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.
But what is the definition of "tolerate" in this case? If it's just tolerating an opinion on same-sex marriage, that's one thing; when there's a push to make same-sex unions illegal, that's quite different.
There was a time, not all that long ago, that in California, there was no such thing as a domestic partnership. In the name of equality and tolerance, domestic partnership legislation was drafted and signed into law in the year 2000. I have not seen that anyone has tried to make this legislation illegal, or to overturn it. Because of the world we live in today, I do not advocate overturning California's domestic partnership legislation, even though my views on domestic partnerships might suggest otherwise. I know there are others here that have a different lifestyle than I do, and this legislation allows them the same rights that I enjoy, which is why I tolerate it.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In California where Domestic Partnership has been available to same-sex couples since 2000, a wholesale revision of the law in 2005 made it substantially equivalent to marriage at the state level. In 2007, the Legislature took a further step toward equality when it required same-sex DP couples to file state income taxes jointly.
While some conservatives were vocal about it (some would even say intolerant), many were not. The passage of this legislation wasn't enough for many in the gay community, even though it gave them the same "rights" in California as married couples had. I would say that by allowing passage of this legislation, conservatives were demonstrating their tolerance.
Proposition 8, and Proposition 22 before it, had nothing to do with denying anyone's rights. Both of them were very simple. Their only purpose was to continue to define "marriage" as being between one man and one woman, as it has been defined for many generations. The people of California voted twice in favor of this definition of marriage. Again, no one has been denied their rights because of this legislation. Same sex couples can have domestic partnerships, and so can "opposite" sex couples. Straight people can get married, and so can gays. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex in order to call it marriage, just like everyone else must do.
I don't always like work. How about if we pass a law to change the definition of work to equal that of play, but require employers to continue to pay us for working. That changes a definition, but doesn't change the fact that work is still work, and play is still play. This is basically the same thing as changing the definition of marriage to suit what certain people want it to be.
Yep, which is why we all have to learn to get along and make compromises. Militant attitudes are annoying and unappealing. This, by the way, was a huge lesson I learned in the aftermath of the passage of Prop. 8. I was never a protester, but I sure was turned off by them. You know it's a bad situation when even gays are sick of gay protesters.
Yep, which is why we all have to learn to get along and make compromises. Militant attitudes are annoying and unappealing. This, by the way, was a huge lesson I learned in the aftermath of the passage of Prop. 8. I was never a protester, but I sure was turned off by them. You know it's a bad situation when even gays are sick of gay protesters.
So you and afro are stereotyping in the same way you were attacking tlv for??? Do you not see the difference?
Conservatives do not care if two gay men want to have a private marriage ceremony, we just do not want you to force us give up some of our tax dollars so government can support and endorse that marriage.
I seriously doubt that the main reason why most same-sex-marriage opponents are against it is because of tax dollars. Maybe that's the case for you, but you would be rare. If anything, same-sex marriages raise big revenues for states. This was written by a Republican consultant last year after same-sex marriage was legalized in California:
Same Sex Marriage – An Economic Windfall for California | Fox & Hounds Daily (http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/matt-klink/same-sex-marriage-%E2%80%93-an-economic-windfall-california - broken link)
No, the main reasons why people are against same-sex marriage have to do with tradition and their ideas of what is moral and what is not.
You can be gay, get married, by a mini Cooper, stop smoking, install a solar array on your roof top, abort all your babies, even pay a doctor to make you sterile, avoid meat and eat leaves and twigs, just stop demanding that government should force me to accept and endorse your ideas, and stop demanding I PAY FOR IT.
Oh, whatever. You want to own a house, fine -- but this liberal (who happens to be in the group that pays the highest marginal tax rates) hates the idea of funding your tax deductions. You want to have your megachurches, fine -- just stop demanding that I fund their tax-exempt status. You want to tell teenagers that condoms and birth control pills don't work, fine -- but let's take the funds to pay the expenses associated with their unwanted pregnancies out of your earnings, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
It is pretty simple, I do not care if, or how you live your life, as long as living your life does not require that I must reach into my pocket in order for you to live it.
