Bush And The Constitution

[leftism]

Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick[/b]

Why would a heterosexual couple not be allowed to have a civil union? Unless they amend the constitution to outlaw that as well, there&#39;s no reason why a heterosexual couple wouldnt be allowed to have one.

I mentioned this in the in the Pro-Gay Marriage Thread&#33;&#33;&#33;
Are you reading or what?

Here was my response ...again for the blind, hearing impaired, or whatever&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
Theres no reason why a heterosexual couple shouldnt be able to have a civil union if they wish. I think it would be a good idea. Non-christians being married in a church has always seemed a bit illogical to me, but they did this because there was no viable alternative. If we have legally binding civil unions then gay couples can enjoy the same rights straight couples do and the Church doesnt have to compromise on its position.

So putting the issue into this context, are you still against civil unions, and if so, why?
[/quote]

You claimed you answered the question in that thread as well but, as ususal, you didnt .

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 08:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 27 February 2004 - 08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick[/b]

Why would a heterosexual couple not be allowed to have a civil union? Unless they amend the constitution to outlaw that as well, there&#39;s no reason why a heterosexual couple wouldnt be allowed to have one.

I mentioned this in the in the Pro-Gay Marriage Thread&#33;&#33;&#33;
Are you reading or what?

Here was my response ...again for the blind, hearing impaired, or whatever&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Originally posted by leftism
Theres no reason why a heterosexual couple shouldnt be able to have a civil union if they wish. I think it would be a good idea. Non-christians being married in a church has always seemed a bit illogical to me, but they did this because there was no viable alternative. If we have legally binding civil unions then gay couples can enjoy the same rights straight couples do and the Church doesnt have to compromise on its position.

So putting the issue into this context, are you still against civil unions, and if so, why?

You claimed you answered the question in that thread as well but, as ususal, you didnt . [/b]

How can you say I didn&#39;t answer hobbes question when YOU just put it in the beginning of YOUR post?
WTF IS WRONG HERE? WHERE IS THE READING COMPREHENSION?

Do you live in America or just bad-mouth it for fun?
You guys claim I say shit over and over yet the damn answer is there OVER AND OVER AND YOU SEEM TO SKIP IT YET QUOTE IT.

Question:

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@
You could not defend this statement the first time you said it, repeating yourself does not make it correct this time. How is it descriminatory against heterosexual couples? [/quote]

Answer:

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman
A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick[/quote]

Why would a heterosexual couple not be allowed to have a civil union?

In Vermont, where civil unions ARE allowed, it is only allowed for same sex couples not related to one another.

I really don&#39;t understand WHAT you don&#39;t understand.


I will not answer this question again.

[Agrajag]

Bet you do

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@27 February 2004 - 09:01
Bet you do

It seems I may huh?

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How can you say I didn&#39;t answer hobbes question when YOU just put it in the beginning of YOUR post?[/b]

You didnt answer the question.

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
WTF IS WRONG HERE? WHERE IS THE READING COMPREHENSION?[/b]

Good question

Originally posted by Busyman

Do you live in America or just bad-mouth it for fun?

wtf? When did I bad mouth America?It seems to me that its your reading comprehension that needs to be improved. Either that or you&#39;re hallucinating.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
In Vermont, where civil unions ARE allowed, it is only allowed for same sex couples not related to one another.[/quote]

Aha&#33; AT LAST&#33;&#33; Thats more like it. I dont know why it took you 50 posts to mention it but finally, we get the REAL answer.

Onto the next question.

Why would civil unions have to be based on the Vermont model?

Why cant they be for everybody? Since I wont get an answer, I&#39;ll answer it for you. Theres no reason why they shouldnt be for everybody. If they were introduced nationwide they could easily change the model of civil unions to allow straight couples to have them. In fact if they didnt, it would be unconsitutional because then you would not be treating people equally.

Therefore civil unions would not discriminate against heterosexual couples.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I really don&#39;t understand WHAT you don&#39;t understand.[/quote]

Perhaps thats because your not very bright? No-one else seems to have the same trouble you&#39;re experiencing.

Heres an easy one for you.

