“Guess what! Have I got news for you… If you are the unmarried Dad of a child born out of wedlock, you can’t have custody of the child, either, if the Mom dies.”

Can I call bull-shit? If the child biologically yes he can. If you are talking about a non-biological father, but has been in the child life since birth it would be easy for him to go though adoption or courts can find that he is the parental guardian and give him custody if no family member protest. But that could be cleared up though marriage.

Again if a gay spouse happens to die his/her spouse is not entitled to his/her benefits or even custody of the child because THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED or have to safe guards for these things.

Family members can contest wills and have a better chance of winning when it’s against a same-sex partner.

Heh. I think that’s what he’s saying.

No, you don’t.

I do not believe that of some arbitrary number X of people who oppose gay marriage , that even 10% of them hate gays.

I believe that you’re WAY off on your estimate.

Guess what! Have I got news for you… If you are the unmarried Dad of a child born out of wedlock, you can’t have custody of the child, either, if the Mom dies.

Dunno if this is true. It doesn’t matter though. The Mom and Dad in your example had the OPTION of getting married if they so chose. Most places in this country, gay couples do NOT have that option. Bad analogy.

Unfairness, unfairness! Unfairness everywhere.

Yes.

It is not that simple

Yes, it is.

So marriage is a zero-sum game? God you’re an idiot.

Thus, you have a problem. I have none.

So it’s OUR fault that they’re being disingenuous?

You will see that I have never opposed gay marriage. I do not oppose gay marriage. I am not all lit up about it, but I don’t care one way or the other.

Unlike you lefties, I understand what the objections to gay marriage are, and I can appreciate their concerns, and I do not believe that of some arbitrary number X of people who oppose gay marriage , that even 10% of them hate gays.

Now, if you insist on believing that all people who oppose gay marriage hate gays, then, of course, for you, what I said can’t possibly be true.

Thus, you have a problem. I have none.

Southern Quaker: Guess what! Have I got news for you… If you are the unmarried Dad of a child born out of wedlock, you can’t have custody of the child, either, if the Mom dies.

Unfairness, unfairness! Unfairness everywhere.

So you are in favor of allowing gay couples to get the same tax breaks as heterosexual married couples, and to receive benefits from State and Federal government, or work benefits as long as they don’t use it though the means of marriage?

Nope. I didn’t say that, or anything like that. It is not that simple, although I know all you lefties wish it were.

So you are in favor of allowing gay couples to get the same tax breaks as heterosexual married couples, and to receive benefits from State and Federal government, or work benefits as long as they don’t use it though the means of marriage?

Yes, and if that gay parent dies, his or her partner may loose custody of the child that they raised together.

shared by millions,

First, there are also millions that share the belief that gays should be able to get married.

Secondly, the truth or value of a judgment is not tied to its popularity. I do not care if 5.9 billion people out of the 6 billion on the planet oppose gay marriage. They’re STILL wrong.

and to make their way in the world together, as one.

If this is all God’s plan and whatnot, why don’t we just go back to the way women were treated in Biblical times? Chattel, property of the man? Would you like to do this, Frank? Maybe allow men to marry MULTIPLE women? The point is that the current “traditional” view of marriage in this country is really quite new. It’s continually evolving. And as such, homosexuals being able to marry does not mark a major deviation from the norm. Even if it did, it’s STILL the right thing to do.

It so happens that if a gay person has a dependent child, he or she can take a sizeable deduction , even if he or she is not married to anyone.

There are other rights not afforded gay people, as a consequence of being unable to get married.

What law is there now that says gays are entitled to marry, and with which Republicans are interfering?

Well, Republican fucktards from Utah heavily supported Prop 8, which overturned the ability for gay people to be married in the State of California. I know that it’s not exactly the question you asked, but it’s still important.

Tough shit on this idea. Separation of Church and State. That’s literally all that needs to be said.

Anything else?

If allowing gay couples to marry, says nothing about heterosexual marriage, then isn’t it safe to assume that people who favor heterosexual marriage aren’t necessarily saying anything bad about gays?

Frank, this is nonsense. In this case, you are using the phrase “favor heterosexual marriage” to mean “only allow heterosexual marriage”. No. That’s bullshit. Personally, I “favor” heterosexual marriage, simply because I am a heterosexual. If and when I do get married to a woman, I recognize that Bob and Steve’s gay marriage is not, in any way, a threat to my own. It’s nonsense.

