plain and simple, what might matter in say utah might not matter in vermont. therefore the less federal involvement (you know as the 10th amendment of the constitution says....) the better. you dont like what your state is doing? change it or leave for a state that does do things your way. But stop pushing your beliefs on everyone
so EVERY last "rich person" is evil? and whom do you define rich? how much of their money do you expect them to give you? I mean if my definition of rich includes for instance, you would you be willing to give me some of your money?
Frankly I dont care what happens in all of this, it does not matter to me personally one bit other than I find it to be a distraction on the real issues that are affecting our country right now.
ughh, no i was the government to list all civil unions as civil unions and remove the worrd married. then let the different churches decide what they want to call it. in the eyes of the law it should be civil union IMO
haha im not even religious. I just am sick of the arguing over something that I find to be a pointless argument when we have REAL problems in our country to worry about
I think you see that because of your own bias more than anything else. but thats just my opinion. If we look at the facts. FOX said the same thing everyone else has said. nothing more, nothing less, but because you want to think you know what they "REALLY" are all about, you are the one twisting their words.
if they want to use the brand (married) their parents used, they should use the brand (opposite sex) that thheir parents used as well would be the argument to that
except that is has. at least in NY 2 gay people could get the same rights as a married couple simply by living together for XX amount of years. in fact they dont even have to be gay they just have to live together for XX years to get the same rights as a married couple. so yes, at least around me this was an option that the gay crowd did not find to be acceptable.
well yes and no. im saying strip the term "marriage" for the legal world and replace it with "civil union" for ALL gay or straight. Leave the word marriage to the churches. or other groups. in other words, make "civil union" the legal definition of marriage as far as the government is concerned. than everyone should be happy. If people still are not happy with that, that just tells me there ar eother motives behind them.
true but on the flip side of the coin. when "civil unions rights" were offered in some places to homosexuals, that wasnt "good enough" for them, even though it gave them the exact same rights just under a different word. So its not just the religious who have an issue here.
Thank you for charting out what I said in a nice easy to read chart for people who get past the first few words I wrote. If you dont mind I will be copying this and editing it for use in future discussions.
as I said, I want equality for all. Meaning that all americans can have the same rights as a married couple. I am simply saying take the word married out of the equation, and everyone throws a shitfit. It almost seems as if equal rights are not what is sought after when you can offer the same exact thing with a different name and it isnt good enough.
as I have said before, this entire thing is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues going on in america today.
well to be fair, this really isnt that big of a deal to some 80+% of america. meanwhile we still have IRS issues between overspending and not keeping receipts the the bengazi issue, to the on going wars to the new issues in syria. Plain and simple what someone does in their bedroom is not important in the scheme of things. This to me is just a distraction from the real issues in america today
At this point, anyone who doubts that Fox News is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.
At this point, anyone who doubts that MSNBC is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.
At this point, anyone who doubts that CNN is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.
what facts were twisted based on what you wrote? I am sorry I just dont see any twisting. And I was doing the same thing with network TV, all 3 had the same live shot of the SC and were saying almost the exact same thing as it happened so I am a little confused on the point you are trying to make. unless you are just trying to take a cheapshot at fox news because thats the "cool" thing to do.
I prefer to go back to the intent of the country. where if it is not EXPLICITLY written in the constitution, than the federal government has no say whatsoever and it is a states right. The 10th amendment is pretty clear.
actually yes, the states do have the power to deprive people of rights. and people have the power to move to a state that fits them. Take "love" out of the debate and everyone would be happer. make the "rights" be about the household rather than the partner.
Which is why I say take "love" out of it. If we respect the rights of marriage based on the household vs the people involved. everyone gets what they want and no one has to argue over semantics.
rights are NOT given by the government first of all, we have the rights, the government just acknowledges them.
Having said that, those "rights" you listed should not be tied to "love" they should be tied to household. If they are tied to household rather than love, everyone is treated equal, we dont have some groups fighting others over special treatment, it really is the best way to move past this stupid quarrel
I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"
Now having said that. If 2 gay people want to live together and have the same rights that current married couples get, I dont see why that should not be allowed. I also think that if 2 people simply live together they should get the same rights, "love" should never be the deciding factor when it comes to giving tax breaks to people or even worse tax money to people.
Slashdot Mirror
so we either pander to the churches or the homosexuals, either way we are pandering to someone
plain and simple, what might matter in say utah might not matter in vermont. therefore the less federal involvement (you know as the 10th amendment of the constitution says....) the better. you dont like what your state is doing? change it or leave for a state that does do things your way. But stop pushing your beliefs on everyone
and in the grand scheme of things, its still not a big deal
so EVERY last "rich person" is evil? and whom do you define rich? how much of their money do you expect them to give you? I mean if my definition of rich includes for instance, you would you be willing to give me some of your money?
