Hardly disingenuous my friend. Both are examples of a minority group petitioning the majority for equal opportunities. No flaw there. i didn't say they were to be treated equally against each other. Simply an illustration to make a point. Which still stands.The attempt to relate as synonymous the civil rights movement and the marriage issue is disingenuous. Apples and oranges my friend.
I'm against gay marriage......Hardly disingenuous my friend. Both are examples of a minority group petitioning the majority for equal opportunities. No flaw there. i didn't say they were to be treated equally against each other. Simply an illustration to make a point. Which still stands.
As for calling it something else but meaning the same (civil union). What's the point of that? Isn't that just semantics? Just let any poor bastard that wants to get married .. get married! Honestly, I don't think the sky will fall. I don't think you would even notice any change whatsoever. Just an improvement in the lives of minority group. Horrors!
out.
I disagree, if we are going to tax Churches, then we should tax all NPOs. And why not. These NPOs are often paying their executives 6 figure salaries, high six figure salaries, like 200 - 300+K /year.I think string-of-asterisks-guy doesn't like your OPINIONS, TBT.
Ah.. but NPOs enjoy that status after going through an extensive and rigorous qualification procedure. Then, they must show exactly how their monies are being spent. And that's just the beginning. A church is definitely not the same as an honest-to-goodness NPO. With an NPO it can take YEARS to gain such status. A church merely has to open up a storefront and hire a preacher, et voila, non-taxable status.
Something is amiss! Make a church go through the exact same process, with the exact same oversights, and they, too, can enjoy NPO status, as long as they follow their own protocol, goals, and guidelines that gained them NPO status in the first place.
I wonder what the net worth of the Vatican is, anyone?I disagree, if we are going to tax Churches, then we should tax all NPOs. And why not. These NPOs are often paying their executives 6 figure salaries, high six figure salaries, like 200 - 300+K /year.
Non profit? Non profit my ass, just another method for the greedy to milk the system.
How so? What's ACORN and their voter registration machinations got to do with Proposition 8? If you're going to attack my argument, you're going to have to come up with something that's got more meat in it than that.Something is amiss. Your understanding of the role religion plays in this Judao/Christian society we have inherited, as well as your understanding of the role of the government, regarding religious tolerance, and the punitive function taxes play.
ACORN is a NPO. They support the messiah. Should they be taxed, too? (rhetorical)
I debate bolding this, because all of it is true.(snipped the funny bit, but know it was read and appreciated)All kidding aside, it's about money. Marriage is a financial as well as a social compact. To deny ANY citizen the ability to enter into these contracts is discrimination. There are all kinds of benefits to being married. If you want to keep gays out of marriage, then remove the perks from marriage. Since that is NOT going to happen, the only option is to allow same sex misery, er, I mean marriage.
Don't let him spin you on this. It is about fairness, equality, rights, and discrimination. It is about ALL of it.It's about equality, not fairness. Sometimes equality must be meted out by the Government and or courts, when the MAJORITY of people are against a MINORITY. Civil Rights would be a good example. Were you against that?
out.
Bullshit, and the first flaw in your own understanding and argument against allowing same sex marriage. Which is a RIGHT, afforded to you by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, because you were born heterosexual. It is no longer acceptable to discriminate against a group of people who had a hand in selecting their own sexuality about as much as you did.Equality of outcome is your desire. Equality of opportunity already exists.
You're trying to muddle the picture because of your own prejudices. There is a presumed right to pursuit of happiness, I know you're familiar with that term. In one's pursuit of happiness it is often, if not always, automatically presumed that such pursuit includes choosing your own mate, your own friends, etcetera. In this specific regard is where homosexuals are unable to exercise their right (pursuit to happiness) in a manner that heterosexuals are able to exercise their right.How about this...if the benefits associated with marriage are rights, why doesn't everybody, gay couples, straight couples, single straight dudes, gay 17 year old chicks, yada yada, everybody, already get those benefits, I mean, rights?
