Cross another hypocrite off the list

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

no, there are plenty of people who aren't anti-gay, but are against gay marriage.
but in the case of civil laws...how can one person have a right to declare their mate, but not another? i think that's the heart of it all. this hasn't got anything to do with heaven or hell, but with next of kin, with legal issues, with who an adult wants to claim as their 'joint partner' on tax forms.

I don't think most people have a problem with that. I think that some states including California have laws that allow gay couples to have many of the same tax benefits as married couples.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think most people have a problem with that. I think that some states including California have laws that allow gay couples to have many of the same tax benefits as married couples.

Yep...and all those enlightened southern states that had "separate but equal" laws...what was the difference? When you say to a group of people that they can't have the same legal rights as others...that's discrimination, pure and simple! And..."nobody in California..." that's a rather sweeping generalization! Why would one be against gay marriage if they believe in their heart that a gay person is the same as them? All kinds of rhetoric, all kinds of semantics, all kinds of utter BS!!! "Many of the same tax benefits" is that the same as saying equal under the law? I've been here before...the "enlightened" folks who say, "Why some of my best friends are....(fill in the blank)" Got nothing against gay folk...as long as they don't move in next door or have to audacity to not know their place! My god, give in to these folks and next thing you know...those hell-bound Wiccans will want to have religious symbols on the tombstones of Wiccan soldiers killed defending our right to discriminate ....oh wait!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yep...and all those enlightened southern states that had "separate but equal" laws...what was the difference? When you say to a group of people that they can't have the same legal rights as others...that's discrimination, pure and simple! And..."nobody in California..." that's a rather sweeping generalization! Why would one be against gay marriage if they believe in their heart that a gay person is the same as them? All kinds of rhetoric, all kinds of semantics, all kinds of utter BS!!! "Many of the same tax benefits" is that the same as saying equal under the law? I've been here before...the "enlightened" folks who say, "Why some of my best friends are....(fill in the blank)" Got nothing against gay folk...as long as they don't move in next door or have to audacity to not know their place! My god, give in to these folks and next thing you know...those hell-bound Wiccans will want to have religious symbols on the tombstones of Wiccan soldiers killed defending our right to discriminate ....oh wait!

Why can't I have 5 wives? If I have 5 girlfriends, they should all be allowed to have the same legal benefits. How can the governemnt tell me that I can only marry one of them. That means that the other 4 will not get the same legal rights.

If you think that I should only be able to marry one of the women, then I think you are being hypocritical.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why can't I have 5 wives? If I have 5 girlfriends, they should all be allowed to have the same legal benefits. How can the governemnt tell me that I can only marry one of them. That means that the other 4 will not get the same legal rights.

Frankly, I don't care if you have 20 wives, it has nothing to do with the issue of gay rights! That's like saying if we allow Mexicans to cross the border illegally, soon they will be joined by Martians...one can debate immigration without looking to another planet and this subject can be debated without looking at other non-related issues! Red Herring!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Frankly, I don't care if you have 20 wives, it has nothing to do with the issue of gay rights! That's like saying if we allow Mexicans to cross the border illegally, soon they will be joined by Martians...one can debate immigration without looking to another planet and this subject can be debated without looking at other non-related issues! Red Herring!!!

Well, you answered my question. You just said that you think that a man should be able to have 20 wives. You are enititled to your opinion. Your idea of mariage is clearly far different from what most people's idea of marriage is. That's fine. It doesn't mean that you are wrong. I respect your belief that a man should be able to have 20 wives. By the same token, you should respect the belief of others that a man should only be allowed to have one wife.

By the way, I think this is very relevant to the discussion because there have to be some rules to marriage. People need to decide if marriage should be be between one man and one woman or maybe one man and 20 women, or maybe even between two men. I think that most people think that marriage should be between one man and one woman. It doesn't mean that these people are right, but these people are entitled to their opinion just like you are entitled to yours.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I love liberals. All you have to do is let them open their mouths, and they will reveal their idiocy. For instance, one of my favorite people in America is Howard Dean. I love listening to him speak! I know that he will embarrass himself. (Well, he should be embarrassed by his drivel.)

Somerfrost might become my second most favorite person in America.

People are equal under the law. However, you cannot compare people who live with one another with married couples. Apples and oranges. Why? Marriage is defined by a union of man and woman. There is nothing wrong with that definition, just as there is nothing wrong with not permitting those who are not man and woman choosing to live together not to receive the same legal, and economic, acknowledgments.

When you juxtapose "Jim Crow" laws with the idea that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and are subjecting people to second-class status -- and by definition gay marriage cannot exist -- then I know you have a weak argument.

And please, Downthestretch, leave Matt Sheppard out of this debate; perhaps you should acknowledge all of the horrific tales of NAMBLA types torturing young boys that are not reported by the "enlightened" media, but need to be exposed by intellectually honest columnists like Michelle Malkin. Where are those stories -- Malkin's work is court-documneted -- treated with the same exposure as that of a Matthew Sheppard incident?

Now that is hypocrisy.

Cardus,
Talk about apples and oranges!
All I said was that I wished for Matthew Sheppard to RIP.
I said nothing about NAMBLA.
Twist, twist, twist and spin.
As Danzig stated, ALL people should share the same rights. I agree.
Tell me, who do you think is undeserving?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Oh, come on. Placing Matthew Sheppard in that post isn't loaded? That was a random line?

All people, by law, do share the same rights. All married people have the same rights.

Cardus,
Go back and read what I said. Matthew loved, others hated.
Am I wrong?
Now about all people sharing the same rights...are you "qualifying" that premise by saying that those that are married have the same rights, or ALL people?
You might have just defined hypocracy...but I'll let you sort it out.
the question remains..."who is undeserving of rights"?
And why?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

How do you know that Matthew "loved?" Close personal friend?

Or, because he was gay, it is assumed that he "loved?" Maybe he was a miserable person who happened to be gay.

Cardus,
Those that murdered Matthew demonstrated hatred...is this not correct?
Again, you didn't answer the questions I asked.
1) Who should have their rights denied?
2) Why do you believe so?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cardus

And some murderers do not demonstrate hatred?

Your point????
Your answers to the other two questions????

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I love liberals. All you have to do is let them open their mouths, and they will reveal their idiocy. For instance, one of my favorite people in America is Howard Dean. I love listening to him speak! I know that he will embarrass himself. (Well, he should be embarrassed by his drivel.)

Somerfrost might become my second most favorite person in America.

People are equal under the law. However, you cannot compare people who live with one another with married couples. Apples and oranges. Why? Marriage is defined by a union of man and woman. There is nothing wrong with that definition, just as there is nothing wrong with not permitting those who are not man and woman choosing to live together not to receive the same legal, and economic, acknowledgments.

When you juxtapose "Jim Crow" laws with the idea that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage and are subjecting people to second-class status -- and by definition gay marriage cannot exist -- then I know you have a weak argument.

And please, Downthestretch, leave Matt Sheppard out of this debate; perhaps you should acknowledge all of the horrific tales of NAMBLA types torturing young boys that are not reported by the "enlightened" media, but need to be exposed by intellectually honest columnists like Michelle Malkin. Where are those stories -- Malkin's work is court-documneted -- treated with the same exposure as that of a Matthew Sheppard incident?

Now that is hypocrisy.

Sorry Cardus...like all folks who jump to conclusions without facts, you are wrong...I'm not a liberal, never have been, never will...my distain for liberals is exceeded only by my distain for conservatives! "Marriage is defined..."...defined by whom? I don't define it that way! "All Men" as stated in the Constitution was defined as white male land owners....a definition is nothing more than the words of the power elite...meaningless!