View Full Version : For those of you on FB...
Not sure if you all are seeing this, those of us on FB... But with this whole debate at the SCOTUS now about the gay marriage thing, everyone seems to be changing their profile picture to a pink equal sign against a red backdrop. Well a friend's wife changed hers, and I like this one better. People are already starting to get in a hissy about it... what? I can't support something that is outlined in the Constitution, yet you can support something that isn't even mentioned in a round about way anywhere in our Constitution or BOR?
Here it is:
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/166744_896325944183_1380552510_n.jpg
Teufelhund
03-26-2013, 15:24
I hadn't seen any of that until you mentioned it, so I logged into FB and sure enough, several of my friends have changed their profile pic to that pink equals sign. I like yours better too, may have to use it for a bit.
and people wonder why the republican part is declining
I wish I could say I was surprised at the difference in support but I'm not. I post pro-2a and I'm labeled a "nut". But I've seen TONS of the red "=" pics today. To each their own and I don't really care about gay marriage. It's their choice. But the vilification of gun owners bothers me. I'm sure I'll get snide comments for putting the gun picture up but I dont really care. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Some people only feel strongly about a single issue... others feel strongly about many issues. It is good to see people standing up for what they believe in. If only MORE people would do the same thing. My wife and I have dozens of gay friends. Several of them support OUR cause... and I support their cause also!
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/602179_10151548299502394_898190493_n.jpg
Here are some thoughts on the whole issue- both the "same sex" and 2A issues...
"civil union, or matrimonial contract, as recognized by the state, whereas "marriage" is a religious term. So technically, yes, I'm against someone stepping in and forcing those who's beliefs are contrary to accepting a definition that they do not agree with. I'm all for same sex couples' union being recognized by the state and given the same legal protection and rights. However, when one decrees that being against "same sex equality" is wrong, who are you to judge? Maybe that is that person's individual beliefs, and they are entitled to it." -In response to a liberal asking for clarification on my stance.
"I'm posting this not in opposition of "marriage equality" which is a leading/loaded phrase (gov't has no business being involved in "marriage"- the word you're looking for is Civil Union or contract recognized by the state), but I posted this pic to outline the grave hypocrisy of one group crying for "equal" rights, yet many of it's members are also calling for the restriction of other rights, rights that just so happen to be outlined and defended by our Constitution (marriage, or civil union for that matter is not mentioned or outlined anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, just FYI)." -Explaining to a lesbian friend about the equal AR pic.
"So, those who support gay marriage equality, are you also a hypocrite who also supports the infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?" -Status posted with an obviously loaded/leading question about the duality of the issue and the only reason I would have a problem with these people ("We want our rights, but to hell with yours").
Great-Kazoo
03-26-2013, 16:00
and people wonder why the republican part is declining
2 ar's on a redish pink back ground a reason for the decline of the r party?
Zombie Steve
03-26-2013, 16:01
Gonna steal both those images... thanks, fellas.
Could just be your "friend", Ronin. Two of my lesbian friends LOVED the PMag equality pick and felt the need to comment their approval. One saying it was "the best one yet" that she has seen. Maybe my gay friends are so understanding of my fight because I am so understanding of their fight. Then again... I just have plenty of gay friends who are gun-lovers. They either own and carry themselves or love going to the range with me. I haven't had a bad remark yet from any in the gay community regarding the PMag equality pic.
Cylinder Head
03-26-2013, 16:07
Decreased friend count in 3.2.1
Cylinder Head
03-26-2013, 16:10
Down one friend already.
Katastrophic
03-26-2013, 16:13
That's not a bad idea if it helps weed out unsupportive, closed-minded individuals. :)
and people wonder why the republican part is declining
I don't wonder. It's because dems have coined the phrase "civil rights" to every topic they are for. So now, if you don't agree with them, you're labeled a bigot. People are being conditioned to just accept everything. Since when do I have to like and agree with everything? Respect and tolerance are not the same.
i could care less about Same Sex unions.
I'm against Special Privileges for Same Sex Couples.
If they want to be equal then make everything for everybody. Not because they are the Same Sex. Sometimes they go overboard.
i hope that made sense??
i do like the Red backgrould but my photo of an 8" howitzer 13 cm from Cambodia looks a lot more intimidating..
I'm against Special Privileges for Same Sex Couples.
Many people are against "special privileges" for hetero couples and think same sex couple should get the SAME "special" privileges.
I say... let's don't make those privileges "special" any more.
Make ALL couples get civil unions if they want those privileges... and send "marriage" back to the church/chapel where so many people say it belongs. You kill two birds with one stone. Nobody gets special treatment that way... and for those so concerned with the biblical aspect of the term marriage... they can still have their religious ceremony with the blessing(s) of their god(s) and their friends and family. It is a win-win. Then we can move on to other important issues and put this issue behind us.
