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.
I don't really consider essentially a tax break as a right though.
It was never illegal to be a homosexual. Two males will never be able to conceive a child. What we're arguing over is whether they should get to pay a lower combined tax rate than by filing separately. That's not a right.
It was never illegal to be a homosexual? Ha! Let's go back to the magical land of 2003 and see what's there... what's this? It was illegal to be gay in Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, half of Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Michigan, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida? Well, how can that be?
Furthermore, if what you consider a tax break is not a right, why did Loving v Virginia occur? Why, two people of differing races don't need what is essentially just a tax break. They can find a happy ta break with someone of their own race!
And marriage brings about much more than just tax breaks. There are actually 1,138 statutes of provision where marriage is a factor, including matters of inheritance, visitation rights, and power of attorney just to name 3.
Finally, two males cannot conceive a child (with each other). There is such a thing as surrogacy and adoption. Furthermore, not all heterosexual unions produce children.
It doesn't matter if 20% approve or if 99% approve, what matters is what's right. The rule of the majority cannot be used to infringe on the rights of minorities.
Militant homosexual activists often try comparing "their plight" to that of race or ethnic minorities. However, that is a completely incorrect comparison. A person can not hide their skin color from others. A black person confronted by a violent racist can not temporarily transform into a white person for safety. On the other hand, a homosexual can definitely choose not to express their sexuality and lead a publicly normal life. No one gets accosted on the street for simply "being gay". One can only be accosted for being openly gay (or having been falsely accused of being gay).
The inconvenience of not having a state government recognize your marriage is nothing compared to actual racial oppression. So don't even go there. You should feel ashamed of yourself for trying to make that argument -- it's an insult to minorities that actually are oppressed.
It was never illegal to be a homosexual? Ha! Let's go back to the magical land of 2003 and see what's there... what's this? It was illegal to be gay in Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, half of Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Michigan, Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida? Well, how can that be?
Furthermore, if what you consider a tax break is not a right, why did Loving v Virginia occur? Why, two people of differing races don't need what is essentially just a tax break. They can find a happy ta break with someone of their own race!
And marriage brings about much more than just tax breaks. There are actually 1,138 statutes of provision where marriage is a factor, including matters of inheritance, visitation rights, and power of attorney just to name 3.
Finally, two males cannot conceive a child (with each other). There is such a thing as surrogacy and adoption. Furthermore, not all heterosexual unions produce children.
Overall, your argument is invalid.
No, it was illegal to enter a civil union in 2003. In 2003, you would not be jailed for finding people of the same sex attractive. This is what annoys me about civil union supporters. They exaggerate and twist the past to make it sound like their special interest group is under extreme torture when that never actually happened.
Loving v Virginia should not have occurred either. A heterosexual union that does not produce children is not really a marriage either and once the female reaches infertility, if no children were conceived, the marriage should be dissolved. It's just another thing wrong with our asinine system.
Militant homosexual activists often try comparing "their plight" to that of race or ethnic minorities. However, that is a completely incorrect comparison. A person can not hide their skin color from others. A black person confronted by a violent racist can not temporarily transform into a white person for safety. On the other hand, a homosexual can definitely choose not to express their sexuality and lead a publicly normal life. No one gets accosted on the street for simply "being gay". One can only be accosted for being openly gay (or having been falsely accused of being gay).
The inconvenience of not having a state government recognize your marriage is nothing compared to actual racial oppression. So don't even go there. You should feel ashamed of yourself for trying to make that argument -- it's an insult to minorities that actually are oppressed.
You are starting a different argument since you can't defend your original one.
It doesn't matter who has the worst plight. It doesn't matter if you are capable of hiding your difference. The argument is about being allowed to marry the person you love, regardless of whether others approve or not (due to race or same sex partners). The Supreme Court decided in Loving v Virginia that marrying is a right and cannot be refused due to society not approving of interracial marriages. The argument is the same today. Marriage is a right and cannot be refused to same sex partners.
Militant homosexual activists often try comparing "their plight" to that of race or ethnic minorities. However, that is a completely incorrect comparison. A person can not hide their skin color from others. A black person confronted by a violent racist can not temporarily transform into a white person for safety. On the other hand, a homosexual can definitely choose not to express their sexuality and lead a publicly normal life. No one gets accosted on the street for simply "being gay". One can only be accosted for being openly gay (or having been falsely accused of being gay).
The inconvenience of not having a state government recognize your marriage is nothing compared to actual racial oppression. So don't even go there. You should feel ashamed of yourself for trying to make that argument -- it's an insult to minorities that actually are oppressed.
