Animalman, your questions are annoyingly inane and nitpicky, and the answers to your questions are obvious. Or at least they should be after 37 pages.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I don't believe what Animalman posted above. That is a distortion by advocates of gay marriage, I'm sure.



What part of it don't you believe?

These are real laws and policies that give a clear advantage to married couples, not civil union couples.



I don't believe any of it. It's a hyperbolic distortion to say gays have no rights.

If they don't have "spousal" death benefits, for example, they can just as easily write a will. As was explored earlier in the topic.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Since gays retain all the rights to insurance, health benefits, spousal estates, etc., under proposed civil unions.



"Proposed civil unions"? What proposed civil unions?



Why are you even asking this STUPID STUPID question ?!?

The proposed civil union laws we hear about every night on the news.

Even George W. Bush and John Kerry discuss it.

And while no other state has civil union laws at this time at present, except New Hampshire, it is clearly on the table being seriously proposed and discussed.
I myself only oppose civil union laws for gays because it won't be the end result. It will only be used as a beach-head to launch a further assault on religious/Christian freedom, and further attempt to defile the concept of marriage.


Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I've said endlessly, if gays really need or deserve these rights, civil unions gives them those rights to benefits



Not as it stands today, they don't.



Thank you for stating the obvious. Given gays' use of any secular rights to launch an assault on religious freedom, they don't deserve them.
I would be tolerant of secular civil union for gays, if a balance was maintained that protected religious freedom. But clearly, gays (aligned with the ACLU, and other secularist liberal groups) have a clearly stated agenda to re-define the concept of marriage out from under Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and every other religious group.

I don't condone gays obtaining greater rights at the expense of taking away religious freedom from millions of others.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Or agnostic, who just don't approve of the gay lifestyle, and don't want their goverment to force it on them.



I'm Agnostic. What makes you think Agnostics don't approve of the gay lifestyle?



Another STUPID STUPID statement of yours. Congratulations on re-inventing the obvious.

Obviously, not all agnostics approve of gay marriage. Obviously not all agnostics oppose gay marriage either.

That can obviously be said of any political or religious or demographic group. Opinions vary.
But a clear majority of the public in every poll I've ever seen clearly opposes gay marriage. And in light of that, the tyranny of a few highly placed liberals in our courts, who have bypassed legislation to arrogantly impose their will on the majority, should not stand.