[speechlesstx]

That's the law imposing on you, not me.

Trying to worm your way out of that "middle ground" thing now, eh?

[Wondergirl]

Civil union rights ≠ rights given in marriage

[talaniman]

Trying to worm your way out of that "middle ground" thing now, eh?

No, but opinions and reality are two different things because a gay person being married really means nothing to me, so my level of outrage and alarm doesn't rise to having to do anything at all. Nor is it disturbing in any way.

But I have the advantage of seeing this public outcry for what's fair, and what's not played out before and the courts are always where such disagreement play out. Why is this any different?

I mean the world won't come to an end if two gay people file a tax return jointly, and why should I care if they do? Why should I care what they call it? The court is the one to determine if the middle ground is the fair ground, whether you or I agree or not? Can we agree on that at least?

[tomder55]

Fairness means we have to give in

[talaniman]

Give in to what? You can marry who you want and call it what you want. Can't you?

[speechlesstx]

civil union rights ≠ rights given in marriage

I see no reason why a civil union could not confer the same rights, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was being told I have no "middle ground" which is entirely untrue.

[speechlesstx]

No, but opinions and reality are two different things because a gay person being married really means nothing to me, so my level of outrage and alarm doesn't rise to having to do anything at all. Nor is it disturbing in any way.

But I have the advantage of seeing this public outcry for what's fair, and what's not played out before and the courts are always where such disagreement play out. Why is this any different?

I mean the world won't come to an end if two gay people file a tax return jointly, and why should I care if they do? Why should I care what they call it? The court is the one to determine if the middle ground is the fair ground, whether you or I agree or not? Can we agree on that at least?

The point seems to have flown right over your head, you said we wouldn't compromise and we have so you're moving the goalpost and refusing to admit it isn't us with no "middle ground," it's you.

[talaniman]

I have moved nothing. And I never agreed to any compromise before on this issue because I'm not gay. All I do is stated my opinions through out the debate on here and all the current events threads. Obviously in real life gay people have pressed on.

I stand by the opinion that the court is the only binding agreement there is subject to any appeal.

[excon]

Hello:

Maybe our resident right wingers offered gay people equal stuff, their fellow Republican legislators didn't follow their lead... Not ONCE did Republicans offer something that equated to marriage, but wasn't. If they had, maybe gay people wouldn't have gone for the full ball of wax.. But, they didn't and gay people are. That's the way it is here.

excon

[cdad]

Give in to what? You can marry who you want and call it what you want. Can't you?

Not really. Suppose I found another woman besides my current wife that I loved also just as deeply. Would I be allowed to sanction that relationship by marrying that woman as well as keep my current wife?


Answer: Nope.

Polygamy is against the law. So I can't marry who I want nor can I call it what I want.

[speechlesstx]

I have moved nothing. And I never agreed to any compromise before on this issue because I'm not gay. All I do is stated my opinions thru out the debate on here and all the current events threads. Obviously in real life gay people have pressed on.

I stand by the opinion that the court is the only binding agreement there is subject to any appeal.

You made this very distinct charge: "You have no middle ground that opens up reasonable dialog. There is no meet you in the middle."


Tom and I both reminded you that we are waiting in the middle and ever since you've steadfastly refused to meet us there. Don't ever accuse us of no middle ground if you aren't willing to show up.

[talaniman]

Okay does your middle ground include the benefits of taxes that married couples have?

[Wondergirl]

You made this very distinct charge: "You have no middle ground that opens up reasonable dialog. There is no meet you in the middle."


tom and I both reminded you that we are waiting in the middle and ever since you've steadfastly refused to meet us there. Don't ever accuse us of no middle ground if you aren't willing to show up.

So you are willing to expand civil union rights to be the same as marriage rights?

[speechlesstx]

So you are willing to expand civil union rights to be the same as marriage rights?

Did I stutter?

[Wondergirl]

Did I stutter?

No, but you are sidestepping.

[speechlesstx]

No, but you are sidestepping.

After this exchange with Tal today you think I'm the one sidestepping? LOL. Stay tuned...

[Wondergirl]

After this exchange with Tal today you think I'm the one sidestepping? LOL. Stay tuned...

So you won't answer my question.

[speechlesstx]

Okay does your middle ground include the benefits of taxes that married couples have?

From a 2008 post:

As tom said earlier and which I've agreed with is why can't we "reach an equitable compromise?" Granting civil unions with all the associated rights and benefits to me should be an equitable compromise. Marriage is more than "historical aspects" just as Christmas and Easter are more than traditions.

That would especially include tax benefits, health care, and property, etc. Nearly 5 years later you guys are still feeding us the same, tired old crap and accusing us of having no "middle ground."

[speechlesstx]

So you won't answer my question.

What is it about "stay tuned" you don't understand?

[Wondergirl]

From a 2008 post:



That would especially include tax benefits, health care, and property, etc. Nearly 5 years later you guys are still feeding us the same, tired old crap and accusing us of having no "middle ground."

Why didn't the Republican legislators see the light?