GOP responses to State of the Union

[Dukester]

If you feel my argument is invalid then please explain how civil unions are the same as marriages in terms of legal protection? As i said, there are very few states that recognize civil unions (something around three i think). If those unions aren't recognized across state lines, by the federal government or other institutions then they are inherently unequal. I suspect that is why many gay couples seek the same recognition that is afforded to straight couples. Same-sex couples haven't been offered the same legal representation as heterosexual couples and that is why it keeps being an issue.

I really don't care if you call it unions, marriage, or whatever else but you cannot argue for something that isn't legally equal and expect same-sex couples to accept it. I also really don't care if some churches don't want to 'marry' couples and others do, but until the legal issues are resolved it will remain a bigger deal than it really ought to be.

Also, I didn't realize Christianity was so fragile that it cannot withstand thousands of people wanting to use the same word as it does to define a commitment to another person.

The essentially do not exist at this point. I never said they did. Right now civil union is just a buzzword. It was thrown out there a few times and soundly rejected by gay activists so why should they exist?
As for recognition, I don't give two craps about that. Gays aren't a race, creed or a gender. They are people that prefer on thing over another and act on that preference. I don't deny them the right to do so but I reserve the right to disagree with them and view their lifestyle as immoral. That is what tolerance is.

 

[donner]

The essentially do not exist at this point. I never said they did. Right now civil union is just a buzzword. It was thrown out there a few times and soundly rejected by gay activists so why should they exist?
As for recognition, I don't give two craps about that. Gays aren't a race, creed or a gender. They are people that prefer on thing over another and act on that preference. I don't deny them the right to do so but I reserve the right to disagree with them and view their lifestyle as immoral. That is what tolerance is.

They rejected civil unions, which is marriage without defiling a Christian church, more than once.

you can disagree with the lifestyle all you want. that is your right. But civil union isn't just a phrase. It's in fact a legal concept that was rejected because it doesn't allow the same legal protections and advantages as marriage. Civil unions aren't, in fact, "marriage without defiling a Christian Church" because they do not function the same way and are not viewed the same from state to state. That is why 'recognition' matters. It doesn't refer to race, creed, gender or anything like that. It refers to states recognizing the laws of other states (i.e. full faith and credit). It's the reason that a marriage in oklahoma is still legal in California, North Carolina or Maine.

Very few people here would ever settle for laws that don't afford them the same protections of others in society, so why should same-sex couples?

 

[Dukester]

you can disagree with the lifestyle all you want. that is your right. But civil union isn't just a phrase. It's in fact a legal concept that was rejected because it doesn't allow the same legal protections and advantages as marriage. Civil unions aren't, in fact, "marriage without defiling a Christian Church" because they do not function the same way and are not viewed the same from state to state. That is why 'recognition' matters. It doesn't refer to race, creed, gender or anything like that. It refers to states recognizing the laws of other states (i.e. full faith and credit). It's the reason that a marriage in oklahoma is still legal in California, North Carolina or Maine.

Very few people here would ever settle for laws that don't afford them the same protections of others in society, so why should same-sex couples?

That could be amended. Civil unions should provide all the benefits of marriage. I never said it shouldn't.

 

[donner]

That could be amended. Civil unions should provide all the benefits of marriage. I never said it shouldn't.

Or they could just be married and it's all done in once easy step.

No need for additional laws or anything. In fact, it'd actually probably lead to repealing excess laws. Gotta love the idea of smaller government, don't ya.

 

[Dukester]

Or they could just be married and it's all done in once easy step.

No need for additional laws or anything. In fact, it'd actually probably lead to repealing excess laws. Gotta love the idea of smaller government, don't ya.

You missed the point and I'm too tired to re explain it for you in smaller words. Guess you're on your own.

 

[dennishoddy]

I agree with this 100%. We just quit and all the dead and wounded for what? To come home to a country that plays politics with their veterans' rights? F**king disgusting!!!

It's probably a good thing I am not in politics.

Late checking in, but this 110%.^^^^^^

If your going to commit a nations youth to fight a war,
You fight to win.
You fight to take and hold ground.
You fight to kill the enemy.
You commit every resource available in the arsenal to win, and in the end you work to bring the country back to some semblance of a democracy instead of abandoning a population to fall right back into the very hell you promised to get them out of.

Its the definition of insanity to allow politicians to run a war for political reasons, just to get reelected. We didn't learn our lessons from Vietnam when Johnson and McNamara made war/bombing decisions over dinner , and we dammed sure haven't improved since, no matter who has been in office.

 

[Dukester]

Late checking in, but this 110%.^^^^^^

If your going to commit a nations youth to fight a war,
You fight to win.
You fight to take and hold ground.
You fight to kill the enemy.
You commit every resource available in the arsenal to win, and in the end you work to bring the country back to some semblance of a democracy instead of abandoning a population to fall right back into the very hell you promised to get them out of.

Its the definition of insanity to allow politicians to run a war for political reasons, just to get reelected. We didn't learn our lessons from Vietnam when Johnson and McNamara made war/bombing decisions over dinner , and we dammed sure haven't improved since, no matter who has been in office.

............racist..........

 

[dennishoddy]

............racist..........

I don't know how this makes me a racist, but if my opinion puts me in that category somehow, I'm dammed proud of the title!

 

[Dukester]

Dammed proud of it!

Ha! I guess I'm one too then.

 

[donner]

You missed the point and I'm too tired to re explain it for you in smaller words. Guess you're on your own.

I'm sorry you want to make this personal and attack me, but i didn't miss anything in what you've said. You want to defend 'marriage' as a holy christian institution. Fine, but then why is the government using it for legal purposes?

All i've said is that 'marriage' has multiple meanings in this discussion and that until the the religious and the legal means are separated this will remain a problem.

You want to create 50 new laws to define something that, in legal terms, would be essentially the same thing. Why is the word 'married' so important?