Hate Is Hate There Is No Middle Ground

Marriage is a human right

There are just a lot of things that are bothering me right now.  And not all of them have to do with racism.  I guess I will just jump right in and rant and vent all my disgust with the world or at least this country right now.  First of all how in the hell is denying gays the right to be just like everyone else NOT hate?  I am trying to figure that out.

After the states that had gay marriage referendums on the ballots actually voted the right down anti gay marriage people came out praising the people for doing the right thing and said that it wasn’t about hate.  Well when blacks were denied the right to marry white people was that NOT about hate?  Wasn’t the whole reason blacks couldn’t marry outside their race due to the fact that some if not most white people hated blacks and wished to keep them out of their blood lines?

So now it is OK to tell part of the population that “you’re totally not equal to me” so it is fine for me to deny you the right to marriage.  I think it is your god given right to believe that gay people are going to hell or that you disagree with what they do behind closed doors.  It is even your right as a clergy person to say that you will not participate in gay marriages.  But since marriage is a legal contract and has nothing to do with a church, the church or any religious beliefs have no business dictating law.

Now this is the ultimate in mixing church and state.  Yet you have all these silly ass people screaming about the founding fathers and the constitution who see no problem with this travesty which is totally ignoring all that the constitution stands for.  For one the constitution allots for separation of church and state.  And the Bill of Rights gives everyone the right to the pursuit of happiness; it also states that ALL men/women are created equal.

How is everyone equal if you are telling some that they shouldn’t be given the same rights as you and I?  This is the same bullshit that is affecting black people.  We are all equal but when companies decide not to hire blacks, too bad.  They need to look for work elsewhere.  Or my favorite, we are all equal but if a company doesn’t want to include or equally represent blacks, blacks should start their own company.

And this crap about protecting marriage is just totally insane.  How is gay marriage going to affect my heterosexual marriage?  People keep saying that they want to defend marriage by denying gays marriage.  HUH?  If you wanted to defend marriage then you would outlaw divorce.  Or better yet outlaw cheating as that seems to destroy more marriages than gays getting married somewhere you don’t even know about.

I wish someone would explain to me exactly how a gay marriage destroyed a heterosexual marriage to the point that we have to defend them from the gay ones.  This is just mind boggling.  I haven’t seen a gay marriage and don’t know any gays, or at least don’t think I do, who have gotten married.  And I bet the plethora of idiots who are voting to keep gays unequal don’t know of any gays who have or are marrying either.

The fact of the matter is, is that most of these people just don’t like the idea of homosexuality and therefore wish to punish those they feel go against their so called religious beliefs.  Well none of these people are holding fast to their religious beliefs anyhow.  Since we know that the bible says judge not less ye be judged.  So why not let god deal with the gay people.  If he felt that what they do is so against him wouldn’t he have smote them already?  Aren’t we ALL children of god?  So get a clue and stop trying to play god under some phony fallacy of a moral compass.  Hate is hate, is hate!  There is no middle ground.

Advertisements

25 Comments

Filed under Current Events, Propaganda, Racism, Social Issues, Society

25 responses to “Hate Is Hate There Is No Middle Ground

  1. Biziet

    You are arguing as if Gay Marriage has been around all along, and then somebody came along and took it away. At least be honest in saying that this idea of defining same-sex couplings as a “marriage” is a relatively new redefinition to the term, in ANY country, nation, or kingdom.

    That’s not to say that it is wrong, because that is an entirely different argument, but at least realize that this is a new “right” that you are arguing.

  2. Biziet,

    I am NOT arguing as if gay marriage has been here all along. For one thing I am arguing that marriage is a contract nothing more nothing less. So therefore you can NOT say that some people who meet all the criteria for entering into contracts CAN’T only because you don’t agree with what they do in their bedroom. It isn’t new, it isn’t special, it is nothing but to people entering into an agreement to share their lives, finances and love. So how is this new? Also, if we are ALL equal under the law, then they have just as much “RIGHT” as anyone else to enter into this legal contract with each other.

    Thanks.

  3. If we are going to split hairs, there has never been a definition of marriage. It has been assumed that marriage is has always been the union of a man and a woman but many cultures allow men to marry as many women as they can support. The idea that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman is also relatively new. The idea that marriage needs to be defined is new.

