"Just cause its "Christian" doesn't mean its not hate. "

Just because you don't embrace something does not mean its hate.

Tolerance is not what is being asked for.

They want the same rights as any other American."

No, the rights are not the issue, they want society to consider them the same. That is not tolerance. For instance i live in WA, we passed a everything but marriage bill that granted them every right grant-able by a state, that lasted a couple of years before they were back demanding that they get to call it marriage. That is the issue, they are looking for the government to force society. And that is not tolerance. Tolerance is not removing all diversity but acknowledging it.

Probably because it didn't extend to the Federal rights without that certificate of marriage."

No additional rights were granted, everything the state had the power to do was done aside from checking a box that said married.

"Hath not a a gay person eyes? hath not a gay person hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a heterosexual is? "

Come now lets not go down that road.

"And allowing it. Allowing it is a vital aspect of tolerance."

How many are out there to not allow someone to be gay? Obviously there are a few nuts but again that is not what this is about. They want a title, a social title, and if society is not willing to give it to them they want the government to step in and tell them they have to. The legal aspect of marriage is not what is in question, it is the social aspect and i think it is wrong to have the government force society, that is exactly backwards of the way it should work.

If someone is gay fine, i have no problem with that and i believe they should have the same rights. I do not believe a title is a right and do not believe that government should have anything to do with marriage. I would rather see the title taken away and consider it a union for everyone then forcing people to do away with tradition and the social aspect of marriage. Why is homogenization unnecessary for tolerance? It has nothing to do with tolerance and frankly removes diversity by definition, that is not a good goal for anyone.

"You went down that road when you said"

Yeah sure and a right and left handed person are exactly the same too right?
Come on now.

"Spoken like a true bigot."

Ohh, good one, when in doubt call someone a bigot. I give a perfect example of exactly what i said and your response is to call me a bigot, you are better then that.

" Marriage is a legal partnership between two people who, in the eyes of the law, become one entity."

Again look at WA that existed, but that was not enough, the title is what they wanted.

"what exactly is this "title" our LGBT friends are clammoring for in your mind that offends you so"

Me? Absolutely nothing, but i don't think that society should be forced to embrace a different definition for that title then the traditional one unless THEY want to.

"live and let live - what is so hard about that"

Exactly, so why force people to think exactly like you do? Why is it okay to force your ideals on someone? That is not live and let live at all.

"I think your posts pretty much destroyed any doubt there was, toots"

If standing up for societal rights to make societal decisions makes me a bigot then so be it. Who is hurt by not allowing a gay person to check a box on a government form? It is their feelings against that of society, if society wants to change their definition then great. Until such a time as that i think it is wrong to have government force them to.

"Is it okay to be hate filled and narrow minded if you never force your hatred and narrow mindedness on other people?"

Yes, we all have our own morality, choice less conformity in not an answer for hatred. As for narrow minded, the assumption that yours is the broad view is no different then theirs outside of a given prospective.

therefore should be subject to a separate set of rules and rights. "

No, i only said that a title is not a right. I clearly stated that i support all the rights. Do not confuse me with the boogyman.

"Bigotry- to stop someone from doing something based on their race"

Is stopping the same thing as not including?
I do not believe so, to me it is no different then having a male social club and not including females in it. Are you a bigot if you think that is okay too?

"Old Libertarian saying: your right to punch ends at my nose."

Old schoolyard saying,
"i am just going to walk forward and swing my fist, if you get in the way it is your fault"

#33

Easy enough, call it ethnocentrism. We gravitate towards and have pride in things that reflect ourselves.

Social Security benefits is a good example of how the law you sited does not cover teh problems and why it would be rejected by the Gay community."

Except that it did not change the standing for SS whatsoever, they are still unable to collect based on federal law. So again nothing was gained but a title.

"It is if you are the only game in town."

But it is not, it is a word, it is a tradition. To decide that the only way you will feel validated is to take over that definition by force is not inclusion anyway.

#39

Maybe, are you admitting that no rights were gained by moving from an everything but marriage to a marriage in WA?

I am not including you in any trip I take there."

