This debate is not merely about calling another person your spouse, it is about the rights you have when you're allowed to call someone your spouse according to law (which is discrimination when they are not given to you based up sexual preference).
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Two lawyers who squared off in the legal case that determined the 2000 U.S. presidential election joined forces on Wednesday to ask a federal court to halt California's same-sex marriage ban, despite warnings from gay rights advocates not to mount a federal challenge.
Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, said that gays and lesbians were made into second-class citizens by California's voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.
They sued on behalf of two same-sex couples who want to marry but cannot because of the Prop 8's passage.
California's supreme court on Tuesday upheld the initiative, approved by voters in November. The decision said California's state constitution allows voters to make such changes despite broad protection for same-sex couples.
Prop 8 ended a brief period of legal same-sex marriage in California, begun when the same court opened the door to gay nuptials early in 2008.
Gay rights advocates, fearing a loss in the socially conservative top U.S. court, have avoided going to federal court after other state ballot box losses.
"A federal lawsuit at this time is terribly risky," said Jenny Pizer, one of the lawyers for Lambda Legal who argued against Prop 8 before the California court.
Her organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said in a statement, "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
Olson, who represented then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000, jointly filed the lawsuit on Friday, before the California court acted.
On Wednesday they asked for an injunction on Prop 8. In the lawsuit they argue that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights and due process.
"This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit reads.
apparently.....
tho it's definitely nice to agree with you now and again......;)
norm - EXACTLY!
*thumbs up*
btw - we do we have not one but TWO emoticons for being a geek....but absolutely ZERO for a thumbs up? is it some social commentary on internet discussion boards?
(I'm playing devil's advocate on some of this. I'm not opposed to gay marriage)
No I wouldn't be OK with banning gay people from attending public schools, but that is completely different.
Can you tell me that a gay person is banned from marrying in this country? If they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, they can get married just like I can if I choose to marry someone from the opposite sex. They are not banned from marrying and they have the same rights technically speaking.
Then for the sake of devil's advocacy, how is it completely different? School and marriage are both privileges, not rights. Why is it ok to exclude people from one and not the other?
Comparing again to schools, you get to pick your school of choice. Gay people cannot pick their partner of choice. That's why your point about equal rights to marry the opposite sex doesn't hold water. It SOUNDS good and logical, but it's not. By the same equally lame brand of logic I could say you have a right to marry a woman that other men have, but not other women. So your right to marry a woman is denied to women, thus not equal. Not very convincing is it? Because it's inherently arbitrary... you're starting from the point that only opposite sex partnerships deserve recognition, which is a moral judgment call the government has no business making, just as the government should not be saying white males are the only ones that deserve schooling, and so other groups should be left out of the "privilege" of a public education.
I'm simply saying we all have the same rights currently. We can all marry someone from the opposite sex.
You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?
As jlew pointed out, that is totally irrelevant. Look at it this way: back when interracial marriages were illegal, we all had the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex and the same race. Is that ok? We're just putting qualifications on who you are allowed to marry and we all have equal rights within those limitations.
save the drama...you act as if gays have been tossed in the gulag...
It has already been previously mentioned that the use of the word "drama" means you must be gay. It is also worth noting the gay guy brought up the stereotype. Is that allowed in a similar way when black people call each other the n word? So just don't do it if you are white and straight.
save the drama...you act as if gays have been tossed in the gulag...
It has already been previously mentioned that the use of the word "drama" means you must be gay. It is also worth noting the gay guy brought up the stereotype. Is that allowed in a similar way when black people call each other the n word? So just don't do it if you are white and straight.
perhaps you should save the drama for someone who cares...
Telling me that I can get married but to someone of the opposite sex is mean-spirited and shows that SOME straight people think of marriage as some football they should try to keep away from us. Marriage is supposed to be an institution that protects a couple living together in a loving relationship, not just some legal arrangement made between two people.
Telling me I should leave my partner of 17 years if I want to get married is like telling the kid who's allergic to peanuts that he has the right to eat them and it's his own fault if he goes hungry if that's what they're serving.
