sprawl15: Your entire description of your opinion is basically a repost of what I said upthread, yet since you still haven't read the thread you still have no farking idea what I've said so far.

A less self-absorbed person might have read what I said and thought "this guy holds an opinion close to mine, maybe I should be less of a dick". But you thought "this guy posted something similar to me, so since he didn't give me credit for my original thoughts on the topic, he must not have read the thread".

Mna, I always like to get to this party before you folks troll the "Fark Liberals".

When I enter they are plim tuckered out from defending their Messiah, and I just fet some half-hearted insults.

/maybe there's a romney bashing forum i can join in, cause my hate goes both ways this cycle.

1) I'm gay, and even I thought "civil unions" would be the best we could ever hope for as recently as 2008 (remember Prop 8?)

2) I remember 2004 when gay-bashing bait was the best strategy for bringing out the Republican base. It's understandable why Obama doesn't want make a big stance on this.

3) Obama has already done more for gay rights than any other politician in history. And he's done it quite stealthily.

These aren't "gaffes" they're trial balloons. And I for one am glad to see some dog-whistle politics being used for good, for once.

frankencj: bobbette: bdub77: Well...I'm voting against the stupid amendment in NC but I'm anti-marriage in general in a government sense. Civil unions for everyone, marriage should not be recognized by the state outside of the civil union. Marriage is the religious side of the equation. Separation of church and state - marriage by the church, civil unions by the state. You can have one or both.

A marriage is a civil union in countries with a separation of church and state. The marriage ceremony is what is performed by a church and it varies.

So you're wrong. There are places where marriage is a religious institution exclusively and there, marriage has a different character and can't be accessed by people who don't meet religious requirements. Israel, for example.

I like the way it is done in France and Germany (at least in the 80s and 90s) Civil and religious ceremonies were separate.

/I married in France, French mayors perform the civil marriage, church wedding later if you want it.

//sister married in Germany. Civil first then church the next day.

///The US should do this.

They still do it that way from what I know (friends in France) and people seem to be perfectly happy with it. Therefore the US will never evar adopt that policy.

/if the option for a civil marriage or civil union had been around twenty years ago my hubby and I would have opted for that but had a JP marry us since that was the closest thing to it....

Smackledorfer: A less self-absorbed person might have read what I said and thought "this guy holds an opinion close to mine, maybe I should be less of a dick".

Funny, that's what I've been telling you for three posts now.

sprawl15: Smackledorfer: A less self-absorbed person might have read what I said and thought "this guy holds an opinion close to mine, maybe I should be less of a dick".

Funny, that's what I've been telling you for three posts now.

No, what you've been doing for three posts is refusing to address how you put your foot in your mouth earlier, got called out on it, and had to move the goalposts because you can't admit you, at the absolute very least, phrased something poorly. Which is why I've suggested numerous times you just take your lumps and move on.

bdub77: Well...I'm voting against the stupid amendment in NC but I'm anti-marriage in general in a government sense. Civil unions for everyone, marriage should not be recognized by the state outside of the civil union. Marriage is the religious side of the equation. Separation of church and state - marriage by the church, civil unions by the state. You can have one or both.

As a married atheist, I heartily invite you to go f*ck yourself.

Garble: 1) I'm gay, and even I thought "civil unions" would be the best we could ever hope for as recently as 2008 (remember Prop 8?)

2) I remember 2004 when gay-bashing bait was the best strategy for bringing out the Republican base. It's understandable why Obama doesn't want make a big stance on this.

3) Obama has already done more for gay rights than any other politician in history. And he's done it quite stealthily.

These aren't "gaffes" they're trial balloons. And I for one am glad to see some dog-whistle politics being used for good, for once.

Yeah, like how he threw Larry Sinclair and other lovers under the bus once it looked like he'd have a chance to be president.

But having a look at Moochelle, I don't blame Barry for liking men.

Chameleon: bdub77: Well...I'm voting against the stupid amendment in NC but I'm anti-marriage in general in a government sense. Civil unions for everyone, marriage should not be recognized by the state outside of the civil union. Marriage is the religious side of the equation. Separation of church and state - marriage by the church, civil unions by the state. You can have one or both.

As a married atheist, I heartily invite you to go f*ck yourself.

You're an atheist, and you still care about the magical difference between "civil union" and "marriage" based on the traditional use of the word?

I assume you are also heartily upset that gay people stole the word "gay", and really get peeved when people use slang?

Or did I completely misunderstand your post?

Here's the thing - It's kinda funny when your V.P. puts his foot in his mouth ala Joe Biden or Dan Quayle.

It's down right frightening when it's your President doing it every time he has a chance.

Bucky Katt: Marriage is a religious practice. The state should have nothing to do with it. The state should recognize only civil unions. You want to get married -- that's your business. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

This.


Also, engineers had this response down a long time ago. Ask any engineer a question to which he doesn't know or doesn't wish to give the answer-

"It depends."

Slam1263: Moochelle

*chug*

Smackledorfer: Chameleon: bdub77: Well...I'm voting against the stupid amendment in NC but I'm anti-marriage in general in a government sense. Civil unions for everyone, marriage should not be recognized by the state outside of the civil union. Marriage is the religious side of the equation. Separation of church and state - marriage by the church, civil unions by the state. You can have one or both.

As a married atheist, I heartily invite you to go f*ck yourself.

You're an atheist, and you still care about the magical difference between "civil union" and "marriage" based on the traditional use of the word?

I assume you are also heartily upset that gay people stole the word "gay", and really get peeved when people use slang?

Or did I completely misunderstand your post?

I'm saying that marriage should have nothing to do with religion either. The ceremony can be religious but marriage is a matter between me, my husband, the community, and the government that gives us the rights and privileges thereof. Calling it "civil unions" has absolutely no point except to bow to fundie nutjobs who are getting pissy about marriage.

Sure, to an extent the problem is semantics--if a "civil union" has all the same legal protections as a "marriage" there's no difference. But in that case, why the hell should we change the word? Why the hell should we not keep the perfectly good definition we have now?

I want it to remain "marriage" because the word has a long history and therefore carries a lot of cultural weight, which is not all negative. "Civil union" does not have the same history and would end up, right or wrong, not having the same cultural significance and not being seen as equal. I also want it to remain "marriage" because it sure pisses the idiots off when they know that my marriage, which has nothing to do with any god of any kind, is exactly the same and exactly as equal as their own marriage. And I want them to be good and pissed when gay people have exactly the same and equal marriage as them too.

mrshowrules: abb3w: Lumpmoose: There's no way Obama is going to use the word "evolving" at a debate. What the fark is he waiting for?

Probably for the fraction of uncommitted voters in swing states who Disapprove or Strongly Disapprove of legalizing Gay marriage to fall below 45%.

Ironic that the GOP now actually has a very strong pandering argument against Obama that they probably won't even use.

That's because they picked the Secret Liberal and everyone in the party knows he's going to be hammered on it: Romney's (mild) support of gays in the military. The great thing about Romney is that you don't even have to reach more than a year into the past to find statements he's flipped on at least twice on just about any position.

Honestly, he doesn't seem like a guy who's going to drink the Kool-Aid and become a monster or a McCain/Palin joke; I think he'd be a good President, just like Obama. And that's why he's going to lose, his entire party is going to turn on him like Perot got them to turn on Bush; all that's left is for the RNC to pick their candidate and the third-party to appear.