Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) Shows Us Exactly Why Republicans Suck

[jnday]

They already have equal treatment. They are allowed the same rights under existing laws that you and I are. They are treated 100% equal this very second.

It is like claiming the legalization of drugs is an equality issue

They don't want equal treatment. They want special treatment. What other group wants to redefine marriage after thousands of years?

 

[junk]

I'll give you 20 reasons why I is important to American society to promote man and wife marriages, can you provide 2'for why it is important to promote man and man marriages?

Why is it important to society that Jeebus own a dog?

Why is it important to society that Jeebus be allowed to buy and consume whiskey?

It isn't, but it is a personal freedom that you get to enjoy. No difference.

 

[junk]

Because government funds should not be used to promote homosexuality.

Government funds absolutely should be used to promote the nuclear family.

One is the basis for all of society, the other is a perverted life style. No, the government should not be funding everything out of equality, some sh1t just shouldn't be there business (and I don't think families are one of those things, gay sex is).

What funds would be used to promote?

As far as I can tell, it'd be a paperwork exercise. I don't think the government would be putting up billboards.

 

[Hoofbite]

They already have equal treatment. They are allowed the same rights under existing laws that you and I are. They are treated 100% equal this very second.

I guess if you consider legislation that forbids them from entering into marriage as "equal", you could say that.

It is like claiming the legalization of drugs is an equality issue

Actually it's noting like it.

Federally, drugs are illegal across the board. For everyone, not just some people. Even in the states where medicinal use is permitted or in Washington and Colorado where they legalized it, it's legal for everyone (or everyone prescribed) not just some people.

 

[Hoofbite]

They don't want equal treatment. They want special treatment. What other group wants to redefine marriage after thousands of years?

What other group is denied the ability to marry?

 

[iceberg]

Religion is a bunch of bullshit so I guess in the end it doesn't matter, right?

I don't see a problem with it. You'll see more Republicans changing their stance on this issue out of survival.

or you'll see more liberals drop stereotypes and realize it's not black and white.

i'm conservative. raised roman catholic. marriage, to a religion, IS a religious event. period. end of story.

however, if a gay couple wishes to be "together" in some form of legal union, have at it. i don't care and if they found happiness in each other, more power to them. but to force a religion to accept a singular view is just stupid. if a gay couple wants to be wed "religiously" then do what every other self respecting religion did over time - form your own based off something "close enough".

i'm also more science minded and feel religion and science would compliment each other more of religion would quit being so stubborn in "faith". but it is THEIR faith, their right.

again, if a gay couple wishes to be legally together, have at it. but i see no need to force their views on any church they spend the bulk of their time mocking, it would seem.

 

[iceberg]

If you weren't the board's biggest douchebag I would care.

is it too late for a recount on this?

 

[iceberg]

They are allowed to get married, who are you to change the definition of marriage?

so once defined, it can never be altered?

man, the world would still be flat if that were the case.

 

[Hoofbite]

so once defined, it can never be altered?

man, the world would still be flat if that were the case.

What are you talking about? The world is flat.

 

[iceberg]

What are you talking about? The world is flat.

damn.

i'll never get that one right.

 

[Iamtdg]

Again, get the government out of the marrying business and all things are solved. It really is that simple.

That is the solution to a lot of our problems, but the libs love that control way too much to let it go.

Hell, nowadays, it's most politicians, and not just the libs.

 

[iceberg]

Again, get the government out of the marrying business and all things are solved. It really is that simple.

That is the solution to a lot of our problems, but the libs love that control way too much to let it go.

well i don't think you can force religions to accept what is clearly against their own purpose.

from what i understand, the biggest issue of the "civil union" is to get the same "legal" rights as a hetero couple would have. if the issue is to force their beliefs on a religion, i lose what little interest i had. if it's to obtain the same hetero benefits, then i have no issues with it, i just think there are far more jacked up things going on that needs more attention.

 

[Iamtdg]

well i don't think you can force religions to accept what is clearly against their own purpose.

from what i understand, the biggest issue of the "civil union" is to get the same "legal" rights as a hetero couple would have. if the issue is to force their beliefs on a religion, i lose what little interest i had. if it's to obtain the same hetero benefits, then i have no issues with it, i just think there are far more jacked up things going on that needs more attention.

Exactly, so if you take away those tax incentives (ie getting the govt out of the picture) you don't have that as a factor at all. Then you can let the different churches/religions decide who they wmrry and who they won't.

 

[2233boys]

Again, get the government out of the marrying business and all things are solved. It really is that simple.

That is the solution to a lot of our problems, but the libs love that control way too much to let it go.

Hell, nowadays, it's most politicians, and not just the libs.

I agree with the statement government should be out of the marriage business.

 

[peplaw06]

well i don't think you can force religions to accept what is clearly against their own purpose.

from what i understand, the biggest issue of the "civil union" is to get the same "legal" rights as a hetero couple would have. if the issue is to force their beliefs on a religion, i lose what little interest i had. if it's to obtain the same hetero benefits, then i have no issues with it, i just think there are far more jacked up things going on that needs more attention.

There have been other posts in this thread that have hit on the solution, but this is the most recent.

You can't force gay marriage on churches, and you can't deny couples who want to get married equal protection under the law.

The IRS can't give a heterosexual couple a tax break and not a homosexual couple.

A court of law cannot deny an adoption because the couple is a homosexual couple.

A health insurance provider cannot sell coverage to a hetero couple and not to a homo couple.

A county cannot allow a heterosexual couple to own a house together and not a homosexual couple.

As long as homosexual couples have the ability to get all of the benefits that heterosexual couples do, and the churches can decide who they will and won't marry, then we're all copasetic.

As for the legal part of it, the way to fix this, is to tell the states/businesses that they cannot deny equal rights/access to homosexual couples. The lawsuits should be against the states/businesses who deny those rights/access, under equal protection suits. For tax purposes, call it a civil union.

It's really not that hard.

I'm not a republican or a democrat, but the attacking of an entire group of people because of one person's viewpoint is the exact same problem that is presented by the issue in this thread. Vilifying people doesn't generally lead to honest, level-headed discussion regarding issues that we as a country should be able to solve.

 

[Iamtdg]

That's too complicated. Just get the govt out of the way. Easy and simple.

Why does the govt care if people are married anyway? How does it affect them at all.

 

[peplaw06]

I don't know why the government has to control everything. It's a hell of a lot easier at this point to fix this one issue than to tell the government that they can't levy taxes differently on married people, treat property differently for married people, etc.

It's to intertwined in our society to take it out completely.

 

[Iamtdg]

Why can't the govt just back off of the tax breaks on married people? Hell, the govt makes more money at that point. That's silly.

 

[peplaw06]

I think married people would have a shit fit if the government did that. But it's not just the IRS that cares if people are married or not.

 

[Iamtdg]

It's the main reason behind gays bitching about not being equal in the govts eyes. And, too fucking bad for the married people. It was unconstitutional to begin with and should be changed.