It makes HIM the SAME KIND OF BIGOT YOU ARE – an IGNORANT ONE!
Hillary at least has SOUGHT EQUAL RIGHTS for Civil Unions, and PROMISED to fight to have it voted in.

December 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
______

Dang, bud, you are absolutely right! Obama’s support for civil unions makes him an ignorant bigot while Hillary’s support for civil unions is worthy of praise. I completely missed that! Thanks bud. ;)

“marriage, which means a man and a woman.”

Remember when the meaning of mouse ment a rodent? Not only do meanings change but whole new usages arise. It’s okay. Relax.

December 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 am
_____

Sure meanings change, sometimes for the good, sometimes not. I’m perfectly relaxed, thanks, come what may. ;)

Remember when the meaning of mouse ment a rodent? Not only do meanings change but whole new usages arise. It’s okay. Relax.

upright left Says:
He said essentially the same thing in the link you provided as he did in his book including this:
“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.

I don’t really CARE what Obama says, bigotry is bigotry, and denial of rights to gay people based on some outdated fantasy beliefs of a bunch of religious freaks like you is no different than outdated terrorism based on religious freaks by you. It all stems from the same insanity brought on by morally, intellectually and emotionally deficient TARDS like YOURSELF! F**k off you bigoted piece of sh*t.

December 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
______

Hey, bud, how’ve you been? Sorry about that whole HRC thing. But it’s great that you’ve been able to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Except, of course, that comment about Obama being a bigot. He didn’t base his comment on religion, but the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is the basic family unit common to most cultures. So what kind of bigot does that make him, a sexual orientation bigot? Oh well, it doesn’t really matter why he’s opposed to it, only that he is. So does HRC being SOS make everything better? ;)

So please explain the nature of this “basic structure of society” that must not be altered, if a separate-but-equal structure already exists, duplicating its legal and material features? Seems to me that this is a pretty good example of a difference in name only, and thus hardly indicative of a unique “basic structure of society” that must be protected.

December 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
______

The nature of the basic structure of society in question is marriage, which means a man and a woman. (Didn’t we just go over that?) The difference between that and a same sex couple is quite obvious to most folks.
If a civil union confers all the rights of a marriage, why insist on changing what marriage means? It’s supposed to be all about the rights, isn’t it? Or was that a lie all along? ;)

upright left Says:

Fred Says:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his belief in same-sex civil unions March 2 by referencing Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and then implicitly criticizing those who view Romans as a binding teaching on homosexuality.

He said essentially the same thing in the link you provided as he did in his book including this:

“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.

So please explain the nature of this “basic structure of society” that must not be altered, if a separate-but-equal structure already exists, duplicating its legal and material features? Seems to me that this is a pretty good example of a difference in name only, and thus hardly indicative of a unique “basic structure of society” that must be protected.

I’ll take your word for it that converts exist, despite lack of evidence but usually, these “converts” get married to some unsuspecting person and then the “converts” allow temptation get the better of them exposing said unsuspecting spouse not only to an unfaithful spouse, but also the possibility of STD’s. Of course, the “convert” is full of self-loathing and may even dabble in drugs to hide the pain of his choices.

Why a “convert” would want to place him/herself and said spouse in such a position, I have to question.

You are right I misunderstood your point. As long as gays can marry I dont care if the Gov only recognized civil unions. I dont see how that could come about since the SC has spoken on the marriage being a right thing. I certainly dont think we ought to base policy on what will shut up the vocal rightwing. They will never shut up about ANYTHING. They are STILL WHINING about Vietnam and how we gave up when we were just about to win. They are unhinged.

Does this mean that the perceived “threat” of homosexuals “recruiting” young converts is an urban myth?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Now that’s a rhetorical question!

uptighty:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his belief in same-sex civil unions March 2 by referencing Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and then implicitly criticizing those who view Romans as a binding teaching on homosexuality.

the link

December 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
______

He said essentially the same thing in the link you provided as he did in his book including this:

“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.

bitblt:
…. but thanks for giving bit an easy rhetorical question.

December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Rhetorical questions do not require an answer.

“The Supreme Court has labelled marriage NOT civil unions as a fundamental right. I see no reason to deny THAT basic right to gay citizens”

Gays would still be allowed to marry. I’m not sure you’re understanding me. The only difference is that the Government will no longer be recognizing anything besides a Civil Union for legal/tax reasons. Why should our Government be forced to recognize a religious institution?

“No one I know is demanding Catholic Churches marry anyone they dont want to. I dont see why THEY ought to be defining marriage for all citizens.”

The problem is that “Marriage” already has different definitions to different people and each of those definitions are valid within their own belief systems so in order to remain respectful of these belief systems, our Government needs to abandon the term completely, start from scratch and clearly define a Civil Union as the only legally recognized relationship with the legal benefits that it entails. If that couple, or their church choose to call it “marriage” then they would remain to have every right to do so. That will not be taken away.

Maybe the point we’re not touching on is that the simple fact is that many on the right will NEVER shut up about gays “redefining marriage” as long as it is Government sanctioned. If we take that aspect away, they will at least only be justified in b!tching about it in private because “marriage” will be defined by each person privately. Perhaps this is a compromise, but I believe it is one that emphasizes equality and would allow us to move on to more important issues. That’s my goal, anyway. I really can’t stress that enough.