The Song Fight Bulletin Board

... because incredibly, i couldn't find one more than tangentially related to the subject.

apparently the city of san francisco is still attempting to overturn the overturned ruling there, but in the meantime yet another country has shown itself to be more "with it" than the u.s. (except perhaps massachusetts).

discuss amongst yourselves.

If gay people aren't allowed to have basic rights that others have, they shouldn't pay full taxes then. Gay people can't get married or put people on their benefits, then they should only have to pay 75% of the taxes, since they can't enjoy the benefits that the rest can. If they pay taxes, obey laws but aren't treated like regular citizens, then some sort of compensation is in order.

I told that to a Fox news watcher and his head exploded.

Doesn't most of the debate center on the use of the word "marriage?" I thought a majority of folks in the U.S. favoured civil unions, affording gay couples all the benefits of same-sex couples, just not calling the union a marriage. Like, the word "marriage" itself is sacrosanct and mustn't be sullied with confusing extra meanings.

Yet most people who take this position use the word "gay," unironically, to mean "homosexual."

I'm hearing a lot about how Arizona was the first state ever to defeat a gay marriage ban proposition, and while I'd like to be able to say we're that progressive, the skinny on what happened is that the opponents of the bill made a big, big deal of the fact that it would take away various benefits from "domestic partnerships" - i.e., people living together. Children of unmarried couples could be denied health insurance, for example. And there are a surprising number of senior citizens here in AZ who are living together rather than getting married because if they get married, one of the Social Security checks stops coming.

Basically, the approach was: "gay marriage is already illegal here, and the only people this bill will really hurt are people who are living together without being married, so vote no..." If the proposition had been specifically about banning gay marriage, it probably would have passed (we're a pretty republican state overall), but the opponents found a way to oppose it without saying, "hey, let's let gays get married."

Charles

It's an interesting coincidence that the country that had the apartheid was quicker to legalize gay marriage than the U.S. Even more so when you consider one of the bigger arguments opponents of gay marriage make is something like:

"They can't get married that'll ruin the sanctity of marriage. But they can have civil unions. It'll basicaly be the same thing only seperate from marriage, and called something different. Yeah seperate,but equal."

I't disgraceful. We can't have these homosexual types degrading the sacred institution of marriage

Did you just call K-Fed gay?

I think gay marriage is funny if you take the word "gay" to mean "happy." Legal marriages must suck and lead to divorce.

deshead wrote:Did you just call K-Fed gay?

How long before we can call him K-Fiddy?

j$ wrote:

deshead wrote:Did you just call K-Fed gay?

How long before we can call him K-Fiddy?

I would think K-Fed-Ex would be more appropriate.

i'm just generally bitter about people getting married in general. and I absolutely hate weddings. gay marriage would probably mean MORE marriages, which will probably make me more bitter.

the good news is, the more bitter I am, the more likely I am to write angsty lyrics, and the more angsty they are, the more likely it will be that people call me emo, and since i don't particularly care for emo, that will also add into the bitterness and strife that fuels my creativity.

I guess the truth is, this is about health insurance and taxes, not love.

and didn't you know, all you need is love?

*ducks*