    But like most new concepts, they become a part of our growth as a culture. At one point, somebody may have defined an oven as something that holds fire and cooks food. Now, ovens can use electricity or microwaves to cook food. Doesn’t mean they aren’t ovens or that if we talk about them we have to be honest and say that the concept of a microwave oven is new and therefore needs to be recognized as such.

    Peace

  4. biziet

    “I am NOT arguing as if gay marriage has been here all along. For one thing I am arguing that marriage is a contract nothing more nothing less. So therefore you can NOT say that some people who meet all the criteria for entering into contracts CAN’T only because you don’t agree with what they do in their bedroom.”

    Marriage is both a contract and a religio/social instition. That is why it is most often done in a church, temple, or mosque, and is most often conducted by a religious figure of some kind. To say that it is ONLY a legal contract, without taking into consideration the historic religio/social aspect, is to impose the limitations of your own bias upon the the institution.

    The PURELY contractual equivalent does exist, of course, it’s called a Civil Union.

    Incidently, we don’t allow brother’s and sisters to marry either.

  5. The actual act of marriage is conducted in a government office. The ceremony that celebrates the marriage is conducted by a representative of the government authorized to perform the wedding ceremony. To have a marriage annulled requires the government getting involved to dissolve the union. There is no civil contract by a man and a woman. To claim such is to throw another new definition into the new culture mix.

    Peace

  6. Biziet,

    That is NOT true! Marriage has NOTHING to do with religion/social institutions as far as the LAW is concerned. It doesn’t matter where you get married or how you get married. The ONLY thing that matters is if you get your butt down to the court house and buy that contractual license. So your claim that it carries all this historic religious crap is just that crap. I didn’t get married in a church so I guess my contract had nothing to do with my religion or social institutions etc.

    The fact that marriage is recognized by the court is the ONLY thing that matters or should matter to the government. The problem that we have right now are people like YOU who are letting their prejudices dictate if we have to vote and how they vote on these issues. It shouldn’t matter what your religious thinking is when you are dealing with the LAW and GOVERNMENT.

    OK, Sherlock, how does a brother and sister getting married equate with gays getting married? Unless they are brothers or sisters when they marry! See this is always where it must lead. You can’t just argue on the merits of the case which is that everyone is NOT equal if everyone who is LEGALLY ABLE TO MAKE A CONTRACT UNDER THE LAW is unable to do so. Next you will talk about pedophiles and people marrying sheep. Give it a rest already.

    If heterosexual marriages don’t lead to brother and sister marriages or pedophile child weddings and or man/woman animal weddings then neither do gay marriages. Unless you know something about them first hand. I mean how silly. If people wouldn’t try and justify their prejudices we wouldn’t have all this stupidity in the world today. It isn’t your business what two men or two women do in their home, in their church, in their lives unless one of the parties involved are under age or doesn’t consent.

    Because the way I see it, if you believe that two people you don’t know don’t have the right to get married and you should be able to vote accordingly, then those two people should be able to vote on whether or not YOU have the right to get married. If gays aren’t allowed to have the same rights as everyone else then we shouldn’t expect them to pay taxes like everyone else. Why pay for none or half representation?

  7. Biziet

    @ brotherpeacemaker

    If we are going to split hairs, there has never been a definition of marriage.

    Indeed, if we’re going to split hairs, there has never been a definition for “chair,” “child,” or “pants” either. Of course, you’d have to be splitting hairs without your dictionary in hand, since all of those terms, including “marriage,” are easily found within.

    Dictionary.com
    –noun
    1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc

    Merriam Webster
    1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

    I’m not sure that you can successfully argue that it has never been defined.

    Now, if you want to get into linguistic morphology or epistemology or perhaps non-dualistic eastern philosophy, then nothing at all has a definition and language itself is only experienced within the phenomenal plane. But that means that nothing at all has any meaning… However, since you are typing out arguments on a blog site, I’m going to assume that you believe that words have meanings. The definition of marriage (one way or another) is in any dictionary, whether you are “splitting hairs” or not.

    brotherpeacemaker speaks
    “It has been assumed that marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman but many cultures allow men to marry as many women as they can support”

    Marriage has always historically been defined as a male wedding female(s). How does the fact that there have been two sub-definitions (monogamous and polygamous) end up meaning that there is no definition?

    Your microwave example makes some sense. But my argument is that if their had ever been a great debate over whether an microwave should be called an “oven” we would probably listen to the arguments on both sides of the issue without bias because a microwave was new. We realize that we have something new that we want to categorize as a new kind of oven rather than a “toaster” or “warmer.” We wouldn’t instantly assume that people who didn’t immediately accept the new, inclusive, definition to be hateful or microphobic.

