexuality?
All I see are politically correct parrots, who regurgitate the same exact phrases I hear from other simpletons.
Since when is sexuality a religion? LOL. Since I am bisexual, does that make me interfaith? Also, what, precisely are the tenets or dogma in the religion of sexuality? This should be good.
Homesexuality and bisexuality are 20th century words to define sexual behavior which has existed in every culture throughout history and in every part of world as well as in many parts of the animal kingdom.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal contract and has been continually redefined throughout history. It used to be an economic exchange in which one man gave another man a woman and some money or goods. Shall we return to this definition of marriage?
Last edited by Supergirl; 12-09-2009 at 11:39 PM.
Gotta ask snc. That was his phrase. I just used it in my response to his post.
It would probably be better if you read my post before you tried to take it out of context.
Sure. It makes those people happy. Just like heterosexuals being with a partner of the opposite sex. Now that I answered that, please answer me this:
How does sexuals being married and enjoying each other's company in the privacy of their homes affects your life at all?
Good point. And I know I am beating a dead horse, but why does government sanctioning that marriage make them any more happy then them declaring that marriage themselves between each other?
I know, I know, insurance...
Because, for the umpteenth time, there are 1200+ rights that come with that lil ole marriage certificate, which are denied to certain people based on the gender designation of their partner.
Can you be more specific? Beyond some insurance stuff, I actually am not aware of any benefits, other than some protections granted in case of separation to each spouse and any wards they may have.
Your main beef has been "the medical field frowns on anal sex."
Just curious, what's your stance with lesbians using dildos?
Many of those things don't seem like benefits at all, and the ones that do seem that they probably shouldn't be related to marriage in the 1st place.
Again, my point is state sponsored marriage beyond a general contract seems silly to me.
It might seem silly to you, but it's actually very real. And wether those benefits should be tied to marriage or not is really irrelevant. Right now, they are, and that's all that matters.
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5478.htmDoesn't matter. Fact is those protections DO exist, and as long as they're in place for a portion of the population they should be in place for all of the population.Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners
Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are:
- The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.
- The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.
- The right to pe ion for same-sex partners to immigrate.
- The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.
- The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.
- Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.
- The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
- The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.
Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.
Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal do ents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a subs ute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law.
Or lesbians who don't use dildos?
Or gay men who don't have anal sex?
Or straight couples who do have anal sex?
Or same-gender couples who are asexual?
Or straight couples who are asexual?
Or straight couples who have agreed upon same-gender sexual relationships with others?
Or same-gender couples who have agreed upon sexual relationships with members of a different gender?
Or straight couples who have a "normal" heterosexual sex life but in which the male partner spends 25% (or more) of the time living as a woman?
Or a couple made up of two biological females, one of whom is in the process of transitioning to a male gender?
...
As I've mentioned to you before in similar arguments, your insistence that this issue is only about men having anal sex with each other speaks volumes about your specific fears and prejudices.
So instead of fixing the problem, we should put a band-aid on it?
That list just confirms to me more that this is a non-issue, or one that is over politicized.
Again, if it is just to 'make them happy' than state acknowledgement should not be an issue.
If it is for protections, those protections should be transferable REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP to another person, for example, a Last Will and Testament conferring inheritance rights, and a list of people you want your pension to go to when you die on your pension application. Marriage seems like it was just a convenient le given to people to latch these things onto so people didn't have to do the work themselves to secure these rights.
Then make a call to fix the problem instead of calling for the creation of more legislation that is still incomplete.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote