exactly. So discussion in this thread will be limited to the newspapers' decision, and discussion on gay marriage generally can go elsewhere.

What you wrote isn't an aguement...its demagoguery.

You can be in favor of letting gays(and others like siblings who co-habitate) have all those things you listed and still be opposed to gay marriage. This gay marriage debate isn't so much about gays getting equal rights but rather approval for thier lifestyle.

Gays were on much stronger ground when they argued it was nobodys business what two consenting adults do in private but now they are seeking something which they have no right too....approval from society of their lifestyle. Nobody is entitled to approval and not approving of someones life style doesn't make you a douchebag.

You might as well just lock up this thread then. Its already been derailed to the point It can't be salvaged.

I just opened this thread Stu, so here is your answer. The newspaper is being douchey for this particular opinion. You can be a douche and hold my view of the world, you can be a non-douche and hold different opinions than me. Stop with the hyperbole

How does this tie into the Christian seeking roommate? I assume that if she posted a classified ad that said "Heteros only" that would be some sort of violation of something.

So what is different here? Is the paper allowed to only publish marriages between Christian couples? White couples? Etc.

FWIW, I am completely in favor of the paper being allowed to publish whatever it wants, and for people to use whatever criteria they want in finding a roommate. Just curious what the distinction is by people who support one but not the other.

Straight people are entitled to approval, apparently.

Seriously, we get it. You don't like gays. It's icky, it's perverted, it's weird. Back when you were a kid, as far as you knew nobody was gay. But now they're all over the television and after they beat social conservatives on criminalization of sodomy and civil unions it's just ridiculous that they aren't happy yet.

I mean, it's not that you compromised with them or anything, but DADT and denying them the right to get married are pretty much all you have left. Can't they leave you something? Just a few reminders that they are living their lives in a sinful and disgusting way. But noooo, those ******s keep DEMANDING equality under the law like they were people or something.

Getting approval isn't the same thing as being entitled to it.

Nobody has said the newspaper has to print the announcement. And no, gays aren't even asking for your approval. They want the right to visit their partners in the hospital. They want the couples' tax break. They want go get visas for their spouses that they've married in other countries. They want any of over a hundred other things that married couples get. And they don't want to be regarded as second class citizens. But if you want to sit at home and rant on the internet about how icky it is for a woman to go muffdiving on another woman, that's fine, and no one is going to break into your home and drag you down to the nearest Gay Pride Parade and force you to cheer it on.

Stu,

Its ok, the gays have no interest in putting their penis in you.

Do they not believe that gay marriage is legal in New Hampshire. A marriage in NH is whatever NH law says it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

When did I say anything like this? You are the one putting words in others peoples mouths. Now that I have pointed out your hypocrisy I have a question to ask. Are we going to make this a debate about gay marriage thread? ElliotR said, "So discussion in this thread will be limited to the newspapers' decision, and discussion on gay marriage generally can go elsewhere" are we just ignoring that now? I don't see any sense if responding to you and others if he turns around and just deletes my posts.

There is no discussion to be had about papers.

They are free to print or not print what they want. They are still homophobic douchebags for not printing the announcement of the marriage.

I was curious about that too. I think most papers do not charge for wedding announcements(could be wrong) so there probably isn't a commercial speech like aspect to it.

So are you saying the state can force an individual or newspaper to reckognize anyone elses marriage?

The state can force an individual in certain circumstances. Let's say a gay man is hurt in a car wreck and goes to the hospital. His husband comes to visit, but the nurse denies him admittance because "you're not really married to him." The state will compel that nurse to recognize that marriage.

This New Hampshire paper doesn't like money for some reason.

You're not likely to get your wedding announcement published in the NewYork Times because there are so many weddings in NYC that generally the only folks who get published are well known names. The only thing you are known for is trolling.

What do you mean by recognise?

Because unless you are using a weird definition, yes, yes they can.

Couple: We want married couples insurance
Insurer: You are both men so we do not recognise your marriage
State: Lol, yes you do and you have no other options

Cool story bro. "Lack of space" is clearly not why the paper didn't publish this announcement. They said so themselves.

Stu,

Do you know what a marriage certificate is?

The paper in question:

I would not say the state is forcing the nurse to recognize the husband but rather just forcing her to admit the partner into the ward. Lets say the state made the nurse use the word "husband" instead of "domestic partner" in his or her charting then that would be more along the lines of forcing the nurse to recognise the marriage.

Aah, so yes, you are going to try and use a weird definition of recognise.

Of course they an. If, for example, one of the people involved was an employee of the newspaper. Then the state could force them to grant their insurance plan to their partner.

Obviously they can print or refuse to print whatever type of announcement they want.

So, whaddyaknow? South Park nailed it again! I thought it was perhaps far fetched, but apparently there are people who are happy that gays get "married" so long as they don't call it a marriage. Maybe "butt buddies" will work as an alternative label.