  8. Biziet

    “The actual act of marriage is conducted in a government office. The ceremony that celebrates the marriage is conducted by a representative of the government authorized to perform the wedding ceremony. To have a marriage annulled requires the government getting involved to dissolve the union.”

    I’m going to assume that you are either guessing, or perhaps, joking and didn’t mean this to be a statement of fact.

    Below is a link were you can discover what the actual requirements for performing a marriage are in each state.
    They do not agree with your sentences above.

    http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/officiants_requirements/index.shtml

  9. Biziet

    “That is NOT true! Marriage has NOTHING to do with religion/social institutions as far as the LAW is concerned”

    I think that you are misunderstanding my point. You are defining marriage from the narrow viewpoint of the Law and the State alone. I am defining marriage from the broader social and religious connotations that have always been associated with it historically. I am not saying that all marriages should be based on religion, nor do I think that this should be a requirement.

    A civil union provides all of the legal, contractual recognitions, and protections of marriage. If the ONLY thing that matters is just the LEGAL contract, then why are you dissatisfied with convention of the civil union?

    “The problem that we have right now are people like YOU who are letting their prejudices dictate if we have to vote and how they vote on these issues.”

    Hahaha… and of course people like YOU don’t have any prejudices, right? You have somehow managed to act completely free of any biases, misconceptions, and grudges, when voting the on the very same issues! Hahaha… How deliciously judgmental!

    “OK, Sherlock, how does a brother and sister getting married equate with gays getting married?”
    1 OK, Watson, then explain to me exactly why there should be a LAW that states that a brother and sister cannot marry? And since you brought it up, also 2please explain why there’s a LAW against a 19-year old marrying a 15-year old?

    Life is full of arbitrary marriage exclusion rules, i’nit? Why aren’t you as outraged over the blind and blatant prejudice against these groups? You haven’t written a single post on either subject.

    “If heterosexual marriages don’t lead to brother and sister marriages or pedophile child weddings and or man/woman animal weddings then neither do gay marriages. Unless you know something about them first hand”.

    It kills me how you like to argue against points that I’m not even trying to make. Stop assuming.

    “Because the way I see it, if you believe that two people you don’t know don’t have the right to get married and you should be able to vote accordingly, then those two people should be able to vote on whether or not YOU have the right to get married”

    Um… yeah, they do. It’s called democracy and the market place of ideas.

  10. Biziet,

    I am wrong when I said that there has never been a definition of marriage. What I should have said was that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman has never been defined until the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex has been brought to the attention of the social collective. There is also this definition of marriage:

    Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic.

    Marriage practices are very diverse across cultures, may take many forms, and are often formalized by a ceremony called a wedding.

    Notice that this definition of marriage says nothing about a man and a woman but is more inclusive by acknowledging the diversity of marriages across cultures. But now some of us want to dismiss the diversity of marriage that could include everyone across cultures and hold fast to only what a dictionary defines as the union of a man and a woman.

    Regardless of the definition, as a society we should learn to be more inclusive of our collective. At one time the definition of human did not include people of African descent. That was wrong. The law was adjusted so that black people were defined as three fifths human. That was just as wrong. As a people we didn’t pull out dictionaries and looked for the true meaning of human in a book written by a corporate institution controlled by the dominant culture. We stood up for rights and said that it was wrong to see black people as anything less than equally human. So now why do we have to go back and look at definitions and traditions now. Instead, we should be looking at the future where we are more inclusive of people who happen to love differently than most?

    Peace

  11. Biziet,

    OK, Watson, then explain to me exactly why there should be a LAW that states that a brother and sister cannot marry? And since you brought it up, also 2please explain why there’s a LAW against a 19-year old marrying a 15-year old?

    The reason should be obvious but since it is not here ya go. Brothers and sisters are related by dna meaning that the children have a 90% chance or better of having a child with serious defects which should and can be avoided. And the last time I checked most gay people aren’t one) related by dna, and two) going to bear a child for the other no matter if they are male or female.

    And the only thing the law states about under age people is that they have the consent of a parent or a judge. And so I would guess that should be the same for the gay population as well. Would you give me a freaking break!!! If you were NOT trying to make a connection with gay marriage and brother and sister marriage then why did you bother to add it? As it serves absolutely NO purpose to our conversation. That is where you went wrong. I wouldn’t have to wonder what you are speaking about it you were to say what you mean and mean what you say.

