I'm going to cover my head and wince after I ask this...

[mikegideon]

So when are you announcing your candidacy for congress?

Dolomite

I would wind up shooting myself, and would most likely deserve it.

[eapking]

The 2A is for everyone. I miss the crazy comments from Strel (inside joke). Please stick around this could be fun.

[Jonnin]

I am as conservative as they come and I absolutely believe in and am a proponent of "homosexual rights" - the same rights enumerated in the Constitution. Other than that they don't deserve nor does anyone deserve "special rights".

I take it one step past the constitution. They should be treated equally under all the extra laws of the land as well, including but not limited to the same tax setup married couples have (and honestly thats the big one, its not just discrimination, its about money which is always an important subject). No special rights however -- those I do not support.

[strickj]

I'm not sure why this is turning onto a gay thread. But I'll play along..

I don't know of any "extra" rights that gays want. They just want the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us do.

Of coarse, the religious folks take this as an infringement on their rights.

[RobertNashville]

I take it one step past the constitution. They should be treated equally under all the extra laws of the land as well, including but not limited to the same tax setup married couples have (and honestly thats the big one, its not just discrimination, its about money which is always an important subject). No special rights however -- those I do not support.

Perhaps it's time to get rid of the "extra laws".

I've nothing against civil unions or "domestic partnerships" but "marriage" is a concept rooted in religion. I don't think it's an issue that the Federal government should even involved in. Even civil unions are rather unnecessary...proper legal contracts can "grant" pretty much any significant benefit that a "marriage" license can (property/equity rights, etc.).

Most people could not care less whether someone is or isn't homosexual - where problems often begin is when homosexuals (usually "activists") start throwing their sexuality into the faces of others which is often followed by not just demands for "acceptance" by heterosexuals but dictates regarding what others are supposed to "think" about homosexuals.

Edited April 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest mosinon]

I'm not sure why this is turning onto a gay thread. But I'll play along..

I don't know of any "extra" rights that gays want. They just want the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us do.

Of coarse, the religious folks take this as an infringement on their rights.

Dude, if two dudes get married it could destroy the marriage between a man and a woman. Somehow. I'm not sure of how it exactly works or anything, I'm uncertain just how it affects me in any meaningful way, but it is a big political deal. Since the R's are all about personal freedom and since they are against it I am sure it infringes on my rights some how. No one has ever explained that to me yet, but I'll just believe.

Back on topic, anyone who is a pure dem or repub is an unthinking party hack. Call them Carville or Matlin.

I am to the left of the dems on several issues, to the right of the repubs on other issues. I am probably wrong on all of them. But, as my wife will attest, I am almost always wrong.

[Caster]

Well, i'll chip in too. I don't like the fact that it's thrown in our faces everywhere on TV and media, but if you say you don't like it or want to hear/see or read it, you're a bigot. I don't understand what's wrong with the attitude of "Don't bring it around me and shove it in my face and I promise not to say what I think out loud." That seems simple to me, but what do I know? I don't have to like it, and you don't have a right to try to force me to like it. I don't have a right to persecute anyone over it, but I SHOULD have a right to say "Get that crap away from me." It's perfectly acceptable top say that to drug dealers and girl scouts {what's the difference?} but not them? Whatever.

[Guest mosinon]

Well, i'll chip in too. I don't like the fact that it's thrown in our faces everywhere on TV and media, but if you say you don't like it or want to hear/see or read it, you're a bigot. I don't understand what's wrong with the attitude of "Don't bring it around me and shove it in my face and I promise not to say what I think out loud." That seems simple to me, but what do I know? I don't have to like it, and you don't have a right to try to force me to like it. I don't have a right to persecute anyone over it, but I SHOULD have a right to say "Get that crap away from me." It's perfectly acceptable top say that to drug dealers and girl scouts {what's the difference?} but not them? Whatever.

I pretty much hate Dancing with the Stars so I don't watch it. Finding it hard to see how it is shoved in my face with a hundred channels on my TV. Though why 99 of them are full of the crappiest programming ever remains a mystery to me.

[RobertNashville]

...I am probably wrong on all of them. But, as my wife will attest, I am almost always wrong.

Obviously your wife is a very intelligent woman.

