coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

That has to be one of the most asinine statements of this entire 10 pages. We're talking about the union of 2 individuals, not people who practice incest or pedophiles. I would hope you know the difference but by your post obviously you don't...........

Reddog Loc: Southern Calif

When folks don"t have good arguments they come up with nonsense like someone marrying a dog etc.

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

The distribution or collection of taxes has nothing to do with marriage. The collection and distribution of taxes and or benefits can be addressed without the consideration or redefinition of marriage.
We know why preferential treatment was given to heterosexuals couples in regards to marriage. It was to promote heterosexual unions with marriage in the eyes of God. Today the squeaky wheel is homosexual inclusion in morality. If homosexual activity is moral then bigamy is most certainly moral and must be included in the push for the same legal rights. Not to muddy the waters... an unborn child that is alive and demonstrates a heart beat must be initiated legal protection under law as well. After all these minorities are human and all humans are equal...

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

We see were your definition of equal rights or just rights equal to your standards is... I knew it would not be difficult to draw you out. You are a hypocrite...

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

While all us chickens are fighting over a handful, we're too busy to see the fox is in the coop. If there is a them and us, then we are the 99% steaks on the table of the 1% greedy hoarders. I vote with my dollars. That's all the Plutocrats understand; RED INK.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Coming from you that means a lot. Go marry a child or better yet stop sleeping with your sister because you know according to your own misguided views that's OK...........

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

Are you stupid or do you just say stupid things...

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Dems don't need to filibuster, you have Harry to sit on the issues he doesn't like so they never get to the floor.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Since the dems control the Senate why would they filibuster themselves???? They did plenty when the republicans had control.

pigpen

You are quite witty. I feel humbled in your presence.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

So lets take what you said a few steps forward.... "The collection and distribution of taxes and or benefits can be addressed without the consideration or redefinition of marriage.". So now we are talking about civil unions. But as long as the government is still issuing marriage licenses then the debate will continue to rage... So if we see the fairness in legal protections, as presented in the DOMA case before the supreme court and we can see that it is fair to extend these legal protections... then why not get the government out of the marriage business completely, let the government recognize the legal union and let the church perform and recognize marriages... Seems that the largest objection to this debate is the redefinition of the traditional marriage by our government, they will not have any reason to do that if they are not issuing marriage licenses... As far as bigamy and the rest, there is no current debate about that and you will not see the ground swell of support for it that you see for gay rights. I have never been a big supporter of gay marriage for a couple of reasons, one of the big one's is I do not believe in the redefinition of traditional marriage, but then again, I do not think it fair that the woman who bought the case before the supreme court had to pay $360,000 in inheritance taxes that she paid simply because her life partner was a woman instead of a man... there are other rights that gay couples lose also that are important to couples...

Besides, this is a losing argument, conservatives would do well to work to make the laws at least respect their views on marriage, if it comes down to the word itself then fine, get the government out of the marriage business.... you can argue with me and others all you want to but it will not change what is going to happen in this country within the next few years.. The youth of this country solidly supports gay rights.

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

I agree with your statement. I have no delusions about where the Country is headed. What is happening is a product of social engineering. The younger generation have been encouraged and conditioned to accept and participate in sexual experimentation by our own generation. I went to school in the 60's and early 70's the conditioning was already well in progress. It is what is and the following generations will have to deal with its fallout. But... If we are going to make changes and we are actively in the process of doing so, a broader look at the end result and the omission of rights for others other than homosexuals will be on the table. There is discussion in the supreme court in that regard going on right now today.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Please, spare us of your brain dead comments....liberal's say the same thing over and over and over....it's like arguing with a 8 year old!

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

.......................................................


This is a typical unexamined right lament; people voting for Democrats, because the Democrats take from those generous, hardworking wealthy people and give to the lazy poor (we can be certain) who just take. The real truth is that the wealthy are the ones who take the most. The income of the upper 5-10% has been grotesquely inflated for over 35 years. There have been trillions of dollars of bailouts, which are the ultimate free handouts from those who work to those who work to take from others. Some very lucrative industries receives trillions of dollars of subsidies, like the $39 billion welfare for agribusinesses, and the obscene oil depletion allowance for an industry that is making record profits. Meanwhile, the tax rates of both corporations and the men who run them are at an all time modern day low. Then, to top it off, there is the cost of militarization, putatively $700 billion a year, but in fact, at least double that because of the Pentagon's black budget and at least one war costing a billion dollars a day whose costs are kept off the regular budget. It must be pointed out that the military budget is the biggest corporate handout of all, as there is currently not one country in the world capable of taking on the United States on the battlefield. This means that the entire budget is either allocated to intimidated or force other nations to do out bidding, and/or to hand huge welfare doles to the military contractors for grossly overpriced goods and services.

On the other hand, the ordinary person, much maligned by mendacious right wing rhetoric, is able to receive welfare only in tiny installments which he can maintain by continually proving that he is making attempts to find work Moreover, many of the recipients are actually full-time workers who are paid so little that they cannot make ends meet on their Walmartized compensation. Others are temporary recipients of unemployment compensation after their jobs have been outsourced to the third world, where the corporations benefit from paying starvation wages. Their unholy reduction of costs is never reflected in the prices they charge for their manufactured products, because all the extra revenue is devoted to managerial compensation, something that has increased the last 40 years some 30 fold while the pay for the average person has stagnated.

The reason why you right wing mirrors of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly only spew out your conclusions and never give any support for them is that they are pure fiction. You have your conclusions, and facts be damned. Either you are a beneficiary of the rapacious policies that created our current situation, or an unwitting dupe who gives mindless support for what benefits the oppressors.

PNagy Loc: Missouri City, Texas

..........................................................................


What in the holy Jalapeño are you talking about? Receiving welfare has been made very difficult through reforms ushered in by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Currently the welfare roles are enlarged because we are in the midst of a long-term economic downswing. The concomitant high unemployment results in more people being forced on unemployment compensation and other forms of welfare.

The characterization of Obama as a far left or even socialist politician is ridiculous GOP campaign rhetoric utterly unconnected with reality. Obama is a business as usual politician whose greatest support comes from the major finance industry and other large corporations. His number one donor was Goldman Sachs, both in 2008 and 2012. Please don't tell us with a straight face that right wing corporations would support a far left politician bent on destroying the system that those corporations love. Also, please refrain from handing us the knee-jerk response, that they gave him all that money to have "access" to him just in case he won. If your GOP characterization of Obama had the slightest validity the big corporations would have done anything they could to prevent him from coming to power, up to and including having him assassinated. If they really did purchase "access" to him, then he is not a left wing politician at all. You guys bore me to death with your empty, utterly unsupported slogans. I suppose if there was absolutely no other alternative, you might even resort to telling the truth.