    When was the last time you saw any gay person lobby to put any such nonsense to vote out heterosexual marriage? NEVER! And it isn’t democracy to vote to deny people civil rights! I guess you would have been one of those people who thought that it was fine for white people to vote that blacks don’t deserve equal treatment as if that should be an issue. God, some people!

    Now the problem you have as I see it is your narrow mind. You want to read something into marriage that isn’t and hasn’t been there. When I look at marriage laws for the states it says that:

    1. A marriage license is issued by the county clerk or clerk of the court (along with payment of a fee).

    2. Both man or woman are 18 or older, or have the consent of a parent or a judge if younger.

    3. Proof of immunity or vaccination for certain diseases

    * Many states have done away with mandatory premarital physical exams or blood tests. Some states still require for venereal diseases, and a few also test for rubella (also known as German Measles, a disease that is very dangerous to fetuses), tuberculosis, and sickle-cell anemia.

    4. Proof of the termination of any prior marriages by death, judgment of dissolution (divorce) or annulment.

    It says both man OR woman, not that ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN. Not to mention it doesn’t matter. As long as two people who are consenting adults pay the required fee. And what makes you think that I am NOT concerned with blatant prejudice against any and ALL groups? Are you making assumptions, the same assumption deal you claim I was making? I guess assumptions happen, right?

    You are ridiculous to sit and talk about some form of prejudice all the while you are arguing FOR the blatant prejudice against gays. Makes you say HMMM! Why don’t you stop being so prejudiced and worry about what is or ISN’T going on in your own bedroom.

  12. Biziet

    “The reason should be obvious but since it is not here ya go. Brothers and sisters are related by dna meaning that the children have a 90% chance or better of having a child with serious defects which should and can be avoided”

    OH YEAH… and the ONLYreason for two people to get married is to have kids???? This is EXACTLY what I mean! You’re a total hypocrite! Your narrow definition of marriage is based on entirely on reproduction, as if that’s all there is to life?!!! HEY, HAS IT EVER OCCURRED TO YOUR NARROW MIND THAT NOT EVERYBODY WANTS KIDS??? OMG! Are you eve listening to your own weaksauce explanations???

    Stop the obvious dishonesty, and please give me the REAL reason this time!!!

    “the only thing the law states about under age people is that they have the consent of a parent or a judge…”
    So why should a 15 year old need a parent’s PERMISSION to get married???? THE PARENTS are not the ones getting married!!!! Are you really this blind to your own complacency? Do you just accept that a 15-year old isn’t “mature” enough to get married without parental permission? I know some 15-year olds who are more responsible than their parents!

    AND FOR THE LAST TIME STOP DODGING THIS QUESTION: (It’s becoming obvious)

    A civil union provides all of the legal, contractual recognitions, and protections of marriage. If the ONLY thing that matters is just the LEGAL contract, then why are you dissatisfied with convention of the civil union?

    PLEASE ANSWER!!!

  13. Biziet,

    Assuming once again are we? I never said that the only reason to get married was to have kids, nor do I believe that. You asked a question and I answered it. If you can’t accept that then why are you bothering to come back? Get a life, get a clue but please get help!

    Why would a 15 year old need permission, ARE YOU SERIOUS? Um, maybe it has to do with the fact that in this country people under the age of 18 can’t enter into a CONTRACT. Which shows that marriage is NOT a social construct but a legal binding contract between consenting adults, be they parents of children or other. And it has become painfully obvious that you don’t understand a lot of things especially those that deal with contract law, which a marriage IS!

    And why don’t you stop the obvious dishonesty and explain what a 15 year old needing permission to marry has to do with gays getting married? Is this just like your stupid brother and sister quip? Why don’t we stop the silliness? What is the REAL reason you think gays shouldn’t be married? Or are you too scared to be honest with your bitter bigotry?

    NO I don’t agree with civil unions they DO NOT provide for everything that is involved with a marriage. And if YOU are saying they are the same thing then why don’t men and women just get civil unions? Why don’t you answer that question? I could care less about marriage being a social construct than a contract. And I personally don’t see any problem with ALL marriages, civil unions or whatever as a contract PERIOD!

    And just so you know here are the reasons that civil union is NOT marriage:

    The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
    Portability – Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.

    So again if civil unions are so great then why don’t men and women just join together in a civil union? Come on Biziet or whatever, answer the question!

