Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Excon said:

That is hilarious. Exposed! iLOL

2.)The argument is valid, and is not nothing. :doh iLOL


3.)Just as I have.
Where we differ is that you have also posted fallacies, where I have not.



4.)Yes you have. And no, that is not brilliant.
Funny you think it is.



5.)Fact is that they have wrongfully stolen a name, changed a definition and applied it to what they want.
Does not change that fact that it really isn't or that it was wrong to so.



6.)No it hasn't been "proven".
Nor could it be, as it obviously isn't.
Judicial activism doesn't change the facts.


7.)As I have no hurt feeling over the issue so clearly you know not of what you speak.
Opinion yes, as we all have them.


8.)Still wouldn't change the fact that it wasn't and equality, rights, or discrimination issue.


9.)Already proven.
That is why you are dismissive. You can not counter that which has been provided.

Click to expand...

1.) yep factually exposed.
2.) lies are not valid arguments
3.) please point out the fallacies, I cant wait to read this LMAO
4.) another deflection about the truth, yet thread history proves you wrong.
5.) 100% false the name was never stolen :shrug: lol
your opinion of what it is, is also meaningless and it actually supports the fact the name was never stolen. What marriage is, is a INDIVIDUAL thing, it doenst belong to you or anybody else, thats what proves that what you think it is, it is for YOU. What others think it is, it is for THEM. its ALWAYS been that way. You make it easy to expose you. If you think it has factually been stolen PLEASE PLEASE post factual prove of this, this is another thing id LOVE to read

thanks again for proving yourself wrong

6) yes it has, says reality and the cases that have already gone that way LMAO
7.) accept i can use logic, reality and facts to support my posts and you cant :shrug:
8.) no matter how many times you repeat the lie it wont become true :shrug:
but you are free to believe whatever you want, doesnt effect me of the facts one bit

9.) you have provided zero prove and EVERYTHING you posted was countered and proved wrong, i did nothing dismissive. LMAO

BUT you did, tell me why you didn't quote ALL of my post, hmmmmmm very telling, seems you left some stuff out, probably because it proved you wrong LOL

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Black Manta said:

I was against gay marriage and still am as far as my religious beliefs go. It is a sin and I will never recognize it as anything real or tangible. I however do realize that equal treatment under our secular law is to important. The sin is between them and God, as it is for all as I am a sinner as well. So I support SSM even though I will never recognize it as being under God.

Click to expand...

this is the basic, intelligent, objective, rational, unselfish, non-bigoted, common sense outlook that every AMERICAN should have if they understand anything about this country.
Good Job!

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

cpwill said:

I agree. The USSC should rule for or against it based on the will of the people as it was recorded into law during the various times of the signing and amending of the US Constitution.

Click to expand...

no the will of the people should NOT be what it is based on alone LOL

if that was the case equal rights for woman and minorotoes may just be passing or interracial marriage. NO thanks

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:

What do you mean by that? That's a very ambiguous statement.

Click to expand...

Not incredibly so. I mean precisely what it says. The People of this nation are soveriegn and from time to time amend the Constitution by which we are governed. The USSC should make its' rulings based not upon their own particular religion (which is what legislators or voters may do as they are free actors), but rather upon the will of the people as it was written into the Constitution.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:

So, homosexuality is not a sin, but homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

Click to expand...

Homosexuality (the condition of being attracted to members of the same gender) is not sinful, no. Any more than me being attracted to women other than my wife is inherently sinful. Acting upon those impulses is a different story (and a whole thread in and of itself). I have no problem with homosexuals marrying. I do not think we should alter the definition of marriage to one in which marriage is built merely upon emotion (we love each other!), which is inherent in the altering of the definition to include same-sex couples. As per this thread, my belief in this regard does not change simply because people I love are themselves homosexual, any more than my opinions on marriage are changed because people I love are attracted to people other than their spouses.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Objective-J said:

