“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#81 May 14, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what all these rights are that I'm missing out on.
So you don't know what rights maried folks get, but you know for certain that you don't want gays having all of them and can't even give an example of any that they should not get. Such well informed opinions.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#82 May 14, 2013
Are you missing out on these rights because your single or because your gay?
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what all these rights are that I'm missing out on.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#83 May 14, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>So you don't know what rights maried folks get, but you know for certain that you don't want gays having all of them and can't even give an example of any that they should not get. Such well informed opinions.
I believe Mimi gave a list, but that's not even the issue, so I'm not gonna get bogged down in that.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#84 May 14, 2013
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
"You can't just arbitrarily decide that that anyone can marry anything and then qualify for all types of benefits."
Right here.
Where?

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#85 May 14, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Where?
If you can't read between your *own* lines, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#86 May 14, 2013
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't read between your *own* lines, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.
If we only had an "ignore" feature....

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#87 May 14, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the point. It wouldn't effect you if I married a horse, so by your logic, I should be able to, right?
I said anyONE, "one" is a person, a human being. A horse by definition is a "thing." But yeah, you wanna marry a horse (even though it doesn't have the capacity to enter into a CIVIL CONTRACT) go for it. Doesn't rock my little dinghy a bit.

BTW... civil=NOT religious, as in separation of church and state. Churches (any kind) have no business in the middle of secular civil regulations. None. Period. It's in the constitution that you and all your tea party brethren are so adamant about...when it suits you that is.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#88 May 14, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe Mimi gave a list, but that's not even the issue, so I'm not gonna get bogged down in that.
Convenient. Can't come up with a cogent refutation so you choose to not get "bogged down" with facts that you can't reasonably deny.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#89 May 14, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
If we only had an "ignore" feature....
ITA

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#90 May 14, 2013
Mimi Seattle wrote:
Convenient. Can't come up with a cogent refutation so you choose to not get "bogged down" with facts that you can't reasonably deny.
I don't know what all these benefits are that comes with marriage, alright? I don't know. I've never been married, I have no idea what all these rights and benefits are that I'm missing out on. Okay? Now let's not get "bogged" down in that. Because if that's all you have to go on, that means you can't refute my more valid points so I win. Now...

The point of "marriage," is that you have specific rights that go along with it. Now if two gay men want to live together, fine by me, whatever floats your boat. Just like if I want to marry a horse. Fine, it's nothing to you. But suppose I get certain benefits for marrying that horse?(ie: taxes, if you so adamantly need specific examples) THAT is where the issue comes in.

"You can get it on with a horse if you so desire, but hey wait a minute, you shouldn't get special privileges and treatment for that."

THAT is my (and the other half of the country who agrees with me) whole point. People get certain benefits from "marriage," (one man, one woman) for a reason. We can't just arbitrarily say that these same benefits apply to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING and if I want to marry a lamp I should be able to claim it as a dependent. Got it now?
Didn't think so.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#91 May 14, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
If we only had an "ignore" feature....
You do. It's called skipping posts. Now if you don't have anything to add to this discussion, buzz off.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#92 May 14, 2013
squishymama wrote:
If you can't read between your *own* lines, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.
You're the only one who can. Apparently you want to make up your own interpretations. That's fine, but don't try to twist that around as words I've actually said.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#93 May 14, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the only one who can. Apparently you want to make up your own interpretations. That's fine, but don't try to twist that around as words I've actually said.
"You can't just arbitrarily decide that that anyone can marry anything and then qualify for all types of benefits."

These are the words you wrote. I'm not twisting anything. Right here you clearly equated a gay person with a thing - "anyone can marry anything". It's about as insulting as you can get.

You are going to sit there and type with a straight face that you were not equating a person with a thing? Really?

If so, then we're done.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#94 May 14, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what all these benefits are that comes with marriage, alright? I don't know. I've never been married, I have no idea what all these rights and benefits are that I'm missing out on. Okay? Now let's not get "bogged" down in that. Because if that's all you have to go on, that means you can't refute my more valid points so I win. Now...
The point of "marriage," is that you have specific rights that go along with it. Now if two gay men want to live together, fine by me, whatever floats your boat. Just like if I want to marry a horse. Fine, it's nothing to you. But suppose I get certain benefits for marrying that horse?(ie: taxes, if you so adamantly need specific examples) THAT is where the issue comes in.
"You can get it on with a horse if you so desire, but hey wait a minute, you shouldn't get special privileges and treatment for that."
THAT is my (and the other half of the country who agrees with me) whole point. People get certain benefits from "marriage," (one man, one woman) for a reason. We can't just arbitrarily say that these same benefits apply to EVERYONE and EVERYTHING and if I want to marry a lamp I should be able to claim it as a dependent. Got it now?
Didn't think so.
This is a specious argument. Gay people are PEOPLE not horses and not lamps. If they are married, like any other person in this country, they are entitled to the privileges that go along with being married. You have no right to define marriage as between two people of opposite genders. That is an argument for theology which again has no place in civil matters. It just doesn't. As a matter of secular law (i.e. NOT religious) people of any gender should be able to marry other people of any gender they please and still enjoy the benefits of marriage because marriage is a civil, legally binding (secular) contract, not a religious one.

If religions don't want to accept it, that's fine, they can do anything they please because people are not required under our government to have the blessing of religious authority to get married. Trust me I do know the difference. I got married in a country that DOES require the local religious guy to approve it before you can even begin to do the civil (which is all mixed up with the religious) stuff. Our government doesn't operate that way.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#95 May 14, 2013
So let's review.