  14. Biziet

    “I am wrong when I said that there has never been a definition of marriage. What I should have said was that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman has never been defined until the issue of marriage between two people of the same sex has been brought to the attention of the social collective.”

    But that doesn’t make any point. When something is universally defined to fall between certain narrow parameters (monogamous or polygamous), what else would be necessary as a definition? Please give me just one example of any country in all of human history that accepted same sex unions as “marriage” Prior to the 1990’s?

    Accept it. This definition is new. That’s all that I’m saying, and therefore it is subject to challenge and debate. The process of debate, and even opposition to a new definition of an existing convention is not categorically hateful, and to say so it the height of arrogance.

    Regardless of the definition, as a society we should learn to be more inclusive of our collective.

    I agree, people should be respected regardless of their sexuality. There is no excuse for abuse or derision, their choices should be respected as their own.

  15. Biziet,

    How about this? “There is a long history of recorded same-sex relationships around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.” It seems that not everyone has or has had your narrow view of marriage. Same sex marriage was outlawed in Rome with a law written in the Theodosian code. Does that help?

    So accept it, YOUR definition is new as well. That’s all I’m saying, and therefore it really isn’t subject to challenge or debate. And YES if the debate of a new definition is one that involves trying to make people LESS than equal IS OR CAN BE HATEFUL. When white people were debating allowing the definition of human to be applied to blacks WAS and IS hateful.

    Now I will agree with debate being non hateful when the debate isn’t about making someone less than another. So when you can see fit to understand that your debate totally hinges on nothing more than whether or not a fellow human SHOULD have the same rights as others, then you will understand how this IS hateful. But it is painfully obvious that you will never see that this is hateful, hurtful and idiotic. So good luck, but you will never convince me that I should see any other human as less deserving than myself.

    Also, if you think that others choices should be respected as their own then how come they can’t make a decision and it be respected enough to garner the same rights as you? Obviously they must have made the wrong decision and should now be denied equal right of a CONTRACTUAL MARRIAGE. Come on that makes no sense, right?

  16. Biziet

    “How about this? “There is a long history of recorded same-sex relationships around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.” It seems that not everyone has or has had your narrow view of marriage. Same sex marriage was outlawed in Rome with a law written in the Theodosian code. Does that help?”

    OMG!!!!! We’re talking about MARRIAGE, not relationships!!!! Are you really this obtuse? Are you advocating for legal acceptance of homosexual relationships, because if so, you’ve missed the boat by a couple of decades?

    I’m truly beginning to mistrust that you even believe your own arguments. That’s why you won’t really answer my questions ( we both know what I mean)

  17. Biziet

    “Assuming once again are we? I never said that the only reason to get married was to have kids, nor do I believe that. You asked a question and I answered it. If you can’t accept that then why are you bothering to come back? Get a life, get a clue but please get help!

    Yeah, it would hep if you gave the real reason, then.
    So if a brother and sister want to get married and they aren’t going to have kids, is it legal? IS IT? Then your stupid explanation doesn’t make any sense! Do you realize that????

    “Um, maybe it has to do with the fact that in this country people under the age of 18 can’t enter into a CONTRACT”
    HEY… “in this country,” (in most states) people of the same sex can’t get married either. Is that the extent of your reasoning?

    “Which shows that marriage is NOT a social construct but a legal binding contract between consenting adults, be they parents of children or other.”

    Oh yeah… a family with parents and kids is not a social construct. It’s ONLY a CONTRACTUAL construct. DO you realize how truly foolish you sound?

    1) 15 year olds and marriage – Relevance:
    Same sex persons are not the only group of people who cannot get married (in most states). There are age restriction, there are polygamy restrictions AND there are currently gender restrictions. If you want to call access to marriage a human right, then you need to figure out how to remove all restrictions to all humans. But of course that was obvious to anyone from the beginning.

    “Or are you too scared to be honest with your bitter bigotry?”
    You are an extremely judgmental… you’re probably much worse than most right-wing christians in that regard. Funny isn’t it how we attack in others our own worst traits?

    “NO I don’t agree with civil unions they DO NOT provide for everything that is involved with a marriage.”
    Please explain, ON A CONTRACTUAL LEVEL, how civil unions are different from marriage? Exactly what rights are different?

    And if YOU are saying they are the same thing then why don’t men and women just get civil unions?
    Are you assuming that none do? But heterosexual couples already have marriage, which amounts to THE SAME THING, CONTRACTUALLY but not necessarily sociologically.

