Riiiiiigggghhht. Visiting someone you love in the hospital, or inheriting their property is just a privilege that only heterosexuals should get. It's dangerous in the hands of homosexuals.

Much like how we don't let children have the privilege of drinking alcohol.

Yeah, just like that.

Rosie O'Donnell to get married
 

Rosie O'Donnell to Marry Girlfriend
14 minutes ago Add Entertainment - AP to My Yahoo!



SAN FRANCISCO - Former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell (news) planned to marry her longtime girlfriend Thursday in San Francisco, where more than 3,300 other same-sex couples have tied the knot since Feb. 12.


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Rosie O'Donnell




The couple was flying to San Francisco from New York Thursday morning, said Cindi Berger, O'Donnell's publicist.


"We, too, have a dream of equality for all families," the comedian said in a statement. "The only way changes are made in society is when people like Mayor Gavin Newsom have the courage to stand up against injustice."


Earlier Thursday, O'Donnell announced her planned wedding to Kelli Carpenter on ABC's "Good Morning America," just two days after President Bush (news - web sites) called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.


She said the president's call is what inspired her to come to San Francisco, where city officials continue to perform same-sex weddings even as state courts are considering the legality of those marriages.


"I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell said on the program. "I am stunned and I'm horrified.


"I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco. And I hope they put more people on the steps to marry as many people as show up. And I hope everyone shows up."


O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.


"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhht. You're retarded. The reason for a marriage is inheriting property, visiting loved ones in the hospital. Of coooooooooooooouuuuurssseeee.

I'd say something about children and alcohol but again, you make zero sense.

-Rudey
--Zero as in 2-3=0

The lack of a good argument is often signalled by ad hominem attacks.

In point of fact, yes, the reason for getting married is to get those legal and contractual benefits. You don't get married because that gives you access to love one another. You can love people without being married. Marriage is about legal recognition, in the form of benefits. What else is it NOT possible to have without legal marriage? Not love, not children, not happiness, not social acceptance (although that will always vary from person to person regardless of the type of relationship). The only things that are always off limits unless you get legally married are a few legal benefits.

Therefore, the denying of marriage to homosexuals is purely and simply a denying of legal benefits.

QED

Your logic and facts are beyond ridiculous and so is your opening line. godfrey n glad you are officially retarded. I'm very happy that you've deduced that marriage is about "benefits". In fact there are so many benefits it's kinda funny how some people choose to avoid them with all that nasty divorce and deciding the single life is good. Oh those benefits. These irrational people all around us.

-Rudey

Absolutely correct! I found it interesting to notice today that Rosie O'Donnell said she and her partner petitioned for spousal priviledge during her legal actions against the "Rosie Magazine" episode and were denied it because they could not legally marry. As a result, the opposing litigant had full access to Rosie's partner, Kelly Carpenter, and all correspondence and private communications that would normally be excluded in a "married" couple....all because they are a homosexual couple. Where is the fairness and equitable status for all in the legal system with that happening? Because they are gay, they are required to do what a "normal married couple" does not have to do.

Ugh.

They are not fighting for civil unions with "privileges", this is marriage. It is not just about legalities.

-Rudey

You seem to know so very much! Why don't you quantify for us what exactly gay people are fighting so hard to get that we must work so hard to keep away from them?

I'm dying to hear.

P.S. It is really helpful to your argument when you call your opponent retarded. You have no idea how far I've come toward seeing your side of things simply because you have pronounced me officially retarded. You are a TRUE debater, Rudey. Kudos!

No that's right, avoid what I said. You're right. Marriage is all about benefits. Yay. And such a large chunk of the population is just simply plain old dumb because they don't want free benefits. Yay!

-Rudey
--YAAAAAAAAY! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Yeah going to have to say, you sound like, come off as, and generally are just another pseudo-intellectual. It obvious you are trying to sound overly intelligent, which given your posts so far I'd wager you are not in the slightest.

I wasn't going to post on this, but I dont know... I just don't undertand why everyone is so against this.

If two people want to pledge to love one another for the rest of their lives, why shouldn't we let them? In this world of rising divorces, single parenting, and illegitimate children, what is so wrong with allowing two people who are honestly in love to be able to do it?

