If we were to give tax breaks to everyone who wanted to marry their car or a duck it may have an impact. And two gay men who wish to get married and spend their lives together should not be told, "No, if we let you then some other dude might want to marry a duck."
I agree. But then again, I don't think being married should give you tax breaks...
Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.
If we were to give tax breaks to everyone who wanted to marry their car or a duck it may have an impact. And two gay men who wish to get married and spend their lives together should not be told, "No, if we let you then some other dude might want to marry a duck."
I agree. But then again, I don't think being married should give you tax breaks...
Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.
I realize it isn't just tax breaks, just went off your example.
in some cases a spouse could be making decisions for you that you would not have made and in their own selfish best interest, everyone should have a healthcare directive, married or not.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Look at the two sides...
On one side, the point is: We are America. We are the Land Of The Free. Home of Equality in that All Men/Women are Created Equal. We should NOT restrict someone else's Pursuit of Happiness, just because we do not approve of them.
...
On the other side: Their main point is, 'God Hates Fags'.
That's pathetic and totally not accurate.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.
Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.
...
That's the point. It should be recognized equally.
The arguement that people will marry their duck or their car is ridiculous and are always from the mouths of ridiculous people.
my come back to that point is, how does it change your life if someone does marry a duck? car? or carrot?
It doesn't. I don't understand why people care so much about their neighbors lives when it impacts you exactly 0%
...
That is exactly my point. If someone wants to marry a duck... and put that duck on his insurance plan (good luck with that)... and allow his duck to visit him in the hospital... really, who gives a fuck, right? I certainly don't care.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Look at the two sides...
On one side, the point is: We are America. We are the Land Of The Free. Home of Equality in that All Men/Women are Created Equal. We should NOT restrict someone else's Pursuit of Happiness, just because we do not approve of them.
...
On the other side: Their main point is, 'God Hates Fags'.
That's pathetic and totally not accurate.
...
Okay. I would really love to hear your side.
Then, what is the other side's reasoning?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.
Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.
Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.
I realize it isn't just tax breaks, just went off your example.
in some cases a spouse could be making decisions for you that you would not have made and in their own selfish best interest, everyone should have a healthcare directive, married or not.
I know you know that. I know Unsung knows it as well.
Anything can be abused. If we are going to take away all the benefits of legalities of marriage for all citizens that is one thing, but we both know that is never going to happen. Until then I do not see the argument against. If more freedom is good then this is the ultimate more freedom issue. More freedom for more Americans.
Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.
I realize it isn't just tax breaks, just went off your example.
in some cases a spouse could be making decisions for you that you would not have made and in their own selfish best interest, everyone should have a healthcare directive, married or not.
I know you know that. I know Unsung knows it as well.
Anything can be abused. If we are going to take away all the benefits of legalities of marriage for all citizens that is one thing, but we both know that is never going to happen. Until then I do not see the argument against. If more freedom is good then this is the ultimate more freedom issue. More freedom for more Americans.
agree
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.
Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.
Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
...
Why do you care? How is that marriage affecting you?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.
Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.
Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
I see that as a separate but completely valid question. We have a one man, one woman system now. Changing that to include one man, one man and/or one woman, one woman in many ways changes nothing. I personally don't care if someone wants to practice bigamy. BUT...should someone have multiple wives who can appear on his insurance, collect his pension, collect his social security, etc.? I say no, but I don't think that is an argument against letting homosexuals get legally married.
It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.
Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.
Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
Honestly I always thought that if some guy wanted to have two wives legally or a woman with two husbands or whatever that should be legal too. In that case though just make it a requirement that the people involved must have a number of requirements that must be met before a marriage licence will be granted. For example make sure that all parties have a legal will that covers who gets what in the event that someone dies. And they all must have a power of attorney so that there is no question about who is making medical decisions for someone in the event that they can't make them for themselves. If that kind of thing is sorted out in advance (and any other thing that might be an issue), and as long as there is a limit to how dependents are claimed on your taxes I really don't care how many people someone marries.
Look at the two sides...