    Also, if you think that others choices should be respected as their own then how come they can’t make a decision and it be respected enough to garner the same rights as you?
    EXACTLY what rights are you talking about? WHat rights do a homosexual couple in a civil union not have that a married couple have?

  18. Biziet,

    Ahh poor baby are you feeling angry? Is that why it is a stupid explanation? And just so you know it isn’t MY explanation it was the explanation given by the courts. So if you don’t like it and you have that much of a hankering to marry your sister or brother then by all means challenge the law. Don’t keep arguing with me about it as it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with gay marriage. AGAIN the gay people who wish to marry ARE NOT blood relatives so it does NOT equate. Thick in the head much?

    OK, are you dense? You brought up 15 year old people getting married then want to question the fact that I told you about contract law. Hopefully since you realize your argument is totally irrational and off point you might quit while your behind. The gay people who are getting married or wish to are OVER THE AGE OF 15, CONSENSUAL ADULTS, ABLE TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS, which a marriage is. So what is your point about 15 year old’s?

    Is it to imply that gay people are unable to consent? Is it to imply that gay people are not mature enough? What is your point with this line of thinking? As it totally makes no sense. You say that gays shouldn’t have the right to marry and should have these phony civil unions which aren’t recognized in all states, but you don’t explain why NOT. Why don’t you leave all this phony outrage behind and just answer the question! WHY CAN’T GAYS MARRY? What is the problem with it? ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! Stop avoiding it and ignoring it.

    WOW! Aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black! You want to call me judgmental yet you want to judge gays as unworthy of the same right as heterosexuals. Now that is joke, isn’t it buddy?

    1. Again, marriage as a contract is RECOGNIZED in every state in this union called the United States of America, civil unions ARE NOT! Marriages are portable meaning they can travel across state lines and be recognized by ALL states in the Union. Civil unions are only recognized in a few states and some of those have enacted DOMA or defense of marriage act which now makes the civil union worthless there as well.Understand that? How is that equal, how is that the same? DUH! That would mean that this contract called civil union, even though you seem to think it is the same one entered into by heterosexuals under what is termed marriage, is the same thing, it is NOT.

    2. Some businesses do and some don’t recognize it, ALL business recognize marriage.

    3. People in a civil union can NOT file joint federal tax forms thus missing out on the same tax breaks and benefits given to married couples.

    4. If a businesses health plan is governed by federal law as opposed to state laws (very few of which recognize civil unions), the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits. With marriage contracts they don’t have any choice but to extend benefits.

    5. When married if a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples in a civil union are not eligible for such benefits.

    6. Veteran’s or military benefits don’t allow civil union partners right to pensions, compensation for service-related deaths, medical care, housing and the right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries.

    So exactly HOW are they the same thing again? Why don’t you just admit you are totally wrong and get over it already damn. You are ridiculous! I guess separate and totally unequal equates to the same thing with you and that is totally sad. If it were left up to people with your mentality blacks would still be segregated and barred from mainstream America. That is too bad.

  19. Biziet,

    Dipwad do you see the line that says SAME SEX UNIONS…? UNIONS to me constitutes a union which a marriage is considered in many parts of the world. And if they had to OUTLAW SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN ROME, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SAME SEX MARRIAGES! DUH! Why don’t you ANSWER THE FREAKING QUESTION, why shouldn’t homosexuals be allowed to marry? Why won’t you answer the damn question? Because you are frightened to look like the bigot you are. It is simple just give me the reason as to why they shouldn’t have the same RIGHT as you and me? The right to marry whomever they choose in case you are still wondering which right. I am advocating that every person who is of legal standing to marry be allowed to do so. What is it that you are advocating? The willful and horrendous denial of equality all to satisfy your sick and twisted view of alternative lifestyles? Shame on YOU! And I answered you stupid question over and over and over. But you continue to use this phony made up “you won’t answer my question” in order to dodge the question asked of you many times. WHY SHOULDN’T GAY PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? And forget the marriage definition, I think you were already schooled on that by brotherpeacemaker.

  20. Biziet,

    One more thing on this stupid 15 year old’s can’t marry business. Your point is so far off base it is pathetic. You wish to show that gays aren’t the only ones who can’t marry and you bring up 15 year old’s! Why don’t you show me legal consenting adults who are NOT related who can’t marry legally? Because you can’t! You want to equate being gay with being an immature under age person. How pathetic. Maybe we shouldn’t let gay people drive either because you know what, 8 year old’s can’t legally drive so it must be OK. You are too funny.

