Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here....Why would I buy the wrong sized pants (let's say) and then FORCE the store to make it my size? Back to the cake...Why go into a bakery, pick out a cake and then FORCE the bakery to decorate it against their will? Just buy the cake, take it home and decorate yourself OR go to another bakery. That being said, IF certain groups cry discrimination and FORCE merchants to fulfill their every need the why can't I FORCE merchants to provide me the same thing?
What are you ranting about? Obviously "sex" and parenthood have nothing to do with each other. . .this is why two people of the same sex can have children (or not) just as well as heterosexual people! What do you think heterosexual couples who are not fertile have to do? They have to have recourse to the same type of medical innovation that homosexual couples can use: artificial insimination, sperm donors, surrogate pregnancy, adoption, fostering, etc. . . In fact, many kids who are the result of a heterosexual marriage (or relationship), are raised by people who are not necessarily birth parents. . .or only ONE is a birth parent! There are also MANY homosexual people who have "tried" the "traditional" way of life, and have been married and have had children from an heterosexual marriage/relationship. . .and then discover they can't hide their true self for ever and enter into a homosexual relationship. . .with their BIRTH children! And in what way do you figure that ONLY HOMOSEXUALS get benefits? Any committed, legal couple gets benefits. . .and if you want to expand the "definition" of a couple to "mother and daughter," or "Brother and sister," fight that fight, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS! By the way. . .that argument ALSO has been presented 50 or more times, and has always failed!
I thought that you know that gay marriage is presented as GAY right. Relatives for insurance cannot get married, even though they can have children from pervious marriages. Why equality is associated with gay sex only? no one can answer.
What do hetero couples have in their relationship that represents "public interest of concern" ? I'm trying to understand. Not sure how "allowing" is the same as "endorsing". And just so you know... this largest tax increase in the history of the world, known as "Obamacare", uses a lot more of your tax dollars on benefits, than would gay marriage. Thanks to you paying for everyone's birth control (including diaphragms, IUDs and the pill for men)... women can have less abortions... hopefully. Of course, you're paying for those too. Wait, now we're talking about Democratic Congressmen ?! I'm confused.
The relationship between man and woman leads to procreation. Since procreation is a public issue, we need somehow to regulate it, essentially we need to force a man and woman to be responsible for their activity. Marriage used to be a social recognition and material help for heterosexual couples in exchange for their obligation and allegiance to the society. Nowadays judicial branch of the government imposed on us a new concept of marriage. According to some judges modern marriage definition is a welfare check for sexual exercise. From that perspective yes, any kind of sex should be equal and funded by taxpayers. It is not clear though why people who are not willing to perform mutual genitals massage should pay for those who do.
Usually it does, sure. But that regulation has a cost to it, yes ? Don't gay couples eliminate that cost ? I know I'm not following completely, so I don't understand your argument. But it seems you are saying it costs us taxpayers more, to benefit gay couples. But then you talk about the costs for hetero couples. I am neither for nor against SSM... so the lack of a dog in that race means I don't have to throw lame insults your way.... like the others here do. I'm not arguing with you.... I really am just trying to follow your argument. As for this... Do you mean that married gay couples will get some silly tax break like married hetero couples? I don't see the big deal there. Besides... that sexual exercise welfare check has existed all along. Look at the inner-cities.
Marriage is a set of benefits ( I believe about 1000 of them) granted by the government to married couples. If couple is heterosexual then benefits are justified, because government takes away their a freedom and make both a man and a woman responsible for their actions. If for instance woman get pregnant man is equally responsible. If couple is homosexual then benefits are NOT justified because such couple does not have any responsibility. E.g. if lesbian woman decide to get pregnant, her partner will not be responsible. Or if one man being in homosexual relationship decide to adopt a child, his partner will not have any obligation to be a father of the child. Don't you see a difference between two types of couples? Now we have to ask question, why government should pay 1000 of benefits to homosexual couples but not to all other couples that have no intention to have sex. E.g. mother and daughter or two sisters who live together and raise children. So far no one has presented any meaningful answer.
More uneducated, ignorant made up bovine excrement! Married same sex couples can jointly adopt The none biological partner- if married- is presumed to be the legal parent if her partner gives birth. States where same sex marriage is legal allow the married partner of a biological parent ( male or female) to adopt his or her child as a second parent adoption
Are you playing dumb? Don't you understand that I am talking about relationship between man and woman. If woman decide to have a child man is automatically responsible. If on lesbian get pregnant her partner is NOT responsible. Do you know any law that make homosexual man become a father of a child if his partner single-handedly decide to adopt?
It would appear that you are the one playing dumb. I just provided you with documentation showing how you are wrong and you repeat the same lie again. Some this is seriously wrong with you, or you just can't read. You probably don't dare to read or try to understand anything that undermines your idiotic ideas
Once you find a law that automatically makes homosexual partner a father, let me know, until then you are the dumb.