Kraven251
03-26-2013, 16:45
I saw this one pop up...and I like it too.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b90/Fonrose/equality_zpsf58a5bf2.jpg
I saw this one pop up...and I like it too.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b90/Fonrose/equality_zpsf58a5bf2.jpg
If civilians were on top with that image... I would like it a little more. However I don't see "civies" and government as equal. Government should always be below we the people!
<p>
Here are some thoughts on the whole issue- both the "same sex" and 2A issues... "civil union, or matrimonial contract, as recognized by the state, whereas "marriage" is a religious term. So technically, yes, I'm against someone stepping in and forcing those who's beliefs are contrary to accepting a definition that they do not agree with. I'm all for same sex couples' union being recognized by the state and given the same legal protection and rights. So I have a question about this part. I have heard the marriage is a religious definition argument as a reason not to allow gay marriage. However, there is a multitude of religions out there, so saying that MY religion defines marriage as a hetero union subjugates all other religions and their beliefs. I am guessing there is probably at least one religion that gives the nod (pun intended) to gay marriage, so does that mean the religious definition argument is null and void? The sudden appearance of all the pink equal signs bugs me, because I am not sure why all these people care SO much about it. As I have stated before, I could not give two shits about gay marriage, but I am always up for a discussion.</p>
My girlfriends mom and partner grabbed it off mine and replaced their standard bars with the ar 15 one
mahabali
03-26-2013, 17:16
http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u618/jokermann77/A8974ED6-D1AD-4B05-8790-A8F3CF66DEC9-21085-000019E77B562B91_zps9b71d14b.jpg
tmleadr03
03-26-2013, 20:05
The government has no place in any marriage. Either in hetero or homo relations. Not the business of the government.
Hitman 6
03-26-2013, 20:30
Stolen and shared. Thanks.
Teufelhund
03-26-2013, 20:56
http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u618/jokermann77/A8974ED6-D1AD-4B05-8790-A8F3CF66DEC9-21085-000019E77B562B91_zps9b71d14b.jpg
FFS this one drives me nuts. The phrase is "couldn't care less." "I could care less" implies that you do actually care.
cfortune
03-26-2013, 21:21
Profile picture changed. You should feel honored. This is the only time I've changed mine since I signed up for FB (about 6 years ago).
Rooskibar03
03-26-2013, 21:34
Stolen from a friend who has much better writing skills then I do.
Interesting how 26 States voted against Obamacare but we got stuck with it through legislation, but that's another story. Now 32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage, yet we have the Supreme Court making a decision on it instead. Do you not see what is happening here? It's not a matter of gay marriage, it's a matter of the progressive liberal agenda always losing at the ballot box so instead they try to ram through legislation and take the power out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats with an agenda. You go from millions of people voting as was intended, to letting 9 Judges give a decision.
Do not ever forget that Obama was AGAINST same-sex marriage in 2008 prior to getting elected so he could get a conservative demographic to give him a chance which many did. 4 years later he had lost that base for a myriad of reasons, so instead he panders to other interest groups whether its gays, illegal immigrants, gun control, welfare, etc...
Bottom line, they don't care about Gays, they care about the votes, thats it, if you believe otherwise you are sadly mistaken. This is where I have a problem with one- issue voters. Obama says he is now for gay marriage so gay marriage supporters vote for him. They don't care about his character or integrity in the matter, or that it's plainly obviously he was against it for a reason, they only care that he is giving them what they want now. It's almost greedy. Why? Because until gay people in this country start standing up for gay people in the Middle East who get hung or stoned to death I have no tolerance or time for their demands, go use your freedom here to go help them there. You already live in a free country and can do as you please. What about them? Are you not for the same cause or only if its within your borders?
If gay marriage went to a national vote and it passed, then I have no issue with it; I have no issue with gays, I have good friends who are, but when your cause keeps losing then you try to find new ways to play the game, that is where I have a problem. My guess is that it would get hammered down in a national vote just like the 32 times states have voted it down.
Teufelhund
03-26-2013, 21:42
Stolen from a friend who has much better writing skills then I do.
Interesting how 26 States voted against Obamacare but we got stuck with it through legislation, but that's another story. Now 32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage, yet we have the Supreme Court making a decision on it instead. Do you not see what is happening here? It's not a matter of gay marriage, it's a matter of the progressive liberal agenda always losing at the ballot box so instead they try to ram through legislation and take the power out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats with an agenda. You go from millions of people voting as was intended, to letting 9 Judges give a decision.
Do not ever forget that Obama was AGAINST same-sex marriage in 2008 prior to getting elected so he could get a conservative demographic to give him a chance which many did. 4 years later he had lost that base for a myriad of reasons, so instead he panders to other interest groups whether its gays, illegal immigrants, gun control, welfare, etc...
