LOL, are you saying that most repbulcans are less homophobic, want more gay rights...ect than your average liberal?

You're mixing apples and oranges here.

Besides, there's no such thing as "gay rights". There are human rights; they apply to all humans, gays and heteros alike.

However, they're designed for individuals. When you start introducing "couples' rights" that's when things get messy.

Ok, don't be so picky on my use of "gay rights"...its an expression, secondly IM not mixing apples and oranges...

Most of the time REPUBLICAN-CONSERAVTIVE~Which in turn, conservatives are not to open to "human rights" :wink: when it comes to gay people...ect
Democrat=liberal~Which in turn, most want "human rights" for gays, are more openminded about homosexuality, race, and dont usually want to implement their morals and views upon others.
Im not saying all...you are a perfect example, but alot of the time...its true...sadly

Look around you. No, not in the school you go to, but the other people you interact in everyday life. Half of them voted for Bush. Do you really believe the majority of them to be hateful bigots?

I'm not saying everyone who opposes gay rights...ect are hateful bigots, yes there are some, but alot of the people who are against the "gay agenda "...for the most part. let their faith blind them or their preconcieved notations about certain issues override the matter at hand

See, the problem here is the government.

The people you're talking about do not recognize homosexuality as proper behavior because of their religion, as is their right.

The problems start when the government decides to give out benefits to married couples. Now you have a group of people who do not want to recognize same-sex marriages being forced to do it, because it's their tax money that's going into the process. However, they're now forced to recognize those marriages.

Had the government stayed out of the marriage process entirely, this wouldn't have even been an issue.

I suppose, I see what your saying...really.But I would be worried from eliminating governments role in EVERYTYING....i.e. social service agency's, child welfare...ect. SO, although you disagree, how do you...eliminate governments role in some things but not others?

Well, in my view, the government ought to be as minimal as possible. I do not believe in so called "positive rights" (the rights that entitle you to some benefit, such as the right to minimum wage, 40-hr workweek, unemployment benefits, Welfare, etc.). I only believe in "negative rights" (the rights that prevent the government from doing stuff to you, such as the right to freedom of speech and religion).

Short of that, there's nothing to stop the government from getting out of some programs, since it has already been doing it. Just something for you to consider: why is it that people always complain about the government-run programs such as Welfare, Soc. Security, public schools, USPS, unemployment office, etc.?

I'm just wondering how you could see marriage as discrimination against single people, but somehow you don't see that marriage restricted to man and woman is NOT discrimination against gays.

That seems an overly broad definition of discrimination in the former case, and an amazingly narrow discrimination in the other.



I was referring to Republicans et al. I don't one as being any more or less anti-gay than the other.

you don't think people have a right to minimum wage?

It is a discrimination against gays, there is no question about that. However, the reason for that discrimination IS the government's involvement in the marriage process.

The Catholic Church discriminates against gays as well; however nobody in their right mind would not force them to perform those marriages.
People have different ideas about the government, though.
I misinterpreted what you were saying then.

Okay, now I'm definitely confused, because you've been arguing that the FMA is NOT discrimination against gays.



You're going to have to clarify please.

I KNOW people have a right to minimum wage. That doesn't mean I like it that way.

Ok, I should've clarified: it's a discrimination against gay couples, but not gay individuals.

I believe that the best way to end the government discrimination is for the government to get out of the business of marriage in the first place.

Wouldn't you say that discrimination against gay COUPLES is de facto discrimination against gays? Wouldn't you classify miscegenation laws, for example, as racist laws? Does it matter that it only specifically targets gay couples? If I said that blacks couldn't vote, I'm only technically discriminating against blacks over the age of 18, not black children. But it's no less racist.



No, but it does generally mean anti-gay rights. Not only does the FMA discriminate against gays, it's MEANT to. This isn't some inadvertant by-product of the law. It's MEANT to keep gays from getting married to each other. And this law is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, not just the moral conservatives.

Once again, my point is not to defend the FMA; I do not like it one bit. My point is to show that government involvement in the marriage institution is bad.

What if the government only allowed people who are responsible enough (as deemed by the government) to raise children to get married. While certainly a noble cause, it would also be discrimination.

In the end, what I'm saying is that there is no reason to have the government involved in marriage. If one insists on the opposite, then one has to be ready that the majority will impose their POV on them.

I'm not convinced of that. For a lot of people the battle is simply over the word marriage, without any other agenda.

One can allow for the govt to be involved in marriage but not discriminate against gays. If that's an uphill battle, it's because of the anti-gay prejudice we've been discussing.

I happen to agree with you about certain unfair breaks married couples get (and ones, frankly, I don't understand WHY we get), but if heterosexual couples can marry, then homosexual couples should as well.



I disagree. The amendment, the argument, the debate are ALL borne out of the desire of gays to marry. Whether Republicans don't want gays to have the word or the institution doesn't change the fact that this is about the rights of gays and gays alone.

Why WOULD one allow the government to be involved in marriage? WHta would be the purpose for the government to regulate marriage, as far as that ONE goes?
You were saying that the law is anti-gay rights and that the Republicans are generally anti-gay rights.

However, it's been reported a lot of times that the majority of the people in this country are for same-sex civil unions, but against same-sex marriages. So in the end, it is about the word, and it matters;

That's a different topic. This discussion presumes that the govt IS involved in marriage and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Should the govt discriminate against gays, whether or not they can?



Yes, and they are.



Whether it's the word or the institution, it's STILL about marriage as it relates to gay rights.

Let me explain myself: government buildings have men's and women's bathrooms. Some could construe that as disrmination (whether against men, women or transsexuals is besides the point). However, a supporter of these segregated bathrooms could find a rationale for such discrimination.

Is there such a rationale for marriages?

My point is, that if the fight is simply abot the word (as, like I said before, the majority of the people in the U.S. are FOR civil unions for gay couples), then that in itself shows that the people (Republicans included) are not anti-gay rights.

Cohabitation is no longer an issue in this context.