The biggest difference between booger and scab gourmets and homosexuals is that one group has full access to social contracts and the other does not.  No one says scab eaters cannot form a union with another scab eater (if they are different sexes) and allow them to benefit in terms of health insurance and probate law.  Homosexuals may not form certain social contracts and have no rights in probate matters.  That is why one group must be given greater attention than the other.  When the two groups are treated the same is when we can stop distinguishing.

Why should gay couples have more benefits than single people?

This issue has nothing to do with couple vs. single.  Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.  at this time, they are being denied these rights based on their sexuality. 

As it stands, in most places they technically have less. Heterosexual people have the right to social union with the ones they love.  Homosexual people have the right to social union with the ones they love in just a few states, and typically these social unions are not equal to those offered to heterosexual people. 

Marriage is a traditional religious rite. In this country, the main religion is Christianity. Christianity has thousands of years of history of destesting homosexuality. I doubt you could find a country that holds gay relationships to be sacred.  If you want tax breaks, maybe you should start a charity or church of your own.  You could also become a farmer.

Nothing makes gays better or worse than any Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist or black.

BUT when we are talking about LAW that everyone lives by the majority thinks they are more special than the minority because  of the fallacy of numbers or tradition.

Where did you get the idea that gays want special rights? That is as rediculous as claiming that an atheist saying "Hey if you want to vote for me for office, you can" being a demand for a quota system. Or a black saying "I can sit on the Supreme Court too" Being a demand for a quota system.

It is quite simple. If you want to do something chances are damned good that those who fall outside your label just want the oportunity to do the same thing. That doesnt make them better or worse, JUST HUMAN. 

I don't know which country you are in but in america your marriage doesn't have to be approved by any religious organization to be recognized by the state. It's not for a government to hold anything sacred. It is suppoed to ensure equal protection under the law and civil right, human right etc. Not deny them to one group because another group is making a claim to ownership of a concept or institution that they have no right to anyway.

[edit] Sorry pariah you'll get the next one. but now you're ahead of me anyway.

This is false. There are many cultures and many religions that have marriage rites. In America, you can have your ceremony in front of a priest and perform all the rites but until you go to the Courthouse (or wherever) and apply for your marriage license, you are not considered married in the eyes of the state. It's two separate things.

There is no reason why homosexuals should not be afforded the same legal rights that the states provide to heterosexual couples. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion in that aspect. It is the religious that are trying to force their beliefs on the government that is the problem.

The religious marjority should not be allowed to supress the rights of others based on their beliefs.

[EDIT] Dammit, Gauche, you're always beating me to the punch!!  :P 

Lets make a distinction here.

It is currently popular UNFORTUNATLY, for the state to deny on a goverment contract, which is what a marrage licence is, to two people of the same sex.

HOWEVER, even though the state will not recongnize state paperwork between two people of the same sex. THEY (government) cannot stop a religious cerimony conducted between two consenting adults.

Another thing, be one heterosexual or gay, is that the government paperwork as far as a "witness" does NOT require a holy person of any label.

If one gets married using a state license they can chose any "witness" but it does not have to be a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Or Cleric.

If one choses one can simply get married in front of a judge.

The problem is not special rights for gays. The problem is equal treatment. Some dipwads want to use the argument, "Well if you are gay and you want to marry a woman" bullcrap! Why the hell would someone who is in love with someone of the same sex want to marry someone of the oposite sex?

That is bull and the homophobes know it. It is fearmongering at its worst. Gays dont want special rights any more than women did when they asked to vote...anymore than black did when they wanted to use the same bathroom or classroom.

A human is a human is a human. As much as we'd like to think we are different, most of the time we end up fighting about fear of the unknown insted of trying to understand.

You can find a bad apple in every bunch. But that doesnt make the label bad, that MAKES THAT PARTICULAR PERSON bad.

A man diserves to marry a man for the same reason a woman diserves to mary a man, for the same reason a woman disires to marry a woman. LOVE.

Who doesnt want to take a shot at "I found someone who accepts me for me and will be their for me".

So can humanity get past this pathetic crotch requarement and accept that we really do seek the same thing. We all want someone we can confide in. We all want someone we can communicate with. We all want support.

So the problem is that the gov't doesn't give a seal of approval??

In my country, the decisions are made based on what opinion is held by the majority.

As far as I'm concerned people could grow trees out of their ass if they wanted to.  I don't think I should have to pay them to do it.

I don't even know what paying somebody to grow trees out of their ass means. Is this country on earth? Ayn Rand said this about individual rights:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities" 

Does that mean that if I choose to be a minority, the majority should help pay my bills?

