Another rant. Get off the soap box, Amy!!!
I'm sure you've all read my rant posted here.
Well, last time I posted it, some idiot left a comment and I went off on him/her. I thought it was lost in the internet abyss, but apparently not.
For your reading enjoyment...
Here's the thing. This isn't about whether or not they made a choice or if it was something they were born with. This is about equal rights and benefits, things written into the legislature of this country from Day One.
I'm sure there are a lot of gay couples who want to get married and experience the benefits of that union. I think you'd be making a far stretch to say that most of them wanted to get married strictly for that reason though. There's many hetero couples that also look forward to sharing their benefits. There's cases about couples getting married early or even getting married at all for insurance reasons. As far as tax breaks, I think if they pay the same taxes, why shouldn't they be entitled? No one likes taxes. In most cases, it would be a tax penalty, instead of break, anyhow.
I also don't think that they're trying so hard just to use the word "married", "husband", or "wife", because a lot of gay couples consider themselves "married", outside of the law. I'm really glad you had a girlfriend who didn't care about getting married, but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Also, since it's past tense, I see how well that worked out.
Don't you ever say "Fuck you" to a homosexual for demanding that they be treated like an equal. That's ridiculous. I'm offended by your blatant display of ignorance and fear.
Marriage is for any two people who want to have a union and live their lives together. I'm sorry, but there's no clause that says "Oops! Sorry! You don't have plans to procreate in the next couple of years, try again later!" There's no obligation or requirement to start a family in those terms. Here's a dictionary definition of "family" for you, anyway: "Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place. " I think they qualify then, don't you?
You said, "You want to adopt kids, then go ahead". So, it's okay for them to adopt, but they can't raise that child in a stable marriage? Here's the thing, homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, as a couple. One may adopt the child, sure, but unlikely. Adopting as a single parent is a lot harder process, to start with. Something they would surely consider is that due to the closed-minded laws in place right now, the other "parent" will not be allowed to a) provide insurance for that child, b) have any claim if the other parent were to die, c) have any visitation rights or child support obligations if the parents were to split, d) have no say if the child was in the hospital and the other parent was unreachable, and many more. That's a really tough situation to willingly bring a child into, don't you think?
It doesn't matter the motive for the marriage and I don't think they're fighting just for the title. It matters that we are proposing creating legislature that will prevent an American who works as hard, pays the same taxes, etc to be equal. Seperate but equal is no longer acceptable in today's society. It never has been and certainly hasn't been since the 60's.
Men and women are created differently, every person is created different! That's what makes this world so interesting and why we have great artistic masterpieces, gorgeous symphonies, groundbreaking research, incredible medical procedures, and more. Not everyone is created the same, but by the foundation this country and most of its states were built on, we are all promised equal rights and benefits.
I don't think anyone is proposing everyone going gay. There will always be hetero couples reproducing and keeping or species moving forward. The problem, if you want to go there, is the amount of children hetero couples create and then neglect. If we gave a child to every gay couple wanting to adopt, we wouldn't even chip the number of abandoned children. These children are our future and they deserve loving homes and it doesn't take two straight people to create that.
Tolerance is not just being numb to an issue. It has advanced us, despite what you think. Think back to cases like Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 or Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Back then, no one wanted to practice tolerance, but if they hadn't, we'd still have segregation and no interracial marriages or adoption! So, tell me. Do you also oppose those issues or do you think the practice of tolerance was suitable there?
Your closing line, "If you're going to allow "gay rights", you mine as well allow rights to Necrophiliacs and beastiality," is the most ignorant and childish statement I've heard in this debate so far, and that's really pulling out all the stops. I thought I'd heard it all.
In response to it, no matter how ridiculous it is, homosexuality is a sexual preference, not a fetish, as necrophilia and beastiality both are. They both involve non-living-human "partners" which wouldn't be given any rights or benefits under the constitution, so it's a dead point. Thanks for playing.
And to finish, I don't hate you, but I did lost a lot of respect for you. Please refrain from leaving comments like this again unless you're going to make some valid or really debatable points.