Bottom line, they don't care about Gays, they care about the votes, thats it, if you believe otherwise you are sadly mistaken. This is where I have a problem with one- issue voters. Obama says he is now for gay marriage so gay marriage supporters vote for him. They don't care about his character or integrity in the matter, or that it's plainly obviously he was against it for a reason, they only care that he is giving them what they want now. It's almost greedy. Why? Because until gay people in this country start standing up for gay people in the Middle East who get hung or stoned to death I have no tolerance or time for their demands, go use your freedom here to go help them there. You already live in a free country and can do as you please. What about them? Are you not for the same cause or only if its within your borders?
If gay marriage went to a national vote and it passed, then I have no issue with it; I have no issue with gays, I have good friends who are, but when your cause keeps losing then you try to find new ways to play the game, that is where I have a problem. My guess is that it would get hammered down in a national vote just like the 32 times states have voted it down.
Replace "gay marriage" in this specific rant with "gun ownership" and maybe you'll see the hypocrisy. America is not a democracy, even for issues you oppose.
Rooskibar03
03-26-2013, 21:47
Replace "gay marriage" in this specific rant with "gun ownership" and maybe you'll see the hypocrisy. America is not a democracy, even for issues you oppose.
Seeing as how there is no mention of marriage in the Consitition and no power given to the ffederal government regarding the topic, I don't see how the two are connected.
theGinsue
03-26-2013, 22:06
Gonna steal both those images... thanks, fellas.
Me too. I added this commentary to go with them:
With all of the FaceBook posting identifying peoples position on gay marriages, I'm posting to identify my position on an issue actually covered by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS ALONE!
Teufelhund
03-26-2013, 22:39
Seeing as how there is no mention of marriage in the Consitition and no power given to the ffederal government regarding the topic, I don't see how the two are connected.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think government should be involved in the institution of marriage/civil unions at all.
The overall theme of your buddy's post is that the people should vote on the issue and the majority wins the day. The Liberals feel this exact same way about gun-ownership. That is democracy and it is not how this country was designed to operate. The rights of the minority are protected from the opinion of the majority in our republic. Also, just because something does not appear in the Bill of Rights does not mean it is a right the people can be denied (ref. the Ninth Amendment).
Some of you are missing the point of FB. The only fun part is figuring out how many relatives will defriend you.
We’ve only lost two so far, both aunts who were teachers and both for asking simple questions about the union. I spent 5 years as part of the CWA (Communications Workers of America) and one of my good friends was a VP in the CWA. I was only asking what they thought the teachers union was doing to making things better for the children and I got a bunch of hate and slogans back. At family gatherings now parts of the family take a wide path and only speak in hushed tones about us.
Those of you who have seen my posts know that I’m not overly argumentative; I’ve never called Jim a dick or an ass on the forum. :) I mean that with the utmost respect which I have for Jim even though it seems he tries to go out of his way to disagree with me even though we're making the same point.
Blockhead
03-26-2013, 23:03
Some of you are missing the point of FB. The only fun part is figuring out how many relatives will defriend you.
We’ve only lost two so far, both aunts who were teachers and both for asking simple questions about the union. I spent 5 years as part of the CWA (Communications Workers of America) and one of my good friends was a VP in the CWA. I was only asking what they thought the teachers union was doing to making things better for the children and I got a bunch of hate and slogans back. At family gatherings now parts of the family take a wide path and only speak in hushed tones about us.
Those of you who have seen my posts know that I’m not overly argumentative; I’ve never called Jim a dick or an ass on the forum. :) I mean that with the utmost respect which I have for Jim even though it seems he tries to go out of his way to disagree with me even though we're making the same point.
Isn't it amazing how intolerant the "tolerant" side can be? I find it intolerable.
gnihcraes
03-26-2013, 23:04
Yep, just logged on... didn't see many of those, until I scrolled down a bit. Sister in Law has it, cousin is posting the image. I've changed my profile pic and commented on theirs. We'll see what happens. haha
Oh and my niece has it too.
Bailey Guns
03-27-2013, 06:40
I got news for those of you who believe gay marriage denies rights to others. The biggest losers in this whole debate once the federal government gets involved are ALL people. We'll all lose a little bit of freedom once the SCOTUS decides gay marriage is a right.
This isn't about, or shouldn't be about, denying rights to gay couples. This is about an overreaching federal government that's about to take more liberties and freedoms from all of us because a liberal special interest has brainwashed the masses into believing their lies once again.
The post above by Rooskibar03 is right on.
The biggest losers in this whole debate once the federal government gets involved are ALL people.