On one side, the point is: We are America. We are the Land Of The Free. Home of Equality in that All Men/Women are Created Equal. We should NOT restrict someone else's Pursuit of Happiness, just because we do not approve of them.
...
On the other side: Their main point is, 'God Hates Fags'.
That's pathetic and totally not accurate.
...
Okay. I would really love to hear your side.
Then, what is the other side's reasoning?
There are probably people who don't want homosexual marriage because of the exact reason you say, but surely you can't believe that is an accurate representation of the entire argument of that side. If so, you are very close-minded.
As for me, I feel like government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Let the government or lawyers come up with some standard contract that grants the so-called "benefits" of marriage (I'm not sure I agree with most of them, but whatever) be granted to one other person.
Outside of that, I think people should call their relationships whatever they want - marriages, partnerships, enemy engagements, whatever.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It isn't really that hard though. You can marry a man, you can marry a woman. You can be husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. And as far as the government is concerned each one is equal.
Where is Prince of Dorkness?!?! I am not nearly as eloquent on this issue as he is.
Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
...
Why do you care? How is that marriage affecting you?
The answer is I don't really care much about this issue at all and don't think it affects me.
But...I posed a question and the answer to that question is not a couple of mis-directed questions back from you.
If gay marriage is an equal rights issue - which I do not believe it is - then why not grant equal rights to any relationship arrangement that anyone can dream up?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
BUT...should someone have multiple wives who can appear on his insurance, collect his pension, collect his social security, etc.? I say no, but I don't think that is an argument against letting homosexuals get legally married.
I wouldn't have any problem allowing multiple wives, but one side says it's an equal rights issue so would they be open or willing to allow any relationship arrangement that is desired?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
BUT...should someone have multiple wives who can appear on his insurance, collect his pension, collect his social security, etc.? I say no, but I don't think that is an argument against letting homosexuals get legally married.
I wouldn't have any problem allowing multiple wives, but one side says it's an equal rights issue so would they be open or willing to allow any relationship arrangement that is desired?
If the financial side can be worked out - and I am not sure it can be - I would have no problem either. That is the difference in my mind and why I think they are different issues.
There are probably people who don't want homosexual marriage because of the exact reason you say, but surely you can't believe that is an accurate representation of the entire argument of that side. If so, you are very close-minded.
As for me, I feel like government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Let the government or lawyers come up with some standard contract that grants the so-called "benefits" of marriage (I'm not sure I agree with most of them, but whatever) be granted to one other person.
Outside of that, I think people should call their relationships whatever they want - marriages, partnerships, enemy engagements, whatever.
...
But.. what is your support allowing marriage for heterosexuals but barring a Gay Marriage?
The government is already in the business of marriage by granting or denying privileges to married couples. What is the arguement for allowing states to decide to who gets those privileges and who does not?
...
That was my point... that at the basis of the vast majority of the arguements against allowing Gay Marriage is founded in the Bible, specifically, Leviticus 18. If the anti-Gay Marrige side want to make a point against allowing Gay Marriage, thus denying those state granted rights to American citizens... they have yet to make any arguement i have heard other than "Because The Bible says so".
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
If gay marriage is an equal rights issue - which I do not believe it is - then why not grant equal rights to any relationship arrangement that anyone can dream up?
...
Why not? As long as both sides meet the legal requirements of 'Consenting Adults'... such as a 42 year old man cannot legally wed a 6 year old because 6 years old falls way short of the age of legal consent. If the person is of the age of legal consent... who's to say it is wrong?
And the duck or the car have to provide legal consent for the marriage, too. That is going to be more difficult because I don't know of any judge that understands the language of ducks or cars.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I never understood receiving tax breaks simply by virtue of marriage - kinda like tax exemptions for having children.
Agreed with what was previously said about the government not having to allow a contract between consenting adults. It's between them, for better or worse. This should be the same.
Living wills, insurance, other financial issues, etc. - the benefits and conditions these provide shouldn't be automatic. Get rid of them, have everyone's marriage be "recognized", and take care of them (y)ourselves, regardless of sexual orientation.
Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
Ugh.
I guess you get bonus points for not asking why you can't marry your dog. I'm not sure why it is that the moment the subject of giving the same legal rights and protections to me and my husband comes up, some straight guys just can't wait to go have sex with the dog and the goat.
OK... I'm in the middle of editing a zombie movie and I'm way behind schedule. so here's the short version..
1. The twitty idea that "government has no rights in your bedroom, they shouldn't have anything to do with marriage."
- This totally offensive, head-in-ass argument is made by idiots with their heads in their asses. A MARRIAGE is not something that takes place in a bedroom. Or hiring a hooker would require you to pay alimony. Maybe your wife is just some woman that you have sex with and she's nice enough to make you dinner.. but MY marriage has long out-lasted that phase of a relationship when you only want to have sex.
The Government is "in marriage" because it's a legal contract. It's not just living together and it's not just sex. It's a binding, legal contract made by two people who want to share their lives together but also their property and responsibilities. That means that if you marry someone, as opposed to just fucking them, you own 50% of that person's things. It means that you are legally their next of kin... so if one of you dies... nobody can take the half that belongs to you AND you are the person who the other 50% is left to unless there's a will that says otherwise... you also have Power of Attorney over each other, so if... for instance... one is in a coma, the other one speaks for them and makes those hard-to-make medical care decisions in their place.
And in MY case... I would like to sponsor my husband for legal immigration purposes and so he can get a green card and become a citizen. If we were straight.. he'd already be a citizen. We've lived here for 8 years. But he is only here on a work Visa which has cost us thousands of dollars to maintain and we live under the constant fear that he could lose that work visa and "the government" would force us to be apart.
But hey... don't ask me... ask that woman you're fucking who also makes you dinner. And I hope you call her that. Ladies LOVE that shit.
2. The dumb-ass why can't three people be married if we let gay people be married? argument.
Because we don't let three people be married. OK... the best way to explain it is backwards...
- we cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.
- my spouse is a man
- so am I. And I have movies that prove that.
- The government should not be allowed to discriminate against us as a couple on the basis that our private genitalia aren't different. Because that's discrimination of the basis of gender.
- Since there is NO legal ground for a marriage of more than two people... that's a totally different issue than marriage equality based on my husband not having a vagina. If you want legal recognition for a three-party union... hire your own lawyer.
i really,believe this is one of the best threads i read at AMT all those years..the level of conversation is high and very smart and logic questions and opinions.
i believe in this matter all must have the same rights,do what they want their lifes and choose who ever they want,no matter the sex,as partner in life..and their partner must have the same right as at the classic marriege partners..bewteen a man and a woman..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
But you keep begging government for permission to allow you to enjoy your rights.
Oh I'm sorry.
Does my wanting to keep my fucking husband from being deported vex you so?
Does my worrying that he'll die in a car accident and I'll find out on the news since I'm legally his room mate in America a bother to you?
How about I go lay down in the ditch and wait for the klan to come get me?
Would that sit better with you, your highness?
Fucking hell. Some people don't deserve rights of any kind. And wait... Ron Paul is married... and so is that turd with the toupee, Rand. Funny... they sure do beg for their rights that they don't want... don't they?
Well geez... I bet you're embarrassed for supporting those... Rights Beggars... aren't you? I think you should go tell those two to just... cut it out... they're married... and therefore hypocrites... and we don't like those people... do we?
You'll notice that in fact I am NOT "begging the government to enjoy my rights."
We didn't go to the government... we skipped over asking elected officials to do anything and we took it to the Supreme Court. Which I guess is part of the judicial branch (your country has three...), but nobody is "begging" to do anything.
We're fighting for the rights and protections of our families.
I sincerely hope you never have to live with the fear and horror that all that you have could be taken away by a spouse's family after his death because they didn't "approve" of your relationship. Or that he could be deported.
Or that he'd be laying in a hospital room begging to have you with him but you're kept out because you're not "family." (after decades together)
Or that you're not able to speak for him when he can't. Or that you can't include him on your health insurance so you have to watch him die of a disease you're covered for but he isn't.