Dog raises question about whether or not gays are denied rights in this country.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess I can't understand why gays think they're not being treated equally in this country. There's not a single right a straight man has that a gay man does not. Not one.
Dog again asks about the rights of gays.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with this? Name ONE right rings or myself have that a gay man does not. Just one. I'll wait....
Dog again asks a question pertaining to gay rights.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the only one. Tell me please, what do gay rights have to do with amnesty?
Mimi provdes a lengthy list of rights gays are denied.

Dog asserts that gays should not get the same benefits as married hetero couples....
edogxxx wrote:
I don't agree that gays should get EVERY benefit hetero couples enjoy. Marriage is between one man and one woman. I support giving them SOME of the benefits, but not all. As a single man, I don't qualify for all those benefits either. Boo hoo, cry me a river.
...though he has no idea what those rights would be.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what all these rights are that I'm missing out on.
And after several pages of discussion about RIGHTS, dog decides rights are not the issue being discussed.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe Mimi gave a list, but that's not even the issue, so I'm not gonna get bogged down in that.
Along the way, he tried to misdirect from the the issue HE raised, to government handouts, the irs vs conservatives, amnesty, compared the marriage of 2 (gay) human beings to the marriage of a horse(and in the same breath claimed to not be a homophobe).

If he was not so consistent, I'd say he was clowning us. If I read a book with a character like him, I'd say the writer went to unbelievably over the top.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#96 May 14, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
So let's review.
Dog raises question about whether or not gays are denied rights in this country.
<quoted text>
Dog again asks about the rights of gays.
<quoted text>
Dog again asks a question pertaining to gay rights.
<quoted text>
Mimi provdes a lengthy list of rights gays are denied.
Dog asserts that gays should not get the same benefits as married hetero couples....
<quoted text>
...though he has no idea what those rights would be.
<quoted text>
And after several pages of discussion about RIGHTS, dog decides rights are not the issue being discussed.
<quoted text>
Along the way, he tried to misdirect from the the issue HE raised, to government handouts, the irs vs conservatives, amnesty, compared the marriage of 2 (gay) human beings to the marriage of a horse(and in the same breath claimed to not be a homophobe).
If he was not so consistent, I'd say he was clowning us. If I read a book with a character like him, I'd say the writer went to unbelievably over the top.
Thank you for the synopsis. I was considering doing something like this, but decided that I didn't have the energy....

I agree with you on the character analysis. Way way way over the top. Unfortunately, I think it's real. I read a thing the other day about people like this and it just made me sigh at the unbelievable refusal to look at facts as opposed to their fear of what they don't (and refuse to try to) understand. Sad.

Oh and lest we forget, he also likened it to him marrying a lamp. <shrug>

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#97 May 14, 2013
I miss daytime Tonka.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#98 May 14, 2013
So, whats your point?
<runs>
Mister Tonka wrote:
So let's review.
Dog raises question about whether or not gays are denied rights in this country.
<quoted text>
Dog again asks about the rights of gays.
<quoted text>
Dog again asks a question pertaining to gay rights.
<quoted text>
Mimi provdes a lengthy list of rights gays are denied.
Dog asserts that gays should not get the same benefits as married hetero couples....
<quoted text>
...though he has no idea what those rights would be.
<quoted text>
And after several pages of discussion about RIGHTS, dog decides rights are not the issue being discussed.
<quoted text>
Along the way, he tried to misdirect from the the issue HE raised, to government handouts, the irs vs conservatives, amnesty, compared the marriage of 2 (gay) human beings to the marriage of a horse(and in the same breath claimed to not be a homophobe).
If he was not so consistent, I'd say he was clowning us. If I read a book with a character like him, I'd say the writer went to unbelievably over the top.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#99 May 14, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
I miss daytime Tonka.
Hey, daytime Tonka still shows up in a lunch time drive-by. Just no time to get out of the car. Gotta eat.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#100 May 15, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
So let's review.
Dog raises question about whether or not gays are denied rights in this country.
<quoted text>
Dog again asks about the rights of gays.
<quoted text>
Dog again asks a question pertaining to gay rights.
<quoted text>
Mimi provdes a lengthy list of rights gays are denied.
Dog asserts that gays should not get the same benefits as married hetero couples....
<quoted text>
...though he has no idea what those rights would be.
<quoted text>
And after several pages of discussion about RIGHTS, dog decides rights are not the issue being discussed.
<quoted text>
Along the way, he tried to misdirect from the the issue HE raised, to government handouts, the irs vs conservatives, amnesty, compared the marriage of 2 (gay) human beings to the marriage of a horse(and in the same breath claimed to not be a homophobe).
If he was not so consistent, I'd say he was clowning us. If I read a book with a character like him, I'd say the writer went to unbelievably over the top.
I like how you you make the leap from being opposed to gay marriage to being a homophobe. I saw a show last night called Polygamy USA about a mormon compound in Arizona who are polygamists. I'm also opposed to polygamy, does that mean I hate Mormons? I'm opposed to marrying a horse, does that mean I hate horses? See, your very logic is flawed.

Gays are not denied any rights. They are not getting all the benefits hetero married couples get, but neither am I. So what? Cry me a river while I play the worlds smallest violin for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 25 min PolakPotrafi 1,206,427
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 35 min Cold Front 69,296
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 56 min Cowabunga 51,863
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr litesong 52,284
News Test Drive: 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid Review (Jan '09) 5 hr ImmaGetMeSome 5
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr JRB 185,851
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 11 hr Red_Forman 823
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 16 hr Katie Sullivan 99,302
Amy 3-26 16 hr RACE 60
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]