  21. Biziet

    “Dipwad do you see the line that says SAME SEX UNIONS…? UNIONS to me constitutes a union which a marriage is considered in many parts of the world.”

    Hey deleted, if “UNION” means “marriage” to you, then a CIVIL UNION would be a MARRIAGE!! Deleted…

    “And if they had to OUTLAW SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN ROME, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SAME SEX MARRIAGES! DUH! Why”

    Hey deleted, GAY MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUTLAWED IN THE UNITED STATES TOO!! So, there must have been gay marriage here at some time, since it’s outlawed here, right, you big DUMMY??!!!!

    You’re are much TOO deleted, and make far too many OBVIOUS, 5th-Grade errors to try and act superior. Now might be a good time for you to brush up on your deductive reasoning skillz, honey. You are really not that smart, and it’s OBVIOUS, so stop with the superiority, you’re not even close!!!!!

    NOW,

    All along I’ve been intentionally matching your acerbic tone and condescending attitude. I’ve been writing in the same aggressive, “I’m smarter than you” tone that you have been. This is the kind of conversation that you get when everybody else talks like you do. It gets you nowhere, and you aren’t likely to be smarter than every challenger who comes here. It might serve you better to discard the superior vitriol and actually have a *conversation* from time to time, where you’re not assuming that you already know more than the person you’re debating.

    CIVIL UNIONS

    When I asked you about civil unions, the only real objections that you had where that they are not recognized in every state, and that the Defense of Marriage Act precluded same sex Unions from Federal benefits. Aside from that, they are exactly the same contractually, as marriage. But to your first point, gay marriage is legal in even fewer states than civil unions, so to argue that the former is preferable to the previous, on that basis, is illogical. Secondly, there is currently a Democrat (whom I voted for) in the office of President, and there are Democratic majorities both in the House and Senate. Clearly, the Defense of marriage Act can be reversed.

    This would be a much easier path to follow if your goal is to truly to allow all human beings to have the same right of contract. But, regardless of what you’ve been loudly proclaiming as your goal, that’s not really what you’re after… or is it?

  22. Biziet,

    YAWN! You are very boring! You better remember who runs this blog, I won’t tolerate your belligerence so don’t bring that crap here again. You would do well to remember that you are entering MY HOUSE! And I don’t care if you voted for Obama big fucking deal! AND! So what if the bill can be reversed, does that ensure equality? You know slavery was reversed, did that give equality to blacks? Hell no! So go somewhere else with that crap.

    Anyhow, show me the laws that are on our books before defense of marriage act that says gay marriage is illegal? If they were always illegal in America then why did we need the Defense of Marriage Act? How does what you say make any sense? It doesn’t that’s how. You are so silly as to be a joke. You want to sit and talk about all the so called 5th grade errors when you don’t even seem to understand the law whatsoever. You consistently ignore my question about WHY YOU FEEL THAT GAYS SHOULDN’T MARRY? WHY NOT ANSWER THE FREAKING QUESTION? If you insist on being obstinate and acting like you are five, ignoring questions and continuing to ask the same stupid question which a blind person can see I have answered several times.

    ONE MORE TIME FOR THE ILLITERATE! Civil unions do not carry over into ALL states, that right there is enough but if you are still wanting more then read the 6, six, SIX, VI reasons I gave. Obviously you are NOT reading my replies, you just continue to argue the same idiotic statements and questions which have ALL been addressed. If you do NOT answer my question of WHY SHOULDN’T GAYS BE ABLE TO MARRY, don’t bother commenting again. You have continued to ignore the question all the while stating stupid things such as “the only real objections that you had where that they are not recognized in every state, and that the Defense of Marriage Act precluded same sex Unions from Federal benefits.”

    READ MY COMMENTS and you will have your answers. Jesus! It is totally obvious that if one thing makes civil unions different from marriage then they are NOT the same thing. What a freak! If I ask you the difference between a motorcycle and a car and you tell me that a car has scooter and a motorcycle and you can name one thing being a motorcycle has way more power, then they are NOT the same thing. I guess to you a common tabby cat is the same as a lion purely because they are both referred to as cats. This shows ignorance just for ignorance sake. And what I have just told you about how things differ are pretty much obvious to the average 3rd grader, yet not to you. How pathetic.