I never compared gay oppression to minority oppression. That, sir, was your doing. However, the sheer fact that minorities have experienced worse oppression does not mean that the oppression of gay people is any less legitimate. If I shoot one man and stab another, is the pain of the stabbing victim any less real because I shot the other one? No. Furthermore, there is intersection. Gay people of color experience more issues than white gay people or straight black people. And despite being a minority, gay kids account for more than 40% of the population of homeless children.
Yes, some people can hide their sexuality. It seems some Republican politicians and Evangelical preachers have become particular experts at it. But for some people, they are perceived to be gay either by the way they look or the way they talk, because of how society has decided to socially construct gayness. But frankly, no one should need to hide their sexuality in a public place. I should have the exact same ability to hold my boyfriend's hand while walking down the street as a straight couple does. You, sir, do not have the right to delegitimize my oppression, nor the oppression of anyone else, just because you want to deny it.
No, it was illegal to enter a civil union in 2003. In 2003, you would not be jailed for finding people of the same sex attractive. This is what annoys me about civil union supporters. They exaggerate and twist the past to make it sound like their special interest group is under extreme torture when that never actually happened.
Loving v Virginia should not have occurred either. A heterosexual union that does not produce children is not really a marriage either and once the female reaches infertility, if no children were conceived, the marriage should be dissolved. It's just another thing wrong with our asinine system.
Actually, it was illegal to be actively gay in the states I mentioned in 2003. Lawrence v Texas. Look it up. You're the one twisting the past now, not me. And why shouldn't have Loving v Virginia happened? Do tell. And finally, like I said, state recognized marriage give a lot more than just tax breaks. Perhaps you should look that up as well, because at this point I'm convinced you're just so against gay people you will say anything to legitimize your stance, even if it is against historical and legal fact.
You are starting a different argument since you can't defend your original one.
It doesn't matter who has the worst plight. It doesn't matter if you are capable of hiding your difference. The argument is about being allowed to marry the person you love, regardless of whether others approve or not (due to race or same sex partners). The Supreme Court decided in Loving v Virginia that marrying is a right and cannot be refused due to society not approving of interracial marriages. The argument is the same today. Marriage is a right and cannot be refused to same sex partners.
Except the Court was wrong the first time, so now they are compounding the error.
A right is something you need in order to survive and if you don't have it, you will either die or have a very unsuccessful life. You can have a fine life without getting married.
I never compared gay oppression to minority oppression. That, sir, was your doing. However, the sheer fact that minorities have experienced worse oppression does not mean that the oppression of gay people is any less legitimate. If I shoot one man and stab another, is the pain of the stabbing victim any less real because I shot the other one? No. Furthermore, there is intersection. Gay people of color experience more issues than white gay people or straight black people. And despite being a minority, gay kids account for more than 40% of the population of homeless children.
Yes, some people can hide their sexuality. It seems some Republican politicians and Evangelical preachers have become particular experts at it. But for some people, they are perceived to be gay either by the way they look or the way they talk, because of how society has decided to socially construct gayness. But frankly, no one should need to hide their sexuality in a public place. I should have the exact same ability to hold my boyfriend's hand while walking down the street as a straight couple does. You, sir, do not have the right to delegitimize my oppression, nor the oppression of anyone else, just because you want to deny it.
Yeah, the main would be less.
And where did you pull that number from? 40% of homeless children are homosexuals. There's no way that's true.
And this new law doesn't make it illegal for a person to taunt you if you hold another male's hand in public. That was my point that nothing will actually change for this law. The people who support it already supported it before the law and the people who don't support it aren't going to change their mind.
And where did you pull that number from? 40% of homeless children are homosexuals. There's no way that's true.
And this new law doesn't make it illegal for a person to taunt you if you hold another male's hand in public. That was my point that nothing will actually change for this law. The people who support it already supported it before the law and the people who don't support it aren't going to change their mind.
And I'm aware the law won't change things. I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about oppression that I and many others have experienced. And having state-recognized marriage won't change it, but it's a start.
But as I've already said, 1,138 rights come with legal marriage. For gay couples in Nebraska, those 1,138 rights, not just tax breaks, but countless other legal rights, come with marriage. I don't know about you, but that is certainly a big change to me.
And I'm aware the law won't change things. I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about oppression that I and many others have experienced. And having state-recognized marriage won't change it, but it's a start.
But as I've already said, 1,138 rights come with legal marriage. For gay couples in Nebraska, those 1,138 rights, not just tax breaks, but countless other legal rights, come with marriage. I don't know about you, but that is certainly a big change to me.
You conveniently left off the phrase "served by agencies."
Most likely normal people reject the homosexuals, so it would be natural to expect people having to turn to an agency to identify as a much larger percentage than usual.
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.
