Sadly, my gay uncle has been living with his partner a lot longer (20 years) than all of his siblings and most of his nieces and nephews. I might add he's only had one partner as opposed to his sister's (my mother) two ex-husbands, his niece's (my sister) four husbands and his younger brothers' three marriages a piece. My two younger brothers have three marriages a piece, as well. I am married to my first husband, but we have not been together as long as my uncle (it will be ten years in December). Obviously, when it comes to marriage (or something that looks like marriage) my gay uncle was a lot better role-model than my heterosexual family members. So I whole-heartedly support giving ...

Sadly, my gay uncle has been living with his partner a lot longer (20 years) than all of his siblings and most of his nieces and nephews. I might add he's only had one partner as opposed to his sister's (my mother) two ex-husbands, his niece's (my sister) four husbands and his younger brothers' three marriages a piece. My two younger brothers have three marriages a piece, as well. I am married to my first husband, but we have not been together as long as my uncle (it will be ten years in December). Obviously, when it comes to marriage (or something that looks like marriage) my gay uncle was a lot better role-model than my heterosexual family members. So I whole-heartedly support giving all adults the right to marry, regardless of whom they choose to wed.

I am not afraid of anything. Apparently you are.
Same sex couples do not have rights, individuals have rights.

I haven't made homosexuals analogous to murderers any more than those who overeat and are obsese are analogous to murderers. It is about choice. However, fat people have the same rights as thin people. Married people DO NOT have RIGHTS. Now you ignorant baffoons can beat your heads against the idiot-wall all you want. Apparently, clear-thinking and logic are not your specialties. People DO NOT have rights based on activities they engage in or relationships the CHOOSE to be in. EVERYONE has the same right to enter into marriage if they want. Everyone has the right to be in a gay...

I am not afraid of anything. Apparently you are.
Same sex couples do not have rights, individuals have rights.

I haven't made homosexuals analogous to murderers any more than those who overeat and are obsese are analogous to murderers. It is about choice. However, fat people have the same rights as thin people. Married people DO NOT have RIGHTS. Now you ignorant baffoons can beat your heads against the idiot-wall all you want. Apparently, clear-thinking and logic are not your specialties. People DO NOT have rights based on activities they engage in or relationships the CHOOSE to be in. EVERYONE has the same right to enter into marriage if they want. Everyone has the right to be in a gay relationship if they want. States have a right to define the legal parameters and benefits of any specified relationship. However, EVERYONE has the same rights. If this has to be explained any more clearly, then the Clipmarks clan is more feeble minded tha I previously thought!

Willhelm clearly you view things differently but it seems you have defined marriage as a man-woman relationship legally and possibly religiously sanctioned. As we all know, marriage carries certain benefits from the government as well - so those who are homosexual and who have a life partner would actually like the same benefits and same treatment (As well as the same status) because they desire equal civil unions regardless of gender. Marriage isn't exclusively a christian concept - infact pretty much every society in the world has institutions for it be they religious or not. So Willhelm, with all due respect - why is it that one need regulate marriage (a fundamental part of human society)...

Willhelm clearly you view things differently but it seems you have defined marriage as a man-woman relationship legally and possibly religiously sanctioned. As we all know, marriage carries certain benefits from the government as well - so those who are homosexual and who have a life partner would actually like the same benefits and same treatment (As well as the same status) because they desire equal civil unions regardless of gender. Marriage isn't exclusively a christian concept - infact pretty much every society in the world has institutions for it be they religious or not. So Willhelm, with all due respect - why is it that one need regulate marriage (a fundamental part of human society) by religious laws in a supposedly secular state (US)?

What willie here does not seem to understand is that marriage is a "legal" status. That is the law defines a married couple differently than someone who is single. And that matters, a lot. Just like citizenship which is another definition of legal status. It defines what rights you have, whether basic (human rights), constitutional (civil rights) or legal rights (based on your legal status). Now I know he is applying a very basic and oversimplified definition of what a "right" is which leads to a very simplistic conclusion that everybody has the same rights, which is not true (one would wish it was, but it is not).

Also he talks about people having the choice of getting married, in which ca...

What willie here does not seem to understand is that marriage is a "legal" status. That is the law defines a married couple differently than someone who is single. And that matters, a lot. Just like citizenship which is another definition of legal status. It defines what rights you have, whether basic (human rights), constitutional (civil rights) or legal rights (based on your legal status). Now I know he is applying a very basic and oversimplified definition of what a "right" is which leads to a very simplistic conclusion that everybody has the same rights, which is not true (one would wish it was, but it is not).

Also he talks about people having the choice of getting married, in which case if they choose to marry someone of the same sex then should have the same legal status, unless you put same sex relationship outside of what you consider "marriage".

Marszal says:
"so those who are homosexual and who have a life partner would actually like the same benefits and same treatment (As well as the same status) because they desire equal civil unions regardless of gender. "

I do not have a problem wtht that as far as states go. However, it should not be incumbant of one state to recognize these unions as defined in other states. If one state decides to legalize a marriage between a 40 year old man and an 11 year old boy, then that should not have to be recognized in another state. The same goes for bestaility or incest. That is the reason a constitutional amendment is needed.
It seems you want to force your morality on a society and defin...

Marszal says:
"so those who are homosexual and who have a life partner would actually like the same benefits and same treatment (As well as the same status) because they desire equal civil unions regardless of gender. "

I do not have a problem wtht that as far as states go. However, it should not be incumbant of one state to recognize these unions as defined in other states. If one state decides to legalize a marriage between a 40 year old man and an 11 year old boy, then that should not have to be recognized in another state. The same goes for bestaility or incest. That is the reason a constitutional amendment is needed.
It seems you want to force your morality on a society and define marriage in a way it has nbever been defined in the history of the world. Your comments still suggest you cannot grasp the concept of rights as they apply to individuals, not groups.

