Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):
2.  Is their relationship somehow less because they aren't?

Yes. Not to each other, but in the eyes of a lot of others.

People don't say "we've been together 26 years", they say "we've been married 24 years".

Sez who?

On all of it.  

I bet e-ebb doesn't think less of their relationship because they're not married.  He spoke in GLOWING terms of their current relationship.
I don't think less of it.   I think it's MORE difficult to stay together when you're not married.   I think it's very easy to say "This is too much trouble" and walk away because you don't have the legal entanglements.  I say "Good for them!"
If someone asks "How long have you been together?", I don't answer "We've been married just over 12 years". 

Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Marriage not done in a church is civil union.

State that does not allow union between two people of the same sex are not doing it why? Name one reason outside of religious teaching. You won't be able to, or anything not religious falls into rights that common law partners have.

You do realize that, as usual, when it come to progressive views on what is equal and right, the world falls into line, then the US, then third world countries follow soon after.

So it goes...

1 The World
2 The United States
3 The Third World

So what exactly is the world? And does this mean in the 70s that China and the USSR were leaders in what is right?

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
OK.  So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other?  What is the difference?

They can.  Civil union.  I've already said this.

What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?

History.  Tradition.  Culture.

The part where I lose you, and anyone who makes the argument you're making is:

Tec: Civil union is the same is marriage.  You spend the rest of your lives together, happily ever after.
Gay: You think they're the same? OK. I choose marriage then.
Tec: No. 
Gay: Why? You just said they're the same.

There are a lot of things in history that were universally accepted, and wrong.  A lot of traditions that make little sense to us now that were once the norm.  A lot of cultures, even today, that treat many people very poorly.  These are poor reasons.  Am I wrong?

And here's the part that I don't get about the pro-gay marriage supporters:

Which is more important?  Getting equal rights in terms of federal benefits, or fighting the "moral" battle over the definition of a freaking word?

I think the gay marriage supporters are fighting the wrong battle by demanding that it be called marriage.  There is very deep seated and passionate opposition to that stance, both from the religious right and from moderates such as myself who feel very strongly about history and tradition.
 
If the fight was over attaining equal rights with respect to federal benefits via civil unions, that's a much more winnable battle, one that would evoke a much less passionate opposition, and one that would get them much further along than where they are today.  Plus, since civil unions are not necessarily unique to same-sex couples (there are plenty of heterosexual couples who only get married for the federal benefits), it's a win for that portion of the heterosexual couple population as well.
 

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
OK.  So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other?  What is the difference?

They can.  Civil union.  I've already said this.

What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?

History.  Tradition.  Culture.

The part where I lose you, and anyone who makes the argument you're making is:

Tec: Civil union is the same is marriage.  You spend the rest of your lives together, happily ever after.
Gay: You think they're the same? OK. I choose marriage then.
Tec: No. 
Gay: Why? You just said they're the same.

There are a lot of things in history that were universally accepted, and wrong.  A lot of traditions that make little sense to us now that were once the norm.  A lot of cultures, even today, that treat many people very poorly.  These are poor reasons.  Am I wrong?

There are traditions that were bad that we eliminated.

There are other traditions that we still have.

Why is gay marriage something we need to take away from the people?

If this is really an issue no one cares about and people in general support it shouldnt be a problem to win elections in the 30+ states that have regualtions about marriage that apply to same sex couples.

Again why is this the issue? Why is this something we need to all be on the same page of? Why is this the issue that the people are too stupid to understand and we need the Federal Government to dictate the rules of?

Again gays are not facing daily persecution and discrimination. It will not impact society as a whole either way.

Why are we willing to give more power to the Federal Government over such a minor issue?

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
OK.  So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other?  What is the difference?

They can.  Civil union.  I've already said this.

What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?

History.  Tradition.  Culture.

The part where I lose you, and anyone who makes the argument you're making is:

Tec: Civil union is the same is marriage.  You spend the rest of your lives together, happily ever after.
Gay: You think they're the same? OK. I choose marriage then.
Tec: No. 
Gay: Why? You just said they're the same.