Gay people aren't going to stop being gay just because the president passes an amendment to outlaw gay marriage. It's not going to change their behavior. There will still be AIDS, so your insurance levels will go up whether they get married or not. It's just going to prevent thousands of people from being able to spend their lives "officially" together - in ALL senses of the word, in terms of legal and spiritual priviledges. While I personally am not attracted to people of my sex, I just think it's mean to discriminate against people who happen to be that way.

I dont know if you all believe that people are born gay or become gay by choice, but I believe that no matter how they got there, they are people. Now if I were a lesbian (which I am not, but if I were), I would hate, HATE, if I was in love with another woman for someone to tell me that no, I couldn't have a real wedding. Every straight person in the free world can disrespect the sancity of marriage by cheating on their spouses and divorcing in a year, if they so choose (or in three days, in the case of our favorite Ms. Spears.)But I can't. Or that if I died, that person couldn't handle my arrangements.

Dont you all remember that story, about the lesbian couple - one woman went into a coma, and her father would not pull the life support DESPITE the fact that her girlfriend of many, many years - life partner, I guess - had instructions that the woman had left saying that in the event of such an occurance, she wanted to be taken off life support. But her father wouldn't allow it, and since her "life partner" is not legally recognized, that woman was left in a coma through a long, drawn out, and very traumatizing trial for all parties.

I see what you're saying, about how some could think this would lead the way for incest, etc. Where should the line be drawn? The line between homosexuality and incest is VERY clear however - homosexuality harms NOTHING (aside from the people who are opposed to it). Incest has serious, often severe genetic consequences. If two closely related people have children, such extremely similar DNA from both parents causes serious defects.

So there's the line. But homosexuals can't even have children, unless they adopt. So why, why can't we just let them have each other and share the happiness of being married?

You don't understand. Some of us do.

I am not scared of homosexuals to be honest with you. I feel as if anyone who attacks them verbally or physically is committing a crime. I don't think it is learned but something you are born with.

But the institution of marriage is not about benefits and privileges. People don't say hey let's get hitched so you can visit me when i'm sick, inherit my money, and get a tax break. In Europe they have certain civil unions even for straight couples that provide these benefits without marriage. I don't believe in that. Coincidentally they're not marriage, but civil unions.

-Rudey

I dont know. Maybe I don't get it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I too believe the institution is about more than benefits and privileges. What I was trying to say is that the institution of marriage, at least I thought, was about loving your life partner, and committing yourselves to each other. Forever.

And I guess that's why I don't understand why so many people oppose this. It's just two people, in love. Lesbians are still women, and I'm sure they, like many, many women in this country and world, grew up thinking about getting married someday, having a wedding, spending your life with the person you love. I personally am looking forward to someday planning my own wedding, having my own celebration of my love for one person, for the rest of my life. And its for that same reason that I don't think I'd be comfortable just having a "civil union" with someone, giving him the legal priviledges in the event that he should need them. I want both. Legal and spiritual. Luckily for me, that person is a male. So I've got the green light on the wedding deal.

Rudey, I agree with you - I think people are born with it. So why should we punish them?? Why can't they share in the joys of being married?

I guess what I'm asking is, if it's not about the benefits of a civil union, or the love for each other, then what is it about? Why are so many homosexual couples rallying around this issue?

That's just it. Marriage and all the incentives for it aren't for "2 people". 2 people a family does not make.

-Rudey

Alright, I'm not sure, but I think I'm with you... so marriage is, at its roots, about a family, right? I can agree with that, in principle.

So should heterosexual couples who don't want to have children not be allowed to marry? My godparents have been married for 27 years, but they decided early that they didn't want to have children, and so my godmother had her tubes tied.

However, they are very much in love, and very much a family... they breed shelties. It's kind of cute. That's just an example, there are lots of married couples out there who aren't families, in the traditional sense of the word, but they're still in love, right?

Should they not be allowed to marry because they don't want to produce offspring? And what about homosexual couples who want to adopt? If they are allowed to adopt a child, can't they be considered a family then?