[Steelharp]

If a man says something, and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[East_TN_Patriot]

Why should homosexuals be considered a protected class? It's a lifestyle choice! Period.

Although I don't generally agree with the "protected class" concept at all, I think they have a right to their lifestyle choice just like you do yours. Our democratic republic was intended to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As long as any person is not causing harm to another person, then they have a right to live however they choose. When their lifestyle choices begin to directly negatively affect other people, then we deal with those specific actions.

[RobertNashville]

Although I don't generally agree with the "protected class" concept at all, I think they have a right to their lifestyle choice just like you do yours. Our democratic republic was intended to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As long as any person is not causing harm to another person, then they have a right to live however they choose. When their lifestyle choices begin to directly negatively affect other people, then we deal with those specific actions.

I agree but I don't think anyone here was suggesting otherwise...I think the point of departure is when any class of people want "more rights" than another.

People need to be treated equally but no one deserves to be treated as a special class.

Edited April 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[East_TN_Patriot]

I agree but I don't think anyone here was suggesting otherwise...I think the point of departure is when any class of people want "more rights" than another.

People need to be treated equally but no one deserves to be treated as a special class.

I respectfully disagree; I think that is exactly what some people are suggesting with the "lifestyle" argument. Why mention it otherwise? The only reason one would even introduce the idea is to make a point that if it's a "lifestyle" that means they choose that path and if they don't like the special benefits our society has given to heterosexual couples, then that's just tough. I'm not aware of any homosexuals who want "more rights" than anyone else. They just want to have access to the same benefits we have attached to heterosexual marriage. As long as our government provides special benefits to heterosexual couples by sanctioning a religious ceremony, then they have an obligation under the principles of law to extend those same benefits to other domestic partnerships. This is why I advocate two major changes in governmental policy:

1) The state should not sanction "marriage," but should issue civil union recognition to any couples who want it and provide equal benefits to all forms of civil unions. If the religious aspect of marriage is important to a couple, then they are free to head to the church and participate in that religious ceremony, which would provide zero additional benefits. In short, the state would not recognize religious "marriage" and would only recognize the civil union.

2) Eliminate the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax, which will do away with all sorts of "special class" type benefits that are built into the tax code.

[mikegideon]

I respectfully disagree; I think that is exactly what some people are suggesting with the "lifestyle" argument. Why mention it otherwise? The only reason one would even introduce the idea is to make a point that if it's a "lifestyle" that means they choose that path and if they don't like the special benefits our society has given to heterosexual couples, then that's just tough. I'm not aware of any homosexuals who want "more rights" than anyone else. They just want to have access to the same benefits we have attached to heterosexual marriage. As long as our government provides special benefits to heterosexual couples by sanctioning a religious ceremony, then they have an obligation under the principles of law to extend those same benefits to other domestic partnerships. This is why I advocate two major changes in governmental policy:

1) The state should not sanction "marriage," but should issue civil union recognition to any couples who want it and provide equal benefits to all forms of civil unions. If the religious aspect of marriage is important to a couple, then they are free to head to the church and participate in that religious ceremony, which would provide zero additional benefits. In short, the state would not recognize religious "marriage" and would only recognize the civil union.

2) Eliminate the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax, which will do away with all sorts of "special class" type benefits that are built into the tax code.

This

[East_TN_Patriot]

This

Not bad for a heterosexual guy who used to be a homophobe, huh?

[mikegideon]

Not bad for a heterosexual guy who used to be a homophobe, huh?

I was too, until I got to know a bunch.

[USMCJG]

I respectfully disagree; I think that is exactly what some people are suggesting with the "lifestyle" argument. Why mention it otherwise? The only reason one would even introduce the idea is to make a point that if it's a "lifestyle" that means they choose that path and if they don't like the special benefits our society has given to heterosexual couples, then that's just tough. I'm not aware of any homosexuals who want "more rights" than anyone else. They just want to have access to the same benefits we have attached to heterosexual marriage. As long as our government provides special benefits to heterosexual couples by sanctioning a religious ceremony, then they have an obligation under the principles of law to extend those same benefits to other domestic partnerships. This is why I advocate two major changes in governmental policy:

1) The state should not sanction "marriage," but should issue civil union recognition to any couples who want it and provide equal benefits to all forms of civil unions. If the religious aspect of marriage is important to a couple, then they are free to head to the church and participate in that religious ceremony, which would provide zero additional benefits. In short, the state would not recognize religious "marriage" and would only recognize the civil union.

