Civil Unions Pass In Colorado?

Is it OK to deny some citizens of our country equal rights because it may cost the country money? I'm sure glad we didn't feel that way when we gave women the vote, or equal rights to minorities.

Companies (and governments) offer it because it's a way to stay competitive, and attract and retain the best and brightest employees--(otherwise they wouldn't do it.) And the benefits obviously outweigh the costs--(otherwise they wouldn't do it.)

Of course, on the other side you have:

GOP Rep: It Should Be Legal To Fire Employees For Being Gay

Some knuckledraggers still don't get it. But trust us!--We (the GOP) are the party of the "big tent"...(as long as you aren't GLBT, look Hispanic, unemployed, have a chronic illness, are a retired senior, or a poor woman seeking health services....)

This is not a civil rights issue- as much as the left would like to make it one.

Homos enjoy the same rights as the rest of us- they just can't marry each other in Colorado- because the voters have already said loud and clear that marriage is reserved for a union between a man and a woman.

That said- if civil unions are allowed- I expect that it won't be long before we can marry anyone we want- say I could marry 2 or 3 women. I think maybe 3 wifes would be enough for me. I don't see any moral difference between 2 men- 2 women- or 5 men- 5 women.

What is the moral distinction between having one wife and having 3?

Once you abandon the long standing tradition of one man and one woman- the skyies are the limit!

Yes, it IS a civil rights issue...as much as the Right would like for it not to be.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Homos enjoy the same rights as the rest of us-

No...They don't...

(Is this where you insert your standard man-on-dog/man-on-sheep/man-on-horse stupidity?... What is the obsession of the bigots on the right immediately jumping to bestiality as the logical conclusion?...I think you guys have an unnatural fetish going there...) :VeryScared:

Because like I said- once you abandon the thousands of years of tradition- of a marraige being "one man and one woman"- that's it.

You have redefined the marraige morality- it just a free for all orgy after that.

Anything goes. Right?

Seems I remember that Solomon had "700 wives, and 300 concubines"...Is that the "thousands of years of tradition" of which you speak?

And Mitt Romney's great-great-grandfather was Parley Pratt, a Mormon apostle who had twelve wives... How long ago was that? Is that the "thousands of years of tradition" of "one man and 12 women"- of which you speak?

Give me a break....

It was also a "biblical tradition", until 1967, for interracial marriage between a black and a white to be against "thousands of years of tradition" of which you speak...

And, frankly, who-marries-whom should be none of YOUR business--OR the government's.

Don't turn this into a race debate- that is intellectually lame and you know it. The standard "liberal" counterpoint.

This issue is about a man and another man- or a woman and another woman.

I have 3 girlfriends. If I marry one is the state violating the other 2 girls civil rights? I can tell you the other 2 will be pissed! Also- is the state violating my civil right to legally marry all three girls?

Tell me LJ- as a moral issue- what the hell is the difference between my girlfriends civil rights- my civil rights- and the civil rights of 2 men or 2 women?

Just what the hell is the moral difference when it comes to civil rights?

Please explain why 2 men are having their civil rights violated and my girlfriends are not!

Here... Just for you... This should send you to the bathroom with a box of Kleenex....

[youtube:eynmmt8n][/youtube:eynmmt8n]

I'll turn it into EXACTLY the debate that it is...Your trumped-up "morals-based-on-thousands-of-years-of-tradition" are provably a total load of crap, and the issue IS about civil rights, as much as the Righties would like for it not to be.

And, frankly, who-marries-whom should be none of YOUR business--OR the government's.

Oh, and to answer your question about violations of rights not afforded to same-sex-couples...Should you marry one of your 3 "concubines", here are all the rights that you would get that same-sex couples would not:

GAO report: 1,138 federal benefits denied to same-sex couples

BearMtnHIB wrote: This is not a civil rights issue- as much as the left would like to make it one.

Homos enjoy the same rights as the rest of us- they just can't marry each other in Colorado- because the voters have already said loud and clear that marriage is reserved for a union between a man and a woman.

That said- if civil unions are allowed- I expect that it won't be long before we can marry anyone we want- say I could marry 2 or 3 women. I think maybe 3 wifes would be enough for me. I don't see any moral difference between 2 men- 2 women- or 5 men- 5 women.

What is the moral distinction between having one wife and having 3?

Once you abandon the long standing tradition of one man and one woman- the skyies are the limit!

And don't turn this into a moral debate- that is intellectually lame and you know it. Your morals do not dictate the morals of others and you are not a judge of those moral differences.

1) Stop calling this "same sex marriage." This bill is to allow civil unions and you are lying if you call it same sex marriage. We already have civil-like unions in Colorado. It's called a domestic partner. I'm in a relationship with my domestic partner. Her health insurance company recognizes this relationship and I am on her health insurance policy. I am in her will and the law would recognize our domestic relationship as legal if anyone wanted to fight the will if she died. I am recognized informally when attending to personal business with her daughters, who I call my step daughters and they call me step dad. And the state would recognize our relationship if numerous legal matters. So the state of Colorado already has a level of civil unions covered legally in a number of situations. This bill would only make sure that all civil rights of couples like me and my girlfriend are respected and so are our legal wishes.

2) This is not an issue of morality. Maybe with you it is, but otherwise it's an issue of law. Modern society already has gotten rid of the hoary old sodomy laws (which were really veiled laws against homosexual relationships) and I haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for living with another person and being sexually active. So claiming this has a moral element to it is like saying your religion doesn't eat pork, so it should be against the law to sell pork. If you don't want to eat it, don't buy it. The same thing here, if you don't want to play in the chocolate hallway, don't.

3) You don't see any moral difference between 2 men- 2 women- or 5 men- 5 women. There isn't, first because it not a moral issue, it's a legal issue. Second there is already participation between 2 men- 2 women- or 5 men- 5 women... it's called an orgy. Try it, it may give you a new outlook on life.

3) Since none of this is a moral issue, but a legal one... then what are the legal problems with same sex marriage (or civil unions)

4) We have abandoned all sorts of long standing traditions in the last 4000 years, thank goodness. And yes, I agree, the skies the limit... and we would be still reaching for a fire stick and a rock if we never abandoned certain long standing traditions. What makes you think YOUR long standing traditions are the milepost that we should base all of our society on?

And your use of the word "homos" speak volumes of what you really think about homosexual and lesbian people. While your opinion is noted, it's not respected in any way, at least not in my book. If you are a christian, then you betray your own faith with your attitude. Would Jesus ever use the ancient Aramaic equivalent of "homo?"

You have avoided the moral question.

Are my girlfriends rights being violated if I marry one and can't legally marry the other 2?

Are my civil rights being violated by only allowing me to marry one of my sweethearts?

Because if a homo man's civil rights are being violated because he can't marry his buddy vince- then why is it not so between me and my girlfriends?

Why are the homo's civil rights more important than my rights- or the rights of my girlfriends?