I don't want the right to "marry," I want my relationship to be legally recognized and protected. I want for my family to have the same rights as the rights of my sister (who has married three times in the time I've been with my husband, by the way). When people start to make comments like "You can get married to a woman," you know that the anti-gay movement is running out of arguments and are now just being mean.
A black man can attend school if he wants to, just not the white school. They have the same rights, we just tell them how they can exercise them.
*APPLAUDS*
Seriously, best post I've read in a while.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?
The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)
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.
You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?
The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)
You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?
The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)
would you be implying that being gay is a choice?
Absolutely not. I've said that a couple of times. I also made that comment about going against their nature to show that I wasn't.
That being said, I do believe there is a choice to whether you act upon being gay just like there is a choice to any of our actions.
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.
Telling me that I can get married but to someone of the opposite sex is mean-spirited and shows that SOME straight people think of marriage as some football they should try to keep away from us. Marriage is supposed to be an institution that protects a couple living together in a loving relationship, not just some legal arrangement made between two people.
Telling me I should leave my partner of 17 years if I want to get married is like telling the kid who's allergic to peanuts that he has the right to eat them and it's his own fault if he goes hungry if that's what they're serving.
I don't want the right to "marry," I want my relationship to be legally recognized and protected. I want for my family to have the same rights as the rights of my sister (who has married three times in the time I've been with my husband, by the way). When people start to make comments like "You can get married to a woman," you know that the anti-gay movement is running out of arguments and are now just being mean.
Not trying to antagonize you by any means. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but rather pointing out that arguments I hear from both sides as to why or why not it should be legal haven't swayed me.
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.
Sooooo, be a gay man but choose to marry a woman. The point of this would be to....get busted having a gay affair and ruining your "wife" and possible childrens life?
Telling me that I can get married but to someone of the opposite sex is mean-spirited and shows that SOME straight people think of marriage as some football they should try to keep away from us. Marriage is supposed to be an institution that protects a couple living together in a loving relationship, not just some legal arrangement made between two people.
Telling me I should leave my partner of 17 years if I want to get married is like telling the kid who's allergic to peanuts that he has the right to eat them and it's his own fault if he goes hungry if that's what they're serving.
I don't want the right to "marry," I want my relationship to be legally recognized and protected. I want for my family to have the same rights as the rights of my sister (who has married three times in the time I've been with my husband, by the way). When people start to make comments like "You can get married to a woman," you know that the anti-gay movement is running out of arguments and are now just being mean.
Not trying to antagonize you by any means. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but rather pointing out that arguments I hear from both sides as to why or why not it should be legal haven't swayed me.
well what reasons sway you towards the direction of banning gay marriage?
Sooooo, be a gay man but choose to marry a woman. The point of this would be to....get busted having a gay affair and ruining your "wife" and possible childrens life?
seriously.
and honestly, this has happened a LOT in the past, when being homosexual was deemed entirely unacceptible. it's a ridiculous concept. i also know of a woman, in todays' times...who this very thing happened. luckily no kids involved, but seriously....7 or 10 years of marriage.....and then find our your spouse is gay? it was devestating and tragic for all involved. surely, they are both happier people today, seperately......but it's just plain CRAZY that 'being gay' is still ostracized, and that homosexuals do not have the ACTUAL options of heterosexuals, meaning - getting to marry those whom they truly want to spend their lives with, being able to legally protect themselves and their partners with the many benefits of marriage.
Telling me that I can get married but to someone of the opposite sex is mean-spirited and shows that SOME straight people think of marriage as some football they should try to keep away from us. Marriage is supposed to be an institution that protects a couple living together in a loving relationship, not just some legal arrangement made between two people.
Telling me I should leave my partner of 17 years if I want to get married is like telling the kid who's allergic to peanuts that he has the right to eat them and it's his own fault if he goes hungry if that's what they're serving.