1.) yep factually exposed.
2.) lies are not valid arguments
3.) please point out the fallacies, I cant wait to read this LMAO
4.) another deflection about the truth, yet thread history proves you wrong.
5.) 100% false the name was never stolen :shrug: lol
your opinion of what it is, is also meaningless and it actually supports the fact the name was never stolen. What marriage is, is a INDIVIDUAL thing, it doenst belong to you or anybody else, thats what proves that what you think it is, it is for YOU. What others think it is, it is for THEM. its ALWAYS been that way. You make it easy to expose you. If you think it has factually been stolen PLEASE PLEASE post factual prove of this, this is another thing id LOVE to read

thanks again for proving yourself wrong

6) yes it has, says reality and the cases that have already gone that way LMAO
7.) accept i can use logic, reality and facts to support my posts and you cant :shrug:
8.) no matter how many times you repeat the lie it wont become true :shrug:
but you are free to believe whatever you want, doesnt effect me of the facts one bit

9.) you have provided zero prove and EVERYTHING you posted was countered and proved wrong, i did nothing dismissive. LMAO

Click to expand...

1.) And again... "That is hilarious. Exposed! iLOL" There was nothing to expose. Doh!

2.) Of course lies are not valid arguments that is why your argument fails at this point.

3.). Really? Your comment is as utterly ridiculous as your arguments.
Your saying exposed when there was nothing to expose. A fallacy.
You saying it is an equal rights issue when it is not. ~ Fallacy. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
You saying that it wouldn't be creating a new right when the right doesn't exist in the first place, isn't just a fallacious argument, but and absurdity.
I could go on, but you are too caught up in your beliefs to see any thing else.

4.) Your perceptions are twisted and wrong, so again; Yes you have. And no, that is not brilliant.
Funny you think it is.

5.) When the name does not traditionally apply, and they are now trying to make it apply, it is stolen.
Your opinion on it is meaningless as it is stolen.

6.) Wrong. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
LOwer court decisions do not hold sway over the entire nation.
I am not arguing that gay folks have involve themselves in what they call marriage.
I do not deny that some countries have made it their laws.
What I am saying its that that does not make it right. As in philosophically. There is not right or wrong.
It just makes it what it is, not that it is right.
Or are you unable to understand that?
Judicial activism can not change that. A law passed can not change that.
If our S.Ct. were do decide it wasn't an issue of rights, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
If the S.Ct. decided it was a states Right issue, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
And spare me the it's then right in the eyes of the law argument. As what ever they decide is right in the eyes of the law.
Does not make it right though. Which is exactly what your counter will be if it is decided against what you want it to be.
So spare me. This is where we are at. Either way is not right.

7.) iLOL :doh As shown, you also do not.

8.)No, it still would not change the fact that it wasn't an equality, rights, or discrimination issue.
You just don't seem to understand that arguing it is one does not make it one.
The Supreme Court deciding it is, doesn't make it so. Just makes it legally one.
You are trying to argue that courts, or legislatures are not infallible, and that is just an idiotic argument.
The make things legal and illegal. Not that which is truly right or wrong, as they simply can not do that.

9.) Simply wrong!

Objective-J said:

BUT you did, tell me why you didn't quote ALL of my post, hmmmmmm very telling, seems you left some stuff out, probably because it proved you wrong LOL

Click to expand...

Either waht yuou said wqas already addressed, wasn'r germane or I agreed.
That is why.
But since apparently, like a little child, need everything you say addressed, I will do it for you this time.
Don't expect it in the future.

These are the other things you said.


And this issue is obviously so important, that most folks here have voted squirrel. iLOL

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Excon said:

1.) And again... "That is hilarious. Exposed! iLOL" There was nothing to expose. Doh!

2.) Of course lies are not valid arguments that is why your argument fails at this point.

3.). Really? Your comment is as utterly ridiculous as your arguments.
Your saying exposed when there was nothing to expose. A fallacy.
You saying it is an equal rights issue when it is not. ~ Fallacy. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
You saying that it wouldn't be creating a new right when the right doesn't exist in the first place, isn't just a fallacious argument, but and absurdity.
I could go on, but you are too caught up in your beliefs to see any thing else.

4.) Your perceptions are twisted and wrong, so again; Yes you have. And no, that is not brilliant.
Funny you think it is.

5.) When the name does not traditionally apply, and they are now trying to make it apply, it is stolen.
Your opinion on it is meaningless as it is stolen.

