Hawaii becomes the 16th state to legalize gay marriage !

[tsbalr120]

Good

The sooner this is passed everywhere, the less talking points the left has to hide behind.

[Posthardcore]

Feel free to answer my subsequent question: What is DIFFERENT for a married couple, and why are we allowing that DIFFERENCE to exist compared to single people? What happened to duality for everyone as the goal?

Why are you going off-topic again?

Is it a sophistic strategy? As long as marriage is recognized by the government, it should be recognized for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[nutsy54]

If you want to start a thread about how the government should refuse to recognize marriage, and not confer any special rights on married couples go for it. But, and this is a big but, at the moment we are discussing reality, where that does occur. So in THIS thread, should probably keep the discussion based on reality.

So... In a thread where everyone keeps talking about Rights, we shouldn't discuss what exactly those Rights are? Wow.

[Kiknskreem]

Feel free to answer my subsequent question: What is DIFFERENT for a married couple, and why are we allowing that DIFFERENCE to exist compared to single people? What happened to duality for everyone as the goal?

Feel free to acknowledge being a complete hack who just blatantly attempted to take what is obviously a weighty issue and dismiss it as if it were nothing more than checking a box on a form.

We all know you'd be steaming out the ears if you were denied a marriage license for being in the military.

Denying people marriage licenses for being gay is no more justifiable.

[Posthardcore]

So... In a thread where everyone keeps talking about Rights, we shouldn't discuss what exactly those Rights are? Wow.

Just because we're speaking about certain rights doesn't mean you can just start ranting about anything. For example, I wouldn't come here and start discussing Animals Rights.

We're speaking of the right to be treated equally under the law.

[nutsy54]

Feel free to acknowledge being a complete hack who just blatantly attempted to take what is obviously a weighty issue and dismiss it as if it were nothing more than checking a box on a form.

We all know you'd be steaming out the ears if you were denied a marriage license for being in the military.

Denying people marriage licenses for being gay is no more justifiable.

And you still can't answer my question, while somehow turning this into personal attacks and insults.

I never said anything about opposing gay marriage. I very clearly asked why there are different Rights between any married vs. single person. Because once we get Government out of those aspects of our personal lives, then this entire issue goes back to where it belongs - in the church.

[nutsy54]

Just because we're speaking about certain rights doesn't mean you can just start ranting about anything. For example, I wouldn't come here and start discussing Animals Rights.

We're speaking of the right to be treated equally under the law.

Do you even read your statements before posting? I asked what those rights are, and you're claiming we can't discuss gay marriage rights in a gay marriage thread?

Once again: What parts of the law treat married people differently than single, and why is that OK? Why aren't you pushing to remove all Government-imposed differences, instead of celebrating yet another group which can be treated differently just because they got married while others remained single?


Or... As kiknskreem would twist your post: Derp, you just equated gay marriage rights with animals.

[Kiknskreem]

And you still can't answer my question...

I have no interest in your questions, sorry.

"Marriage equality? That's not a human rights issue, its just a box on a tax form!"

Wut dat mean "second class citizen"?

[Posthardcore]

Once again: What parts of the law treat married people differently than single, and why is that OK? Why aren't you pushing to remove all Government-imposed differences, instead of celebrating yet another group which can be treated differently just because they got married while others remained single?

''Once again'', that is not the topic.

Equal treatement under the law is the topic. If marriage is recognized by the government, it should be so for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. We can all, homosexuals and heterosexuals, fight for the abolishment of governmental marriage afterwards.

[Kiknskreem]

Selecting married vs. single on an income tax form is now a "human rights" issue? Seriously?

The existence of second class citizens is a human rights issue.

[nutsy54]

The existence of second class citizens is a human rights issue.

Why do you consider single people to be second class citizens? Why is there any government-mandated difference between them and married people?

[MaxxBot]

Feel free to answer my subsequent question: What is DIFFERENT for a married couple, and why are we allowing that DIFFERENCE to exist compared to single people? What happened to equality for everyone as the goal?

Tax rates are the only thing I can think of, so eliminating that tax difference is one more step towards equality for everyone while getting Government manipulation out of our personal lives.

The only area where I see it as completely necessary for some government involvement is in the area of legal decisions and inheritance and stuff like that. Yes couples can get a power of attorney and write up a will and stuff but there have been many cases where one person in a same-sex couple gets incapacitated and anti-gay judges and family members of the incapacitated person will completely shut out the partner from legal decisions or even refuse to allow them to see eachother, even when they have a power of attorney. There are also cases where families have been able to seize property of a deceased gay partner because they weren't legally related in any way, even if this goes completely against their wishes. It makes sense for couples to be able to get some sort of legal agreement to make sure that these matters are taken care of fairly.

I would be fine if that agreement were called a civil union and didn't include tax breaks or any other unnecessary stuff though, I agree that it would probably be better if the government didn't use the word "marriage" at all and didn't get involved in that.

[Kiknskreem]

Why do you consider single people to be second class citizens?

Why nutsy, I thought you didn't like strawman arguments. Strange.

Why is there any government-mandated difference between them and married people?

Why is there government mandated differences between single and married people?

Uh... because they're married. This establishes certain rights and responsibilities with regards to child custody, property, medical decision making, etc.

[nutsy54]

Why nutsy, I thought you didn't like strawman arguments. Strange.

This is really getting old. YOU described unmarried people as "second class citizens" and "in the back of the bus"... but asking you to explain those statements is a strawman?

Why is there government mandated differences between single and married people?