Frankly I dont care what happens in all of this, it does not matter to me personally one bit other than I find it to be a distraction on the real issues that are affecting our country right now.
the same way they decide if you live at said house. by your mail. if you get mail sent to your house, its safe to say you are a part of said household
ughh, no i was the government to list all civil unions as civil unions and remove the worrd married. then let the different churches decide what they want to call it. in the eyes of the law it should be civil union IMO
haha im not even religious. I just am sick of the arguing over something that I find to be a pointless argument when we have REAL problems in our country to worry about
I think you see that because of your own bias more than anything else. but thats just my opinion. If we look at the facts. FOX said the same thing everyone else has said. nothing more, nothing less, but because you want to think you know what they "REALLY" are all about, you are the one twisting their words.
if they want to use the brand (married) their parents used, they should use the brand (opposite sex) that thheir parents used as well would be the argument to that
no, it is not. a rose by any other name is still a rose, a civil union by any other name (marriage) is still a civil union.
except that is has. at least in NY 2 gay people could get the same rights as a married couple simply by living together for XX amount of years. in fact they dont even have to be gay they just have to live together for XX years to get the same rights as a married couple. so yes, at least around me this was an option that the gay crowd did not find to be acceptable.
well yes and no. im saying strip the term "marriage" for the legal world and replace it with "civil union" for ALL gay or straight. Leave the word marriage to the churches. or other groups. in other words, make "civil union" the legal definition of marriage as far as the government is concerned. than everyone should be happy. If people still are not happy with that, that just tells me there ar eother motives behind them.
true but on the flip side of the coin. when "civil unions rights" were offered in some places to homosexuals, that wasnt "good enough" for them, even though it gave them the exact same rights just under a different word. So its not just the religious who have an issue here.
Thank you for charting out what I said in a nice easy to read chart for people who get past the first few words I wrote. If you dont mind I will be copying this and editing it for use in future discussions.
as I said, I want equality for all. Meaning that all americans can have the same rights as a married couple. I am simply saying take the word married out of the equation, and everyone throws a shitfit. It almost seems as if equal rights are not what is sought after when you can offer the same exact thing with a different name and it isnt good enough.
as I have said before, this entire thing is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues going on in america today.
what the hell does any of that even mean??
well to be fair, this really isnt that big of a deal to some 80+% of america. meanwhile we still have IRS issues between overspending and not keeping receipts the the bengazi issue, to the on going wars to the new issues in syria. Plain and simple what someone does in their bedroom is not important in the scheme of things. This to me is just a distraction from the real issues in america today
At this point, anyone who doubts that Fox News is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.
At this point, anyone who doubts that MSNBC is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.
At this point, anyone who doubts that CNN is putting extremely heavy spin and lies into their "news" is just not paying attention. It's an entertainment network, not a news network.
FTFY
what facts were twisted based on what you wrote? I am sorry I just dont see any twisting. And I was doing the same thing with network TV, all 3 had the same live shot of the SC and were saying almost the exact same thing as it happened so I am a little confused on the point you are trying to make. unless you are just trying to take a cheapshot at fox news because thats the "cool" thing to do.
I prefer to go back to the intent of the country. where if it is not EXPLICITLY written in the constitution, than the federal government has no say whatsoever and it is a states right. The 10th amendment is pretty clear.
actually yes, the states do have the power to deprive people of rights. and people have the power to move to a state that fits them. Take "love" out of the debate and everyone would be happer. make the "rights" be about the household rather than the partner.
Which is why I say take "love" out of it. If we respect the rights of marriage based on the household vs the people involved. everyone gets what they want and no one has to argue over semantics.
rights are NOT given by the government first of all, we have the rights, the government just acknowledges them.
Having said that, those "rights" you listed should not be tied to "love" they should be tied to household. If they are tied to household rather than love, everyone is treated equal, we dont have some groups fighting others over special treatment, it really is the best way to move past this stupid quarrel
I believe there is more to it than that.
I for one want the government out of marriage. Let the churches deal with "marriage"
Now having said that. If 2 gay people want to live together and have the same rights that current married couples get, I dont see why that should not be allowed. I also think that if 2 people simply live together they should get the same rights, "love" should never be the deciding factor when it comes to giving tax breaks to people or even worse tax money to people.