Conservatives, raise your hands...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it helpful to hear conservative view points, because then I go out and research what they say and realize, once again, that they are full of shit. It's very validating. Thank you for being here!

All I have to do to validate my disdain for the liberal POV is to read here as well. So thank you, also. for the valuable service you provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We create civil unions with all the benefits as marriage. We call it a "civil union." Only difference is the wording.

If the only difference is the label, why must that word be different? Why not the same word for all government-recognized marriages/unions?

If it's because words are important ... then I think you begin to understand why some aren't satisfied with a different label.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We create civil unions with all the benefits as marriage. We call it a "civil union." Only difference is the wording.

If the only difference is the label, why must that word be different? Why not the same word for all government-recognized marriages/unions?

If it's because words are important ... then I think you begin to understand why some aren't satisfied with a different label.

Because marriage is between one man and one woman. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed. Man/woman = marriage. Gay = civil union. All legal rights equal. Semantically different. When "separate but equal" came about, no one entertained the possibility that gays would/could ever be married so that's a moot point.

Semantics is about the worst possible reason for denying someone their civil liberties.

The alternative is a separate, but equal status under the law, ie civil union. We tried that in many states, and it failed. Why? No civil union law gave equivalent rights to marriage. And that's why states with civil unions also pursued marriage laws later.

What part of this are you not understanding? We create civil unions with all the benefits as marriage. We call it a "civil union." Only difference is the wording. But no. Feet are stomped about that, hissy fits are thrown.

You don't want equal rights. You want a big stink made, that's all.

Right back at you. I am saying, that as a matter of legislative history, the states that enacted civil union laws were unable to create a form of union that provided every legal right available to married couples. It may be technically possible but for some reason it has yet to actually work. And the reason is that conservatives don't want it to work, so they fight it in the details.

Are you for your ignorance or knowingly ?

[Anonymous]

Aside from the (probably unconstitutional) DOMA, a marriage from one state is recognized throughout the country, because marriage exists everywhere. Is a civil union accepted out of state? If not, then it clearly does not have all the legal rights of marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aside from the (probably unconstitutional) DOMA, a marriage from one state is recognized throughout the country, because marriage exists everywhere. Is a civil union accepted out of state? If not, then it clearly does not have all the legal rights of marriage.

If you are hospitalized out of state, most of the time a civil union will not help your partner with healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it helpful to hear conservative view points, because then I go out and research what they say and realize, once again, that they are full of shit. It's very validating. Thank you for being here!

And thank you for validating my point that even when republicans have thoughtful and respectful discussions about their issues, they are bashed on here.

. It's not bashing. It's LOGIC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We create civil unions with all the benefits as marriage. We call it a "civil union." Only difference is the wording.

If the only difference is the label, why must that word be different? Why not the same word for all government-recognized marriages/unions?

If it's because words are important ... then I think you begin to understand why some aren't satisfied with a different label.

Because marriage is between one man and one woman. End of story.

And if cars go above 30mph we'll die, so we ride in our horse and buggies. And women are incapable of managing property so we give it over to the men. And children will be ruined if we show them affection so we don't touch them affectionately. And blacks are 3/5ths of a person. And only white, propertied males are steady enough to have the vote.

Or wait, none of those things are true. They may have passed for truth at one time, but we grew in our knowledge, understanding, or acceptance. We are not bound by the labels or beliefs we have held that are incorrect. We have the capacity to seek truth, and accept it when we find it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed. Man/woman = marriage. Gay = civil union. All legal rights equal. Semantically different. When "separate but equal" came about, no one entertained the possibility that gays would/could ever be married so that's a moot point.

Exactly, and let's not forget peeps, when a judge marries two of his lawyer friends in his chambers, it's not really a religious ceremony. People bring their faith into it because it's their choice. "heaven" forbid. Pun intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

You are correct. Could we just keep this one thing, just ONE thing? Man and woman, period, end of sentence. Just like Obama/Dumbass believed four years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it helpful to hear conservative view points, because then I go out and research what they say and realize, once again, that they are full of shit. It's very validating. Thank you for being here!

All I have to do to validate my disdain for the liberal POV is to read here as well. So thank you, also. for the valuable service you provide.

Funny how you missed the part about going out and doing research. A not so minor detail that explains the difference between how we are validated. You loathe us because we piss you off. We find you full of shit because we research what you say and it is, in fact, full of shit.

[Anonymous]

Right back at you. I am saying, that as a matter of legislative history, the states that enacted civil union laws were unable to create a form of union that provided every legal right available to married couples. It may be technically possible but for some reason it has yet to actually work. And the reason is that conservatives don't want it to work, so they fight it in the details.

That reason is that separate is inherently not equal. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

You are correct. Could we just keep this one thing, just ONE thing? Man and woman, period, end of sentence. Just like Obama/Dumbass believed four years ago.

No. You cannot keep this one thing. It is not yours to keep. And frankly, there have been too many points in our history where someone just like you would have pleaded with us to keep "just this one thing", except it was another "one thing".

You get to define the Sacrament in your own church the way that you want. That is yours. The law is everyone's. And nothing uttered by a Justice of the Peace affects any sacramental institution under your control. The law and religion should never have been intertwined in this way, and it's time to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

You are correct. Could we just keep this one thing, just ONE thing? Man and woman, period, end of sentence. Just like Obama/Dumbass believed four years ago.

No. You cannot keep this one thing. It is not yours to keep. And frankly, there have been too many points in our history where someone just like you would have pleaded with us to keep "just this one thing", except it was another "one thing".

You get to define the Sacrament in your own church the way that you want. That is yours. The law is everyone's. And nothing uttered by a Justice of the Peace affects any sacramental institution under your control. The law and religion should never have been intertwined in this way, and it's time to fix it.

In 2008 Obama and Biden believed in that one thing. Just saying, you were fooled. And that's a polite term.

[Anonymous]

Obama and Biden believed in it about as much as Dick Cheney. You are the fool for thinking these guys suddenly had an epiphany.