I don't want the right to "marry," I want my relationship to be legally recognized and protected. I want for my family to have the same rights as the rights of my sister (who has married three times in the time I've been with my husband, by the way). When people start to make comments like "You can get married to a woman," you know that the anti-gay movement is running out of arguments and are now just being mean.
Not trying to antagonize you by any means. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but rather pointing out that arguments I hear from both sides as to why or why not it should be legal haven't swayed me.
well what reasons sway you towards the direction of banning gay marriage?
I'm not in favor of banning it. I'm in favor of the government not sanctioning marriage whatsoever and simply allowing adults to mutually convey all rights and privileges normally associated with a married couple to one other consenting adult.
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.
I'm not in favor of banning it. I'm in favor of the government not sanctioning marriage whatsoever and simply allowing adults to mutually convey all rights and privileges normally associated with a married couple to one other consenting adult.
I'm not in favor of banning it. I'm in favor of the government not sanctioning marriage whatsoever and simply allowing adults to mutually convey all rights and privileges normally associated with a married couple to one other consenting adult.
lol so you are for it?
ha.
exactly.
for the rights of marriage...just don't label it marriage. :?
let's waste a fortune in funds to do away with marriage, so we can spend more funds creating a new system that afford the exact same rights, just without that label. so much for being anti-government and wasteful spending there know1. how about we simply leave the marriage label since it already does exist and many do seem to like it and all the benefits it affords....allow homosexuals those same rights....and call it a day.
You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?
The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)
A gay person can't choose to be straight and then get a straight marriage either. But you're saying in the one case, it is perfectly acceptable to force them to go against their nature and in the other it is not. Have you ever heard of passing? It's an old term referring to blacks that were pale enough to pass as white people. So you're saying that for a black person that can pass, it is perfectly equitable to force them to pretend to be white and deny their racial background, because then they have the same right to attend a white school as others do?
even if someone is willing to accept the flawed logic that currently homosexuals do indeed have the same rights, they can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.....so what? that's not what it's about. it's about changing the system so that we don't discriminate against a group of people, consenting adults, who want to choose to marry someone of the same gender. from a legal standpoint, what is the POINT of denying these rights? who does it serve? what value does it offer?
if one will agree it was wrong that interracial marriage being illegal was wrong.....was it it difficult to come to the same conclusion for homosexuals? and no, you can't choose your race, but you can't choose your sexuality either. now, some may argue you can....but again...what's the point there? 2 consenting adults want the same rights to marry whom they want. we don't need to do away with marriage, we don't need to overhaul the whole system, we don't need anything so drastic. we simply need, just like interracial marriage before it...to now allow people of the same gender to marry. it's their choice to make, there is no compelling argument why such rights should be denied this group, and that's the bottomline.
Not trying to antagonize you by any means. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but rather pointing out that arguments I hear from both sides as to why or why not it should be legal haven't swayed me.
So all those road blocks thrown in my way in my pursuit of happiness doesn't matter to you?
Or that we pay the same taxes without access to the same resources?
Or that the government may force one of us to leave the country?
Or that we have to jump through countless, expensive and elusive hoops to get even a portion of the same rights available to you for $35 in a Vegas Chapel?
none of this strikes you as "unfair" or "Un-American?"
One argument that always makes me mad is that "I don't think ANYONE should be married... so I'm against gay marriage."
What it means is "I don't need it so you don't either, although I have the right to change my mind, but I don't think you'll ever need to change yours..."
If you think we should do away with marriage.. then try to do that. But telling me to pipe down because YOU don't want to get married is again.. just being mean.
bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
totally agree...but we all know the reason behind it....give ya a hint...it has to do with a really old book
totally agree...but we all know the reason behind it....give ya a hint...it has to do with a really old book
That book is the cause of a lot of BS.
