Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what they said when they started handing out welfare checks for the "REALLY REALLY" needy.
You are confused I am all for welfare reform. The only benefits that gays would gain through civil unions or marriage would be the legal rights any other couple enjoys and the ability to get their spouses SS if it was more than their own at death, along with being able to save a couple of bucks on insurance. Uncle Sam really does not come into play on this issue. Anything else I clear up for ya?
You are confused I am all for welfare reform. The only benefits that gays would gain through civil unions or marriage would be the legal rights any other couple enjoys and the ability to get their spouses SS if it was more than their own at death, along with being able to save a couple of bucks on insurance. Uncle Sam really does not come into play on this issue. Anything else I clear up for ya?
Not really but I'll not go off topic to contest the point.
I'm all for Civil Unions, you can find posts of mine to that effect. I believe a civil union should allow the effects of mutual benefit. I don't however, think the partner of any mate (male/female/mixed) should be qualified to collect government funds due to that relationship. Or, get your own damned job.
No. I don't think most people "hate" homosexuals; nor would they want to make homosexuality illegal. But, many who are not in favor of legalizing SSM are rightfully concerned about the slippery slope with Civil Unions.
"Well-meaning folks...who oppose redefining marriage, yet support civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, do so with the mistaken belief that both sides of the marriage debate will be satisfied with this apparent compromise. In practice, however, neither side is happy. And more importantly, as a legal matter, civil union laws absolutely undermine the case for marriage."
"Make no mistake about it; a vote for this bill is a vote for same-sex “marriage.†In every U.S. jurisdiction where civil unions or domestic partnerships have been enacted, those who advocated for their passage subsequently rejected them as inadequate and demanded that marriage be redefined. (That dynamic has occurred in California, Washington state, New Jersey, Vermont, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Illinois, and Nevada, where civil unions provided the legal rights and privileges of marriage; the celebration of those new legal rights were immediate followed with demands for a new definition of marriage.)"
BTW, gays have every right to get "married" in a church of their finding and have it recognized by their own social group. Legally, the definition of marriage in this country has always been between one man and one woman and according to the 31 states in which it has been voted on, most people recognize the importance of keeping it that way.
That is why I believe there should be no compromise on SSM, they should have all the rights and privilages that straight couples do, Period.
Hate to tell you but there are two problems with your arguement, the states did not put it to the people if they agreed with SSM, the politiians running those states made those rules. So it does not reflect the will of the majority no matter how it is twisted.
And secondly, for many of the States this was done Years ago and does not represent todays reality.
I have a better idea, let's actually put it to a vote of all the People and see what the final result is. I doubt that will happen but I can assure you that sooner or later the SC will make it illegal to deny gays the right to marry on simple civil rights issues that apply to all Americans.
Not really but I'll not go off topic to contest the point.
I'm all for Civil Unions, you can find posts of mine to that effect. I believe a civil union should allow the effects of mutual benefit. I don't however, think the partner of any mate (male/female/mixed) should be qualified to collect government funds due to that relationship. Or, get your own damned job.
Whatever.
They are not government funds they are the same SS benefits that all married couples enjoy, besides you only get one or the others SS benefits, not both (one usually picks the larger, and it is not the governments money. I have no idea what the the last sentence is in reference to.
But marriage isn't just based on just personal choice. There are laws about what is considered to be a legal marriage and what is not. I am not expressing a personal opinion here on gay marriage just pointing out the facts.
Your last paragraph proves yet again how uncivil and insulting the left can be on any issue. As someone else asked in here what is wrong with just disagreeing without resorting to childish and hateful remarks?
What is it based on? It SHOULD be based on the ability of any two legally consenting adults being able to marry. And laws can be overturned. Just because something is a law now doesn't make it right. The history of our nation should be enough to show you that.
And if you believe that gays don't deserve equal rights dues to a book written over 2000 years ago then I'll stick by my last statement. Which doesn't include all religious people. I know many people that are able to look beyond their faith's holy books and think for themselves.
This mess in Colorado was far more political than philosophical. The governor wants civil unions passed. He called a special session to do it. The Speaker of the House is a Repub. He saw to it that it wouldn't happen.
I find it interesting that no one is mentioning this little tidbit.
Republican Rep. Don Coram, whose son is gay, cited his reasons for voting against the measure while his wife, Dianna Coram, wiped away tears in the audience. Coram said civil unions are too similar to same-sex marriage, which Colorado voters banned in 2006. He blasted Democrats, accusing them of bringing up the issue to try to gain votes.
So he votes against his family's interests in spite of Democrats. Strange.
Quote:
"The gay community is being used as a political pawn," he said.
So he's claiming to be a defender of the gay community?
Quote:
Perhaps the reason why they voted it down had nothing to do with hate but instead had something to do with their jobs as elected representatives of their constituents?
Well which is it?
You folks will come up with anything to avoid answering the question.
Why do people on the left always accuse others with a different opinion, of hate?
We don't.
Quote:
What ever happened to just disagreeing?
Disagreeing is fine, but the GOP has repeatedly said it advocates civil unions rather than same-sex marriage. When the opportunity presents itself, however, they kill the bill.
Quote:
I think those making the accusations are the ones filled with hate.
Yes, and that's what haters usually say when they know they're guilty as charged.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