I hope none of that happens to you. But you should be glad it's not a problem you have. Because it's one that I do.
You'll notice that in fact I am NOT "begging the government to enjoy my rights."
We didn't go to the government... we skipped over asking elected officials to do anything and we took it to the Supreme Court. Which I guess is part of the judicial branch (your country has three...), but nobody is "begging" to do anything.
We're fighting for the rights and protections of our families.
I sincerely hope you never have to live with the fear and horror that all that you have could be taken away by a spouse's family after his death because they didn't "approve" of your relationship. Or that he could be deported.
Or that he'd be laying in a hospital room begging to have you with him but you're kept out because you're not "family." (after decades together)
Or that you're not able to speak for him when he can't. Or that you can't include him on your health insurance so you have to watch him die of a disease you're covered for but he isn't.
I hope none of that happens to you. But you should be glad it's not a problem you have. Because it's one that I do.
This is what I find so scary about this refusal to grant equal rights to so many in this country. It is not about how you personally feel about someone being gay, it is about the denial of basic rights that heterosexual marriages enjoy without any thought at all. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the government to intervene but because previous generations have imposed these restrictions (or ignored certain groups altogether) then I do find it necessary for the government to provide these protections. To me it is as necessary as women fighting for an amendment to grant voting rights - because they were deliberately left out of the 15th Amendment.
Very nicely said Prince, I will definitely be using some of your arguments to support marriage for all!
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
There are probably people who don't want homosexual marriage because of the exact reason you say, but surely you can't believe that is an accurate representation of the entire argument of that side. If so, you are very close-minded.
As for me, I feel like government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Let the government or lawyers come up with some standard contract that grants the so-called "benefits" of marriage (I'm not sure I agree with most of them, but whatever) be granted to one other person.
Outside of that, I think people should call their relationships whatever they want - marriages, partnerships, enemy engagements, whatever.
...
But.. what is your support allowing marriage for heterosexuals but barring a Gay Marriage?
The government is already in the business of marriage by granting or denying privileges to married couples. What is the arguement for allowing states to decide to who gets those privileges and who does not?
...
That was my point... that at the basis of the vast majority of the arguements against allowing Gay Marriage is founded in the Bible, specifically, Leviticus 18. If the anti-Gay Marrige side want to make a point against allowing Gay Marriage, thus denying those state granted rights to American citizens... they have yet to make any arguement i have heard other than "Because The Bible says so".
I don't support the government allowing marriage for heterosexuals. I think the government needs to get it's nose out of issues such as this and worry about running this country. I am anti- government-sanctioned marriage.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
Should it not allow you to make decisions for your spouse should they become medically incapacitated? It isn't just tax breaks.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I realize it isn't just tax breaks, just went off your example.
in some cases a spouse could be making decisions for you that you would not have made and in their own selfish best interest, everyone should have a healthcare directive, married or not.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That's pathetic and totally not accurate.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That is exactly my point. If someone wants to marry a duck... and put that duck on his insurance plan (good luck with that)... and allow his duck to visit him in the hospital... really, who gives a fuck, right? I certainly don't care.
Hail, Hail!!!
Okay. I would really love to hear your side.
Then, what is the other side's reasoning?
Hail, Hail!!!
Why just one man or one woman, though. What if you wanted husband, husband, wife. Would that relationship have the same grounds for equality?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Seriously america, as a Canadian I would like to welcome you to 2005. Wait until you see Batman Begins, that movie was awesome.
I know you know that. I know Unsung knows it as well.
Anything can be abused. If we are going to take away all the benefits of legalities of marriage for all citizens that is one thing, but we both know that is never going to happen. Until then I do not see the argument against. If more freedom is good then this is the ultimate more freedom issue. More freedom for more Americans.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
agree
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Why do you care? How is that marriage affecting you?
Hail, Hail!!!
