Palin- "Tolerant"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7k69LLVmqI
Fuck her.

 

I missed that part. I didn't know Biden was against same sex marriage.

 

I'm willing to bet he isn't in his personal life. Grandstanding, I believe.

 

They both stood shoulder to shoulder on this issue.
What did they say that was so different?

 

I suppose it was mainly her phrasing, it's true what you point out though.
Bitch could offer me pancakes and I would still find something to jump on her case about

 

I was suprised at that.
But, the louder narrative is that Republicans are against gay marriage.
You know, because they are all neo-conservative fucktards
If the rights are the same why the big deal to call it "marriage"?

 

I'm sure.
But you have to respect her for being honest.
To be fair, they both were.

 

I guess I 'respect' her as a human.
That's about it.
Her views and inability to fully communicate an idea, I don't respect.

 

At least you are honest about that.

 

It was essentially after this that I flicked off.

 

Why the big deal to NOT call it marriage? That's what we call it in the English language, and everyone knows what your talking about cuz...that's what the word means. If it entails the exact same thing between two men/women, what point is there to avoid the word that most easily describes it?

 

IMO marriage consists of a Husband and a Wife.
Would you not also agree that is what everybody would consider a marriage to be?
Would you not agree everybody would know if you said: This is my Wife/Husband - then you would be married.
It (same sex unions) doesn't entail the exact same thing.
Marriage is carried out in church.
The church does not recognise same sex unions.
This is how it has been and should remain.

On this issue I am not for equality.
It a step too far and is really an over heated arguement for arguements sake.
What next?

 

How about separate drinking fountains.

 

Not quite THAT FAR.
I appreciate the definition of marriage is "up in the air".
It has been for for about 100 years as far as I am aware.
Why?
Because we always feel the need to harmonise.
Many issues this is relevant and I truly and honestly agree this should be the case.
But, on this issue, I do feel the gay community are argueing over a very trivial point.
But, one that should not be relinquished.

I do think you are making my words seem harsher than they are.
Less that 3 hours ago you were telling Palin to "fuck you" (or something like that).
Why? because you interpreted her words beyond what they actually were.

 

To clarify, in the U.S., a person can get married anywhere they want and marriage is a legal term, in the eyes of the gov't. The church should not have anything to do with legal questions.

 

Who marries them? A registrar a priest a vicar?
Can you post the legal definition of marriage.

 

For a civil ceremony, it could be a town, city or county clerk, judge, or justice of the peace or any others that have the legal authority to do so. It varies state to state to who has that authority. The legal definition of marriage also varies state to state. Same sex marriages are legal in a couple states so their definition of it would reflect that.

 

I can't find any state that recognises same sex marriage.

 

Source

 

Thanks. Massachusetts seems to be the only one on your list to define "marriage" to include same sex unions...It still seems to forbid more than 1,100 benefits that remain unavailable to "married" same-sex couples. Other states seem to have equaled the "benefits" of "marriage" with out defining it as "marriage. Seems to define same sex relationships as other than "marriage" gives greater protection and rights under the law and provokes less of a mexican stand off. I do think "marriage" is the sticking point that prevents this arguement from furthering the rights of same sex couples.
Perhaps dropping this arguement would be beneficial all round. Hence me thinking this arguement is over heated.