There are a lot of things in history that were universally accepted, and wrong.  A lot of traditions that make little sense to us now that were once the norm.  A lot of cultures, even today, that treat many people very poorly.  These are poor reasons.  Am I wrong?

And here's the part that I don't get about the pro-gay marriage supporters:

Which is more important?  Getting equal rights in terms of federal benefits, or fighting the "moral" battle over the definition of a freaking word?

I think the gay marriage supporters are fighting the wrong battle by demanding that it be called marriage.  There is very deep seated and passionate opposition to that stance, both from the religious right and from moderates such as myself who feel very strongly about history and tradition.
 
If the fight was over attaining equal rights with respect to federal benefits via civil unions, that's a much more winnable battle, one that would evoke a much less passionate opposition, and one that would get them much further along than where they are today.  Plus, since civil unions are not necessarily unique to same-sex couples (there are plenty of heterosexual couples who only get married for the federal benefits), it's a win for that portion of the heterosexual couple population as well.
 

I guess the question still stands, why does it matter?

It doesn't harm anyone to allow gays to marry (we know this because gays are marrying now). Gays want to be married because that means something to them.

What's the downside?

Posted by bad_luck on 4/8/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
OK.  So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other?  What is the difference?

They can.  Civil union.  I've already said this.

What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?

History.  Tradition.  Culture.

The part where I lose you, and anyone who makes the argument you're making is:

Tec: Civil union is the same is marriage.  You spend the rest of your lives together, happily ever after.
Gay: You think they're the same? OK. I choose marriage then.
Tec: No. 
Gay: Why? You just said they're the same.

There are a lot of things in history that were universally accepted, and wrong.  A lot of traditions that make little sense to us now that were once the norm.  A lot of cultures, even today, that treat many people very poorly.  These are poor reasons.  Am I wrong?

And here's the part that I don't get about the pro-gay marriage supporters:

Which is more important?  Getting equal rights in terms of federal benefits, or fighting the "moral" battle over the definition of a freaking word?

I think the gay marriage supporters are fighting the wrong battle by demanding that it be called marriage.  There is very deep seated and passionate opposition to that stance, both from the religious right and from moderates such as myself who feel very strongly about history and tradition.
 
If the fight was over attaining equal rights with respect to federal benefits via civil unions, that's a much more winnable battle, one that would evoke a much less passionate opposition, and one that would get them much further along than where they are today.  Plus, since civil unions are not necessarily unique to same-sex couples (there are plenty of heterosexual couples who only get married for the federal benefits), it's a win for that portion of the heterosexual couple population as well.
 

I guess the question still stands, why does it matter?

It doesn't harm anyone to allow gays to marry (we know this because gays are marrying now). Gays want to be married because that means something to them.

What's the downside?

The SC is not deciding if Gay Marriage is bad.

They are deciding if the people have the power of if the Federal Government has the power.

That is what matters.

In 50 years we may not remember the gay marriage debate.

We may remember that the Federal Government controls even the smallest aspects of our lives...

That is what matters!

tec - 

You can't get married.  Nobody from Connecticut can.  It's been a Connecticut's history for a LONG time.  I don't care if you feel you're equal to anyone from any other state, but if you're a Connecticut resident, it isn't allowed.  Sorry, no wedding for you.  You CAN have a civil union, though!  It's the same thing.  If you fight to make it called "marriage" you will get quite a bit of opposition.  Don't make a big deal over such a small issue.  I feel very strongly about history and tradition.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/8/2013 2:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Marriage not done in a church is civil union.

State that does not allow union between two people of the same sex are not doing it why? Name one reason outside of religious teaching. You won't be able to, or anything not religious falls into rights that common law partners have.

You do realize that, as usual, when it come to progressive views on what is equal and right, the world falls into line, then the US, then third world countries follow soon after.

So it goes...

1 The World
2 The United States
3 The Third World

So what exactly is the world? And does this mean in the 70s that China and the USSR were leaders in what is right?