I see that as a separate but completely valid question. We have a one man, one woman system now. Changing that to include one man, one man and/or one woman, one woman in many ways changes nothing. I personally don't care if someone wants to practice bigamy. BUT...should someone have multiple wives who can appear on his insurance, collect his pension, collect his social security, etc.? I say no, but I don't think that is an argument against letting homosexuals get legally married.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Honestly I always thought that if some guy wanted to have two wives legally or a woman with two husbands or whatever that should be legal too. In that case though just make it a requirement that the people involved must have a number of requirements that must be met before a marriage licence will be granted. For example make sure that all parties have a legal will that covers who gets what in the event that someone dies. And they all must have a power of attorney so that there is no question about who is making medical decisions for someone in the event that they can't make them for themselves. If that kind of thing is sorted out in advance (and any other thing that might be an issue), and as long as there is a limit to how dependents are claimed on your taxes I really don't care how many people someone marries.
There are probably people who don't want homosexual marriage because of the exact reason you say, but surely you can't believe that is an accurate representation of the entire argument of that side. If so, you are very close-minded.
As for me, I feel like government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Let the government or lawyers come up with some standard contract that grants the so-called "benefits" of marriage (I'm not sure I agree with most of them, but whatever) be granted to one other person.
Outside of that, I think people should call their relationships whatever they want - marriages, partnerships, enemy engagements, whatever.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The answer is I don't really care much about this issue at all and don't think it affects me.
But...I posed a question and the answer to that question is not a couple of mis-directed questions back from you.
If gay marriage is an equal rights issue - which I do not believe it is - then why not grant equal rights to any relationship arrangement that anyone can dream up?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I wouldn't have any problem allowing multiple wives, but one side says it's an equal rights issue so would they be open or willing to allow any relationship arrangement that is desired?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If the financial side can be worked out - and I am not sure it can be - I would have no problem either. That is the difference in my mind and why I think they are different issues.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
But.. what is your support allowing marriage for heterosexuals but barring a Gay Marriage?
The government is already in the business of marriage by granting or denying privileges to married couples. What is the arguement for allowing states to decide to who gets those privileges and who does not?
...
That was my point... that at the basis of the vast majority of the arguements against allowing Gay Marriage is founded in the Bible, specifically, Leviticus 18. If the anti-Gay Marrige side want to make a point against allowing Gay Marriage, thus denying those state granted rights to American citizens... they have yet to make any arguement i have heard other than "Because The Bible says so".
Hail, Hail!!!
Why not? As long as both sides meet the legal requirements of 'Consenting Adults'... such as a 42 year old man cannot legally wed a 6 year old because 6 years old falls way short of the age of legal consent. If the person is of the age of legal consent... who's to say it is wrong?
And the duck or the car have to provide legal consent for the marriage, too. That is going to be more difficult because I don't know of any judge that understands the language of ducks or cars.
Hail, Hail!!!
Agreed with what was previously said about the government not having to allow a contract between consenting adults. It's between them, for better or worse. This should be the same.
Living wills, insurance, other financial issues, etc. - the benefits and conditions these provide shouldn't be automatic. Get rid of them, have everyone's marriage be "recognized", and take care of them (y)ourselves, regardless of sexual orientation.
Ugh.
I guess you get bonus points for not asking why you can't marry your dog. I'm not sure why it is that the moment the subject of giving the same legal rights and protections to me and my husband comes up, some straight guys just can't wait to go have sex with the dog and the goat.
I digress.
1. The twitty idea that "government has no rights in your bedroom, they shouldn't have anything to do with marriage."
- This totally offensive, head-in-ass argument is made by idiots with their heads in their asses. A MARRIAGE is not something that takes place in a bedroom. Or hiring a hooker would require you to pay alimony. Maybe your wife is just some woman that you have sex with and she's nice enough to make you dinner.. but MY marriage has long out-lasted that phase of a relationship when you only want to have sex.
