This is what I don't get about the anti-gay crowd

What are some of the things marriage entails that Gays are not enjoying already besides tax breaks?

 

More comes with state-recognized marriage than you have addressed above.

 

Get educated. Got Google? Get knowledge.

 

No YOU post them. you made stupid bogus claims, then back them up with sources and links.

 

If you want people to buy what you are saying, you should support it with reason or applicable facts. What you infer about marriage, gays and "tax-breaks" is incorrect. It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

deflect much? back up your claims or be quiet.

 

Not 'deflection', just blowing off BS. I don't have time for it.

 

Just like you don't have time to back up your bogus claims. I get it.

Fact is, if it wasn't for tax breaks, marriage would be unappealing to Gay couples.

 

Believe as you want/must. I'm thankful that American law does not hinge solely upon your views.

 

please elaborate on that comment

 

Actually, using the fact that it's already the law is also a logical fallacy. You cannot use the fact that something exists as the justification for it's existence. If you really believe what you said, you don't get to pick which type of marriage it applies to and which it doesn't. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

Prove it.

(this should be good).

 

No, there are over 1000 federal marriage benefits that you can not receive without a marriage certificate.

 

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
This is only a PARTIAL list.

 

Add Mocking the sacred union of marriage to that list..

 

The world does not (and never has) been run solely by your religious beliefs. If you hold what you observe to be sacred, so be it. You should not expect others to honor and/or abide all you believe. That isn't realistic in any way whatsoever.

 

Heterosexuals did that a long time ago when they created civil marriage, legalized divorce and adultery and gave women equal rights.

 

Wrong. You cannot use the argument of "how does it affect you?" unless you are prepared to answer that same question, yourself. You need to understand that it is only your perception that our side is denying anyone any rights. From our side, everything is already equal. And just as you are entitled to your opinion on this issue that you openly admit does not affect you personally, we are entitled to the same. Anything else you say here is nothing more than an attempt to stack the debate in your own favor and silence the opposition.

It doesn't matter how strongly you believe in your position. There is still another side. And refusal to grant that other side equal merit is a double standard.

Wrong again. It is you who wants to change the existing law, thus it is you who bears the responsibility for showing why the law must be changed. A standing law is not considered unconstitutional until proven constitutional. If that were the case, then we could claim the very same thing about Roe v. Wade and it would be your job to prove why the law needs to remain legal since that law is currently denying the basic right to life to millions of children.

The burden of proof is always on the person or group trying to change the law.

Of course that's all you hear. Because you are proving yourself to be fundamentally unable to actually hear what's being said by the other side. You can only hear it after it has been filtered through your own biased perspective. This is how most debates in politics happen. Very rarely do the two sides actually hear one another. Most often they only hear a twisted, distorted version of the other side's position and then race to prepare their retaliation before even stopping to truly listen, understand, or consider possible common ground.

 

Marriage is a sacred practice. if Gays wish to partake, they cannont because it is sacred.

You cannont expect others to honor your wicked practices and take them as their own.

 

Sacred is church related. I want a civil marriage.

 

To some yes; not to all. You need to accept that, or likely drive yourself crazy.

Wrong. That isn't reality.

If YOU get married, then you HOLD that in YOUR heart and mind as/for what it means. You may WANT to define that for OTHERS... but you CANNOT and DO NOT.

Please, be realistic. The world and the definition of all within it, is not yours to control.

 

It is rather astounding, that in 2012 many want to define marriage as being solely a "religious" thing... when it hasn't been exclusively defined in that manner for centuries.

It is as much as LEGAL contract as it is "sacred"... and not all agree with or accept the same definition(s).

 

Nobody is deciding the other side has no merit, and I've never tried to silence anyone. The problem is, when all your arguments rest upon subjective perceptions of the issue(it's immoral, it will destroy traditional marriage, etc), and you present no objective factual evidence, it's hard NOT to write off what you say as subjective bias.

Nobody is making a factual case against homosexuality. I haven't seen one, and trust me, I've looked, as much because I care about this issue but also out of curiosity to see if it even CAN be done. Nothing I have heard, nothing, has been objective. Go ahead and try if you want, I'd be very interested to read an objective opposing argument.

Of course I want to change the existing law, the existing law is discriminatory. That's what the whole debate is about. And we have shown the law is discriminatory. It prevents same-sex couples from getting married, while allowing opposite-sex couples from getting married, and for no objective reason. You cannot point to that and call it equal.

A comparison to Roe. V Wade is incorrect here. Fetus's don't have rights, any fetus's. If the law was structured so that some could be aborted and some could not, then you'd have a case for discrimination.

I hear what the other side is saying. I hear it all the time. And I look for common ground all the time. I am able to find it with libertarians on this issue, because while they may or may not give a rat's behind about gay people or same-sex marriage, I can at least count on them to oppose the government being selective in their restricting of rights and freedoms. I am not able to find it with people who want to be selective in what they perceive, or who wants to deny facts, or who think their own personal distaste for gay people(even though there is no requirement that you be gay to participate in a same-sex marriage) is a legal reason to deny equal treatment under the law.

I'm sorry, but if you want to be taken seriously, present an objective case. Don't write up your own prejudices and call it objective.

 

I stated that it was about equal benefits....you stated the above. Obviously false.

 

A) We are talking about civil marriage...no religion involved....open to heterosexuals of any and all beliefs.

B) Your opinion has no bearing on civil law.