Takei And Altman Wed - Page 7

Brian · October 8 2008, 02:37 PM

What I want is the simplicity of going down to the courthouse, getting a license and doing the deed. If a church doesn't want to marry us, fine. I probably wouldn't go to that church anyway. After all, they don't have to marry all straight people, do they? Would a Catholic church perform a Jewish wedding? Would a Southern Baptist church perform a Catholic wedding? I seriously doubt it.

I want hospital visitation rights, the right to file our taxes jointly, and the ability for my husband to retain our home as next of kin should I die, without having to set up extra legal barricades to keep my blood relatives from taking it out from under him. And I want my union recognized by every state in the nation, not evaporate as I cross state lines. Straight people get all of that when they marry without lifting a finger.

From Sarah Palin's words at the debate, she thinks because I can accomplish similar things (except recognition by other states and filing joint taxes, of course.. she conveniently forgot about those) by racking up a ton of attorney's fees, setting up contracts and powers of attorney and wasting days of time setting it all up, that all is equal. IT. IS. NOT.

And it is not "special" rights we are seeking. Whoever says that is FULL OF SHIT. They are the same rights every straight person who marries gets without even thinking about it.

Samuel T. Cogley · October 8 2008, 05:32 PM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

brains! wrote:

I knew that from when Obama went on that LGBT panel discussion during the primaries, where most of the Democrats but none of the GOP candidates deigned to appear. He supports civil unions, allowing churches to make their own minds up. As a gay man in an eleven year relationship, I tend to agree. I don't want their doctrine forced on me, so my union shouldn't be forced on them. If they don't want to call it marriage, fine. But my union should have all the legal benefits and ramifications of any other "marriage" and be recognized across the country, not evaporate when I cross state lines.

That's all fine and good, but "separate but equal" still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, just as it should everyone else's.

Why should it? The components are different so what's the problem with it being called something different? Doesn't bother me in the least.

Explain to me the logic of the government offering the same bundle of rights to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, yet giving that same bundle a different name, depending solely on your orientation/preference.

Bad Bishop · October 8 2008, 06:40 PM

brains! wrote:

What I want is the simplicity of going down to the courthouse, getting a license and doing the deed. If a church doesn't want to marry us, fine. I probably wouldn't go to that church anyway. After all, they don't have to marry all straight people, do they? Would a Catholic church perform a Jewish wedding? Would a Southern Baptist church perform a Catholic wedding? I seriously doubt it.

I want hospital visitation rights, the right to file our taxes jointly, and the ability for my husband to retain our home as next of kin should I die, without having to set up extra legal barricades to keep my blood relatives from taking it out from under him. And I want my union recognized by every state in the nation, not evaporate as I cross state lines. Straight people get all of that when they marry without lifting a finger.

States have a compelling interest in promoting real marriages, and that's why traditional married couples enjoy the most legal benefits. What's the state's interest when it comes to your homosexual relationship?

Brian · October 8 2008, 06:41 PM

What's the state's interest when it comes to your heterosexual relationship?

TheLonelySquire · October 9 2008, 01:14 AM

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

That's all fine and good, but "separate but equal" still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, just as it should everyone else's.

Why should it? The components are different so what's the problem with it being called something different? Doesn't bother me in the least.

Explain to me the logic of the government offering the same bundle of rights to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, yet giving that same bundle a different name, depending solely on your orientation/preference.

I can see calling it something different simply because it's apples and oranges. If a man is represented by a 1 and a woman by a 2, then they equal 3 when combined together. In homosexual unions you either have a total of 2 or 4. Very simplistic, but it's just to make my point.

Then again I don't care what it's called. To me it's not a marriage, but everyone deserves equal rights among themselves.

Steve Roby · October 9 2008, 01:45 PM

Count Floyd wrote:

States have a compelling interest in promoting real marriages, and that's why traditional married couples enjoy the most legal benefits.

What's a real marriage, exactly?

Samuel T. Cogley · October 9 2008, 04:48 PM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Why should it? The components are different so what's the problem with it being called something different? Doesn't bother me in the least.

Explain to me the logic of the government offering the same bundle of rights to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, yet giving that same bundle a different name, depending solely on your orientation/preference.

I can see calling it something different simply because it's apples and oranges.

So let's call inter-racial marriage something else.

And a marriage between two black people.

And a marriage between two Russians.