If they introduced civil unions for everyone, so there was no discrimination, would you still have a problem with them , and if so why?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 11:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 27 February 2004 - 11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In Vermont, where civil unions ARE allowed, it is only allowed for same sex couples not related to one another.[/b]

Aha&#33; AT LAST&#33;&#33; Thats more like it. I dont know why it took you 50 posts to mention it but finally, we get the REAL answer.

Onto the next question.

Why would civil unions have to be based on the Vermont model?

Why cant they be for everybody? Since I wont get an answer, I&#39;ll answer it for you. Theres no reason why they shouldnt be for everybody. If they were introduced nationwide they could easily change the model of civil unions to allow straight couples to have them. In fact if they didnt, it would be unconsitutional because then you would not be treating people equally.

Therefore civil unions would not discriminate against heterosexual couples.

Originally posted by Busyman
I really don&#39;t understand WHAT you don&#39;t understand.

Perhaps thats because your not very bright? No-one else seems to have the same trouble you&#39;re experiencing.

Heres an easy one for you.

If they introduced civil unions for everyone, so there was no discrimination, would you still have a problem with them , and if so why? [/b]

Aha at last?

The proposal for civil unions in other states is like the one in Vermont. Got it?

I can propose alot of what if&#39;s all day.
The fact is you were ignorant of the facts.

So now your saying what I&#39;ve been saying.

Originally posted by leftism
In fact if they didnt, it would be unconsitutional because then you would not be treating people equally.

sounds curiously similiar too

Originally posted by Busyman
Civil unions discriminate against single heterosexual single couples.

and further

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays.[/quote]

If you were aware of the subject matter or the proposals on the table you wouldn&#39;t appear so dense and I wouldn&#39;t have to "mention it"............again&#33;&#33;&#33;

As a matter of fact I did "mention it" before. Take a look..........again.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE.[/quote]

...........?



It seems YOU are not so bright. READ

Oh and to answer your last question........probably not.

[leftism]

I was talking about civil unions in principle.

The current proposals are not set in stone. They could easily be amended to include heterosexual couples and, assuming Bush doesnt get his own way and civil unions are allowed, I suspect they will.

In fact if civil unions are legalised it will HAVE to happen to avoid being unconstitional.

Very few laws ever get passed in the same form they were introduced, its how your system works.

You see you havent been arguing about this specific implementation of civil unions being wrong. You have been arguing that civil unions are wrong in principle no matter what the implementation. Big difference.

Trying to make out that your only against the specifics of civil unions as they currently stand and not the principle of them is more than a little disingenious. What happened to those religious reasons you were talking about in the other thread, eh?

If we were to take you at face value, you actually agree with civil unions in principle yet you&#39;ve never said that before. Very strange...

PS where did I "bash America"? Or is that another question your never going to answer?

[j2k4]

If I might, lefty:

You propose alternatives for everyone, straight, gay, or poly- biga-what-have-you, for example:

1. Civil unions for straights, who don&#39;t want to be "married", due to any perceived undesirable religious blessing or connotation.

2. Some sort of method of twisting the arms of the various religions, or, alternatively, creating a quasi-religious "civil" ceremony by which gays (and others) might become "married".

This is as close as I can come to discerning the reason(s) for your post(s).

BTW-If you are going to participate here, do us all a favor and drop your urge to question the relative brightness of others; it does you no credit, and raises the temperature in here, which is always an impediment to reasoned discourse.

I&#39;m sure you agree.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+27 February 2004 - 12:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 27 February 2004 - 12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Trying to make out that your only against the specifics of civil unions as they currently stand and not the principle of them is more than a little disingenious. What happened to those religious reasons you were talking about in the other thread, eh?

If we were to take you at face value, you actually agree with civil unions in principle yet you&#39;ve never said that before. Very strange...
[/b]

READING COMPREHENSION CLASS 101:

Originally posted by Busyman@
1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.

Now considering my later posts I&#39;ll buy that the quote could be confusing but ...uh oh........the next sentence comes&#39;a rearing tha corner and it was further clarified-

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.[/quote]


quotes from The Pro Gay Marriage Thread.

Don&#39;t take it at face value, just read, then try, just try to comprehend.

Ok lefty?

[Agrajag]

"it does you no credit" what a nice turn of phrase. A picture in words.