ONCE the federal government gets involved? One would think the government has already been involved in "marriage" by giving tax benefits, estate planning benefits, government benefits, employment benefits, medical benefits, death benefits, family benefits, housing benefits. Marriage is an institution and belief. I'm one who believes the government should NOT be involved in beliefs. The best way to get government OUT OF the marriage business is to send the term "marriage" back to the chapel, where many think it belongs, and make everyone get civil unions if they want the benefits that go along with it. That should be a win-win. You get equality on all fronts and the term "traditional marriage" is saved. Why anyone would want the government involved in their religious beliefs is beyond me. I don't want MORE government... I want LESS government. Take marriage away from the government... it doesn't belong there. Get your civil union if you want the benefits (and one could argue why we even have couples benefits to begin with)... and if you don't care about the benefits... you don't have to get a civil union. You still have the option to get married in a chapel with the blessings of the god of your choice in the presence of your friends and family without the government having any say in it (because they should not have a say in it). Why should you have to pay a fee to the government if you choose to exercise your religious right?
Inconel710
03-27-2013, 10:25
I agree with Rooskiebar's cynicism about the politics of gay marriage. However, I'm also hoping SCOTUS comes down against DOMA as I see that piece of legislation as an over-reach and violation of the 1A. The Episcopal Church recognizes gay marriage, who is Congress to tell them otherwise?
OTOH - I'd like to see SCOTUS support Prop 8 in CA. Californians voted and ammended their constitution to restrict. Maryland voted to allow. It's a Republic - you can move if you don't like it. Or run your own ammendment campaign to reverse the decision.
<p>
So I have a question about this part. I have heard the marriage is a religious definition argument as a reason not to allow gay marriage. However, there is a multitude of religions out there, so saying that MY religion defines marriage as a hetero union subjugates all other religions and their beliefs. I am guessing there is probably at least one religion that gives the nod (pun intended) to gay marriage, so does that mean the religious definition argument is null and void? The sudden appearance of all the pink equal signs bugs me, because I am not sure why all these people care SO much about it. As I have stated before, I could not give two shits about gay marriage, but I am always up for a discussion.</p>
There is this:
The government defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." That is a legal definition (1 USC § 7). Civil unions are legal contracts between partners that are recognized by a state or government as conferring all or some of the rights conferred by marriage, but without the implicit historical and religious meaning associated with the word "marriage."
The term marriage comes from the bible- that's where it began, as a Judeo-Christian idea that formed the bonds of holy matrimony between a man and wife. That is all. So if one "religion" calls it a marriage, that is in effect changing the Christian definition of the word. US Code has it clearly defined as I posed above.
These people don't want "equal" rights for all- they want their cake, and fuck everybody else. That's all I see here. Give them the legal rights entitled to a couple who has engaged in a legally binding matrimonial contract (aka Civil Union) and call it good, but don't change the definition... Liberals are like that mouse in the story, if you give them a cookie, they're going to ask for a glass of milk.
Just the other day, I saw a gay sitting in the front of a bus! Oh wait...they're allowed to do that. They're allowed to love/live/be with whoever they want. That's the "civil right". Do they get arrested for professing their love? Nope. Making it official is not a civil right, IMO.
On a side note, one COULD make the argument for separate bathrooms because of the "attraction" issue. ;)
These people don't want "equal" rights for all- they want their cake, and fuck everybody else.
That is how I interpret the reaction from the OTHER side. They don't want "equal" rights for everyone... they want their special treatment based on a definition and ceremonial religious practice that is centuries old... they want that cake and really think "fuck everybody else who doesn't conform to my idea and my practices". It is a truth that cuts both ways. If homosexual couples end up getting that SAME "special treatment" then the treatment won't be special anymore. I get the feeling that straight people, who are against equal treatment for homosexual couples, they just want to feel and be treated as special and they won't get to have that feeling anymore. We'll just have to think of some other way to pat them on the head and make them feel special!
and people wonder why the republican part is declining
My thoughts exactly. It's not up to us, the people, to vote for whatever trash they put forth. Never has been. It's up to THEM to give us a worthy candidate of being the leader of this nation. They fail to do that year after year and finally they lose an election that is all but theirs for the taking and somehow that's OUR fault? lol That very stance is the reason why the Republican party is lost forever. The sooner they realize this and enact serious change the sooner things will improve. It seems that they're hell-bent on blaming us though rather than taking any blame.
Some people only feel strongly about a single issue... others feel strongly about many issues. It is good to see people standing up for what they believe in. If only MORE people would do the same thing. My wife and I have dozens of gay friends. Several of them support OUR cause... and I support their cause also!
THIS is the way we win our freedoms back. We MUST all stand for what is right regardless of how you personally feel about those freedoms. Liberty is liberty and the second we divide about what liberties are more important is the second we start to lose against those who wish to take them from us.
