What is this “tax break” for married couples that I’m always hearing about? Our tax returns shrunk when we got married.
I think this is the latest thread that discusses the issue. There was also a recent GD thread talking about Miss California. Not to mention The Prop 8 threads someone else mentioned.
You’ll see that it’s not about “rights”. Give some people all the rights in the world and it’s still not enough.:rolleyes:
OK, when gays are given “all the rights in the world,” get back to us, and then you’ll be warranted to roll your eyes. Until then, all the :rolleyes: in the world have to be reserved for you.
Them queers should be grateful they don’t get beaten to death quite as often anymore!
You aren’t giving us all the rights in the world. You’re deliberately withholding the right to marriage. And you’ve had it explained to you repeatedly why that specific terminology is important, above and beyond the emotional weight it carries for gays and straights alike. You don’t agree that those arguments are valid, but please stop lying about our position. You’re a better person than that.
So when people say that they disagree that your method gives all those rights, they’re lying?
Because seriously, in the threads you’ve expressed your views on this in, i’ve not seen a majority (or anyone, I think) say “Yes, your method does give all the rights and privileges under the law; I reject it anyway.” So you must be accusing all those people who’ve stated that they disagree with the idea that your methods do this, including me, to be lying, correct?
It is one thing to declare that people are wrong in their stated views. It is quite another to declare that people actually accept your views, and so are lying about their own. If it is possible to have negative respect for an argument, then this is probably the type of argument I have it to the greatest extent. I’d very much like for you to reply and tell me i’ve entirely misread your post here.
That’s what he does anyway when someone disagrees with him. It’s not that his reasoning could be flawed, it’s that you don’t understand.
Let’s test this statement. First, you give me all the rights in the world. Then I’ll tell you if it’s enough. :rolleyes:
Since he’s supporting bigotry, no he’s not.
It doesn’t even have to be all the rights in the world. We could just give gays the same rights as everybody else and I’d be happy.
Any ‘right’ which is Magellan’s to give or withhold is not a right. Rights are, as Tom Jefferson said, inalienable, and inherent in being human. The best that governments can do is guarantee them; the worst, to repress them.
Looking for a second at the Golden Rule, do a thought experiment: what if only same-sex couples could be joined in marriage, and everyone else had to accept a civil union. Would this be satisfactory to the gay marriage opposents? If not, then why do they feel that the reverse should be acceptable to gay people?
Let’s say I get to declare what’s what, and I say that all unions between two people, whether those two people are a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, receive all the same legal rights, from health benefits to death-bed decision making … but they all must be called “Civil Unions” and the word “Marriage” will be stricken from the language.
Would that be okay with you?
Jefferson didn’t say that. He said that some rights are inalienable - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Others are granted by statute (or Constitution). Not that I’m arguing that gay people shouldn’t have the right to marry- just that it isn’t necessarily obvious that it’s inherent.
Another idea; since heterosexuals had the word to themselves for so long, let’s let the homosexuals have it for a while. From now on, only homosexual marriages are allowed to be called “marriage”; straight couples get civil unions instead. After all, if marriage is only a word surely the straights won’t be offended ?
I hadn’t heard that all the married straight people in California had their marriages voided too when Prop8 passed. Good. Serves 'em right.
Wait…you sure about that?
Not to say it’s indisputable and completely closed to discussion, but it seems clear to me that the freedom to marry is essential to the pursuit of happiness. Marriage should be a basic civil right of all people, whether they seek opposite marriages or same-sex marriages. I think it’s clearly and inherently an inalienable right for any free people.
That was the theory. Ask me again if I’m sure after the California Supreme Court rules on the Prop 8 suits.
I see it the other way - nobody has the right to marry. After all, what business is it of the government’s? It’s a contract between two people.
As such, the government should have a legitimate (secular) purpose in banning or otherwise attempting to regulate marriage- and clearly, no such legitimate purpose has yet been shown.
Nice play on words there 
I don`t really understand how your first sentence, that nobody has a right to marry, relates to the second two. If it’s a contract between two people and the government has no business being involved how is it acceptable for them to ban certain types of people from marrying?
More to the point, it’s not a contract between two people. It’s a social, legal, and in many cases religious institution between two people, their family, friends and society at large, and maybe their personal god.
I agree the government has no right to deprive certain types of people the freedom to marry, but I don’t see how you conclude nobody has the right to marry.
Agreed.
As someone already said, “Jim Crow”.
Separate but equal. Back of the bus, filthy unusable drinking fountains, the old “know your place” and “no dogs or n______s allowed” sort of thing. Some people just aren’t buying it anymore.
I know how to save shitloads of money, if spouses and couples are draining us.
Dissolve all of them - unions, marriages, “living arrangements”, ALL of them. Imagine the money we’ll save.