I don't engage an infinite amount of randomly typing monkeys. Take it elsewhere.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
tec - 

You can't get married.  Nobody from Connecticut can.  It's been a Connecticut's history for a LONG time.  I don't care if you feel you're equal to anyone from any other state, but if you're a Connecticut resident, it isn't allowed.  Sorry, no wedding for you.  You CAN have a civil union, though!  It's the same thing.  If you fight to make it called "marriage" you will get quite a bit of opposition.  Don't make a big deal over such a small issue.  I feel very strongly about history and tradition.

Can I play this game?

Because my answer is "So?  No big deal.  Doesn't change my relationship."

Swamp - in 50 years, I'd tell my grandkids that homosexuals weren't allowed to get married nationally, and they'll think that's crazy.  Nobody would care that the federal government made that decision rather than each state.

I do agree that over time, each state would allow gay marriage.  In the same way that I think each state would have eventually allowed equality for women and minorities.  But we didn't wait for the states to do that.

Now, I get the "It's just marriage!" argument - homosexuals can do anything else they want to, just not get married.  But I think that just supports my argument.  They're just like anyone else, right? We all agree on that?  So let them get married.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
tec - 

You can't get married.  Nobody from Connecticut can.  It's been a Connecticut's history for a LONG time.  I don't care if you feel you're equal to anyone from any other state, but if you're a Connecticut resident, it isn't allowed.  Sorry, no wedding for you.  You CAN have a civil union, though!  It's the same thing.  If you fight to make it called "marriage" you will get quite a bit of opposition.  Don't make a big deal over such a small issue.  I feel very strongly about history and tradition.

burnsy, I was going to give you some credit for rising above bad_luck's dumbassery (because of his inability to add anything new to the dialog other than repeating the same ******* question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, as if he expected me to respond differently).  And to which I will no longer respond to.

At least you were able to ask a different question to take the dialog into a slightly different direction.  To which I responded.  To which, you in turn respond with . . . this?

I was hoping for a little more intelligent, more well thought out response from you.  You disappoint me.

Fine, tec.  But at the end of the day, they want to be equals to you or me.  This scenario I presented sounds ridiculous to you.  If Connecticut DID have this history, you'd probably be upset with it.  People from Connecticut are no different from New York.  What's the difference?  

This is what many people who are for SSM feel.

You also really haven't addressed my stance on standing for things on "this is how it's always been done." Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Swamp - in 50 years, I'd tell my grandkids that homosexuals weren't allowed to get married nationally, and they'll think that's crazy.  Nobody would care that the federal government made that decision rather than each state.

I do agree that over time, each state would allow gay marriage.  In the same way that I think each state would have eventually allowed equality for women and minorities.  But we didn't wait for the states to do that.

Now, I get the "It's just marriage!" argument - homosexuals can do anything else they want to, just not get married.  But I think that just supports my argument.  They're just like anyone else, right? We all agree on that?  So let them get married.

The reason it matters is because that is the system.

There is no serious harm towards gays that needs to be fixed with any urgency.

Why not just let the people decide the issue.

What is the emergency?

So I can't play your "Your marriage is invalid" game?

Is it because I don't care if the Feds declare my marriage illegal?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/8/2013 3:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Swamp - in 50 years, I'd tell my grandkids that homosexuals weren't allowed to get married nationally, and they'll think that's crazy.  Nobody would care that the federal government made that decision rather than each state.

I do agree that over time, each state would allow gay marriage.  In the same way that I think each state would have eventually allowed equality for women and minorities.  But we didn't wait for the states to do that.

Now, I get the "It's just marriage!" argument - homosexuals can do anything else they want to, just not get married.  But I think that just supports my argument.  They're just like anyone else, right? We all agree on that?  So let them get married.

The reason it matters is because that is the system.

There is no serious harm towards gays that needs to be fixed with any urgency.

Why not just let the people decide the issue.

What is the emergency?

It's not an emergency.  But it's an equality thing.  People shouldn't be told they can't get married based on who they're attracted to.  

Swamp, if you wanted to marry someone on the same sex, I feel like you might have a different tune.  It might be more urgent to you then.