Thanks.
Well, last time I posted it, some idiot left a comment and I went off on him/her. I thought it was lost in the internet abyss, but apparently not.
For your reading enjoyment...
Here's the thing. This isn't about whether or not they made a choice or if it was something they were born with. This is about equal rights and benefits, things written into the legislature of this country from Day One.
I'm sure there are a lot of gay couples who want to get married and experience the benefits of that union. I think you'd be making a far stretch to say that most of them wanted to get married strictly for that reason though. There's many hetero couples that also look forward to sharing their benefits. There's cases about couples getting married early or even getting married at all for insurance reasons. As far as tax breaks, I think if they pay the same taxes, why shouldn't they be entitled? No one likes taxes. In most cases, it would be a tax penalty, instead of break, anyhow.
I also don't think that they're trying so hard just to use the word "married", "husband", or "wife", because a lot of gay couples consider themselves "married", outside of the law. I'm really glad you had a girlfriend who didn't care about getting married, but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Also, since it's past tense, I see how well that worked out.
Don't you ever say "Fuck you" to a homosexual for demanding that they be treated like an equal. That's ridiculous. I'm offended by your blatant display of ignorance and fear.
Marriage is for any two people who want to have a union and live their lives together. I'm sorry, but there's no clause that says "Oops! Sorry! You don't have plans to procreate in the next couple of years, try again later!" There's no obligation or requirement to start a family in those terms. Here's a dictionary definition of "family" for you, anyway: "Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place. " I think they qualify then, don't you?
You said, "You want to adopt kids, then go ahead". So, it's okay for them to adopt, but they can't raise that child in a stable marriage? Here's the thing, homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, as a couple. One may adopt the child, sure, but unlikely. Adopting as a single parent is a lot harder process, to start with. Something they would surely consider is that due to the closed-minded laws in place right now, the other "parent" will not be allowed to a) provide insurance for that child, b) have any claim if the other parent were to die, c) have any visitation rights or child support obligations if the parents were to split, d) have no say if the child was in the hospital and the other parent was unreachable, and many more. That's a really tough situation to willingly bring a child into, don't you think?
It doesn't matter the motive for the marriage and I don't think they're fighting just for the title. It matters that we are proposing creating legislature that will prevent an American who works as hard, pays the same taxes, etc to be equal. Seperate but equal is no longer acceptable in today's society. It never has been and certainly hasn't been since the 60's.
Men and women are created differently, every person is created different! That's what makes this world so interesting and why we have great artistic masterpieces, gorgeous symphonies, groundbreaking research, incredible medical procedures, and more. Not everyone is created the same, but by the foundation this country and most of its states were built on, we are all promised equal rights and benefits.
I don't think anyone is proposing everyone going gay. There will always be hetero couples reproducing and keeping or species moving forward. The problem, if you want to go there, is the amount of children hetero couples create and then neglect. If we gave a child to every gay couple wanting to adopt, we wouldn't even chip the number of abandoned children. These children are our future and they deserve loving homes and it doesn't take two straight people to create that.
Tolerance is not just being numb to an issue. It has advanced us, despite what you think. Think back to cases like Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 or Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Back then, no one wanted to practice tolerance, but if they hadn't, we'd still have segregation and no interracial marriages or adoption! So, tell me. Do you also oppose those issues or do you think the practice of tolerance was suitable there?
Your closing line, "If you're going to allow "gay rights", you mine as well allow rights to Necrophiliacs and beastiality," is the most ignorant and childish statement I've heard in this debate so far, and that's really pulling out all the stops. I thought I'd heard it all.
In response to it, no matter how ridiculous it is, homosexuality is a sexual preference, not a fetish, as necrophilia and beastiality both are. They both involve non-living-human "partners" which wouldn't be given any rights or benefits under the constitution, so it's a dead point. Thanks for playing.
And to finish, I don't hate you, but I did lost a lot of respect for you. Please refrain from leaving comments like this again unless you're going to make some valid or really debatable points.
Thanks.