- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,859
- Reaction score
- 30,124
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Whatever, dude.
Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.
Deal with it.
There is no institution of gay marriage. Nor is there endorsement. Just because you do not like it there is not need to invent things.Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".
Another strawman. My argument is that this isn't about rights. It's about a desire by homosexuals to normalize homosexuality in order to facilitate recruitment. My point is that the "rights" is really just the angle the legal and moral battle seems to be taking even though it's not really the primary motivation.
There was not need to quote the entire post. Clearly the issue is the game of semantics you are attempting.If you are going to respond to my posts I would ask just two things:
1. Respond to the WHOLE post and don't cherry pick lines to avoid having to acknowledge the context.
2. Don't use words that you obviously don't understand the meaning of. "Semantics".... sheesh.
If it wasn't about acceptance then gays would have been satisfied with civil unions. They were not. Civil unions offered every protection and benefit as marriage but, to them, it was not acceptable. Why is that?
I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Are you somehow not comfortable with admitting that seeking moral equivalence is the goal here?
Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".
My argument is that society needn't be forced to endorse homosexuality. Period. women on women, men on men... neither is something society should be forced to endorse against their will.
First, there has never been a legitimate effort to make civil unions for same sex couples that were equivalent to marriage, so it was a worthless cause, and now, with same sex couples who are married being recognized as married, then it is completely pointless. Second, why should they be forced into a contract that has to be made up specifically for them just because some people are offended by having to share a word, a title with them? The motivation behind that is to separate same sex couples from opposite sex couples in order to treat them as inferiors.
Morality is personal, subjective. It doesn't matter if some may want "acceptance" by a majority. That is irrelevant as to why they should be treated equally under the law. And you cannot prove that "acceptance" is the main motivator for fighting for same sex marriage being legal. That is absolutely nothing but your personal belief.
Kind of interesting how you can make the statement in bold about 5 minutes after stating this..
When I make a statement about motivations I can't prove it and it is "absolutely nothing but your personal belief". But then you turn around and do the exact same thing in the very next post.:roll:
Gays what their relationships to be viewed with the same moral standing as straight relationships and if I was gay, I'd probably want that too. When you break it down to it's root, that's what it is all about.
I suppose biologically speaking homosexuality is conduet to the "hate the human spices crowd and the special interest crowed and has nothing to do with "homosexuality" has a lifestyle but rather a means to insert some sort or radial "social justice" that is demanded to be accepted by the mainstream of society.
What you're looking for is a mob mentality - that has nothing to do with your morals but rather what the mod tells you do do (the PC mob).
Ha, The GOP? well, I'm certainly not a member of the GOP and had falling out with their establishment about a decade go..
What part of civil unions was not equal? I am allowing for the possibility that I am not aware of all of the facts here, so fill me in if you don't mind.
And that is a total cop out. Why would the federal government go through the hassle of creating a formal recognition of something that hadn't been created yet? Civil Unions was never anything more than a concept. A concept that was rejected. Why was the concept rejected? That's what I'm asking.
And you should learn to read a little better. What did I "claim"? I claimed that the pursuit of marriage rights was rooted in the desire for moral equivalency. Nothing you have responded to me with even addresses that very simple statement/observation. Why is that so uncomfortable to deal with?
As for the whole "the fed doesn't recognize civil unions" angle? That's along the same lines as arguing that we weren't equipped to handle all of the women voters should the 19th amendment pass.
Another strawman. My argument is that this isn't about rights. It's about a desire by homosexuals to normalize homosexuality in order to facilitate recruitment. My point is that the "rights" is really just the angle the legal and moral battle seems to be taking even though it's not really the primary motivation.
And again, this seems to be the area where we have a disconnect.
From your source...
What I have been referring to this entire time is that the gay community has rejected the concept of the federal government offering these same protections to civil unions in favor of pursuing actual marriage. In other words, gays weren't interested in anything other than being able to get the "marriage" label stamped on their certificate.
Creating the institution of homosexual marriage is endorsing it. Look up the definition of "sanction".
And again, this seems to be the area where we have a disconnect.
From your source...
What I have been referring to this entire time is that the gay community has rejected the concept of the federal government offering these same protections to civil unions in favor of pursuing actual marriage. In other words, gays weren't interested in anything other than being able to get the "marriage" label stamped on their certificate.
No, no, no, bull****. You people rejected civil unions. How many states included a civil union ban in their constitutional bans on same-sex marriage? How come every time civil unions come to a vote, people like you turn out in droves against it?
You do not get to blame the lack of civil unions on homosexuals.
Furthermore, the government doesn't get to define marriage as between a man and a woman without an important state interest being furthered in doing so. The government cannot make any distinction of gender without passing this test, it doesn't matter whether it's a marriage certificate, business contract, law, regulation, whatever. You are the one focusing on the word marriage. Everyone else just wants equality.
I suppose biologically speaking homosexuality is conduet to the "hate the human spices crowd and the special interest crowed and has nothing to do with "homosexuality" has a lifestyle but rather a means to insert some sort or radial "social justice" that is demanded to be accepted by the mainstream of society.
Kind of interesting how you can make the statement in bold about 5 minutes after stating this..
When I make a statement about motivations I can't prove it and it is "absolutely nothing but your personal belief". But then you turn around and do the exact same thing in the very next post.:roll:
I was reading this post and then I remembered your admonition from another thread "You take my intelligence as anger?" and could not figure out which was at play here.Well impeaching a sitting president is almost impossible to impeach - the president would either have to be wihtout a reasonable doubt guilty of treason or commit other high crimes or misdemeanors...
As much as I would like to see that pesedo-socialist/anti- capitalist impeached, from the information I have I just cant see that happening...Now I have no access to the classified information the House Committees possess, I would certainly hope they have enough evidence that proves without a reasonable doubt Obama was acting nefarious in is his position. As a person will little information other than that was leaked - I believe it would be better for the prosecutor to attack those close to Obama and have them "talk."
Either way it would be an extremely bizarre case, and quite frankly I would certainly wait until he is a civilian to start knocking doors down.
Obama is no better than a Madoff as far as I'm concerned that the government acts like a Ponzi Scheme , and potential RICO charge could be filed against all these clowns Invloved in this present administration.
The best part is that if such a criminal indictment can be filed against Obama when he is out of office, his entire presidency goes up in smoke.
However if those in Congress want to impeach Obama I would love to hear their legal briefs......
..
well that is a very subjective term for you-- not for me considering I'm not gay or bi-sexual.
Why do you feel I should feel the same way?
This isn't Rome you know?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?