6.) Wrong. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
LOwer court decisions do not hold sway over the entire nation.
I am not arguing that gay folks have involve themselves in what they call marriage.
I do not deny that some countries have made it their laws.
What I am saying its that that does not make it right. As in philosophically. There is not right or wrong.
It just makes it what it is, not that it is right.
Or are you unable to understand that?
Judicial activism can not change that. A law passed can not change that.
If our S.Ct. were do decide it wasn't an issue of rights, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
If the S.Ct. decided it was a states Right issue, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
And spare me the it's then right in the eyes of the law argument. As what ever they decide is right in the eyes of the law.
Does not make it right though. Which is exactly what your counter will be if it is decided against what you want it to be.
So spare me. This is where we are at. Either way is not right.

7.) iLOL :doh As shown, you also do not.

8.)No, it still would not change the fact that it wasn't an equality, rights, or discrimination issue.
You just don't seem to understand that arguing it is one does not make it one.
The Supreme Court deciding it is, doesn't make it so. Just makes it legally one.
You are trying to argue that courts, or legislatures are not infallible, and that is just an idiotic argument.
The make things legal and illegal. Not that which is truly right or wrong, as they simply can not do that.

9.) Simply wrong!

Either waht yuou said wqas already addressed, wasn'r germane or I agreed.
That is why.
But since apparently, like a little child, need everything you say addressed, I will do it for you this time.
Don't expect it in the future.

These are the other things you said.

I do not disagree that it may be.
As for it being a great day. That is an absurdity because it is a subjective observation. Not one of objectivity.
I still disagree that it addressed an inequality as there is no inequality to begin with. Nor can you show there to be one because those of the opposite sex with (few exceptions) can engage in the contract of union between opposite sexes called marriage.
You are unable to dispute that no matter how much you try,
You want a new right that says those of the same sex can engage in the contract of union and then you also want to call it marriage, when it obviously isn't.
Which they can already do for the most part legally.
But instead they want to steal that which traditionally belongs to the union of a man and woman.
Which makes what they are doing disrespectful. But they do not care.
Instead of fighting for their own contract of union they want to take that which traditionally belongs to another group.
And they want that because of the automatic benefits that go along with the contractual union called marriage.
So instead of fighting for those benefits with a contract of union of their own they do an end run around and try and take that which traditional belongs to another group.
That is called disrespectful and selfish.


Anomalies throughout history does not change the fact that marriage is and was traditionally between a man and a woman.
Or didn't you know that?
Nor is it the norm in this country. And as it pretty much depends on the way the S.Ct. will decided things.
Before any definitive statement that it is a rights issue is true. And even then they may decide it isn't.
Which also addresses your following question and shows that it is not at this time what you claim.
It will not be proven unless and until the S.Ct. says otherwise.

​

And this issue is obviously so important, that most folks here have voted squirrel. iLOL

Click to expand...

LMAO

soooooo why did you dodge my questions?

I asked you for factually prove of your lies and all you offered was "nu-huh" and more opinion

maybe you simply dont understand the questions

ok simply admit that you are only posting your opinion and some of it is factually wrong or simply factually prove your lies

since gay marriage exists and has before we were even born so FACTUALLY prove its being "stolen" LMAO
next factually prove that its not an equal rights issue

two simple questions about your lies that i want you to factually support i cant wait to read your next false post full of OPINION and ZERO facts

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

John Boehner: ‘I can’t imagine’ my position on gay marriage would ever change

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

cpwill said:

Homosexuality (the condition of being attracted to members of the same gender) is not sinful, no. Any more than me being attracted to women other than my wife is inherently sinful. Acting upon those impulses is a different story (and a whole thread in and of itself). I have no problem with homosexuals marrying. I do not think we should alter the definition of marriage to one in which marriage is built merely upon emotion (we love each other!), which is inherent in the altering of the definition to include same-sex couples. As per this thread, my belief in this regard does not change simply because people I love are themselves homosexual, any more than my opinions on marriage are changed because people I love are attracted to people other than their spouses.

Click to expand...

The way you voted in the poll:

Against SSM? Would you change your mind?

Lead me to believe you were against SSM. Some portions of this post:

I do not think we should alter the definition of marriage to one in which marriage is built merely upon emotion (we love each other!), which is inherent in the altering of the definition to include same-sex couples.