So i can call you a racist for not taking a black person? Or a bigot for not taking a gay person? Or a whatever it would be called for not taking a little person?

SS benefits are still not available to gay couples in WA because of federal law. So you have yet to point out any reason other then a title why it was so important to legalize gay marriage when they already had every right they did before it.

#45

The difference is this. Lets say you only take family members to the beach, by failing to include everyone outside your family are you precluding everyone else?

Yes I have. States can't do it without a Federal action due to the massive amount of Federal Marriage perks"

Your statement was the reason that the went for the title was not the title but SS benefits.

"Social Security benefits is a good example of how the law you sited does not cover teh problems and why it would be rejected by the Gay community."

Why would it be rejected by the gay community if there is no difference because the feds stop it anyhow?

#49

All i said that exclusion is not the same as not including.

#57

Maybe i read that diffidently from you but at least to me there is no active exclusion only inclusion of that which has been predefined. But either way, you are free to say you beat me on the definition of my chosen word.

So instead i'll illustrate my intended meaning. Let's say i have a book club and the only book we read or discuss is the joy of cooking, and it is call the birch wood leafsitter socity. If someone wants to join but wants to read or discuss the hardy boy series and does not want to comply with the agreed upon rules so he tries to make a law to force us to do so who is forcing what on whom? The point is that The societal aspect of marriage in a traditional sense states it as between a man and a woman, it does not state that no gays are allowed only states what they hold as the definition. While in the minds of some there is not equality between the two, using the traditional definition of marriage does not invalidate the other point of view.

Only if you can prove that he didn't take for those specific reasons."

That is my point. Anyone who does not jump on the gay marriage bandwagon is considered a bigot. Take me for example, how many times on this thread has that title been put on me. No where have i said that i have a problem with gay marriage but if i am not a supporter i am apparently a bigot, no reason necessary.

#62

That is my opinion as well. The legal aspect of it does not hing on the tradition definitions. My solution would be for the legal aspect to all be considered unions. The problem is that when this is done it was not enough for some people. That is why i used my state as an example, we took care of all of that as far as a state could but they still needed the word which is the part that society should dictate. There is no reason to usurp society's role in the definition when no rights hang on the word used.

Way too late to put the genie back in the bottle now....."

Why, how hard would it be to remove that title completely from a legal standpoint? A few documents are changed and everyone is in a union in the eyes of the government. To me that is a far better solution then removing the role of society in choosing it's own definitions for societal functions.

#67
The defense of marriage act prevents same sex couples from getting certain benefits. To change that the law has to be changed, if the law is changed then it would be very easy to apply the benefits to all unions. No need to usurp the term marriage.

"YOU claimed that LGBT citizens are seeking a "title" - to what "title" are you referring?"

The title of married, obviously.

"YOU claim that your are being "forced" how to think. But obviously you have not changed your thoughts on the matter at all - so...your argument is obviously fasle by your own postings - as your "thinking" has obviously not been "forced" to change."

They are asking that, regardless of the traditional definitions or the will of the people that we are all forced to consider them married. That is forcing thought.

"Husband and Husband" and be afforded all the legal recognition that comes with marriage"

Again, look at WA, they were, it was not enough for them.

" let them do so...live and let live"

So why force society to embrace a morality that is not embraced via force? That is not live and let live at all now is it.

"YOU - may not like it, but it does not affect you."

I never said i don't like it, i could not care less. What i care about is allowing society to make these decisions. If society want it then great, let them win over society not force society.

"they deserve equal protection under the law - they deserve all the rights granted by law to any married couple"

I agree, but i do not think that it is a right to take a title that has a meaning to a lot of people when they do not fall under the traditional definition. If society wants to change the definition let them, if they do not let them, simple as that.

"Mr. S solutions seems to be "separate but equal"
...sound familiar...?"

