He means he can call me whatever he wants, but if i disagree with anything he does ever i am a bigot, anti-gay anti-semite, and probably eat babies. Plus spewing hate somehow cures hate. He is also busy wasting his time attacking his allies who support gay marriage instead of attacking the proponents of the new amendment exculusivly. But since his goal seems to be just to pull every homosexual down into a pit of hate these actions do not surprise me. Maybe one day he will go back to being a mature rational poster, but he is still just lashing out violently at anyone who doesn’t nod at whatever actions he takes and hides behind his rainbow flag as protection.
I can think of absolutely no reason why gay people should not be accorded the same marriage rights as straight people.
There’s not a single one that makes any kind of sense from any perspective.
The closest that I can come to trying to discover a reason is the following:
Under the unlimited spousal exemption, a married couple can exchange property freely and without limit and without tax.
If you make same sex marriages legal, than business partners can marry each other and conduct tax free shifts of property. It enables marriage to be used as a tool to avoid taxation on large estates and exchanges.
This argument is flawed of course, but that’s as close as I can come to finding a valid reason.
Strangely enough, I have never heard that reason used.
They should have the full rights of marriage, and it should be called marriage.
I beleive Dewey is making a sincere attempt at compromise, but I see absolutely no reason that justifies catering to the unreasonable stance of those who oppose same sex marriage.
Expediancy is a good reason not to do it this way.
It will get done. It will get done soon. It’s in the air. Get it done right.
That’s what I think.
And thank you, Tars, for being just as bad as you claim he is. We’re impressed. No, really. :rolleyes:
Esprix
Well it’s about time I heard something that adamantly gay-positive from you, Scylla. It’s been too long. Thank you.
Esprix
Heh. Maybe then we should bring back the ancient requirement for publically established proof of consumation to fully establish the marriage. 
Seriously though: is the flaw that you hint at that there are plenty of male/female business partners around already, married and not? If it’s not a new problem, I’d be interested in finding out how it works currently: is this the cause of all those mom and pop stores?
In an amusing petulant rage, Savage Love readers decided to name a sex term after Santorum (a particularly yucky one too). I’d suggest the same for Frist, but man, he’s already got a near-sex-term name.
YOU EAT HOMSEXUAL SEMETIC BABIES!!!
(are they any good?)
No. I’m sorry. Generally if I agree I just don’t say anything (seeing as you guys are pretty good at taking care of yourselves on this board,) but if I’m only critical that’s not good.
The fact is that this is about as clear cut an issue as you’re going to find, IMO.
Apos:
It’s not really a flaw because as you note the same loophole possibility exists in hetero marriage.
Occasionally it gets used.
By what logic can you deny a loophole to some people based simply on sexual preference?
And I really don’t see two male hetero law partners divorcing their wives and marrying each other to take advantage of a loophole being a very common occurence.
If today one was a man and one was a woman they could already do it. Is it happening.
That idea is about as close as I can come to finding a good reason not to do it.
And, I think it’s important to sincerely look for good reasons not to do something like this before you advocate it. You have to know the downside and look for unintended consequences.
There aren’t any that I can see.
None at all? That doesn’t sound like much fun.
Atheists can get married, and they don’t even need a church. They can do it in front of a Justice of the Peace while loudly pointing out to an audience that this is a completely godless act.
How is THAT a “religious” institution?
gobear and Mockingbird, you need to get the fuck over yourselves. NO ONE here has said that they agree with Strom Thurmond’s hateful policies. Failing to celebrate a man’s death DOES NOT equate to supporting his position. Personally, I do think it’s tacky to celebrate any kind of death, but I am certainly not sorry he’s dead.
Actually, I want to pull every homosexual into a pit of Wet lube. 
You were the one whose first post was rude and insulting. You could have made you point more politely, but you chose to start a flame war. It loks like you can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it. Next time, think about making a critical point in a way that won’t make me rip you a new one.
[b[Sylla**, well done. I regret our argument and will think about your points carefully.
Stromhauke, don’t start.
Right, i have been “ripped a new one.” The only thing that has been accomplished is a few hypocrites demanding acceptance while spewing hate. Your goal of being accepted has backpedaled for each of your hateful posts. You and yours started the the threads with hateful posts, and now you have the nerve to accuse me? Fuck you and fuck your persecution complex.
gobear
Sounds like a Dopefest in the making. Where do I sign up?
Tars
OK, let me see if I understand. You think that some in this thread are spewing shit, and that spewing shit sets back acceptance, and then you turn around and start spewing shit and demanding acceptance? What the fuck?
Hey pot, call the kettle black much?
Sorry everyone, I disagree with most of you and think Dewey’s right on.
You can use whatever dictionary definition of marriage you want but the simple fact (IMO) is that the linguistic battle has been lost (IMO) and marriage has religious connotations in most people’s minds.
It’s like the hacker/cracker debate. Yes. All techies know that “hacker” means “clever programmer” and “cracker” means “naughy nogoodnik” but speaking as someone who did tech-support for 8+ years, we’ve lost and it’s time we get over it.
I think the fight shouldn’t be to get gay marriages legally recognized: the battle’s already mostly lost because you’re fighting the language. Marriage has religous connotation in too many people’s minds, IMO. The word just carries too much baggage.
Instead, work to get “domestic partnerships” or somesuch term to be the accepted usage for all government recognized partnerships and have marriages tossed back in the church or synagogue, etc.
Fenris
Me too.
Fenris
Said the average man on the street in Ottowa two weeks ago.
Except that, son of a bitch, Ontario went and legalized same-sex marriage two weeks ago. And the federal government not only chose not to appeal the decision, it began acting to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the land.
Where would Canada be if Canadian gays had listened to the same sage advice you’re offering here when it was offered there?
Where would the United States be if those two brave men in Texas had heeded the advice that they were undoubtedly given by more than one person, to pay the $200 fine for their sodomy convictions and but the matter to rest because SCOTUS had already settled the matter in 1986?
Concede nothing. Surrender no ground. And shame on and damned be anyone who advises otherwise.
While I agree with your main point, this kind of rhetoric is a little intimidating.
This ends at equality, right? You’re not gonna slaughter all us straight guys, right?
Probably ten years further ahead if they didn’t have to fight the semantic battle as well as the rights battle.
**
**
Not an analagous situation: they weren’t fighting for a magic word, they were fighting for rights and equality.
**
Choose your battles. Fight the good fight, but don’t get hung up on words.
How would things be worse if the word marriage was removed from every lawbook and statute for everyone and replaced for everyone with “domestic partner”?
And as an aside, since you didn’t mention it, I’m saying remove the word “marriage” for everyone, straights and gays.
And shame on and damned be anyone who can’t tell an ally from an enemy just because the ally has a different strategy for accomplishing the exact same outcome*.
Fenris
*except for the magic word. I don’t give a damn about that.
Fenris:
I’d be pretty pissed if the government told me I wasn’t “married” anymore.
Do it that way, and quite a few people might blame gay people for taking away their “marriage.”
Not a good idea, IMO.