Click to expand...

Seem to contradict that you say you have no problem with homosexuals marrying.

Would you mind clarifying? Yes or no.

You are ok with homosexuals marrying?
Your view didn't change when your sister came out, because you were already ok with homosexuals marrying?
Your poll answer is incorrect, because you are not Against SSM.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:

The way you voted in the poll:

Against SSM? Would you change your mind?

Lead me to believe you were against SSM. Some portions of this post:



Seem to contradict that you say you have no problem with homosexuals marrying.

Would you mind clarifying? Yes or no.

You are ok with homosexuals marrying?
Your view didn't change when your sister came out, because you were already ok with homosexuals marrying?
Your poll answer is incorrect, because you are not Against SSM.

Click to expand...

Maybe clicked the wrong thing? Well, another reason mob rule should never determine civil rights.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

chromium said:

Maybe clicked the wrong thing? Well, another reason mob rule should never determine civil rights.

Click to expand...

I agree, civil rights should not be put to a vote.

I don't see that you voted. Or were you referring to CP?

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

If two same sex couples want to get married, let them get married.

It's your right to disagree and disapprove, it's their right to consider themselves married. For legal purposes, I don't see any reason to not allow them to file taxes jointly and be treated like normal couples.

I think one fundamental determinant for weather you approve or disprove of homosexuals in general is if you believe it is by nature or by choice. Today's science leans towards the first. Either way, legally I don't see a problem.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:

The way you voted in the poll:

Against SSM? Would you change your mind?

Lead me to believe you were against SSM. Some portions of this post:

Seem to contradict that you say you have no problem with homosexuals marrying.

Would you mind clarifying? Yes or no.

Click to expand...

Not at all. This is a subject that deserves fine definition of intent. I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. I oppose altering the definition of marriage to one that would include same-sex couples. If, for example, my sister found a man she was willing to marry and who was willing to marry her, I would be thrilled to dance with her at the wedding. I am not willing to alter the definition of marriage so that she can marry a girlfriend.

Your view didn't change when your sister came out, because you were already ok with homosexuals marrying?

Click to expand...

My view did not change when my sister came out because my view was never based in my lack of love or compassion for homosexuals in the first place.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I'm not opposed to same sex marriage - I'm opposed to state sanctioned marriage for the purpose of social engineering within tax and regulatory policies. The only reason, in my view, that gay people want the same "legal" right to marry is so they can equally benefit from the government goodies that accrue to those who are married. If you didn't get certain tax and other benefits with the piece of paper, the piece of paper wouldn't be of so much concern.

Society should honor the choices people make, who they choose to contracturally commit to etc., but should not reward or penalize citizens based on those commitments. A person who earns $100,000 should pay the same taxes and receive the same benefits irrespective of his/her marital status.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Objective-J said:

soooooo why did you dodge my questions?

I asked you for factually prove of your lies and all you offered was "nu-huh" and more opinion

maybe you simply dont understand the questions

ok simply admit that you are only posting your opinion and some of it is factually wrong or simply factually prove your lies

since gay marriage exists and has before we were even born so FACTUALLY prove its being "stolen" LMAO
next factually prove that its not an equal rights issue

two simple questions about your lies that i want you to factually support i cant wait to read your next false post full of OPINION and ZERO facts

Click to expand...

You have a problem with thinking folks have dodged a question when they haven't.
You also have a problem with thinking a person has to answer to every thing you say.
And with thinking a person has said "nu-huh" when they clearly haven't.
That is on you, not me.

In addition you are wrong!

Objective-J said:

since gay marriage exists and has before we were even born so FACTUALLY prove its being "stolen" LMAO

Click to expand...

And again since you failed to pay attention.
You are speaking to anomalies. Anomalies are not the norm.

Objective-J said:

next factually prove that its not an equal rights issue

Click to expand...

I already have.
But will do it again just for you because I understand your inability to thoroughly read that which has been provided.
But of course you will just come back and say that I again haven't answered your questions when it is clear I have.

The contract that exists, is a contract of union between two parties of the opposite sex. That contractual union has a specific name. It is call a marriage.
That contractual union does not discriminate, as anyone, even homosexuals are able to marry another of the opposite sex. Which is what the contract is about.
That is equal under the law.
So it is not and equal rights issue, but a "new rights" issue as stated.

