tronvillain

Really, what would be missing?

Godot

I was being facetious.
WTF does "gratuitously contentious" mean? Are you suggesting that I'm here only to make you look bad or to stir the pot because I can? While I can be a shit-disturber, I've been attempting to draw you into a logical and rational discussion based upon a defense of your positions. If answering difficult questions is beneath you, then why have you continued this nonsense for nine pages? You could have saved us all the time to respond had you made it clear that you were not to be swayed from your ridiculous contentions in your first post.

Fr.Andrew

(yguy): No, it denies them the right to be granted any special consideration by Congress.
(Fr Andrew): Yet the devout are included on the list of groups against whom Congress has declared it illegal to discriminate. That's the only "special consideration" that homosexuals wish...to be included on that same list.

(yguy): What's stopping a "gay" couple from hiring, say, a wiccan priest, having the cermony, and pronouncing themselves "married"?
(Fr Andrew): Nothing at all...but it still wouldn't give them the legal rights enjoyed by straight married couples. That's what this is about, yguy. As "next of kin", homosexuals will (at least) fall under the Family and Medical Leave Act, be able to direct care for an incapacitated spouse and inherit each other's property by default. That sort of thing.

yguy

"The devout" don't constittute an establishment of religion. When Catholics get special considerations not granted to other denominations, get back to me.

I suppose I can understand homosexuals wanting an equal opportunity to steal from employers and the public.

yguy

Evidently you are a Zen Buddhist, and see profound depth to the phrase, "the sound of one hand clapping". If I didn't answer difficult questions, I'd have been talking to myself for nine pages. The only way you can square your premise with any semblance of reality is to believe NHGH, Dr. Rick and others are my sock puppets.

But enough of this tripe. You and I have a communication problem, and I'm going to solve it, since you decline to. Happy trails, pilgrim.

hezekiah jones

Fr. Andrew: "Yet the devout are included on the list of groups against whom Congress has declared it illegal to discriminate."

yguy: "'The devout' don't constitute an establishment of religion."

Nice non sequitur. Fr. Andrew wasn't talking about the establishment clause, he was talking about constitutionally protected classes, i.e., those based on religious belief and gender, among others, which are subjected to the highest level of judicial scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

Despite your flailing about, it appears to be only a matter of time before sexual orientation is added to this group.

Fr.Andrew

(yguy): "The devout" don't constittute an establishment of religion. When Catholics get special considerations not granted to other denominations, get back to me.
(Fr Andrew): You changed the subject. We're not talking about an establishment of religion...we're talking about protection against discrimination. Your assertion with respect to the 1st Amendment notwithstanding, the Congress has voted to include the devout (and Catholics) among various classes of people against whom it is illegal to discriminate. If you want to characterize that as "special consideration", that's fine, but there's no reason (beyond bigotry and ignorance) for them not to award those same "special considerations" to homosexuals and bisexuals.
(yguy): I suppose I can understand homosexuals wanting an equal opportunity to steal from employers and the public.
(Fr Andrew): Well, that's a step forward, anyway. To the extent that the right to make health decisions for an incapacitated partner is, by your logic, stealing...then your understanding that homosexuals should be awarded the same right surely represents some sort of breakthrough for you.
Congratulations!

Bree

Well then, I don't see why you're participating in this thread. This thread is about what two consenting adults choose to do, not whether or not they're going to rear offspring.

You SAY you don't care about anything BUT the children, but yet you protest against the rights of homosexuals to be left alone to do what they please. Which is it?

yguy

The thread is about homosexual marriage. If that is somehow unrelated to traditional marriage, I fail to see why.

They're already free to do as they please. They're just not entitled to any special recognition for those activities in law.

Amen-Moses

And they're not asking for any either, just the same recognition as everyone else.

Maybe the question should be why a heterosexual couple should be entitled to special recognition?

As I said before the easiest answer would be to abolish marriage completely, if couple want some legal document tying them together then they can go see a lawyer and draw one up.

Amen-Moses