Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Watchtower
For everyone who would permit gays to have a long-term, loving and committed relationship, I say: why do YOU care what THEY call it, and require that THEIR state treat THEM differently (and worse)?

If they don't get entitled to any tax-payer sponsored benefits and if employers don't get forced to extend benefits to gay spouses because the word used is marriage, I won't care about what they call it. But if by naming it a marriage they get entitled to social security benefits and employers get forced to extend benefits to gay spouses, that is a valid reason to care about it.

Originally posted by Watchtower
I suspect you will come back to the religious meaning you personally have imbued a word with, and I, for one, do see the benefit of separation of church and state.

Look ass clown, and by ass clown I mean dumb ass, I hate religion. If you have read only 1 in 50 of my posts and have any functioning neurons inside your skull at all, you would know that.

Originally posted by Watchtower
I do not want the pope or the archbishop of Canterbury defining the meaning of legal terms in the US, and I do not want the meaning of any one church imposed on us all.

Neither do I. But I sure as fuck don't want to expand social security benefits.

Originally posted by Watchtower
Look at social security benefits, for example, and you will see is a rational basis for treating a group of 20 people connected by "marriage" with a single wage earner differently than treating any two people connected by "marriage".

This same argument can be made against gay marriage. And it is social security benefits and employer sponsored benefits that are the real reason gays want marriage and not civil unions. That is the only difference between a civil union and a marriage.

The fight for gay marriage is not about marriage. It is about money.

Originally posted by Watchtower
Find me a rational basis for distinguishing between couples based on preference that isn't tied to religion.

Find me a rational basis for distinguishing between couples and groups of 3 married individuals. Your argument is that more people in a marriage means more social security benefits. Well, more people being allowed to marry means more social security benefits, too.

Under both scenarios, more money gets paid to more people.

I still have yet to hear an argument in support of gay marriage that cannot also support plural marriage. Thanks for playing, though.