It is a "new rights" issue because that "right" has to be created, as it does not exist at this time. (And we are speaking about the US. Not elsewhere.)
Homosexuals want to create a new contract that allows for a union between those of the same sex, and they also want to call it marriage so to obtain the same benefits that those involved in a traditional marriage receive.

The fact is, the right to marry a person of the same sex does not exist. It has to be created. So, it is creating a new right.
And naming it the same as that of traditional marriage is stealing the name for their own selfish purposes, so so they can receive the same benefits as those in a traditional marriage.

And like I said. This topic is so important that "squirrel" has the most votes. iLOL:doh

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

His son is a high achiever who was top of his class at the best prep school in southern Ohio and was accepted into Yale where he makes top grades. Both the boy's father and grandfather went to Dartmouth and his choice to go to Yale (which is far more gay friendly) was sort of a signal to some.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

cpwill said:

Not at all. This is a subject that deserves fine definition of intent. I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. I oppose altering the definition of marriage to one that would include same-sex couples. If, for example, my sister found a man she was willing to marry and who was willing to marry her, I would be thrilled to dance with her at the wedding. I am not willing to alter the definition of marriage so that she can marry a girlfriend.



My view did not change when my sister came out because my view was never based in my lack of love or compassion for homosexuals in the first place.

Click to expand...

CP, please. You know what I meant by homosexuals marrying, was them marrying each other. I asked very clear questions, requiring yes/no answers. No need for all those words.

Let's recap.

You are against same sex marriage.
Your view of same sex marriage didn't change because of your sister, you are still against permitting marriage to cover her and her girlfriend.
Your poll answer is correct because her coming out didn't change your mind to permit her to marry her girlfriend.

Fine and dandy.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:

CP, please. You know what I meant by homosexuals marrying, was them marrying each other. I asked very clear questions, requiring yes/no answers. No need for all those words.

Click to expand...

And that is why I was clear in my reply what I had meant. This is - as I pointed out - an area where we need to be clear what we mean. Because of your intended meaning a simple yes/no answer was insufficient. As you yourself indicated when that answer confused you and seemed contradictory.

You are against same sex marriage.

Click to expand...

No. I am against redefining marriage in the ways that it would include SSM. This is broader in scope than simply "against SSM". For example, it also includes "opposes redefining marriage in ways that would include polygamy". Fine distinction, but not one without a difference.

Your view of same sex marriage didn't change because of your sister

Click to expand...

That is correct.

Your poll answer is correct because her coming out didn't change your mind to permit her to marry her girlfriend.

Click to expand...

:lol: actually I voted too quickly and voted wrongly. I should have voted second to last and instead I voted the first. :shrug: whatchagonna do.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

cpwill said:

And that is why I was clear in my reply what I had meant. This is - as I pointed out - an area where we need to be clear what we mean. Because of your intended meaning a simple yes/no answer was insufficient. As you yourself indicated when that answer confused you and seemed contradictory.

No. I am against redefining marriage in the ways that it would include SSM. This is broader in scope than simply "against SSM". For example, it also includes "opposes redefining marriage in ways that would include polygamy". Fine distinction, but not one without a difference.

That is correct.

:lol: actually I voted too quickly and voted wrongly. I should have voted second to last and instead I voted the first. :shrug: whatchagonna do.

Click to expand...

1. CP, you knew what I meant and what I was asking. There was no need for obfuscation. SSM is the topic, not whether homosexuals can marry at all. :2razz:

2. Again, the topic of the thread is SSM and I never implied anything else. You are against SSM, and any other broadening of the term "marriage". That would have been more concise language. One sentence, twelve words. :mrgreen:

3. Fine.

4. I dunno, but we came to a more accurate understanding, thank you.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:

1. CP, you knew what I meant and what I was asking. There was no need for obfuscation. SSM is the topic, not whether homosexuals can marry at all. :2razz:

2. Again, the topic of the thread is SSM and I never implied anything else. You are against SSM, and any other broadening of the term "marriage". That would have been more concise language. One sentence, twelve words. :mrgreen:

3. Fine.

4. I dunno, but we came to a more accurate understanding, thank you.

Click to expand...

