Disney is coming out of the closet

[Fatman 19]

So, now you live in the Magic Kingdom?

 

 

[I Come In Peace 0]

IMO, the best way to treat this issue is for the government to not use the word "marriage" and to simply recognize spiritual marriages as a form of civil union. Heterosexual and homosexual civil unions would both be recognized as equal in the eyes of the government. That way, traditional spiritual "marriage" would not have to be redefined.

 

That would work for me.

 

See, I'm not so "hateful and scared" after all.

 

Really, I have no problem with gay people being together. I just don't like the lifestyle that MANY of them lead. There are plenty of gay people & couples out there who don't try to push their gayness on everyone and have no problem with that at all.

[detlef 127]

IMO, the best way to treat this issue is for the government to not use the word "marriage" and to simply recognize spiritual marriages as a form of civil union. Heterosexual and homosexual civil unions would both be recognized as equal in the eyes of the government. That way, traditional spiritual "marriage" would not have to be redefined.

 

So freaking simple isn't it?

[detlef 127]

That would work for me.

 

See, I'm not so "hateful and scared" after all.

 

Really, I have no problem with gay people being together. I just don't like the lifestyle that MANY of them lead. There are plenty of gay people & couples out there who don't try to push their gayness on everyone and have no problem with that at all.

 

Here's the issue though, that isn't the agenda being pushed by Bush et al. If that's all they wanted to do, they wouldn't have made a big deal about trying to pass a freaking constitutional amendment (imagine that, a constitutional amendment that takes rights away from people) defining marriage. That's a long, long way from simply saying, "We don't want any part of "marriage" and are only here to govern the legal aspects of civil unions."

 

Frankly, it's just about as much a joke that Bush and his peeps are pushing for this as it is that waffling little morons like Kerry and Edwards were too chicks--t to call him on it. Trying to side step it and pawn it off on the states. Is it really that hard to figure out?

[Big Red 0]

Your non-Colts-related posts are actually pretty intelligent.

 

 

 

Thanks, except for the non-Colts part.

[Bill Swerski 0]

Here's the issue though, that isn't the agenda being pushed by Bush et al. If that's all they wanted to do, they wouldn't have made a big deal about trying to pass a freaking constitutional amendment (imagine that, a constitutional amendment that takes rights away from people) defining marriage. That's a long, long way from simply saying, "We don't want any part of "marriage" and are only here to govern the legal aspects of civil unions."

 

+1 I was VERY disappointed with the Bush Administration's proposed Ammendment.

 

Most people of faith simply do not want the word "marriage" redefined and their traditions disrespected. The government's use of a secular term like "civil union" to describe BOTH types of committed relationships from a legal standpoint should satisfy the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Savage Beatings 99]

IMO, the best way to treat this issue is for the government to not use the word "marriage" and to simply recognize spiritual marriages as a form of civil union. Heterosexual and homosexual civil unions would both be recognized as equal in the eyes of the government. That way, traditional spiritual "marriage" would not have to be redefined.

 

 

I think the best way is to have the government stop recognizing any and all marriages or unions (with no benefits nor penalites) and just treat each individual as an individual. Then let Churches or other organizations marry or spiritually bind whomever they see fit.

[Pope Flick 59]

I think the best way is to have the government stop recognizing any and all marriages or unions (with no benefits nor penalites) and just treat each individual as an individual. Then let Churches or other organizations marry or spiritually bind whomever they see fit.

 

 

 

But then what happens to the tax deductions for married couples, and inheritance rights of married couples - just for starters?

 

Are you ready to give up your married tax status and place the inheritance of your wealth into a legal limbo?

[Kansas State 2000 0]

Marriage is between a man and a woman not a punk and a bitch!

[H8tank 0]

homosexual children chili.

[detlef 127]

That would work for me.

 

See, I'm not so "hateful and scared" after all.

 

Really, I have no problem with gay people being together. I just don't like the lifestyle that MANY of them lead. There are plenty of gay people & couples out there who don't try to push their gayness on everyone and have no problem with that at all.

Sorry, I just need some clarification here. See, because of the cities I've lived in and, of course, my industry, I've known gay men and women most of my life. Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by "pushing their gayness on everyone". Does simply walking down the street holding hands count? If they give one another a peck on the cheek in a restaurant count?

 

If you answered yes to any of the above, and you have the level of "care and compassion" that you claim, why should my wife and I be allowed to do those things and not gays?

 

I can understand not wanting to see two men stick tongues down each other's throats at the bar, but that sort of display is also often frowned upon among straight couples. There's just a level of decency that all people need to uphold in public.

 

I would think the only sensible definition of "pushing gayness on you" would be either coming on to you or constantly talking about how cool it is to be gay. Dude, if you stay out of clubs or gay rights support groups, you really don't have to worry about that. Almost every gay person I've every spent any decent amount of time with at all, is just that, a gay person. When you talk to them, you talk about the same things you'd talk to someone else about; What they do for a living, some funny thing that happened that day, the car wreck that happened right in front of them on the way to the party, what have you.

 

The only difference is, instead of my wife coming up to me and saying, "Honey, I'm headed to the bar, can I get you something", a guy walks up to them and says the same thing. Then you freaking go right back to whatever it is you were talking about. It's pretty simple actually.

[H8tank 0]

Sorry, blah blah blah blah i am ghey.

 

 

 

 

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=ga...de+parade&gbv=2

 

POINT SET MATCH!

 

Now go make me some toast martha.

[Savage Beatings 99]

But then what happens to the tax deductions for married couples, and inheritance rights of married couples - just for starters?

