Gay discrimination

[Turtle]

So why can they not have marriage??

The question is, why do they want it?

You don't get to have something just because you want it really, really badly.

They don't get to have marriage, because it's not theirs, and it never had been. Marriage has always been about the joining of a man and a women primarily for procreation. It's never been about love. Marrying for love is a recent trend. Traditionally marriages have been arranged, so most straight men and women haven't gotten to marry the one they love, either, so don't tell me marrying the one you love is somehow being equal. Civil unions give them equality in every single way that matters, except, they don't get to redefine what marriage means. And that's the ONLY reason they want it. They don't want what's theirs, wanna win.

Why ..why can they not be equal

They already are equal.

Fight on gay people..fight on...get what is yours....

It's not theirs just because they say it is, no matter how many times they say it. Explain to me how a civil union, with every benefit and right that a marriage has, is not equal? You can't, because it is. Yet they reject it, and it's not because they want to be equal.

 

[greasytshirt]

It may be natural that it occurs, but it's nevertheless abnormal.

Is it abnormal because it makes you feel icky? That doesn't seem like a good enough excuse to disallow two people of the same sex from entering marriage.

Besides, my post was a counter to the charge that homosexuality doesn't exist in nature. It absolutely does across hundreds of species.

 

[layoutshooter]

Is it abnormal because it makes you feel icky? That doesn't seem like a good enough excuse to disallow two people of the same sex from entering marriage.

Besides, my post was a counter to the charge that homosexuality doesn't exist in nature. It absolutely does across hundreds of species.

It is abnormal because it does not further the survival of the species, which is the primary reason for sex. Icky has nothing to do with it.

There is no need to redefine terms when a legal, civil union, would do the same thing.

 

[greasytshirt]

The question is, why do they want it?

Heterosexual couples want it, and can get it. Homosexual couples want it, too.

You don't get to have something just because you want it really, really badly.

You get what you really want after working very hard. Marriage equality supporters have been working very, very hard, and we're at the horizon of seeing them get the fruit of their labors.

They don't get to have marriage, because it's not theirs, and it never had been.

After a lot of hard work, that's about to change.

Civil unions give them equality in every single way that matters

Civil unions do not always afford the same rights and privileges as marriage.

except, they don't get to redefine what marriage means.

Why not? It's just a word. Language is always in flux. The word marriage had no special fan club until very recently.

And that's the ONLY reason they want it. They don't want what's theirs, wanna win.

Are you taking it personally?

They already are equal.

Then treat them like equals.

It's not theirs just because they say it is, no matter how many times they say it. Explain to me how a civil union, with every benefit and right that a marriage has, is not equal? You can't, because it is. Yet they reject it, and it's not because they want to be equal.

It really seems like you're taking it personally.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Civil unions do not always afford the same rights and privileges as marriage."


What rights and privileges are not being afforded in a civil union?

 

[Ragman]

"Civil unions do not always afford the same rights and privileges as marriage."


What rights and privileges are not being afforded in a civil union?

Who are you quoting??

 

[layoutshooter]

Who are you quoting??

Does it matter? I just wanted to understand that statement. I don't understand it.

 

[Ragman]

Does it matter? I just wanted to understand that statement. I don't understand it.

Yes it matters. I want to go back and follow the entire conversation.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes it matters. I want to go back and follow the entire conversation.

It was cut out of post #44. It can be answered by anyone who may know the answer. I don't understand what "rights and privileges" are not being afforded by legal, civil unions. I am looking for clarification.

 

[Turtle]

Is it abnormal because it makes you feel icky?

As Layout said, icky has nothing to do with it. It's abnormal because it's not normal, not average, not typical, or not usual. Like I've already stated, the whole purpose of sex is procreation. It's the reason sex was invented. The reason for marriage is nurture that procreation within the society in order to strengthen society and thus better ensure the survival of the species. Homosexuality doesn't fit in there in any way, shape or form, and same-sex marriage fits in there even less.

That doesn't seem like a good enough excuse to disallow two people of the same sex from entering marriage.

Which is why I've never used that as a reason, or excuse to disallow two people of the same sex to get married. I have no problem with a civil union. None whatsoever. My problem is why they want the "M" word and their redefining of terms to suit their needs. It's the same exact problem I have with those who want to redefine "baby" and "person" to mean whatever fits their personal agenda. They want it, and the reason they want it is because they want it.