That is how I interpret the reaction from the OTHER side. They don't want "equal" rights for everyone... they want their special treatment based on a definition and ceremonial religious practice that is centuries old... they want that cake and really think "fuck everybody else who doesn't conform to my idea and my practices". It is a truth that cuts both ways. If homosexual couples end up getting that SAME "special treatment" then the treatment won't be special anymore. I get the feeling that straight people, who are against equal treatment for homosexual couples, they just want to feel and be treated as special and they won't get to have that feeling anymore. We'll just have to think of some other way to pat them on the head and make them feel special!
I think you misunderstand... people are pissed about the issue because of the redefinition of the word marriage. Most people in opposition of this don't care either way what rights or "treatment" same-sex couples are afforded, they only care that it not redefine the word marriage. I know I can't speak for everyone, but why can't we keep marriage in the church, and civil unions in the law books, everyone gets the same rights/benefits/misery and we call it good, and move on?
I think you misunderstand... people are pissed about the issue because of the redefinition of the word marriage. Most people in opposition of this don't care either way what rights or "treatment" same-sex couples are afforded, they only care that it not redefine the word marriage. I know I can't speak for everyone, but why can't we keep marriage in the church, and civil unions in the law books, everyone gets the same rights/benefits/misery and we call it good, and move on?
Doesn't seem like equality to me.
jhood001
03-27-2013, 12:09
I know I can't speak for everyone, but why can't we keep marriage in the church, and civil unions in the law books, everyone gets the same rights/benefits/misery and we call it good, and move on?
Right? If I want to be married, I'll go to a church. If I want a civil union, I'll fill out the damn paper work and I personally don't care what other people call my promise to someone else.
I think you misunderstand... people are pissed about the issue because of the redefinition of the word marriage. Most people in opposition of this don't care either way what rights or "treatment" same-sex couples are afforded, they only care that it not redefine the word marriage. I know I can't speak for everyone, but why can't we keep marriage in the church, and civil unions in the law books, everyone gets the same rights/benefits/misery and we call it good, and move on?
You and I are in agreement as to the most "common sense" approach. Can we use that term or is it reserved ONLY for anti-gunners? =) In all seriousness... I think you are right. Marriage needs to go back to the church and the "legal" term should be civil union. Nothing is redefined, everyone gets equal rights and everyone should be happy.
I can't speak for anyone else... but my wife and I did not look to get married because of any religious definitions or connections. We did it to celebrate with friends and family and publicly profess our love and commitment to one another. The benefits that go along with the "marriage" are nice to have. I'm sure SOME people get married because of what they believe or have read in the bible. I don't personally know those people... but I'm sure there are plenty out there. And I say good for them. My wife and I also don't have sex solely because of what we have read in the bible. While I'm sure there are some people out there who ONLY have sex for the sole purpose of procreation and nothing more... I don't know many or any of those people. But more power to 'em.
Doesn't seem like equality to me.
How is it unequal? Everyone who has a partner (as legally recognized by a state and federally respected matrimonial contract) gets the same rights, benefits, and economic treatment. Seems extremely equal to me. You are aware that the government (at any level) doesn't recognize that part of what a preacher says when you get married "By the power invested in me by God..." they only care about the contract stipulations, such as witness and person recognized by the state to preside over such ceremonies, be they religious wedding or justice of the peace?
How is it unequal? Everyone who has a partner (as legally recognized by a state and federally respected matrimonial contract) gets the same rights, benefits, and economic treatment. Seems extremely equal to me. You are aware that the government (at any level) doesn't recognize that part of what a preacher says when you get married "By the power invested in me by God..." they only care about the contract stipulations, such as witness and person recognized by the state to preside over such ceremonies, be they religious wedding or justice of the peace?
How 'bout we just take the government out of marriage entirely? No perks or credits for those married or civilly united or whatever term you want to use. Forcing them to use a different term just creates different classes that will allow for inequality moving forward.
I think you are confusing religion with class. If you take the traditionally "religious" term and send it back to the church... and give EVERYONE an equal footing term "civil union"... then you no longer have a class separation. Religion is not a class. While there are religions and religious people out there who want to segregate... you can't keep someone from religion because it is a feeling, a belief, an idea. How can you keep a feeling, belief or idea from someone? Now there may be many churches who won't allow you into their congregation... based on look, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other... but at that point... why would you want to be a part of a group that is not accepting of you? Find another church or religion that accepts you for who you are!
Everyone will have EQUAL footing (in the eyes of the law) with civil unions. Now maybe not everyone will have equal footing (in the eyes of the church) when it comes to the word marriage... but like I said above... find a church or religion that will accept you for you. It is my understanding that my gay friends are fighting for equality in the eyes of the law. Most of them could give a rat's ass about equality in the eyes of the church.
How 'bout we just take the government out of marriage entirely? No perks or credits for those married or civilly united or whatever term you want to use. Forcing them to use a different term just creates different classes that will allow for inequality moving forward.
Brobar said it.