2) Eliminate the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax, which will do away with all sorts of "special class" type benefits that are built into the tax code.

+1 to this. Government has no business in any relationship, straight or gay.

strick, I think what people are talking about when they say "special treatment" is primarily hate crime legislation. I despise hate crime legislation.

[Mike.357]

I was too, until I got to know a bunch.

when I was in the golf biz I got to know quite a few gay woman. They really were all very nice and a genuine pleasure to work with, really they were.

One was my partner in couples tournaments for many years. We got along quite well as long as we did not discuss politics. LOL I am sure she is in love with the Big O. She told me one day " didn't you just think Bill Clinton was great?" I suggested we stick to golf, LOL

[BigK]

Whether anyone agrees or not, I think Ross Perot would have been a good president. Therefore, I joined millions of people who voted for him in 1992. That was the LAST time I was able to vote for a president solely on my convictions. What it got us was a split vote and a liberal in the White House. Luckily, in 1994, the country saw the error of its ways and OVERWHELMINGLY put conservatives in Congress to bring balance.

Nowadays, the good people who want to help this country heal itself cannot get elected, b/c people like me are scared that if we vote for a good candidate instead of who can beat the guy we like the least, we'll be worse off. It just so happens that this leaves us stuck with only 2 viable choices, R or D.

1) The state should not sanction "marriage," but should issue civil union recognition to any couples who want it and provide equal benefits to all forms of civil unions. If the religious aspect of marriage is important to a couple, then they are free to head to the church and participate in that religious ceremony, which would provide zero additional benefits. In short, the state would not recognize religious "marriage" and would only recognize the civil union.

2) Eliminate the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax, which will do away with all sorts of "special class" type benefits that are built into the tax code.

I agree with the 1st point in theory, but not in practice. The gov't has no right to grant married persons OR people with civil unions any preferential treatment over single people either. So, I say no special treatment based on whether you are married, shacked-up, legally bound, or lonely.

On the 2nd point...ABSOLUTELY!! The Fair Tax isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing I've heard of.

[mikegideon]

when I was in the golf biz I got to know quite a few gay woman. They really were all very nice and a genuine pleasure to work with, really they were.

One was my partner in couples tournaments for many years. We got along quite well as long as we did not discuss politics. LOL I am sure she is in love with the Big O. She told me one day " didn't you just think Bill Clinton was great?" I suggested we stick to golf, LOL

I know so many homos, that a few are Republicans and Libertarians. Kinda like gun owners and Democrats though. All the haters are kinda clumped in one party.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I agree with the 1st point in theory, but not in practice. The gov't has no right to grant married persons OR people with civil unions any preferential treatment over single people either. So, I say no special treatment based on whether you are married, shacked-up, legally bound, or lonely.

You're missing my point, which is exactly that. The relationship status of someone is meaningless for government benefits, but it is important for the rest of society, especially regarding insurance benefits, property law, probate law, civil law, etc. The civil union would be no more of a legal designation than a divorce decree. It's just an official statement that two people have joined into a legally binding relationship as domestic partners.

[Guest monkeyhumper]

I despise hate crime legislation.

Perhaps if more people hated the hate crimes, there wouldn't be a need for additional punishment for bigotry fueled violence.

If someone is stripped of their life or liberty, solely because they were born a certain way, the person that denied them their right to pursue happiness deserves a harsher punishment.

Every day of the week.

[Mike.357]

I know so many homos, that a few are Republicans and Libertarians. Kinda like gun owners and Democrats though. All the haters are kinda clumped in one party.

Not all the gay woman golf pro's I played with and worked with were Democrat's quite a few were seriously conservative in political viewpoints, just my golfing partner was way left of center.

[Oh Shoot]

You're missing my point, which is exactly that. The relationship status of someone is meaningless for government benefits, but it is important for the rest of society, especially regarding insurance benefits, property law, probate law, civil law, etc. ...

THIS is a good summary of benefits that same sex couples lack. Btw, there are indeed government bennies they lack also, like surviving spouse social security, and simply what is usually an income tax break by being able to file jointly.

- OS