Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/31036.html" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/news/s...036.html</a> Karl Rove got divorced last week. It was his second. While Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh go through wives like most of us go through shoes, conservatives insist the real threat to marriage is from two people who love each other and want to get married. Does this make any sense to anyone?
Originally Posted By donnyaz If 2 men or 2 girls or polygamist want to get married we should not stop love.(Unless they are related,underage or not human
Originally Posted By utahjosh This conservative wishes traditional marriage would mean more to the people of the world.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 While denying it (or at least its legal recognition) to an important percentage of the people of the world. Lovely.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If you can get all gay/lesbian people to agree on the legality of gay marriage then get back to us. To me that is a mountain still to be climbed based on conversations I have had with gay friends and peers. That said, I think there are basic rights issues that should be addressed immediately that should not require legaliziation of gay marriage in order to happen. Visitation rights at hospitals, insurance rights, adoption rights, etc. Frankly, those battles seem to be more important.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I say , allow gay marriage, they can experience the joys of divorce, alimony, child support, and custody battles that the straights all know and love... In 3 years they will be begging to have us ban gay marriage again... ;o)
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Frankly, those battles seem to be more important.<< Yeah, well, the health care reform as it stands now does not address the issue of a person being taxed for a partner's medical insurance...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 This person wishes conservatives would MTOFB.<< Funny I feel the same way about alot of liberals....
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF William, I don't see liberals working hard to restrict the civil rights of other people.
Originally Posted By DAR I certainly think homosexuals should have the right to fubar a marriage like the rest of us.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>That said, I think there are basic rights issues that should be addressed immediately that should not require legaliziation of gay marriage in order to happen. Visitation rights at hospitals, insurance rights, adoption rights, etc.<<< Absolutely, because it is not just an issue with gay marriage. This is also an issue that elderly relatives living together face too - e.g. two old spinster sisters. Gay marriage does not address that issue. Whereas rights reforms and designated next of kin arrangements do.
Originally Posted By donnyaz post 11 "I don't see liberals working hard to restrict the civil rights of other people." Not true The Irish parade in New York was forced to allow gay floats. The boys scouts fight a number of lawsuits because of their stance on religion. Drug store that refuse to sell the morning after or the pill face law suites as well. I could go on and on.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The Irish parade in New York was forced to allow gay floats.<< I'd like to see a macho float. Can't really be done.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There was a float in the Rose Parade one year, I think for Habitat for Humanity. They built and rebuilt a structure of some kind throughout the parade route. I don't remember how many times they assembled the thing. THAT was pretty macho. And, there was the year they had a rollercoaster in the parade...and it even had a loop in it. Of course, a lot of ACE members were riding it so...it had some gay tendencies.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'd like to see a macho float. Can't really be done.<< What if it was just me in an easy chair watching a big screen HDTV? In a wife beater? Without pants? And Keystone Light? With a mutt on the rug? Watching pro-wrestling? Wait...I just went passed macho to white trash.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>I could go on and on<< Oh, please don't. Irish parade: Not true. "The New York City parade is organised by the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish-Catholic fraternal organisation. They have refused to allow gay and lesbian groups to march in the parade since 1991." Boy Scouts: This isn't a civil rights issue, at least not on the part of the BSA. If they want to use public facilities for their activities, it stands to reason they cannot discriminate in terms of their membership. If they want to be a completely self-sufficient organization, they can restrict membership all they want. Private sector business is free to support them all they want. Morning-after pill: There may be lawsuits, but it all depends on what state you're talking about. And again, this isn't a civil rights issue. A pharmacy is free to not stock all medications.
Originally Posted By DAR <<What if it was just me in an easy chair watching a big screen HDTV? In a wife beater? Without pants? And Keystone Light? With a mutt on the rug? Watching pro-wrestling? Wait...I just went passed macho to white trash.>> I think if you're white trash and rockin the HDTV you might be forced to drink Keystone.