[Beer]
I think you are confusing religion with class. If you take the traditionally "religious" term and send it back to the church... and give EVERYONE an equal footing term "civil union"... then you no longer have a class separation. Religion is not a class. While there are religions and religious people out there who want to segregate... you can't keep someone from religion because it is a feeling, a belief, an idea. How can you keep a feeling, belief or idea from someone? Now there may be many churches who won't allow you into their congregation... based on look, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other... but at that point... why would you want to be a part of a group that is not accepting of you? Find another church or religion that accepts you for who you are!
Everyone will have EQUAL footing (in the eyes of the law) with civil unions. Now maybe not everyone will have equal footing (in the eyes of the church) when it comes to the word marriage... but like I said above... find a church or religion that will accept you for you. It is my understanding that my gay friends are fighting for equality in the eyes of the law. Most of them could give a rat's ass about equality in the eyes of the church.
No, I'm not confusing religion with class. When the government began granting things to those who were married (a class) they created inequality for those who weren't. That's fine if anyone is allowed to do it but when adults are denied those same things you have a class. Just like you can create laws but then exempt certain groups from those laws. That creates classes of citizens and it's not a good idea. if it's not good for ALL of the people then it's not good for SOME of the people. Just like laws on firearms and creating exemptions for entities and groups. That's BS. We're ALL citizens of this nation so nobody should be exempt from laws or rules be it for the better or for the worse as is the case for marriage. You can call it whatever you want but it's not fair for the government to grant perks for those who allowed and those who aren't allowed just get hosed in addition to the recognition they are justly requesting.
I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I formulate a response. Are you saying instead of giving gay couples the same perks/benefits as straight couples (civil unions for all would do that)... you would rather get rid of perks/benefits all together for ALL couples because now we have created a class differentiation between couples and singles? It doesn't matter if they are hetero or gay... but now we are discriminating against those who aren't in a relationship... that is your issue? IF that is your issue (and I don't want to put words in your mouth... I just want to make sure I understand you) then you would be against grants for college students (because it drives a wedge between the class of people who want to be educated and those who don't), you would be against home subsidies (because it drives a wedge between those who rent and those who buy), you would be against farm subsidies because there are people who work in an office instead of a farm, and you would be against tax breaks for small businesses because there are people out there who don't own a business? I could be wrong, but that kind of sounds like what you are saying.
I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I formulate a response. Are you saying instead of giving gay couples the same perks/benefits as straight couples (civil unions for all would do that)... you would rather get rid of perks/benefits all together for ALL couples because now we have created a class differentiation between couples and singles? It doesn't matter if they are hetero or gay... but now we are discriminating against those who aren't in a relationship... that is your issue? IF that is your issue (and I don't want to put words in your mouth... I just want to make sure I understand you) then you would be against grants for college students (because it drives a wedge between the class of people who want to be educated and those who don't), you would be against home subsidies (because it drives a wedge between those who rent and those who buy), you would be against farm subsidies because there are people who work in an office instead of a farm, and you would be against tax breaks for small businesses because there are people out there who don't own a business? I could be wrong, but that kind of sounds like what you are saying.
No, that's not what I'm saying for purposes of this discussion. That doesn't mean that I don't exactly support some or all of those other examples but for purposes of THIS conversation: I don't believe the government should give ANY perks to those who get married or have children. Okay, that last part wasn't exactly on-topic but is wholly related since BOTH were put in place to incetivize morality... the traditional 'family' structure. When you give perks to THOSE people you screw those who don't or can't belong to that group. Subsidy programs are by and large broken so they are a wasteful measure by a nation that's $16 TRILLION (that they're admitting) in debt. So you ask me if I feel the government should continue to give handouts and I answer no. You ask me if I feel the government should give handouts that purposefully alienate those 'groups' they seem lack of moral fiber creating classes that feel screwed with good reason and I say HELL NO!
I don't see how being married OR single creates a morality issue. I agree that the government should not be in the business of legislating morals. Replace marriages with civil unions and they no longer would be! As far as the single person being left out... well there are some benefits that can only come with having a spouse. True... if I don't have a spouse... I don't have to worry about inheritance from that spouse, or life insurance from that spouse, of medical insurance because they are my spouse, or hospital visitation rights and medical making decisions for that spouse... because without a spouse... all of those benefits are moot. Do people want to have those spousal benefits without having a spouse? Well... boo hoo! That is the reason they are called spousal benefits and not just everybody benefits. These benefits may not mean much to you... but they mean a lot to others. I see no reason why same sex spouses shouldn't have those same benefits. I do see why single people don't get those benefits though... because you kind of have to have a spouse to have spousal benefits. Should we just throw all of those protected benefits out the window because some single person feels left out? I, for one, say no!