How do you go from talking about what rights a person has to making somebody else pay your bills? You are an english speaker right? 

You're being ridiculous.  I haven't a clue what paying bills has to do with the subject at hand,  a subject that you have chosen and are now disregarding.  

Just because the marjority holds a certain viewpoint doesn't give it the right to withold the rights of the minority.  I'm sure you can understand that, no?

What country are you in?   

Perhaps I don't understand what "Gay Rights" are.

If all you want is equality, you would try to strip the rights of married people and have everyone the same, right?

I think you want financial gain.

Yeah, what she said. And why is this a blog entry? This isn't an essay or anything it's just you saying that you don't want to pay gay people's bills because they'll use the money to grow trees in their asses and I don't even think gay people would do that in the first place.

There is more to gain from being married then a tax break, one of which, from what I understand isn't much of a break at all.

Married hetero couples can share health insurance.  Healthcare is incredibly expensive, so yes, it would save the couple money. 

Spouses are entitled to certain protections under the law.  If one person were to die and the couple is not married, the inheritance can be challenged.  

If a partner were to become ill and the couple were not married, the other partner would have no rights to see the person in the hospital; it is family only.   

Not only that, but there is an emotional aspect to the idea of 'marriage'.  It's a symbol, or a status, perhaps.  Why should homosexuals be denied that right?

Frankly, I don't care why couples get married, straight or gay.  The fact that gays are being prejudiced is what the problem is.  If you think that isn't much of an issue, then I can only assume that you think perhaps we should outlaw interracial marriage as well, as it once was, because the 'marjority' didn't think it was right. 

It has more to do with rights then with financial gain. 

What do you think a "right" is? and what rights are you being denied?

You've been one step ahead of me this whole time!

This is too funny. 

Yeah, I think maybe we think a little bit alike. You might be my female doppleganger. Did you drop out of college to go to art school and then drop out of art school to go back to college again like i did?

I think you answered my question before I posted it.

I already posted my opinion on why gay marriage isn't politically considered equal to hetero marriage.  It is just my opinion, so take it or leave it.  If I am right, it isn't anything that can be overcome in our lifetime. 

Everything else can be done legally except the healthcare thing.  I guess it would be easier if marriage was legal and binding or whatever.

I apologise for coming into this conversation biased, but I have had alot of bad experience with predatory type homosexuals.  I wouldn't go out of my way to help people like that.  Maybe the opposite.

Yes!  Except the art school thing.  Sadly, I'm artistically challenged, but it took about 4 years of art classes to figure it out.  I did drop out of college and then returned 5 years later, so does that count? 

Wow, I sure hope a woman never wrongs you, or I'd be in trouble if we met up.  

Way to go, discriminating against a group of people based on the actions of a few. *sarcasm*

I'm sorry I've wasted my time trying to have a rational conversation with a bigot.  I tend to find bigotry as irrational as theism. 

We are being (indavertantly) denied the right to run for public office. A percentage of people (the lesbians, gays, and bisexuals) are being denied the right to marry.

"To be equal you have to add or subtract, and I have never liked math." - Marilyn Manson 

I would prefer to add those liberties which are being denied. Marriage costs very little in comparison with other social issues. It's a small thing which various religious groups thinks demeans their claim on the "sacred rite" of marriage. Really, we could give less than two shakes what they think. I know that if I were gay I would want probate rights in the event my partner died/was injured and couldn't speak for themselves. With the acceptance level in my country now, I doubt many families would even want their children's partner at funerals or the hospital.

It's close enough because i don't believe in dopplegangers anyway. And your not gay but you hate people who hate gays just like me. I think you aren't because I think I remember you saying you're married so sorry if I'm wrong about that.  

It doesn't suprise me that you have no respect for what others consider sacred.

 All of the homosexual relationships I have witnessed have been mildly suppressed fits of rage, jelousy, control, violence and addiction, with no known exceptions.

I wish people would keep their perversions to themselves.

What exactly do you mean when you say “you have no respect for what others consider sacred”? What do people consider sacred that I am not respecting? If you are talking about marriage then nobody actually owns that concept. Nobody has the right to define it for everyone else or deny it to anyone. I’m sorry that you had a bad experience but do you really think that the rights that minority groups enjoy should be different because of your experience or because a larger group has a tradition of irrational hatred toward them?  

who says quote/unquote..."we" don't give two shakes... Do you know why people quote/unquote..."hate" homosexuals? If so, why is that and why is it irrational?

If a small group is adversely affecting a large group, usually the large group outlaws whatever they don't like and then the doers of that become criminals.