    My goal is for EVERYONE regardless of religion, creed, color, sexual orientation or sex to have the same equal rights to EVERYTHING. You see I am not here arguing that somehow we give MORE rights to gays or to anyone. But somehow you are so thick headed you believe that denying rights which marriage is a right, is just fine and in fact necessary. Even after explaining to you what I am after YOU still seem to have NO clue, but that is not surprising for an ignorant person.

    Don’t bother commenting again unless you answer in the first sentence WHY YOU FEEL THAT GAYS SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO MARRY! And don’t think I’m playing.

  23. Biziet,

    I am feeling that my first thought was in fact correct. You obviously can’t read. I told you that in order to post any more comments here you need to answer the question. WHY CAN’T GAYS MARRY? If you wish to answer the question then do so. Don’t come back with all the bullshit, I don’t want to hear it. If you can’t answer that question in the first sentence of your reply, you won’t be replying. I have NO problem letting people speak. And in fact I tend to let the bullshit go on too long.

    So if you can’t follow the directions given and answer the question as to WHY GAYS CAN’T OR SHOULDN’T MARRY, within the first sentence, then put a cork in it. And just for your information, this is MY HOUSE and you are a guest in it. You will address me in a manner that I see fit. If you don’t like the way I address you in MY HOUSE then leave it. Those are the rules and if you can’t deal then too bad, so sad, who cares. I didn’t come to you with my stupidity or whatever you think it is, you came to me.

    If you wish to continue to say the same thing over and over, it has been heard and refuted with plenty of facts. You are a broken record trying to force people into believing that civil unions are the same as marriage no matter how many facts are given to the contrary. If you wish to continue the conversation you need to ONE – answer the damn question WHY CAN’T GAYS MARRY, TWO – explain how two things that have totally different benefits are in fact the same thing. We know that you will never do either so I guess this concludes our completely ridiculously redundant conversation.

  24. Biziet,

    Come on loser! I asked for the reason as to WHY GAYS CAN’T MARRY. You obviously have a reason for not answering that question. And saying that “I’m leaning toward the negative” means nothing. If you asked me why I don’t think that people should be bigots and my answer was that “I am leaning toward the positive” means absolutely nothing to that question. So stop trying to play games.

    I don’t blame you for not wanting to reveal yourself. As I wouldn’t want to be the person who is completed bigoted. I don’t have a religious caricature in mind. Just another of your assumptions. You see bigots come in all colors, shapes and sizes. Not just right wing nutjobs. They can be anybody and usually are the LAST people you suspect.

    You my friend are nothing more than a coward like most bigots are. I have answered ALL of your questions and “revealed myself” which really makes no sense. As you don’t make any sense when you keep saying that. Reveal what, the REAL reason I think gays should have equal rights? Well here is the answer AGAIN since you failed to read it in any of my previous comments. I feel that EVERYONE should have equal rights. That is something that I talk about on a constant basis. Yet, I am sure you wouldn’t understand since you have this fallacy that denying rights to people by giving them an inferior product is fine.

    You know just like the separate but UNequal treatment that is constantly given to a lot of groups who don’t fit YOUR narrow minded view of what “normal” is. And you want to believe that you have more intelligence than me. You a person who 1 – can’t answer ONE simple question, 2 – don’t understand why 15 year old’s can’t marry, 3 – believe that apples and oranges are the same thing because they can both be labeled a fruit and 4 – believe that blatant bigotry is OK as long as you don’t give the reason why people should not be equal.

    Yep, that shows UN-intelligence all right. Most bigots are stupid, that is why they harbor so much bigotry. You know because they have a lack of understanding or knowledge about that which they decide to dislike/hate. You are doing the right thing by accepting your failure hear and NOT answering my question and NOT staying on point. As you obviously can’t ACTUALLY refute any of my facts with your middle ground and gray areas. You know you had plenty of opportunity with the plethora of comments you and I have made to refute with FACT any of my arguments but you failed miserably. Too bad, I don’t feel sorry for you because those who fake intelligence are just that fake.

    So I see that with this last comment that you are trying to skedaddle with your tail between your legs and get out while you still don’t have to answer my question. So skedaddle on loser! Don’t let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

  25. estud

    this is not a new right we’re arguing. the right to marry whom you choose has been around for ages. In the 1960s, people were fighting for the right to marry inter-racially. True, this is a new version of an old argument, but it’s not a new concept

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s