 

Are you ready to give up your married tax status and place the inheritance of your wealth into a legal limbo?

 

Well it'll never happen so it's all just rhetorical anyway. But yes, in theory if it happened tomorrow I would be willing to give up my married tax status. Presumably their would still be deductions for children which any legal guardian should be able to claim (if their are 2 legal guardians then they should both get to make the claim). Inheritances would have to be contracted like in the wills that most of us already abide by, but without a will would probably default to an heir instead of a spouse.

[Yukon Cornelius 3]

IMO, the best way to treat this issue is for the government to not use the word "marriage" and to simply recognize spiritual marriages as a form of civil union. Heterosexual and homosexual civil unions would both be recognized as equal in the eyes of the government. That way, traditional spiritual "marriage" would not have to be redefined.

 

who stole bills password

[I Come In Peace 0]

Sorry, I just need some clarification here. See, because of the cities I've lived in and, of course, my industry, I've known gay men and women most of my life. Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by "pushing their gayness on everyone". Does simply walking down the street holding hands count? If they give one another a peck on the cheek in a restaurant count?

 

If you answered yes to any of the above, and you have the level of "care and compassion" that you claim, why should my wife and I be allowed to do those things and not gays?

 

I can understand not wanting to see two men stick tongues down each other's throats at the bar, but that sort of display is also often frowned upon among straight couples. There's just a level of decency that all people need to uphold in public.

 

I would think the only sensible definition of "pushing gayness on you" would be either coming on to you or constantly talking about how cool it is to be gay. Dude, if you stay out of clubs or gay rights support groups, you really don't have to worry about that. Almost every gay person I've every spent any decent amount of time with at all, is just that, a gay person. When you talk to them, you talk about the same things you'd talk to someone else about; What they do for a living, some funny thing that happened that day, the car wreck that happened right in front of them on the way to the party, what have you.

 

The only difference is, instead of my wife coming up to me and saying, "Honey, I'm headed to the bar, can I get you something", a guy walks up to them and says the same thing. Then you freaking go right back to whatever it is you were talking about. It's pretty simple actually.

 

I think you have me all wrong delef. No, I don't have a problem with simple affection between homosexuals. I do however believe in the sanctity of marriage and like you believe there is a level of decency that should be upheld in public and unfortunately for a lot of gay people they somehow lose sight of that level when they decide or realize they are gay. Not all, mind you, but if you've ever seen a gay rights parade or been to a gay establishment you'd know the difference right away.

[Kansas State 2000 0]

The only people that like gays are gays.

[Savage Beatings 99]

Not all, mind you, but if you've ever seen a gay rights parade or been to a gay establishment you'd know the difference right away.

 

 

So... how often do you go to them?

[I Come In Peace 0]

So... how often do you go to them?

 

They parade in front of my office at least once a year.

[Bill Swerski 0]

who stole bills password

 

So, are you calling me a homophobe or just admitting that you're an idiotic stereotype?

[darin3 1,695]

This thread has legs like Lieutenant Dan.

[Pope Flick 59]

Not all, mind you, but if you've ever seen a gay rights parade or been to a gay establishment you'd know the difference right away.

 

 

 

No offense, but will yo ulisten to yourself? Homos are promsicuous!! But only at their gay pride parades, and only at their bars.

 

Don't stand on the street for their parades. And remember that most bars are meat marlets, and prmisuity is in effect for both sexes at straight bars, every bit as much as at the gay bars.

 

Did you find this homosexual bar bathroom stall incident offensive to your beliefs - or was it kind of fun and titillating?

[darin3 1,695]

No offense, but will yo ulisten to yourself? Homos are promsicuous!! But only at their gay pride parades, and only at their bars.

 

Don't stand on the street for their parades. And remember that most bars are meat marlets, and prmisuity is in effect for both sexes at straight bars, every bit as much as at the gay bars.

 

Did you find this homosexual bar bathroom stall incident offensive to your beliefs - or was it kind of fun and titillating?

 

[i Come In Peace] Huh huh, you said "titilating". Huh huh. [/i Come In Peace]

[yo mama 20]

But then what happens to the tax deductions for married couples, and inheritance rights of married couples - just for starters?

 

Are you ready to give up your married tax status and place the inheritance of your wealth into a legal limbo?

 

Eh, most two-income married couples pay more in federal income tax than they would if they were single with the same jobs. And as far as inheritance goes, that would only affect people who couldn't be bothered to at least scribble their testementary intent down on a greasy cocktail napkin.

 

Honestly, we'd raise a heck of a lot tax revenue if gays could marry. Most gay couples have two jobs, no kids, and placing that second income into the next highest tax brackett (or two) would be just fine by me. In a way, opposing gay marriage is effectively handing out tax cuts to gay couples. And you'd either have to be gay, or hate America, to want to do that. I wonder which of those applies to I Come In Peace?

 

Ah, who are we kidding: probably both!

Edited April 27, 2007 by yo mama

[Yukon Cornelius 3]

So, are you calling me a homophobe or just admitting that you're an idiotic stereotype?

 

jebuss u are one dum ass mofo .i was agreeing with you but you are wound so tight from lack of male sex that u cant see the roses threw the bathroom stall .

[detlef 127]

jebuss u are one dum ass mofo .i was agreeing with you but you are wound so tight from lack of male sex that u cant see the roses threw the bathroom stall .

 

That's not how I saw it. Agreeing with him? Yes. But it was sort of like, "Wow, Bill actually said something that wasn't stupid. Who's been logging on to Bill's account?"