What makes you think you aren't reaching into our pockets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Conservatives do not care if two gay men want to have a private marriage ceremony, we just do not want you to force us give up some of our tax dollars so government can support and endorse that marriage.
Married people pay more taxes. Ever heard of the "marriage penalty"? Your statement is wholly disingenuous. All the screeching against gay marriage, and none of it is about taxes and expenses -- it's always about how "unnatural" it is and how marriages supposedly have been for the past 10 thousand years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
If you want birth control or an abortion, fine, but do not demand I must pay for it, by forcing me to give up some of my tax dollars so government can support and endorse abortion, condom distribution, or oral contraception.
Same as above -- the garden-variety objections to abortion and birth control have nothing to do with funding them, and everything to do with controlling women's sexual behavior based on the conservative notions of morality. As far as money goes, keeping abortion and birth control legal will ensure that women can be financially self-sufficient. Unwanted pregnancies and lack of control over their sexuality keeps women poor, dependent, and most likely to become public charges -- which, contrary to your statement, is the real objective of most conservatives in this regard. If you don't want your money to be spent on account of someone else's hanky-panky, don't vote for politicians who would ban abortion and birth control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
You think CO2 is destroying the climate and killing the polar bears, then you go out and buy an electric car, or a mini Cooper, and donate to green energy.... but noooo.... you want you to force us give up some of our tax dollars so government can support and endorse that smaller car, green energy or carbon offset, and carbon cap and trade program.
That's fine with me, provided you construct a bubble around your gas-guzzling Hummer, and live in it. But as long as it's everybody's environment you are destroying, makes sense you should pitch in to keep it livable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Name for me a liberal idea, desire, or cause that you support, that you do not demand I PAY FOR, a cause or idea that you do NOT want to force me give up some of my freedoms. liberties, or tax dollars so government can support and endorse that liberal idea.
How about ... not imposing any restrictions on private behavior between consenting adults that does not pose a physical threat to anyone else? That's a liberal idea, and completely contrary to conservative ideas in this regard. (Of course, you'd have to accept the principle that your freedoms and liberties do not include authority over other people.) How about not using tax money to promote religion under the guise of "science"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Live your life, pursue your happiness, just stop demanding the federal government get involved and force me to accept and endorse every loony thing that makes you happy.
Here is the thing, Wapasha: if there is a problem, and you refuse to fix it, don't complain when others fix it for you.
Are you saying you hope I exp a time where my life is in danger and I have to pick between my life and the fetus?
Hope? Having gone through it personally, no, I don't "hope" you ever have have to make such a decision. I truly mean that.
BUT, might such a decision have to be made? All I can tell you is, it is a fact that woman all over the world have to make the decision every day. And, no one knows what type of decision they will make unless, or until, the time comes when the decision needs to be made.
I seriously doubt that the main reason why most same-sex-marriage opponents are against it is because of tax dollars. Maybe that's the case for you, but you would be rare. If anything, same-sex marriages raise big revenues for states. This was written by a Republican consultant last year after same-sex marriage was legalized in California:
Same Sex Marriage – An Economic Windfall for California | Fox & Hounds Daily (http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/matt-klink/same-sex-marriage-%E2%80%93-an-economic-windfall-california - broken link)
No, the main reasons why people are against same-sex marriage have to do with tradition and their ideas of what is moral and what is not.
If the legislators we're voting on it, tax dollars may be an issue (legalizing it would cause them to gain tax dollars actually), but with citizens voting on it, I don't think money would be a consideration.
I even try to stay away from using the word "tolerant" because I don't care for the connotation of it. It makes it sound like I don't really like something, but I'm just putting up with it.
It sounds that way, because that's essentially what it means. If you like something, you're more likely to endorse it than to tolerate it.
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.