Glad we were able to do so.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Also for legal purposes I think changing all marriages to civil unions might not be a bad idea. This way legally all couples would be equal under the law yet lets people define for themselves what they consider marriage.

This issue is a classic case of minority rights.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I'm all for eliminating the federal recognition of marriage alltogether and replacing it with a benefactor designation.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

A flat tax would solve a large part of the marriage issue and would allow the government to get out of the marriage business almost completely.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Excon said:

The contract that exists, is a contract of union between two parties of the opposite sex. That contractual union has a specific name. It is call a marriage.
That contractual union does not discriminate, as anyone, even homosexuals are able to marry another of the opposite sex. Which is what the contract is about.
That is equal under the law.
So it is not and equal rights issue, but a "new rights" issue as stated.

It is a "new rights" issue because that "right" has to be created, as it does not exist at this time. (And we are speaking about the US. Not elsewhere.)
Homosexuals want to create a new contract that allows for a union between those of the same sex, and they also want to call it marriage so to obtain the same benefits that those involved in a traditional marriage receive.

The fact is, the right to marry a person of the same sex does not exist. It has to be created. So, it is creating a new right.
And naming it the same as that of traditional marriage is stealing the name for their own selfish purposes, so so they can receive the same benefits as those in a traditional marriage.

And like I said. This topic is so important that "squirrel" has the most votes. iLOL:doh

Click to expand...

you do understand that all this is you OPINION right?

did you forget the two questions already, wheres is your answer that FACTUALLY proves the word is being stolen? LMAO thats right you didn't answer.

No to address the rest of you OPINION (not facts in relation to the questions asked) and how you falsely apply it

you mention the contract.
there are already both religious, non-religious and legal contracts that recognize gay marriage, this has been true before we were born.

so FACTUALLY nobody is trying to steal anything because it cant be "stolen" it doesn't belong to anybody. SO that is FAIL number one

next you say it doesnt discriminate but it factually does and it is NOT equal under the law as already proven. It discriminates based on gender.

can Man can marry woman? yes
can woman marry woman? no

that means legal a man can do something a woman isnt allowed and vice versa, thats gender discrimination and NOT equal LMAO

Next you nonsensical and in a very uneducated fashion mention that its ONLY a new right which is 100% false, it would be new but it would also be an equal right being granted as explained above.

HISTORY and cases already decided prove this fact.

Remind me again what woman and minorities were fighting for back in the day? EQUAL RIGHTS
when minorities could drink out of water fountains just like everybody could but they could drink out of WHITES water fountains was that also EQUAL and fighting for a NEW right? of course not because that illogical and void of all reality common sense and facts.

also you keep saying traditional which is BS because gay marriage is traditional :shrug: just because its not YOUR traditional is meaningless LMAO this is just empty rhetoric that some people like you use but can never back it up with anything factual or logical.

lastly the voting is meaningless, you keep bring this up but people arent voting because the options are worded badly LMAO

if you notice i didnt even vote so you TRYING and FAILING to make a connection is again. More OPINION.

ok lets try this again, and please pay attention to the wording because you dont understand the difference between your opinion and FACTS.

read them slow this time and pay attention to the bolded, because you have failed again and provided zero facts that support your false claim.

1.)FACTUALLY prove the word marriage is being "stolen" LMAO
2.) FACTUALLY prove its not an equal rights issue.

I cant wait to see the spin and opinion you post this time with nothing to support you.
This is gonna be fun

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

shiang said:

Also for legal purposes I think changing all marriages to civil unions might not be a bad idea. This way legally all couples would be equal under the law yet lets people define for themselves what they consider marriage.

This issue is a classic case of minority rights.

Click to expand...

the issue is this is the harder way and more work and the illogical way to do it.

Legal marriage is already there and marriage is the ONLY way to achieve the benefits and rights currently given by a marriage contract.
civil unions do not and are not as binding as the courts have already shown. Marriages grants us like 1200 rights and benefits and to try to make something else do this that has already been defeated in court is the long way, harder way and nonsensical.

Now im not saying you are against anything im just pointing out legal how much of a failure and illogical granting civil unions would be.