Still making up stuff including the misrepresenting of what I said? I never said that there was such a law. I said that a lesbian partner is presumed to be the legal parent when they are married and I proved it. I also aid that two gay may can both be the legal parent to a child. The point that you want to avoid is that lesbians and gay men can have the same legal rights and responsibilities as opposite sex couples. Case law on surrogacy for gay men who want to have a child is complicated and still developing. There are a lot of question about who the legal parent(s) are but I don't think that you are interested in, or capable of understanding that. The bottom line is that two men can be the legal parents. You're claiming otherwise, or that it matters whether or not they are " automatically" the parentis just stupid and another failed attempt to justify your bigotry. Read this and lets see if you can possibly learn something. Actually, I don't think so.
As I expected, no such law Being legal parent by mutual agreement and become a parent just by having a relationship are fundamentally different things. Apparently you do not understand it, your arguments and quotes are absolutely irrelevant.
You don't make any sense at all. You'll never let go off your bigotry. Anything to justify not recognizing those children as deserving of benefits by making some stupid and arbitrary distinction between public and private relationships. I'm done with you. Don't waste any more of. my time. And you should work on your writing skills. Very sloppy.
Today, HRC Mississippi strongly commends the courageous, bold and fearless comments penned in an op-ed by civil rights icon, Julian Bond. In todays Clarion Ledger, Bond implored Mississippians to begin right now to make sure LGBT people have equal protections, safer spaces and more inclusive communities across the state. HRC Mississippi affirms its commitment to live and breathe Bonds words to ensure LGBT Mississippians have the equal rights, protections and opportunities they deserve. Hours before the Supreme Court decided to take on marriage equality cases, violent graffiti that called for the deaths of LGBT Americans was found on the wall of a downtown Jackson building, said Bond, chairman emeritus of the NAACP, in the op-ed. On the same Tuesday night President Obama called marriage a civil right for the very first time and referenced lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in his State of the Union address, the Starkville Board of Alderman callously repealed a LGBT-inclusive resolution that had served to welcome and affirm all Starkville residents, and took away their health benefits in one fell legislative swoop. http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/civil...n-bond-makes-courageous-bold-case-for-lgbt-eq
Umm It's "horse in the race" or "dog in the fight" - - - Updated - - - OK, I like to think that I'm with the times but what is a ligament business?
What I find a biggest human right violation by them is that people who are disgusted with these issues can't unite and stay gay free, like form unities, have our own cities, schools, neighborhoods, etc. We will be called "homophobic" and hunted down. No one ever told could explain me what is wrong if I unite with people like myself? Instead, I am harassed and trolled. I don't hate you, it's just my way of life. You stay with your people and I never intrude your communities. But you keep intruding mine!
Some people will think "I am not gay. Why do I care?". You know, you will care, when it comes to lay offs. They will lay you off first, because you are not gay, thus you will not start a lawsuit on a company, claiming that you were fired, just because you are gay, thus discriminated. So, they will keep gays and lay off normals. The same with promotions at work, they will likely get promotion, then normals, because he will come to a manager and whine " I didn't get a promotion, because I am gay". Managers won't want to have a problem, million $ fine for discrimination and rather give it to a gay. They will also get all kinds of other social benefits in questionable situations. They are developing a special protected class, which stays above others. It has nothing about equality.
Really? !! That's kind of funny actually. I live in New Jersey which has what is considered the strongest anti discrimination laws in the country on the books. This has been the case for decades, and it includes LGBT people as a protected class: Same sex marriage is also legal in New Jersey. I have worked in the private and public sectors in this state-alongside of gay and lesbian people- all of my long life and have seen no evidence of what you're describing. As a protected class, they are assured of equal rights. Not special rights. It has everything to do with equality. Now, perhaps you can provide us with some actual evidence of any of this happening. I don't mean a few anecdotes. I mean a pattern of abuse and deception and of trying to get special treatment on the part of gays. If you can't, I can only assume that this is all just a bunch of made up equine excrement.
I don't care what is in New Jersey or what kind of evidence you have. You are missing the point. You are discriminating people who don't agree with you by so-called "anti-discrimination laws", meaning that I have no choice then to tolerate you, otherwise "I am discriminating you". So, my rights are stolen under such a hypocritical "equality". I would see true equality as this: "You are gay, having your own communities and this is fine. But I don't support this and would like to live in my own community. And this should be also fine." But it's not fine. I am some kind of "homophobic hater" and so on. So, people like me have no freedom of choosing our lifestyle.
Holy crap! Wow! Just freakin wow.! Thank you for your honesty and the educational value of your post. I've seen a lot but never thought that anything like you existed-a homosexual segregationist in the tradition of Bull Connor! Just the existence of laws against discrimination are an affront to you, an infringement on your lifestyle! Bovine excrement. Wipe the spit off of your chin, pull yourself together, and book a one way flight to Uganda . We're done here. Read my signature line!
Yes that is why whole debate about gay marriage and equality is a farce and deception. It is just a private group is lobbying government to acquire public benefits.
People just have to organize against special privileges for gays. That is all. It is obvious fact that gays are getting benefit that they have anything to do with. No argument has ever been presented why people involved in gay sex should get public benefits.
