santorum

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?

Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Let me just take a timeout for a second here to tell you how incredible your screen name is.

Aww, thanks!    Took me a long time to come up.  It's no SkinnyBenny, but what is, you know?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?

Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.

So people didn't get married before Christianity existed?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?

Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.

So people didn't get married before Christianity existed?

Seriously Clark?

[SkinnyBenny]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?

Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.

A lot of gay people are religious, FYI. Sorry it's not your type of religious.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

If it's insignificant, why not let them call it marriage?

Because a lot of very religious people find it significant, and marriage is a religious institution ? Let them have their word. Its one freaking word.

A lot of gay people are religious, FYI. Sorry it's not your type of religious.

I think you're assuming I am offended by gay marriage. I couldn't care less about such a trivial issue. I just enjoy stirring up the libs.

[SkinnyBenny]

You clearly care.

[Trim]

One of the preeminent conference armageddon experts recently stepped out of his comfort zone to opine that any gays who want to get married should just move to a place where it's legal.  Of course, that sort of wholesale population shift could drastically alter some of the future revenue numbers being tossed around when it comes to upcoming conference tv deals.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

You clearly care.

Awesome handle, and a mind reader. Wow. Just wow.

[SkinnyBenny]

You clearly care.

Awesome handle, and a mind reader. Wow. Just wow.

 

[LickNeckey]

you two should get married.  errr civil unioned

[SkinnyBenny]

you two should get married.

wish we could   

Now let's get back to how hilariously weird and easy-to-make-fun-of Rick Santorum is.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Look at all you idiots argue about whether the government should allow certain people to get married.

If any of you were anything other than partisan wonks, incapable of independent thought, you would be asking why anyone has to ask permission of the government, and pay a fee, to get married in the first place.  The fact that you need government permission to pledge your undying devotion to another person is a violation of civil liberty and human rights.  For some reason only the Paulites seem to grasp this simple concept.

Idiots

[CNS]

I don't think many people care if it is called marriage.  I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union.  Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc. 

Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.

[michigancat]

 The fact that you need government permission to pledge your undying devotion to another person is a violation of civil liberty and human rights.  For some reason only the Paulites seem to grasp this simple concept.

Idiots

I pretty much agree. Only problem is your solution is pretty wacky and won't ever happen, even though it's probably the solution I would prefer. Arguing against the current system for a system that is better, even if it isn't perfect doesn't make someone an idiot.

[CNS]

Side note: I absolutely love it when someone asks where it all stops, and what if someone wanted to marry their dog or cat.  Love it.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I don't think many people care if it is called marriage.  I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union.  Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc. 

Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.

This is exactly the opposite.  Most of those that oppose gay marriage have no problem with them having the exact same rights, they oppose calling it "marriage".   Seems pretty ridiculous either way.

[kstatefreak42]

I cant take Santorum seriously. The guy is a fake. Literally.

[06wildcat]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

Glad to see separate but equal has moved into the 21st century.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone).

so being able to marry the person you love should or should not be considered one of these???

Just face it, libs equate gay marriage to "human rights" to make it sound more serious than it really is. Quit deluding yourself.

What do you equate to "human rights"?

I don't know, slavery, genocide, child prostitution... you know, the serious stuff. That all seems a lot worse than whether two people of the same sex get to say they are "married" as opposed to a "civil union." Drama queen.

Glad to see separate but equal has moved into the 21st century.

Yup, a difference over a word is akin to separate water fountains and bus seating. Keep 'em coming!

[SkinnyBenny]

Do you really think, as long as douchebag idiot politicians like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are alive, that the terminology will be the only difference between the two?

[star seed 7]

I don't think many people care if it is called marriage.  I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union.  Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc. 

Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.

This is exactly the opposite.  Most of those that oppose gay marriage have no problem with them having the exact same rights, they oppose calling it "marriage".   Seems pretty ridiculous either way.

Get rid of all marriages, call everything civil unions....   bigger shitstorm?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

 The fact that you need government permission to pledge your undying devotion to another person is a violation of civil liberty and human rights.  For some reason only the Paulites seem to grasp this simple concept.

Idiots

I pretty much agree. Only problem is your solution is pretty wacky and won't ever happen, even though it's probably the solution I would prefer. Arguing against the current system for a system that is better, even if it isn't perfect doesn't make someone an idiot.

I bet you would have been a big proponent of "seperate but equal"

Like I said, partisan wonks incapable of independent thought.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Do you really think, as long as douchebag idiot politicians like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are alive, that the terminology will be the only difference between the two?

#Butthurt dem without a brain post

[Rams]

I don't think many people care if it is called marriage.  I think the care is re: the diff in rights that a married couple has vs a couple in a civil union.  Inheritance, insurance coverage, etc. 

Call it whatevs, just make all the rights the same.

This is exactly the opposite.  Most of those that oppose gay marriage have no problem with them having the exact same rights, they oppose calling it "marriage".   Seems pretty ridiculous either way.

Get rid of all marriages, call everything civil unions....   bigger shitstorm?

This is by far the best solution.  "Marriage" is a religious idea and the government doesn't have any business making those decisions.  As far as the "perks" of marriage (joint tax returns, inheritance, and all other rights afforded to spouses) those should be extended to civil unions and any two human beings should be allowed to form a "civil union" for those purposes.  If two people can find a church that will "marry" them, good for them.