Besides, my post was a counter to the charge that homosexuality doesn't exist in nature. It absolutely does across hundreds of species.

Sorry, I missed that charge. Whoever made it is, for lack of a more appropriate but far less diplomatic term, wrong. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, does not exist across any species, except one - homoretardicus.

 

[greasytshirt]

the whole purpose of sex is procreation. It's the reason sex was invented. The reason for marriage is nurture that procreation within the society in order to strengthen society and thus better ensure the survival of the species. Homosexuality doesn't fit in there in any way, shape or form, and same-sex marriage fits in there even less.

Your definition of marriage then automatically excludes heterosexual couples that don't want children, or that can't have children. Like my wife and I. We can't have kids. Since children aren't a possibility, do we have a marriage or simply a civil union?

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't even believe that the movement to redefine the term has anything to do with "love" either. It is my belief that is all about money and benefits.

 

[asjssl]

I don't even believe that the movement to redefine the term has anything to do with "love" either. It is my belief that is all about money and benefits.

Maybe its about a group of people finally standing up for themselves.. saying we are citizens like you..we are not less than you ...so we deserve the RIGHTS like everyone else..
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[asjssl]

Enough said...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[greasytshirt]

"Civil unions do not always afford the same rights and privileges as marriage."


What rights and privileges are not being afforded in a civil union?

Well, let's look at my State, Virginia.



"Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for all the protections available to opposite-sex married couples."

"Virginia voters ratified a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in November 2006. The state recognizes no other same-sex relationship. The same definitions and restrictions appear in state statutes. The Marshall-Newman Amendment also prohibits the Commonwealth of Virginia and its political subdivisions, such as counties and independent cities, from creating or recognize any legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals, such as domestic partnership benefits."


In Virginia, there's no such thing as a Civil union for a same-sex couple.

Recently, most Virginians pulled the sticks from their puritanical rear ends and there's been a sea change in public opinion, vastly siding with equality for everyone. So we will see.

 

[layoutshooter]

Maybe its about a group of people finally standing up for themselves.. saying we are citizens like you..we are not less than you ...so we deserve the RIGHTS like everyone else..
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

What "rights" do they lose by using a different word?

It's ONLY about money and benefits, like most politics, wrapped up in sappy words. I don't fall for it. There is just about nothing that cannot be handled by drawing up a contract and signing it. I think that taxes have a lot to do with the feds pushing it. The feds do NOTHING to benefit people.

 

[greasytshirt]

I don't even believe that the movement to redefine the term has anything to do with "love" either. It is my belief that is all about money and benefits.

It's not like heterosexual couples have given the concept of marriage any respect. We've completely soiled and trampled it.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well, let's look at my State, Virginia.



"Same-sex couples and families headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for all the protections available to opposite-sex married couples."

"Virginia voters ratified a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in November 2006. The state recognizes no other same-sex relationship. The same definitions and restrictions appear in state statutes. The Marshall-Newman Amendment also prohibits the Commonwealth of Virginia and its political subdivisions, such as counties and independent cities, from creating or recognize any legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals, such as domestic partnership benefits."


In Virginia, there's no such thing as a Civil union for a same-sex couple.

Recently, most Virginians pulled the sticks from their puritanical rear ends and there's been a sea change in public opinion, vastly siding with equality for everyone. So we will see.

That does not answer the question I asked though. What rights and privileges are not afforded in a legal, civil union?

 

[layoutshooter]

It's not like heterosexual couples have given the concept of marriage any respect. We've completely soiled and trampled it.

"WE" have trampled it? There is NO such thing as "group guilt". All transgressions are individual. I answer only for my actions, not the actions of others. I have have been married to the same woman for heading on 41 years. I trampled on nothing.

 

[greasytshirt]

That does not answer the question I asked though. What rights and privileges are not afforded in a legal, civil union?

That depends entirely on the wording of that particular civil union, and the area it came from. If a couple with a civil union moved to VA, would it get recognized legally? Doubt it. If they moved overseas, would it be recognized? That's a crapshoot. That's why I answered the way I did, because nothing in a civil union is guaranteed everywhere, like in a marriage.

A civil union is a cheap facsimile of marriage, and there's nothing equal about them whatsoever. That's why it's important that when gay people get hitched, it gets called a marriage.