And a marriage between midgets.

This is going to be a long list.

TheLonelySquire · October 10 2008, 01:43 AM

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

Explain to me the logic of the government offering the same bundle of rights to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, yet giving that same bundle a different name, depending solely on your orientation/preference.

I can see calling it something different simply because it's apples and oranges.

So let's call inter-racial marriage something else.

And a marriage between two black people.

And a marriage between two Russians.

And a marriage between midgets.

This is going to be a long list.

I believe height challenged folks might have a problem with your descriptor of choice.

ShamelessMcBundy · October 10 2008, 03:31 AM

Well that was one hell of a non-answer ...

Samuel T. Cogley · October 10 2008, 05:52 AM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

I can see calling it something different simply because it's apples and oranges.

So let's call inter-racial marriage something else.

And a marriage between two black people.

And a marriage between two Russians.

And a marriage between midgets.

This is going to be a long list.

I believe height challenged folks might have a problem with your descriptor of choice.

No problem.

We'll have one name for height challenged folks that have a problem with that term, and another name for those that don't.

It's apples and oranges.

TheLonelySquire · October 12 2008, 04:59 AM

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

So let's call inter-racial marriage something else.

And a marriage between two black people.

And a marriage between two Russians.

And a marriage between midgets.

This is going to be a long list.

I believe height challenged folks might have a problem with your descriptor of choice.

No problem.

We'll have one name for height challenged folks that have a problem with that term, and another name for those that don't.

It's apples and oranges.

Well, if you can't see there is a difference between men and women there's no sense in pointing it out to you further.

mostlyharmless · October 15 2008, 05:09 PM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Why should it? The components are different so what's the problem with it being called something different? Doesn't bother me in the least.

So perhaps you can identify how my relationship with Thor must differ from a hetero couple?

Well, if you can't see there is a difference between men and women there's no sense in pointing it out to you further.

How does that difference make the relationship different? Do you think the love I feel for my spouse must be different? If so , how?

Samuel T. Cogley · October 15 2008, 05:26 PM

TheLonelySquire wrote:

Stephen T. Colbert wrote:

TheLonelySquire wrote:

I believe height challenged folks might have a problem with your descriptor of choice.

No problem.

We'll have one name for height challenged folks that have a problem with that term, and another name for those that don't.

It's apples and oranges.

Well, if you can't see there is a difference between men and women there's no sense in pointing it out to you further.

I only wish everyone was as blissfully ignorant as I am. Maybe some day, in the future.

October 8 2008, 02:37 PM	#91
Brian Vice Admiral Location: Brian	Re: Takei And Altman Wed What I want is the simplicity of going down to the courthouse, getting a license and doing the deed. If a church doesn't want to marry us, fine. I probably wouldn't go to that church anyway. After all, they don't have to marry all straight people, do they? Would a Catholic church perform a Jewish wedding? Would a Southern Baptist church perform a Catholic wedding? I seriously doubt it. I want hospital visitation rights, the right to file our taxes jointly, and the ability for my husband to retain our home as next of kin should I die, without having to set up extra legal barricades to keep my blood relatives from taking it out from under him. And I want my union recognized by every state in the nation, not evaporate as I cross state lines. Straight people get all of that when they marry without lifting a finger. From Sarah Palin's words at the debate, she thinks because I can accomplish similar things (except recognition by other states and filing joint taxes, of course.. she conveniently forgot about those) by racking up a ton of attorney's fees, setting up contracts and powers of attorney and wasting days of time setting it all up, that all is equal. IT. IS. NOT. And it is not "special" rights we are seeking. Whoever says that is FULL OF SHIT. They are the same rights every straight person who marries gets without even thinking about it. __________________ Rut nga’chuq loDpu’, rut nga’chuq be’pu’. yiqimHa’!

October 8 2008, 06:41 PM	#94
Brian Vice Admiral Location: Brian	Re: Takei And Altman Wed What's the state's interest when it comes to your heterosexual relationship? __________________ Rut nga’chuq loDpu’, rut nga’chuq be’pu’. yiqimHa’!

October 10 2008, 03:31 AM	#99
ShamelessMcBundy Fleet Admiral Location: Wreath of Khan	Re: Takei And Altman Wed Well that was one hell of a non-answer ... __________________ "I just don't see you as a Southern belle." -RoJoHen, to me

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US