You need to make up your mind, marszal. Are you arguing for rights or benefits? There is no constitutional right to benefits. So, stick to the issue. Everyone has the same rights.
If you have to invent some materialist construct to make your point, then that just simply suggests you have no point.

Willhelm you're dodging or missed the question.
I asked:

So Willhelm, with all due respect - why is it that one need regulate
marriage (a fundamental part of human society) by religious laws in a
supposedly secular state (US)?

Instead you attempt to disect rights versus benefits - in any true sense of the word equality means equal rights and thus equal access to benefits. Your response here is baffling:

It seems you want to force your morality on a society and define
marriage in a way it has nbever been defined in the history of the
world. Your comments still suggest you cannot grasp the concept of
rights as they apply to individuals, not groups.

I think I quit...

Willhelm you're dodging or missed the question.
I asked:

So Willhelm, with all due respect - why is it that one need regulate
marriage (a fundamental part of human society) by religious laws in a
supposedly secular state (US)?

Instead you attempt to disect rights versus benefits - in any true sense of the word equality means equal rights and thus equal access to benefits. Your response here is baffling:

It seems you want to force your morality on a society and define
marriage in a way it has nbever been defined in the history of the
world. Your comments still suggest you cannot grasp the concept of
rights as they apply to individuals, not groups.

I think I quite seriously argued for a debunking of marriage recognizing its various religious and cultural foundations from around the world and thus encouraged a more tolerant apporach that opens up marriage in the SECULAR United States of America - tolerant. I have quite clearly argued to NOT force ANY morality on ANYONE, whereas I feel that by not allowing gay marriage you endorce a hetero-normative view of marriage founded in Judeo-Christian traditions that imposes religious observances upon state. I'm saying to be secular we need to allow Gay marriage. I would appreciate it if you answer that instead of unnecessarily condescending. Thanks.

I have quite clearly argued to NOT force ANY morality on ANYONE,

Forcing a majority that does not feel the union of two same-sex adults constitutes marriage is forcing your morality. Many states had referendums on this issue and all passed resolutions to support not changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. So, You ARE forcing a morality. That is all the Left does is force morality, while at the same time insisting that those who DO NOT force morality are doing so.

Also, the US is not a secular nation. This is very clear to anyone that is not intentionally being misleading or lying. The facts are very clear on this issue. If we were a secular nation,...

I have quite clearly argued to NOT force ANY morality on ANYONE,

Forcing a majority that does not feel the union of two same-sex adults constitutes marriage is forcing your morality. Many states had referendums on this issue and all passed resolutions to support not changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. So, You ARE forcing a morality. That is all the Left does is force morality, while at the same time insisting that those who DO NOT force morality are doing so.

Also, the US is not a secular nation. This is very clear to anyone that is not intentionally being misleading or lying. The facts are very clear on this issue. If we were a secular nation, there would be no religious freedom. So your argument is dead in the water on that point. But, I know you will stake your ground on that hill. I used to be a liberal, so I am familiar with the anti-thinking subjective prison you are in.

Marriage is regulated in every state. There are different ages of consent. There are different requirements to recieve a marriage license, etc. So, it is nothing new.

As far as dissecting rights versus benefits, YOU are the one that made the distinction, not me. I was just attempting to keep YOU from dodging, as you were so blatantly attempting.

The intolerance lies in those that assume marriage is not defined as a man and women and seek to express their intolerance in the same ways you have. It is an intolarance that you make crystal clear in this comment:
I feel that by not allowing gay marriage you endorce a hetero-normative
view of marriage founded in Judeo-Christian traditions that imposes
religious observances upon state.

You prove with that comment alone that your view is not based in some altruistic agenda, rather one of hurting and devaluing a religious faith.

You must excuse my condescension. I've been at Clipmarks awhile. The motors do not run at very high horse-power around here. If you know what I mean.

marszal...if I may...you have made the mistake that many of us have made in the past regarding Sir Willhelm.

He (and remeber always capitalize pronouns around the Willhelm, it will make things easier in the future) is an irreverent mixture of Ferrous Cranus and Troglodyte with a hint of Ideologue and with a whiff of Compost thrown in (when effectively challenged).

He portrays himself as a clear thinker, but in f...

marszal...if I may...you have made the mistake that many of us have made in the past regarding Sir Willhelm.

He (and remeber always capitalize pronouns around the Willhelm, it will make things easier in the future) is an irreverent mixture of Ferrous Cranus and Troglodyte with a hint of Ideologue and with a whiff of Compost thrown in (when effectively challenged).

He portrays himself as a clear thinker, but in fact has a narrow interpretation of reality, to which anyone who does not conform to His representation of said reality is abnormal, aberrant or downright stupid. He may attempt to moderate His bile when first encountering new clippers but once His drivel is exposed, He launches into full furious attack ranting about how his fellow clippers are beneath him and can not fathom the wisdom that is Him.

Although His verbiage is masked with big words and some salient points, in the end, the Willhelm is a Law unto Himself.

His word is Law and those who try to question is cherished beliefs (such as the reduction of all eveils things to materialism) are barraged by angry rants. He is also an Artful Dodger (as seen above) perfectly capable of accusing others of the same behaviour he himself shows.

Alas, his ideas do have merit, but his inability to accept that others can have different views or that he is (in fact) not infalible leads to an orgy of personal attacks, angry rants and distateful words.

You may of course disregard everything I said up to this point. But you do so at your own peril.