But if you believe that homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals, then yes, you’re a bigot.

so there goes you “conservatives don’t want gays to get married” theory

Because if a single conservative doesn’t oppose gay marriage, then that means that the movement in general is not anti-gay marriage. Who do you think is opposing homosexuals here?

to people who think that the term “Marriage” only applies to a union between a man and a woman.

These people are either idiots, bigots, or political appeasers.

I mean by the sanctity of marriage the belief, shared by millions, that marriage is holy and blessed by God, because it binds a man and woman together for life to raise their own family, and to make their way in the world together, as one.

Now , if you don’t believe that, that matters not one little bit to me, or the people who do believe it.

If allowing gay couples to marry, says nothing about heterosexual marriage, then isn’t it safe to assume that people who favor heterosexual marriage aren’t necessarily saying anything bad about gays?

If I were a Yankees fan, would that mean that I wish the Boston Red Sox couldn’t play ball anymore ?

In the basement. Hahaha, I cannot stop laughing.
Nope. I still don’t get it.

Who cares?

CJ: a) I am not opposed to gay marriage (so there goes you “conservatives don’t want gays to get married” theory)
b) Whatever happens to gays when they marry, or doesn’t happen when they don’t, is of no concern to people who think that the term “Marriage” only applies to a union between a man and a woman. This does not mean they hate gays. Maybe they don’t care about what they want, but that doesn’t mean they hate them.
c) It so happens that if a gay person has a dependent child, he or she can take a sizeable deduction , even if he or she is not married to anyone.
d) What law is there now that says gays are entitled to marry, and with which Republicans are interfering?

Deny a gay couple of marriage is denying them of a comfortable life, security, and a peace at mind they are PROTECTED by law that they too have rights just like heterosexual couples do.

Your oh-so-original snark above, Frank. They were your words. I was just enjoying them.

If it happens to be your desire to protect the sanctity of marriage by insuring, as best you can, that only men and women marry, that says absolutely nothing about your attitude toward gays.

What do you mean by the “sanctity of marriage”? And how does allowing gay people to marry say ANYTHING about heterosexual marriage?

That is because you wouldn’t see it as a “right” that gays should marry, and, therefore, you would not see yourself as depriving them of anything.

Right. Not allowing them to marry = not depriving them. When they may want to marry. But they shouldn’t be allowed to, because it’s scary. Marriage is sacred, dontcha know. Right.

Being in favor of heterosexual marriage is not the same as hating gays.

No, there’s much more to demonstrate hatred of gay people than merely denying them marriage rights. Of course, denying them marriage can, and often is, a portion of the pie.

In the basement. Hahaha, I cannot stop laughing.

Except that gays “don’t deserve” marriage.

That is because you wouldn’t see it as a “right” that gays should marry, and, therefore, you would not see yourself as depriving them of anything.

That’s bullshit. Just because you don’t see something as a right doesn’t mean the right doesn’t or shouldn’t exist. I’m sure there were plenty of slave owners who didn’t see blacks having a “right” to be free.

Or a more modern example, when Prop 8 took away the right for gays to marry, just because people didn’t “see it as a right”.

Being in favor of heterosexual marriage is not the same as hating gays.

It’s cute that you say “heterosexual marriage” as though gay marriage will outlaw it. They’re not mutually exclusive.

In addition, I’m sure there were people who thought that being anti-abolitionist was not the same as hating blacks.

Unless you have some evidence of a connection to the contrary?

The fact that there’s absolutely nothing to gain from it except unnecessarily hurt homosexuals.

Yeah, I read Mr. Zombie’s crap, Jay. You still got nothing and Mr. Hay is still dead and Mr. Jennings still isn’t a “NAMBLA supporter.”

You have a better explanation?
Of course I do. If it happens to be your desire to protect the sanctity of marriage by insuring, as best you can, that only men and women marry, that says absolutely nothing about your attitude toward gays. That is because you wouldn’t see it as a “right” that gays should marry, and, therefore, you would not see yourself as depriving them of anything.

Am I going too fast for you?

Being in favor of heterosexual marriage is not the same as hating gays.

Unless you have some evidence of a connection to the contrary?

You have a better explanation?

What?

In the motherfucking BASEMENT! Hahahaha! Classic stuff, Frank, absolutely legendary.

Geez…Oliver, can we get some kind of editing function added to our post?

@Frank- If some of your talking points and policy influence comes for Protestant religions no they are not interchangeable. Republicans are willingly allowing the religious right to dictate what the Republican platform will be.

If you don’t like the direction the Republican Party is heading don’t be mad at Democrats or the left get mad at Republican leaders because they are the only ones that can change that it.