What I think about it makes little difference.  I am thankful that someone cares enough to try to keep humans in check...this is going nowhere,, i'm going to shut up.

 Next question please. ( :

What are gays doing that is adversely affecting everybody that other people aren’t doing? Do you mean growing trees in their asses?  

My dear Sir,

First, you speak to a largely heterosexual crowd; so, I am confused by the use of the second person plural here.

Second, I want equality of rights for everyone.  Marriage is a social contract.  In civilized countries, two adults of consenting age select one another to join into a contract.  THis contract states that they share property rights, rights to offspring, financial burdens, the right to probate receipts, and the right to separate if they so choose.  Unfortunately, in America, our Courts have chosen to interpret this as a contract between a consenting adult male and a consenting adult female.  It should be between any two consenting adults period.

You are right in seeing that there are financial implications to this matter.  Upon marriage in AMerica, the tax code is less favorable to one, but one gains shared health benefits and property rights.  So, married people and single people do have varying rights.  Why, however, should I care with whom anyone else contracts?

I don't care who you hire to cut your grass or clean your house; so, I surely do not care with whom you share your property rights.

In fact, we have a way to do this without marriage.  It often happens with the elderly.  It is called power of attorney.  This fiduciary right is very similar to the marital rights you discuss.

It matters not to me what the religion at hand is.  This is a matter of the right to form a contract, which is housed under our rights of privacy, which can be found in the penumbra of the ninth amendment to the US COnstitution.  This is why I am so certain of the legality of this particular matter.

I am a single, heterosexual male.  I have nothing to gain by this view except the simple pleasure of knowing that what is RIGHT is being practiced in my country.

I have no respect for bigotry, and that is what you displayed by suggesting that you might 'do the opposite' of helping homosexuals. It's an absurd and irrational position.

Just for the record, I am a heterosexual female and stand to gain nothing from my position. It is about equal human rights.

I have seen plenty of heterosexual relationships in which the couple displayed "mildly suppressed fits of rage, jelousy, control, violence and addiction". Your point is moot.

You don't like homosexuals, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I don't like bigots. I'm entitled to mine. However, I'm not going to run out and try to suppress any of your rights. You, on the other hand, have even alluded that you would not object if gays rights were suppressed.

I also find it pathetic that you appear to be so insecure that you're willing to condemn an entire group of people based on your 'experiences' or you emotions.

[EDIT] My spelling sucks sometimes. 

Quite right, Pariah!  Let us leave this fool to the charnel house that is his mind!

I just read this entire thread (blog????).  If it weren't for the witty repartee of pariahjane and gauche (and others), I would ask for my money back.  Except it didn't cost me anything but time...but time equals money, right?

Whatever...I'm so out of here... 

There are over 1400 rights and benefits denied to gay couples not allowed to marry.

This partial list of the rights denied gay couples from Wikipedia here.

Rights and benefits

Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:

• Social Security pension

• veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing

• survivor benefits for federal employees

• survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers

• additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease

• $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty

• continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits

• renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

• continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances

• payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death

• making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

Right to benefits while married:

• employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges

• per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating

• Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)

• sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits

Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:

• veteran's disability

• Supplemental Security Income

• disability payments for federal employees

• medicaid

• property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans

• income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

Joint and family-related rights:

• joint filing of bankruptcy permitted

• joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records

• family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison

• next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims

• custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce

• domestic violence intervention

• access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods

Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs

Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.

Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens

Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act

Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime

Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse

Court notice of probate proceedings

Domestic violence protection orders

Existing homestead lease continuation of rights

Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption

Funeral and bereavement leave

Joint adoption and foster care

Joint tax filing

Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society

Legal status with stepchildren

Making spousal medical decisions

Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver

Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation

Right of survivorship of custodial trust

Right to change surname upon marriage

Right to enter into prenuptial agreement

Right to inheritance of property

Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications

Responsibilities

Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:

• veteran's medical and home care benefits
• housing assistance
• housing loans for veterans
• child's education loans
• educational loan repayment schedule
• agricultural price supports and loans
• eligibility for federal matching campaign funds

Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home

Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs

Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage

Ambiguous

There are some laws that either benefit or penalize married couples over single people, depending upon their own circumstances:
Marriage penalty/bonus

Someone working for their spouse cannot be defined as an "employee"

Someone cannot change beneficiaries in a retirement plan or from waiving the joint and survivor annuity form of retirement benefit, without the written consent of his or her spouse

Wages can be garnished at a maximum of 60% (instead of the normal 25% limit) if the garnishing is for alimony or child support

I should defend myself against the bigotry accusation.