West Palm 2000 I & II/West Palm '03/Tampa '03/Kissimmee '04/Vic Theater '07/West Palm '08/Tampa '08/NYC MSG I & II '08/Philly Spectrum III & IV '09/Cleveland '10/Bristow '10/PJ20 I & II 2011/Pensacola '12/Pittsburgh '13/Denver '14
bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
totally agree...but we all know the reason behind it....give ya a hint...it has to do with a really old book
and THAt is the problem.
so many seem to 'talk' about america, and what it stands for, and what it's about....and they've got it ass-backwards. our freedoms are based on seperation of church and state. doesn't matter if some of our ideals are based on some semblance of judeo-christianity or not...our LAWS are meant to be BLIND to these things. it seems so SIMPLE to me, really, that i can't understand it. if you hate something, don't you do it too. seems for a country all about *freedom*...the *rights of the individual*....*speration of church and state*....for many, 'talking points is about all that adds up to. sad, sad, sad. i think in previous discussions it's been mentioned it's also a generational thing, and to some extent...i agree. i am hoping that in time, just like all other minority groups...this will fade...and true equality within the law will prevail. got to keep at it, and sure...hope.
You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?
The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)
A gay person can't choose to be straight and then get a straight marriage either. But you're saying in the one case, it is perfectly acceptable to force them to go against their nature and in the other it is not. Have you ever heard of passing? It's an old term referring to blacks that were pale enough to pass as white people. So you're saying that for a black person that can pass, it is perfectly equitable to force them to pretend to be white and deny their racial background, because then they have the same right to attend a white school as others do?
I'm not saying any of that. I'm not even remotely saying that.
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
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Jlew, we all have the same rights. A gay man can get married if he wants to...just not to another man.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
LOL am I crazy or something!?!?!!?!
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Two lawyers who squared off in the legal case that determined the 2000 U.S. presidential election joined forces on Wednesday to ask a federal court to halt California's same-sex marriage ban, despite warnings from gay rights advocates not to mount a federal challenge.
Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case, said that gays and lesbians were made into second-class citizens by California's voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8.
They sued on behalf of two same-sex couples who want to marry but cannot because of the Prop 8's passage.
California's supreme court on Tuesday upheld the initiative, approved by voters in November. The decision said California's state constitution allows voters to make such changes despite broad protection for same-sex couples.
Prop 8 ended a brief period of legal same-sex marriage in California, begun when the same court opened the door to gay nuptials early in 2008.
Gay rights advocates, fearing a loss in the socially conservative top U.S. court, have avoided going to federal court after other state ballot box losses.
"A federal lawsuit at this time is terribly risky," said Jenny Pizer, one of the lawyers for Lambda Legal who argued against Prop 8 before the California court.
Her organization, the American Civil Liberties Union and others said in a statement, "without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage."
Olson, who represented then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000, jointly filed the lawsuit on Friday, before the California court acted.
On Wednesday they asked for an injunction on Prop 8. In the lawsuit they argue that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights and due process.
"This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution," the lawsuit reads.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090527/us_ ... rnia_court
apparently.....
tho it's definitely nice to agree with you now and again......;)
norm - EXACTLY!
*thumbs up*
btw - we do we have not one but TWO emoticons for being a geek....but absolutely ZERO for a thumbs up? is it some social commentary on internet discussion boards?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You didn't say how school and marriage are completely different... why is it ok to exclude gay people from the privilege of marriage but not from the privilege of school? Why are they so completely different?
As jlew pointed out, that is totally irrelevant. Look at it this way: back when interracial marriages were illegal, we all had the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex and the same race. Is that ok? We're just putting qualifications on who you are allowed to marry and we all have equal rights within those limitations.
A black man can attend school if he wants to, just not the white school. They have the same rights, we just tell them how they can exercise them.
It has already been previously mentioned that the use of the word "drama" means you must be gay. It is also worth noting the gay guy brought up the stereotype. Is that allowed in a similar way when black people call each other the n word? So just don't do it if you are white and straight.
perhaps you should save the drama for someone who cares...
Telling me I should leave my partner of 17 years if I want to get married is like telling the kid who's allergic to peanuts that he has the right to eat them and it's his own fault if he goes hungry if that's what they're serving.