I don't see how being married OR single creates a morality issue. I agree that the government should not be in the business of legislating morals. Replace marriages with civil unions and they no longer would be! As far as the single person being left out... well there are some benefits that can only come with having a spouse. True... if I don't have a spouse... I don't have to worry about inheritance from that spouse, or life insurance from that spouse, of medical insurance because they are my spouse, or hospital visitation rights and medical making decisions for that spouse... because without a spouse... all of those benefits are moot. Do people want to have those spousal benefits without having a spouse? Well... boo hoo! That is the reason they are called spousal benefits and not just everybody benefits. These benefits may not mean much to you... but they mean a lot to others. I see no reason why same sex spouses shouldn't have those same benefits. I do see why single people don't get those benefits though... because you kind of have to have a spouse to have spousal benefits. Should we just throw all of those protected benefits out the window because some single person feels left out? I, for one, say no!
No, you're missing the point entirely. You're examples are discounts given by 3rd party PRIVATE companies. I'm talking about breaks the GOVERNMENT gives like tax breaks and other incentives to MARRIED couples and then in the same breath says some people can't get married like it's any of their damn business. Keep in mind that for every tax break or incentive someone else has to pick up that slack because do you think the government will just require that much less money to operate? Nope. So if married couples get tax breaks that means that single people are having to pay more to make up for that 'discount' just like if incentives are given for children then those w/o children have to pay more to take up that slack as well. As a married man w/o children I tend to take offense when I see a single mother of three who gets to drive an Escalade and eat lobster on the government teat (read: you and me) all while saying she's 'Independent' and doesn't need anyone. In short, I don't care if people of a certain class would miss out on these breaks or not because it means that people from another class are paying for them.
I'm talking about breaks the GOVERNMENT gives like tax breaks and other incentives to MARRIED couples and then in the same breath says some people can't get married like it's any of their damn business.
I'm talking about equal rights for homosexual couples. That is all I'm focusing on here. Make civil unions the defacto term to get those benefits and then you will no longer have the government saying certain people can't get married because the term "marriage" all falls back to the religious connotation. Put it back in the church, make civil unions the "legal" term and that covers THAT issue. And those benefits are not just 3rd party benefits. They are government protected benefits. We have those so an insurance company can't step in and say YOU have blue eyes so you can't get your spouse's life insurance. We have those so a hospital can't step in and say "you have blonde hair instead of red so you can't make medical decisions for your spouse". There are certain rights (and protections) that the government affords us BECAUSE we have a spouse. These aren't just personal decisions "3rd parties" get to make on their own. There are dozens of benefits for spouses beyond simply tax breaks. Gay couples are fighting for equality across the board when it comes to those benefits and protections.
Now we can get into the topic of taxation, subsidization and government benefits on the whole if you would like... but it kind of goes beyond the scope of the topic at hand... gay couples getting equal treatment. We have offered a sensible, easy way for that to happen. Are there issues out there beyond equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples? Absolutely! There are a whole slew of them. And if you find those issues important... vote, work the legislative process and get those issues fixed.
I'm talking about equal rights for homosexual couples. That is all I'm focusing on here. Make civil unions the defacto term to get those benefits and then you will no longer have the government saying certain people can't get married because the term "marriage" all falls back to the religious connotation. Put it back in the church, make civil unions the "legal" term and that covers THAT issue. And those benefits are not just 3rd party benefits. They are government protected benefits. We have those so an insurance company can't step in and say YOU have blue eyes so you can't get your spouse's life insurance. We have those so a hospital can't step in and say "you have blonde hair instead of red so you can't make medical decisions for your spouse". There are certain rights (and protections) that the government affords us BECAUSE we have a spouse. These aren't just personal decisions "3rd parties" get to make on their own. There are dozens of benefits for spouses beyond simply tax breaks. Gay couples are fighting for equality across the board when it comes to those benefits and protections.
Now we can get into the topic of taxation, subsidization and government benefits on the whole if you would like... but it kind of goes beyond the scope of the topic at hand... gay couples getting equal treatment. We have offered a sensible, easy way for that to happen. Are there issues out there beyond equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples? Absolutely! There are a whole slew of them. And if you find those issues important... vote, work the legislative process and get those issues fixed.
The funny part is you seem to think that I'ma arguing against your stance on gay marriage. I'm not. I'm just doing it from a more logical approach. Why should the government have ANY say in who gets married and what they get for being married? Let's start there.
The funny part is you seem to think that I'ma arguing against your stance on gay marriage. I'm not. I'm just doing it from a more logical approach. Why should the government have ANY say in who gets married and what they get for being married? Let's start there.
I'm not arguing for "gay marriage"... I'm arguing equal rights for homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. You are arguing NO rights for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. While there is a connection... it still seems like apples and oranges to me.
I'm not arguing for "gay marriage"... I'm arguing equal rights for homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. You are arguing NO rights for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. While there is a connection... it still seems like apples and oranges to me.