The Government is "in marriage" because it's a legal contract. It's not just living together and it's not just sex. It's a binding, legal contract made by two people who want to share their lives together but also their property and responsibilities. That means that if you marry someone, as opposed to just fucking them, you own 50% of that person's things. It means that you are legally their next of kin... so if one of you dies... nobody can take the half that belongs to you AND you are the person who the other 50% is left to unless there's a will that says otherwise... you also have Power of Attorney over each other, so if... for instance... one is in a coma, the other one speaks for them and makes those hard-to-make medical care decisions in their place.
And in MY case... I would like to sponsor my husband for legal immigration purposes and so he can get a green card and become a citizen. If we were straight.. he'd already be a citizen. We've lived here for 8 years. But he is only here on a work Visa which has cost us thousands of dollars to maintain and we live under the constant fear that he could lose that work visa and "the government" would force us to be apart.
But hey... don't ask me... ask that woman you're fucking who also makes you dinner. And I hope you call her that. Ladies LOVE that shit.
2. The dumb-ass why can't three people be married if we let gay people be married? argument.
Because we don't let three people be married. OK... the best way to explain it is backwards...
- we cannot discriminate on the basis of gender.
- my spouse is a man
- so am I. And I have movies that prove that.
- The government should not be allowed to discriminate against us as a couple on the basis that our private genitalia aren't different. Because that's discrimination of the basis of gender.
- Since there is NO legal ground for a marriage of more than two people... that's a totally different issue than marriage equality based on my husband not having a vagina. If you want legal recognition for a three-party union... hire your own lawyer.
i believe in this matter all must have the same rights,do what they want their lifes and choose who ever they want,no matter the sex,as partner in life..and their partner must have the same right as at the classic marriege partners..bewteen a man and a woman..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Thomas Jefferson
But you keep begging government for permission to allow you to enjoy your rights.
Seriously?? :fp: :nono:
Oh I'm sorry.
Does my wanting to keep my fucking husband from being deported vex you so?
Does my worrying that he'll die in a car accident and I'll find out on the news since I'm legally his room mate in America a bother to you?
How about I go lay down in the ditch and wait for the klan to come get me?
Would that sit better with you, your highness?
Fucking hell. Some people don't deserve rights of any kind. And wait... Ron Paul is married... and so is that turd with the toupee, Rand. Funny... they sure do beg for their rights that they don't want... don't they?
Well geez... I bet you're embarrassed for supporting those... Rights Beggars... aren't you? I think you should go tell those two to just... cut it out... they're married... and therefore hypocrites... and we don't like those people... do we?
:fp:
I just... am baffled.
But not surprised.
Ron Paul supporters only think they themselves should have rights. And... well. You know... we've all known selfish, spoiled, bratty cry babies.
You'll notice that in fact I am NOT "begging the government to enjoy my rights."
We didn't go to the government... we skipped over asking elected officials to do anything and we took it to the Supreme Court. Which I guess is part of the judicial branch (your country has three...), but nobody is "begging" to do anything.
We're fighting for the rights and protections of our families.
I sincerely hope you never have to live with the fear and horror that all that you have could be taken away by a spouse's family after his death because they didn't "approve" of your relationship. Or that he could be deported.
Or that he'd be laying in a hospital room begging to have you with him but you're kept out because you're not "family." (after decades together)
Or that you're not able to speak for him when he can't. Or that you can't include him on your health insurance so you have to watch him die of a disease you're covered for but he isn't.
I hope none of that happens to you. But you should be glad it's not a problem you have. Because it's one that I do.
Wow. Just...wow. Blind ideology is an ugly thing.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
This is what I find so scary about this refusal to grant equal rights to so many in this country. It is not about how you personally feel about someone being gay, it is about the denial of basic rights that heterosexual marriages enjoy without any thought at all. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the government to intervene but because previous generations have imposed these restrictions (or ignored certain groups altogether) then I do find it necessary for the government to provide these protections. To me it is as necessary as women fighting for an amendment to grant voting rights - because they were deliberately left out of the 15th Amendment.
Very nicely said Prince, I will definitely be using some of your arguments to support marriage for all!
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I don't support the government allowing marriage for heterosexuals. I think the government needs to get it's nose out of issues such as this and worry about running this country. I am anti- government-sanctioned marriage.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.