"so what" about the gay issue.

Post #183,252 by bepatient 11/6/04 2:49:16 PM Reply	"so what" about the gay issue. Its not the problem. Quit focusing on it as the problem. Pass >civil union< legislation. You will get the equality you want. Nobody really has a problem with that. Marriage is a religious institution...SO AVOID IT. Do NOT say you support "gay marriage". Because the church's view is that it CANNOT EXIST. Do not allow wards of the state to marry same sex couples. The battle is about legal rights...keep it there. However, those fighting the battle want to take it further than that...making public spectacle of "marriage ceremony" etc. Also, you have the ACLU leaders meeting with violent criminals and in some cases (mumia comes to mind) saying that these criminals should be freed. You have democratic leadership and hollywood types associating with these causes without actually knowing anything about them (Mike Farrel comes to mind). These are free associations. The war protests ended up in some cases hijacked by these organizations. It gave the opposition ammunition to say they were driven by "communists" and other fringe elements. But its all ok becasue you are fighting for what is "right" (tm). Unfortunately for you it is only >your version< of what is right. What I am trying to tell you is that better than half of everyone else does NOT share your opinion...and for you to gain political power you are going to have to come to grips with this. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,259 by ben_tilly 11/6/04 6:27:52 PM Reply	Really? According to [link\|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/\|polls], about half the country doesn't want civil unions of gays either. And the people who are against it are more likely to turn out at the polls than the people who are for it. Of the 11 states that just banned gay marriage, 2 of them (Georgia and Ohio) banned gay civil unions as well. As for whether marriage is a primarily religious institution, we've disagreed on this before. I think that it is not. You know why I think that, I know why you think otherwise, and we each think that the other person is wrong. That isn't about to change. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,281 by admin 11/6/04 9:31:39 PM Reply	3 of them. Read the Michigan proposal a bit more closely. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #183,290 by daemon 11/6/04 11:25:17 PM Reply	why a "civil union" and lets ignore religo marital issues If something happens to my kids and MJ (G_d forbid!) I have a true friend for many years (who would help me hide the bodies) now why could I not have a will that names him sole executor and inheritor, give him a "general" power of attourney that specifically excludes any blood relation of mine to make decisions for me while I am alive and as executor and in my will excludes my blood relatives from exercising any control over my body or assets. This relationship is not sexual, simply people I trust. Its legal and I can do this Now why cant gay people do the same? The reason is simple, they want their union to have the same tax, and social acceptance as hetrosexual marriage. Its not about rights its about acceptance, you cannot legislate morality and you cannot legislate societal acceptance either. That is the major reason for the states to get out of the marriage bidness. regards, daemon that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,446 by jb4 11/8/04 9:25:46 AM Reply	So when you have your second heart attack... ...is your gay partner going to be allowed so sit vigil by your bed in the ICU? NO. Why not? Becuase "only family is allowed in the ICU". No amount of general power of attorney is going to override that bit of provincialism. And as far as having the same tax arrangements as does a married couple, why shouldn't they? (And no, I'm not accusing you, daemon, of having a gay partner. That's the "collective" you.) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #183,580 by daemon 11/8/04 5:33:02 PM Reply	sorry a general power of attourney puts you there bedside, In most General POA's medical is covered, you are the only one making decisions for the person. My friend I spoke about had one for his Granma with Alzenheimers, he called all the shots. Sure I dont mind the couple paying the marriage penalty, let them join the club. regards, daemon ps Im trying to cut down :-) on being accused that is that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #183,481 by tuberculosis 11/8/04 12:51:47 PM Reply	Banning Gay Marriage (new thread) Created as new thread #183480 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=183480\|Banning Gay Marriage] "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #183,262 by Andrew Grygus 11/6/04 6:38:05 PM Reply	The gay civil union issue is important . . . . . because when all states have banned gay mariage, the Republicans won't be able to use it any more to bring out the "moralists" vote - but they'll be able to run the thing all over again with the civil union issue. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!