Millions of Americans Denied Basic Freedoms

http://www.lp.org/media/article_464.shtml

This Valentine's Day, millions of americans will be treated unequally by their government, denied such basic liberties such as the freedom to get married, or adopt children.

>>40
"Come forth"

Moron.

>>27

Libertarian is on a totally different scale than Liberal and Conservative.

The opposite is Authoritarian.

Unless you were refering to Left-Libertarian, or Libertarian Socialism.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the main reason for gays to marry is to gain full spouse status for a variety of economic and security issues, such as insurance rights, and for purposes of adoption.

Personally, I don't care if you call it marriage or a social contract or whatever, the semantics doesn't affect me. What I do think is that at no point should any gay wedding take place in any church, as the blatant hypocrisy would likely desanctify the area and Republicans another issue to piledrive into the ground. I believe that gays should otherwise be offered the same rights as other married couples, with the exception of a heightened scrutiny for being eligible for adoption.

Marriage itself is a weakened institution thanks to people being fools with regards to what it entails. Las Vegas doesn't help either. However, people still believe that marriage is some immaculate concept that should not be sullied. Personally, that should be the issue at hand.

>>3

"As an American, I don't worry about politics. The entire world can go down the shitter and I'll still sit here complacently eating my lard and doughnut pizzas. I don't have to worry about politics, my government does that for me."

>>43
The problem with "Civil Unions" is that if you are giving homosexuals equality, why call it something else? This goes back to the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which is that separate is inherently unequal. I'm not saying that's an adequate legal precedent, I'm saying it's true no matter what variables you substitute in. There are lots of religious homosexuals, and if a church wants to marry them then I see nothing wrong with that. Who cares if it's hypocritical or not? Christianity is already pretty hypocritical.

There is no reason gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt. The sooner we realize it's fine to have two moms or two dads the better.

>>44
I like your attitude. The less you care about what these demagogues say the less likely you are going to waste time on stupid bullshit. Just get your vote in once every 4 years and shoot anyone who threatens your liberty.

>>45
Personally, Brown v. Topeka is an apt case to site. Save for whatever states are currently allowing gay marriages, the best homosexuals can achieve is a civil union, where they are allowed some but not all of the privileges and protections as spouses under the law. Not quite trying to be separate and equal, but close enough to fall under the auspices thereof.

Like I said, marriage is a concept that people do not want sullied by homosexuality, despite how moronic that appears. I was raised Catholic for 16 years, it didn't stick. However, I have grown up with the idea that being married in the church was a privilege, and that one should abide by the rules the church has set for that procedure. What the church itself does is a separate matter of discussion, for anyone thinking about the irony of them disparaging gays whilst the priests molest boys.

Just as I do not take Communion because I am not a faithful Catholic, I feel it would be wrong for gays to wed in the church against the doctrines the church has put forth. Not just for Catholicism, by the way, essentially all of Judeo-Christianity has some mention of frowning upon homosexuality.

Regardless, as long as the bulk of American society believes that marriage is still sacrosanct to the point that homosexuals would ruin the very foundations of the institution, nothing will be done.

Camp town ladies sing this song
 Do Dah, Do Dah

>>45
>The problem with "Civil Unions" is that if you are giving homosexuals equality, why call it something else?

I don't get this. Why bother with the semantics? Besides, not everyone is advocating equal rights for gays: some advocate a subset of rights. For example, as >>43 said, they could get "couple" status to receive certain benefits, but not be allowed to adopt children. That's what I am for. But I am completely against adoption as it is anyway.

>>49
Because, as I said right after that, separate but equal is never equal. There is no reason to create a separation if they are supposedly equal. And I am for full equality, though churches shouldn't be forced to marry them.

Everything's fine. The US is a safe place to work and live.

>>50
>separate but equal is never equal.
And that's why I said: we are not advocating equality. Nobody is equal.

>>52
All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Kill all the gay people and forget they existed.

Problem solved.

>>53
No, seriously, nobody is equal. How can I demand equal treatment as, for example, my niece who is an invalid? So I should get the same support she does? Or should it be the other way around, and she should get as little support as I do (seeing as I don't need any)?

Seriously, treating people all the same is one of the dumbest ideas that society has thought of.

>>55
In that case I should be given absolute power as I am noble and can be trusted with it unlike the filthy peasants.

>>55
I get what you're saying
I'm just quoting Animal Farm

>>52
Don't turn this into another Communism vs. Capitalism debate, its not. I never said treat all people the exact same, I said treat gays the same with regards to marriage and adoption.

Churches have the right to deny marriage services, but a courtroom does not have the write to deny civil unions. 

If this was just about marriage, it wouldn't be a problem, but because married couples are put into separate tax brackets, gay "marriages" are constitutionally essential.

>>55  The idea is not that all people are to be treated equally, but that all people are to be treated equally before the law.  This includes homosexuals.  Thus, people should not be treated differently as far as the law goes simply because of sexual preferences.

>>60
so it basically goes like this: if you want to marry a man, you should be able to do it but you will be discriminated by the people around you, am i right?
should be antidiscrimination laws abolished or not?

Either we all drink from the same fountain or we don't

>>62
Unless it's 1950 and you're black.

The country is a much more conservative place thanks to the stupidity of your proposition. Thank you Anita Bryant, wherever you are.

Libertarian Socialism = No civilization.

Unless of course, you're an anti-civilization hippy. Which is cool with me.

You just can't cram so many people together and keep things stable. It's like, row after row after row of people vertically stacked and compressed into an area.

Of course, then you've got to have a lot of military on hand in case things get instable - which they likely will - then you'll have to deal with the political backlash of that and so-forth and so-forth.

Which was, of course, what most of the world was like before things like suburbia happened. Unstable, uncomfortable, harsh, dirty and poor.

What I wanna know is, why in every single porno involving Black men and White wimmin they always have to sodomize her? I mean seriously, why?

(srsly)

>>67
No, it's like that way in all porno with groups of men and one women. It's a power thing....  some girls also feel powerful because they have so many men clamoring over them.

>>68

Stickin yer Pecker in a girlz Pooper is something Powerful, WTF?

>>67
LMAO sodomize. sodomize! Its called buttsex you faggot.

>>70

FFS, alright alright. How about buggering then, buggery? Come on, sounds prty kewls.

Its like: "Hey yow Nigga, less gow bugger dat white bitch ova'de"

When you get em in the butt you get their soul. If you're the first one that is. It's like stripes for your uniform.