You call me that because I stand by a set of morals.

I've heard numerous claims that atheists are moral, but who can judge that if they make up the morals as they go?

If you factor in my religion and my IQ, I'm am much more of a minority than the average gay.  I don't bitch because I'm not given extra rights.

Against the arguement that any two people should be able to enter a contract:

Why should those contracts be limited to two?  Then where do the extra rights end?

You were called that because you, by your own admission, show prejudice against a group of people based only on the supposed actions of a few of them

You can judge based on their actions. Some are moral, some are not. This is the same for theists.

Then you share two things with gay people: being a minority and not bitching about not getting extra rights. Gay people want to have the same rights as everyone else. As it stands now, they do not.

Why should those contracts be limited to two? Why shouldn't they? What does this have to do with gay marriage?

The answer is: nothing.

"Gay rights" are the same as heterosexual rights and atheist rights and blacks rights and it all amounts to HUMAN RIGHTS.

You dont get special rights because you are the majority and as such get to tell others by proxy of popular belief that they cant do what you do.

If you disire to marry someone because you love them, what gives you the right to deny someone who is gay to marry someone of the same sex? Giving them the right to marry is not giving them special rights, just the same ones you have.

"Gay rights" does not advocate special rights, it actually adresses the rights others deny them through government law.

Maybe gays shouldnt say "Gay rights" maybe they should say, "Here are the things we want to do but cant because heteroxsexual homophobes think they have the special right to deny gays a simple human right" THE RIGHT TO ENTER A CONTRACT WITH WHOM THEY CHOSE.

What right would gays be stripping you of? The right to treat them as if they are subhuman and shouldnt get married? Yea they should do that because YOU dont have the right to dictate to them.

What do you think is going to happen to you personally physically other than not liking it? Do you think your privates will magically fall off? Do you think if two people of the same sex who are married are going to magically make you gay?

What rights would they be stripping you of? Would the goverment mandate gay marriage only? Would you suddenly lose the legal right to marry the oposite sex?

Would gays suddly have the right to bust down your door and force you to have sex with them?

NO they would not be stripping you of any rights. Homophobes have for far too long been given special rights to dictate to their neighbor that they cannot do something.

I you dont want someone denying you the right to marry the oposite sex then you have a duty to your fellow citizen to recognize that YOU do not have the right to dictate to them. Love is love and people disire to enter that contract because they love someone. You have no special right or dictitoral right or human right to tell a gay person they cant marry someone of the same sex, just as you would not want them teling you you cant marry someone of the oposite sex.

"Thats yucky" or "we've always done it that way" is an excuse and ignores the fact that YOU have no right to tell them they cant do what you do. You are not their boss and they dont want special rights, just the same thing you want. They want to say on legal paper "I promise to love you and care for you". No different than what you would promise to your mate.

Gays exist and always have and they should not be excluded from a contract because they dont share the same sexuality you do. 

My advice is be married, nothing will happen to you, no one will rape you or "turn you gay". My adivice is to live your own life and stop worrying about whom your neighbor loves or who they enter a contract with. 

The world will not colapse and you wont get cooties from them and no one will force you to marry someone of the same sex. GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON. 

I'm not telling anyone what to do.

I am exercising my right of free speech.

I hold women to be sacred.  The younger and more innocent, the more I adore them.  I love women like girls love kittens.

I don't think a girl should have to grow up in an environment where they feel threatened, unloved, or disgusted.

If I could, I would remove everything that makes females uncomfortable.

If a respectable woman wanted my company, I would do alot to make them happy.

I don't ask for any special deals or benefits to feel this way and I think others should feel the same way.

I don't despise males and I think young males deserve many of the same privileges that young females deserve.

I respect decency and I abhor indecency.

Stop sexual pollution.

i don't know exactly how to respond, as I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the topic at hand, but I will try.

Ok. So are the other members of this forum. What's your point?

I'm not sure how this relates. Are you suggesting that homosexuals make women uncomfortable? Please explain.

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

I think you're implying that gays are asking for special rights. This has already been addressed. They are not. They are asking for equal rights.

Again, I'm not sure how any of this is related. Could you expand on your statements?

Please define sexual pollution.

Thanks.

Well, you would love my girlfriend then because she drinks her milk from a saucer and she squats in a box of sand instead of using a toilet. That might be the strangest thing I’ve ever read on this website and there are people on this site that actually believe in genies.

 Where do you think religious people get their morals from? Somebody made them up. Do you think that god jut decided to give every religious group a different set of morals? Or do you think that out of all the religions that ever existed you just happen to belong to the one that actually got their morals from god? I think you should consider looking at that more critically.  