You're talking about protections that are offered to each individual as if they're somehow different because you're married. So what those things have to do with this conversation is beyond me. All that's doing is confusing the discussion. I'm talking about tax breaks and incentives the government gives to married couples... just for being married. These help to create the inequality between civil unions and marriages. Homosexuals want equal rights because as it stands married couples get a LOT of incentives from the government simply for being married that they are not entitled to. My point is why in the FUCK should the government give credits, breaks and incentives to married couples in the first place? Start the process of equality by taking away these breaks and incentives for ALL couples that single people have to cover. It's legislating morality which means we ALL lose in the long run. How hard of a concept is that to understand?
The state has NO right to meddle in personal affairs to include marriage/civil unions or whatever label you want to assign.
You and I are having two different conversations. That is where your confusion is coming in to play why some of these things are, as you put it, beyond you. We can create a new thread and discuss government's role in taxation, subsidies, welfare, loans, the national debt, fiscal cliffs, deficits, etc... if you would like. You've taken this conversation off course so many times though... I don't know if I have the energy to join you in that conversation just yet... it is exhausting just trying to stay on track in this thread. hehe
NightCat
03-29-2013, 11:45
..What I've been seeing on the news is that this shit all came from some lady who was "married" to her female partner in Canada, and when her partner finally bit the dust the lady was pissed she had to be tax on the inheritance that she was left.....and yet if she was considered "Married" by the US that she wouldn't have had to pay the tax or would've paid less tax on it.
So really........This has fuck all nothing to do with equality, but as already mentioned, a special exception. You could "marry" anybody to get a tax write off or whatever the reason may be, I'm not religious nut job, I'm not even a man of religion at all, so dont peg me as one of those types.
I'm with Jer on this one, Keep the Government out of Marriage.
Bailey Guns
03-29-2013, 12:22
24795
I'm all like, "Yeah. Me, too!"
I thought gays already had the same "rights" as normal people. They are legally able to marry anyone they wish - as long as it is someone from the opposite sex who is of age and consents. Isn't this exactly the same criteria for heterosexuals? Seems equal to me.
[dig]
I thought gays already had the same "rights" as normal people. They are legally able to marry anyone they wish - as long as it is someone from the opposite sex who is of age and consents. Isn't this exactly the same criteria for heterosexuals? Seems equal to me.
[dig]
Semantics. Straights are allowed to marry those that they love and gays are not. So, not exactly the same, no. Kind of a big deal if you look at it from that perspective.
Semantics. Straights are allowed to marry those that they love and gays are not. So, not exactly the same, no. Kind of a big deal if you look at it from that perspective.
[pileoshit]
I love my dog. I have sex with my dog. I want to marry my dog. You won't let me. I am being oppressed. I want equal rights!
Sounds sick and stupid, right?
Let's break it down:
It has nothing to do with love. It has everything to do with sticking a finger in the eye of normal people everywhere. You want a man who crams his dick in another man's ass to feel proud of that? You want to pat him on the back and let him know you are ok with that; that you support his sucking on another man's dick? Not me brother.
Bailey Guns
03-30-2013, 07:33
There are also laws against straight people marrying certain family members, people under a certain age, etc... So I don't think the argument is as simple as "straights are allowed to marry those that they love and gays are not".
I don't think the federal government should have any part in this either way.
[pileoshit]
I love my dog. I have sex with my dog. I want to marry my dog. You won't let me. I am being oppressed. I want equal rights!
Sounds sick and stupid, right?
Your dog doesn't have human rights. Nice try but this 'I want to marry my barnyard animal' argument has zero credibility.
Let's break it down:
It has nothing to do with love. It has everything to do with sticking a finger in the eye of normal people everywhere. You want a man who crams his dick in another man's ass to feel proud of that? You want to pat him on the back and let him know you are ok with that; that you support his sucking on another man's dick? Not me brother.
Who are you to determine how others love? The fact that you feel the need to break it down to vulgarity leads me to question your real reasons for persecuting this lifestyle. You claim to know what's normal while your supposedly straight mind goes to graphic detail on what homosexuals do behind closed doors? Yeah, that's normal alright. If you're considering yourself 'normal people everywhere' then I want no part of it.
There are also laws against straight people marrying certain family members, people under a certain age, etc... So I don't think the argument is as simple as "straights are allowed to marry those that they love and gays are not".
I don't think the federal government should have any part in this either way.
Within reason they are. If you want to say that homosexuals can't marry children or family members same as straight people them I'm fine with that. Again, it's equality we're talking about here and nobody is saying that homosexuals want the right to marry children or family members. Just the same rights we as heterosexuals have. I don't get why some people waste so much energy on preventing basic rights to others just because they don't agree with their lifestyle or choices. To me, this is as bad as those who outwardly disapprove of mixed race marriages. It's based on pure ignorance and intolerance.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.