Apples and oranges. Denying the right to marry means that benefits as applied to married partners are denied. One of those "benefits" is being "next of kin". Must I explain all that this means to you? Shall I dig up the thread where I explained how the courts themselves have defined the legal differences between "marriage" and civil unions? I know you can find that information yourself, if you want to.Why doesn't everybody, automatically, get a welfare check every month? Food stamps every month? Free medical care? Etc. etc. Because we're not yet a socialist society. If we keep turning our personal lives and personal decisions over to the courts and government to decide for all of us, as one voice, we're screwed.
Therein lies the need for damn good pieces of paper such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta.People, voting people, can and do change their minds. Tyrants rarely do. As a new generation is born into a free society, they have the opportunity make their own rules, new rules, the rules that they let govern them. This is what we do. We vote.
Laugh my ass off! Come on, cc, no one's asking you to drop trou and let them suck your dick or take it up the ass. It is no skin off your nose if anyone else gets married, but especially some gays. It costs you zero. It imposes nothing upon you (other than acceptance, tough shit on that, people had to learn to accept those with swarthy skin, and wimmin-folk, too).What's next? Who does the next demand come from? Who do we, the American voter, kowtow to next?
Consenting adults, why not? Really. What skin off of your nose is it if it works for them and they produce happy, healthy, non-criminal productive members of society? Or if they produce nothing but their own monkey sweaty love? What the hell do you care?So polygamists should be able to marry multiple wives?
(sigh) See above. Sheesh, are common sense guidelines so difficult a concept?Children should be able to marry, if they want to? People can arrange marriages for others without the participants consent?
More than we'll ever see.I wonder what the net worth of the Vatican is, anyone?
States rights sweetie.....just like your precious "no death penalty" states. What if big bad Bush said, "I declare that the death penalty must be enforced for capital offenses under the following set of circumstances,...." You'd be all torn up, hun. States rights. I'd rather have 50 independent decisions than 1 final decision. Difference of opinion, I guess.I don't know. But, the NPOs I've worked with might have annual budgets that approach six figures. That can hardly be spent on a single "executive's" salary and still be able to show anything for the money spent.
How so? What's ACORN and their voter registration machinations got to do with Proposition 8? If you're going to attack my argument, you're going to have to come up with something that's got more meat in it than that.
I debate bolding this, because all of it is true.
Don't let him spin you on this. It is about fairness, equality, rights, and discrimination. It is about ALL of it.Bullshit, and the first flaw in your own understanding and argument against allowing same sex marriage. Which is a RIGHT, afforded to you by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, because you were born heterosexual. It is no longer acceptable to discriminate against a group of people who had a hand in selecting their own sexuality about as much as you did.
You're trying to muddle the picture because of your own prejudices. There is a presumed right to pursuit of happiness, I know you're familiar with that term. In one's pursuit of happiness it is often, if not always, automatically presumed that such pursuit includes choosing your own mate, your own friends, etcetera. In this specific regard is where homosexuals are unable to exercise their right (pursuit to happiness) in a manner that heterosexuals are able to exercise their right.
Apples and oranges. Denying the right to marry means that benefits as applied to married partners are denied. One of those "benefits" is being "next of kin". Must I explain all that this means to you? Shall I dig up the thread where I explained how the courts themselves have defined the legal differences between "marriage" and civil unions? I know you can find that information yourself, if you want to.
Therein lies the need for damn good pieces of paper such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta.
Laugh my ass off! Come on, cc, no one's asking you to drop trou and let them suck your dick or take it up the ass. It is no skin off your nose if anyone else gets married, but especially some gays. It costs you zero. It imposes nothing upon you (other than acceptance, tough shit on that, people had to learn to accept those with swarthy skin, and wimmin-folk, too).
Consenting adults, why not? Really. What skin off of your nose is it if it works for them and they produce happy, healthy, non-criminal productive members of society? Or if they produce nothing but their own monkey sweaty love? What the hell do you care?
(sigh) See above. Sheesh, are common sense guidelines so difficult a concept?
the only right denied is getting married, again its there choice to be gay, i mean have you heard of a person who stated that they were "born" gay and did not want to be gay?but you dont think they should have the same rights as heterosexuals?