I don't want the right to "marry," I want my relationship to be legally recognized and protected. I want for my family to have the same rights as the rights of my sister (who has married three times in the time I've been with my husband, by the way). When people start to make comments like "You can get married to a woman," you know that the anti-gay movement is running out of arguments and are now just being mean.
Seriously, best post I've read in a while.
The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
would you be implying that being gay is a choice?
Absolutely not. I've said that a couple of times. I also made that comment about going against their nature to show that I wasn't.
That being said, I do believe there is a choice to whether you act upon being gay just like there is a choice to any of our actions.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Not trying to antagonize you by any means. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but rather pointing out that arguments I hear from both sides as to why or why not it should be legal haven't swayed me.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
well what reasons sway you towards the direction of banning gay marriage?
seriously.
and honestly, this has happened a LOT in the past, when being homosexual was deemed entirely unacceptible. it's a ridiculous concept. i also know of a woman, in todays' times...who this very thing happened. luckily no kids involved, but seriously....7 or 10 years of marriage.....and then find our your spouse is gay? it was devestating and tragic for all involved. surely, they are both happier people today, seperately......but it's just plain CRAZY that 'being gay' is still ostracized, and that homosexuals do not have the ACTUAL options of heterosexuals, meaning - getting to marry those whom they truly want to spend their lives with, being able to legally protect themselves and their partners with the many benefits of marriage.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I'm not in favor of banning it. I'm in favor of the government not sanctioning marriage whatsoever and simply allowing adults to mutually convey all rights and privileges normally associated with a married couple to one other consenting adult.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
lol so you are for it?
ha.
exactly.
for the rights of marriage...just don't label it marriage. :?
let's waste a fortune in funds to do away with marriage, so we can spend more funds creating a new system that afford the exact same rights, just without that label. so much for being anti-government and wasteful spending there know1.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
A gay person can't choose to be straight and then get a straight marriage either. But you're saying in the one case, it is perfectly acceptable to force them to go against their nature and in the other it is not. Have you ever heard of passing? It's an old term referring to blacks that were pale enough to pass as white people. So you're saying that for a black person that can pass, it is perfectly equitable to force them to pretend to be white and deny their racial background, because then they have the same right to attend a white school as others do?
if one will agree it was wrong that interracial marriage being illegal was wrong.....was it it difficult to come to the same conclusion for homosexuals? and no, you can't choose your race, but you can't choose your sexuality either. now, some may argue you can....but again...what's the point there? 2 consenting adults want the same rights to marry whom they want. we don't need to do away with marriage, we don't need to overhaul the whole system, we don't need anything so drastic. we simply need, just like interracial marriage before it...to now allow people of the same gender to marry. it's their choice to make, there is no compelling argument why such rights should be denied this group, and that's the bottomline.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
So all those road blocks thrown in my way in my pursuit of happiness doesn't matter to you?
Or that we pay the same taxes without access to the same resources?
Or that the government may force one of us to leave the country?
Or that we have to jump through countless, expensive and elusive hoops to get even a portion of the same rights available to you for $35 in a Vegas Chapel?
none of this strikes you as "unfair" or "Un-American?"
What it means is "I don't need it so you don't either, although I have the right to change my mind, but I don't think you'll ever need to change yours..."
If you think we should do away with marriage.. then try to do that. But telling me to pipe down because YOU don't want to get married is again.. just being mean.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
totally agree...but we all know the reason behind it....give ya a hint...it has to do with a really old book
That book is the cause of a lot of BS.
and THAt is the problem.
so many seem to 'talk' about america, and what it stands for, and what it's about....and they've got it ass-backwards. our freedoms are based on seperation of church and state. doesn't matter if some of our ideals are based on some semblance of judeo-christianity or not...our LAWS are meant to be BLIND to these things. it seems so SIMPLE to me, really, that i can't understand it. if you hate something, don't you do it too.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I'm not saying any of that. I'm not even remotely saying that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.