For those of you on FB...

[brobar]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[Jer]

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.

[brobar]

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.

[Jer]

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!

[brobar]

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!

[Jer]

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.

[brobar]

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.

[Jer]

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.

[brobar]

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.