You just don't get it do you?
Celebrate differences, different but equal. Why would you think anyone deserves to have any trait marginalized so they can be just like the others? I understand you want to compare it to black civil rights but i don't recall them ever saying that they want to be called white, they wanted equal treatment not the same word used for them. It would seem to me that it is a lack of pride that says you need to be just like the others. So compare it to the civil rights moment if you want, they had pride, they did not want anything but to have the same treatment and they did not hang their worth on redefining what a word means. They fought for legal recognition of equal rights and never said it is a right to decide what others have to call you. Unfortunately you can not say the same for many of the vocal same-sex marriage crowd. I am not ashamed of my person so i have no need to say i am exactly like everyone else, i enjoy the things that make me unique and i have no need for stars upon thars.

#72

I think you must have misunderstood me before. What i said was that the state did nothing by granting the title over the rights, that is because they could not do more. That has been what i said from the beginning, the state gave them every right and benefit it could, and made them equal in the eyes of the state, but it was not enough. They chose to go after a title knowing that it did not do anything as far as rights are concerned. SS benefits have nothing to do with what a state classifies you as so any reason for the community to reject it could not possibly be about rights unless you think they were all duped into thinking that it granted them something but that was not the campaign and i think they knew full well what they were going after.

"That is forcing thought." No it isn't. It is a legal definition."

Redefining the accepted meaning of a word is changing the implied values of the word. Words mean something, forcing someone to consider the definition of something the same that does not meet the traditional definition is forcing thought.

"Try to keep up."

I suggest you read what i have said rather then just assume anyone who is not lock step with you the boogyman. Respond to what i have said not what you think you can beat.

"That clears up everything"
If you do not understand that basic concept then i feel sorry for you. Homogenization is not something to be desired.

"What the LGBT community wants isn't a title; they want their unions to be recognized by law as any legal marriage is recognized"

Then why do they push further after they have received equal rights under the law(as far the state is concerned)? You can claim differently all you want but you are only fooling yourself. Prove that there is one difference that they made aside from the title in WA, go on i'll wait. Ok, no i won't, but no one has that much time.

" Creating a different classification under law relegates them to second class status and denies them the rights that they are entitled to under the 14th amendment to the constitution... "

Ah, so i am a male and because there is a classification for females as well they are second class citizens? I am also an organ doner i suppose that does the same? I wonder if my eye color as classified on my licence makes me a second class citizen as well? The 14th does not dictate what people have to call you, there is no protection for that, only that you have the same rights and if you think a title is a right then you place value in the wrong place.

"..People like you with such delicate sensibilities can call it anything they want in order to protect yourselves from the dreaded abuse of having to endure someone refering to a LGBT couple as "married", but under the law there can be no difference..."

Funny, i am the one with delicate sensibilities because i think that society should rule the government and not the other way around but on the other side it is of cause not the same for getting bent out of shape that someone will not call you by the title you want. Got it.

How many times do i have to say this before you give up on the delusion and realize that you are fighting windmills. Rights should be equal, but a title is not a right and it is overstepping the role of the government to decide what the societal definition is.

Look, if your not going to bother even reading what i have written and just apply to me whatever fantasy argument you want me to make i am not going to bother responding to your constant strawman. If you want to have a discussion then read up and get back to me when you have relevant input.

#77
#78

I'm done, i told you that you need to limit your statements to the argument at hand, ones i made and still you cannot do anything by fantasize about my position. It is pretty sad that this "strongly held" position of yours is not strong enough to stand up against the reality, i truly feel sorry for you. No "point" you "made" was not rebutted partially because you obviously had nothing of value to say besides trying to pigeon hole me and pretend we all live in a fantasy world. If it is a subject you care about then do try to think about it, because what you have demonstrated is the farthest thing from thought. So, consider me a bigot, it does not matter if you desperately need it to be true to justify your hatred. I am perfectly happy with reality and don't care if some idiot can't tolerate reason or even another point of view.

#80

It's a principals thing, it does not matter what your's are, standing up for them is always worthwhile.

I said i am done, you have yet to bring one iota of reason, useful information or informed argument. Pretending you have does not make you any less pathetic. Grow up and let people live and think the way they want to. Just because you believe something does not mean everyone else has to or they are the bigot, in fact it makes you the bigot to think so. But hey, there is no law against being a bigot so you just go right along your way, if you are happy with it then who am i to say you have to have on open mind.