I ask you again, what rights—specifically—would gay couples have been able to enjoy if Prop 8 failed that they don’t enjoy right now?
There is no restriction on love or commitment. People can express those things without marriage. Many do. No one needs to be “married” to love another person or commit to them.
And, on the gripping hand, the argument asserts both that marriage is so trivial that it’s simply not worth the emotional pain of getting a hairy eyeball because it became known that you donated to Prop 8, and so vitally important that such donors should be granted the special right of exemption from laws designed to prevent secret corrpution via de facto bribery.
So it’s something nobody needs.
But gay people still can’t have it, because it’s so precious?
I don’t know why you keep asking that question. Cheesesteak answered it explicitly and directly in the very post that you quote, when he said “Yes, they were only denied the right to marry.”
Your obtuseness knows no bounds. You spend dozens of posts arguing specifically that the use of the term “marriage” should not apply to gay people, and then instead of engaging on that level, you ask what other rights are lost by denying gays the right to marry.
Don’t you get it? For some people, the simple fact of denying the right to marry—even if it doesn’t add any rights or privileges to those currently conferred by civil unions—is an important issue, in and of itself. Again, it seems that, for you, marriage is merely symbolic when that is convenient for your argument, but is also the most important thing when that is convenient.
On preview, what Fish said.
“Other than that, how’d you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
Wow. It is to :rolleyes:
- Married couples can each inherit the joint property upon the death of the other. Gays … not.
- Married couples enjoy the ability to have access to the medical records of the other. Gays … not.
- Married couples file taxes jointly. Gays … not.
- Married couples can have input to medical treatment of the spouse. Gays … not.
How many more you want, buddy? There’s a ton.
Now let me ask you: what right does any church have to decide which couples do or do not get a tax break, or access to medical records? Why should we be giving any religious group input into secular. civil contracts?
These last few posts reveal, once again, that the real issue is not about “rights”. That’s just a chant. So maybe that claim can be dispensed with. But it won’t be. Even if gay couples were able to enjoy all those rights, it wouldn’t be enough for some. It is about the word. They think it is important. That is the line that was drawn in the sand. I draw it in the same place.
Would you look at that: common ground.
Yes, we all agree you’re a sociopathic fuckhole. Congratulations, uniter.
I’m married. I got married in a coffee house in NYC by a lapsed Jewish Chiropractor who got ordained on the internet. As loopy as that is, my marriage is good in NY, it’s good in NJ, where I live now. It’s good in California, Canada, Fiji, Spain, Japan, and anywhere else in the world I want to go. I get rights due to this marriage, and they go with me wherever my wife and I go, and no government anywhere (certainly no government in the USA) is going to strip me of those rights.
Gay people don’t get that, even if Prop 8 failed, they still wouldn’t have that. They can spend 50 years together, have a valid civil union, and if they travel outside of their state, get treated as if they have no legal relationship whatsoever.
I don’t understand how anyone can be so selfish as to horde these rights, when giving them to gays does not reduce their own rights in the slightest, it only promotes happiness in their community.
What he’s talking about is that marriage in and of itself isn’t all that special, as indicated by people who enter it wantonly and without much deference to commitment (as is legally permitted). Despite that fact, people who are particularly committed to one another are denied the opportunity to legally marry on the basis that they will destroy or belittle the institution of marriage.
Ironic, I know. But we all know, it makes no difference how much money or preparation you throw at the ceremony or institution itself that determines success in marriage. It’s largely a factor of how seriously you take that type of commitment and whether you have matched yourself well enough.
Even if this statement were presumed to be valid, you still condemn yourself of bigotry by your own words, unless and until you link to a thread where you posted an equally dogged drumbeat of denunciations of inappropriate heterosexual “marriages”.
We’ll also be looking your your previous posts demanding a law against causual use of that word.
And this post reveals, once again, that the problem is that you are oblivious to rational argument.
No, there’s not a ton. More like “none”, “buddy”. Prop 8 was a California issue only. In California, gay couples already enjoyed the same legal rights as married couples. Proposition 8 didn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are no exceptions I can see there. You?
So, we have more proof that this is not about denying “rights” to gays.
If you couldn’t get married in a civil ceremony, this might be germane. But since you can, it ain’t.
Hey, look, if it helps you in your life to consider me a homophobe or a bigot, enjoy.
Interesting post. 100% content free. Rest assured I’ll give it all the consideration it deserves.
Gays can’t get married in a civil ceremony, thanks to the likes of you, so is it germane again?
No, it is about rights.
It’s about the right to marry, a right denied to two consenting adults of the same sex based on nothing more than prejudice.
Then what’s the big damned deal about using the word “marriage” when they already have all the rights?
Do they? They can file their taxes jointly and benefit from tax savings that married couples enjoy?
And so we being the circle again. It’s pointless, because magellan01 has staked his whole claim to a nonsensical semantic argument about the importance to society of narrowly defining the word “marriage.”
No amount of rational argument about how the term is mocked by straight couples on a regular basis, or how the meaning of all words change to accommodate changes in society, is going to sway him. For him, the definition itself is clearly the most important thing, irrespective of whether changing it would actually do any harm to society.
And i guess he had a point. I mean, haven’t you noticed the way our society has been in freefall towards anarchy and dissolution since they started diluting the word “hero”? Who knows what will happen if the homos get to marry?