Uh... because they're married. This establishes certain rights and responsibilities with regards to child custody, property, medical decision making, etc.

Everything you cited can already be covered via a will and/or power of attorney. Once again: Why aren't you more concerned with the intentional, ongoing different way that Government treats married vs. single people, rather than applauding the expansion of how many people can take advantage of those differences?

[Posthardcore]

Everything you cited can already be covered via a will and/or power of attorney. Once again: Why aren't you more concerned with the intentional, ongoing different way that Government treats married vs. single people, rather than applauding the expansion of how many people can take advantage of those differences?

Because what he said aka ''This establishes certain rights and responsibilities with regards to child custody, property, medical decision making, etc. ''

is a reason that's more legitimate than ''He's gay''.

[Kiknskreem]

This is really getting old. YOU described unmarried people as "second class citizens"..

Not allowing gays to get married and thus denying them equal protection under the law makes them second class citizens, I did not say that single people as a whole are second class citizens.

Everything you cited can already be covered via a will and/or power of attorney. Once again: Why aren't you more concerned with the intentional, ongoing different way that Government treats married vs. single people, rather than applauding the expansion of how many people can take advantage of those differences?

I have no problem with civil unions for everyone, however, I don't feel that is something that is even remotely likely to come to pass, so whilst we do have government involved in marriage, then gay people should not be discriminated against.

And the discrimination that they face is most certainly a human rights issue, despite your attempts to say otherwise.

[Ge_Tech]

This is really getting old. YOU described unmarried people as "second class citizens" and "in the back of the bus"... but asking you to explain those statements is a strawman?


Everything you cited can already be covered via a will and/or power of attorney. Once again: Why aren't you more concerned with the intentional, ongoing different way that Government treats married vs. single people, rather than applauding the expansion of how many people can take advantage of those differences?

You must not be married or have kids. While I agree with your points, the tax laws were set up to give more support to families with children. Raising children is a great joy, but it is a huge financial burden.

[Fiyero]

This.

I have no real issue with gay marriage to be honest but I do not understand how it's supposed to be a right. The Constitution says nothing about it.

It's a religious institution that was adopted by the state because it was beneficial for the general welfare to have kids raised in neat little two parent set.

Again, have no real issue with it but it's not really a basic civil liberty.

The Supreme Court declared it a civil right, which means your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It is by law, a civil right.

[Fiyero]

Clearly trolling, since nobody reasonable can disagree with any viewpoints held by you enlightened progressives

None of your posts here show any reasoned argument, which means you're trolling.

[Kiknskreem]

Again, have no real issue with it but it's not really a basic civil liberty.

So if legislation passed tomorrow which prevented persons of color from marrying, no biggie, right?

Not like your rights are being violated or anything.

[ausluke]

why is marriage even a government institution? what possible value do they get by sticking their noses into it? All it seems to do is make us need a 'Births, Deaths and Marriages' department which adds even more bureaucracy to the bureaucracy.

[Fiyero]

so you speak for all blacks now do you?

im sure there are non-retarded black people who can see the similarities in discrimination

Martin Luther King Jrs. wife pointed out the similarities quite often. Guess she's not important though.

[Fiyero]

P

For the umpteenth time retards, a religious sacrament =/= a right.

Marriage has never been a religious sacrament in the United States. In fact, Protestants rejected marriage being a sacrament during the Reformation and called it a worldly thing.

[Fiyero]

Our rights are clearly defined in our Constitution. Our rights are 'negative' rights, meaning intrinsic rights the state cannot take away (ability to engage in political speech, free exercise of religion, ownership/possession of arms/munitions, etc). 'Marriage' is not a right in this country, nor has it ever been. Repeating a falsehood ad nauseam doesn't make it any less false.

The Supreme Court called marriage a right. Their Constitutional opinion is all that matters. Yours is irrelevant.

[LizzieTish]

Why do you consider single people to be second class citizens? Why is there any government-mandated difference between them and married people?

Why nutsy, I thought you didn't like strawman arguments. Strange.

This is really getting old. YOU described unmarried people as "second class citizens" and "in the back of the bus"... but asking you to explain those statements is a strawman?

Not allowing gays to get married and thus denying them equal protection under the law makes them second class citizens, I did not say that single people as a whole are second class citizens.

I have no problem with civil unions for everyone, however, I don't feel that is something that is even remotely likely to come to pass, so whilst we do have government involved in marriage, then gay people should not be discriminated against.

And the discrimination that they face is most certainly a human rights issue, despite your attempts to say otherwise.

And as usual, he gets owned and subsequently avoids the thread instead of admitting he was wrong. Somehow he's not considered a troll when he uses the same tactics in other topics, and on top of that throws in endless harassing statements:

And when all else fails, line up the strawmen so you can refute claims that nobody has ever made. (While making sure you completely avoid any direct response to factual statements and what people have actually posted).

Arguing with yourself over the fiction you've created, and the false statements you've pulled out of your ass... Thanks for being the perfect example of a CT

This was in response to:

+1

Government loves you. Sleep. Obey. Rebellion will not be tolerated. Marry and reproduce. No independent thought. This is your God. Conform. Stay asleep. There are no false flags. Commands of government officials must be obeyed by all. Debate only within allowed limits ex. GOP VS Democrats etc.

I'm sure 400lb Gorilla will make sure he is protected from ever being banned for trolling though because he likes his Navy threads he posts in the MISC.

Here was another one in the same thread:

Non-CTers tend to try to identify with being a good American, which means eating the **** the government shovels down their throats.

Standard CT strawman - attack others for things they didn't say.