Gauche- I don't belong to a religion. I absorbed the morality of my culture. To whoever just questioned the rest of what I said,

1. People who were argueing with me were attacking me, so I thought they should know what I stand for.

2. Gays make damn sure everyone in the world is aware of their sexuality.  That goes against what I hold sacred and against alot of other peoples values.  Gays know they are offensive to others and their response is to make themselves more obvious.  Blatant disrespect of the rights of those who choose to not be disgusting or haven't even thought about it yet.

3.  What it has to do with is I want people to know what they are attacking by letting them know who I am and where I stand.

4.  I have previously discussed my opinion on what "equal rights" means.(in this blog) If gay couples get more rigths than me, it isn't equal.

5.  Refer to # 3.

6.  Sexual pollution is any type sex information that is thrust upon those who would prefer not to know.

I think you're implying something here more than you're willing to say outright. However, in regards to what you actually said, so what? If you're heterosexual, you probably make sure that everyone in the world is aware of that too. One major point of "Gay Pride" is that no one should be ashamed of their sexuality.

Yes, being homosexual does go against many people's values. However, oppressing minority groups also goes against many people's values. In this case, your values are going to be put aside, unfortuately, since limiting homosexuals will actively harm them, whereas giving them equal rights will not harm you.

No. Their response is to live their lives as they chose, without fear or shame. This does not affect you.

You want them to live in hiding and you're talking about rights? I don't think that being ignorant is a right.

I don't think that you understand what you're talking about. If you're afraid that a gay couple will have more rights than you as an individual, than you're making a faulty comparison. Any married couple has more rights than you. For example, the right to visit a spouse in the hospital. Of course you don't have that right if you don't have a spouse. That doesn't mean that it's unequal. Gay couples want the same rights as straight couples. Gay individuals want the same rights as striaght individuals (the right not to be fired from a job for their sexuality, for example). They do not want more rights.

You are advocating ignorance. Unfortunately that is a position I cannot support. How would you know you don't want to know unless you already know?

I call you a bigot because, by your own words, that is what you are.

big·ot (bĭg'ət) Pronunciation Key
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Your 'morals' seek to keep other people from receiving equal rights because you disagree with them.

Let me refresh your memory:

Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

Well, I am too. I'm not trying to stop you from expressing your opinions, so don't get all bent when I express mine.

I almost find it ironic that you seem miffed that people are disagreeing with you and that I have somehow stepped on your right to free speech because of it. This, coming from a person who does not think a group of people are deserving of equal rights because of their sexuality. It's laughable, really.

pre'ju-dis, N.  An unwarranted bias; prepossession; detriment; injury.

If you prefer I use the term prejudice instead of bigot in the future, I would be happy to accomodate you.

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you posted this definition. 

I have stated my viewpoint and why I have it.

Since we're exchanging labels I think you are critical and obnoxious. You can look those up yourself.

There are mostly no gays dieing in the street from lack of rights.

If you are going to become a humanitarian, you should pick a more helpless group of sufferers. You will surely gain more respect that way.

Sir, I read your post on gay rights and I am a little appalled.  People who eat their scabs are not executed in third world countries.  Booger eaters are not dragged out into wild and beaten to death.  People who eat their own scabs do not get fired from jobs for it.  Booger eaters are not bared from giving blood or serving in the military.  Gay rights and gay pride parades are not about giving gay men and women more rights or special rights, its about giving them the same rights as everyone else.

If I ate my boogers or my scabs on the sidewalk, then maybe someone would look at me funny.  If I kiss my boyfriend, someone might try and kill me.  Just keep that mind, I know I do…

Again, you display a lack of understanding. Homosexuality is punishable by death in many african countries. Hundreds of gay men and women are attack every year in this country. Every single day a gay man is attacked in Jamaica and the government turns a blind eye. throughout west asia homosexuality is punishable by torture and death. Hitler imprisoned thousands of gay germans. Castro rounded up gay men and women and threw them in concentration camps.

We are not asking for special rights, but the same protections offered to a hetero couple. How can you say that gay men and women are flaunting their sexuality? If I walk down the street holding my boyfriends hand or kiss him goodnight like any hetero couple, I have to look over my shoulder to make sure someone isn't going to tie me to a barb wire fence and pummel me with rocks and beer cans.

You and your girlfriend can get married. You two can adopt, give blood, see each other in the hospital, and benfit from insurance. My boyfriend and I have been denied that by law. That is unjust, that is unequal. I want my equal rights. I want the same rights as you and any other hetero in this country!