Why are the left so hostile?

I understand that news is fierce these days but I increasingly find its the left, not the far right, who are aggressive. This news article about civil partnerships is a fine example. Why would you divide people and say, we had to suffer so should you. Why divide and say you heterosexuals? I think the left is dividing us more than ever and need to promote equality not just rights and such for minorities like homosexuals.

Other urls found in this thread:

inews.co.uk/opinion/heterosexual-people-cant-get-civil-partnerships-good-now-know-feels-like-not-get-want/
legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The Left believes that they are smart and you are dumb. Your social and political power is undeserved, in their minds, and theyhate you for having it.

They're proving that the slippery slope is quite real.

Give them an inch, they'll ask for a mile.

mostly this.

>black people shouldn't tell us how bad white people are
their logic

Why are republicans the only ones allowed to be assholes?

I hate Trump for specific reasons:
1) He doesn't respect US sovereignty itself or the integrity of the democratic process

2) He does not understand common man problems. Everyone got infuriated at Hillary for just giving a speech at Goldman Sachs, while Trump puts up the fucking CEO to run Americas wallet.

3) He is scientifically illiterate, from climate change to vaccines. Its not like he's a vaccine denier because he knows a lot about biochemistry, virology, public health policy, of preventable maintenance, he's just a fucking idiot

kill yourself

another factor is confirmation bias

they *want* to be right, so they invent logic that proves they are right.

>campaign for marriage when you already have civil partnerships because "muh oppression marriage is what we need and is so much better"
>get marriage
>Discover marriage isn't as good as civil partnerships
>omg this is straight people's fault

kill yourself

They're virtue signalling. Really it's all about the money.

this

The left view themselves as intellectuals despite having a C average in their gender studies degree and the only book they have ever read is Harry fucking Potter.

kill yourself

Note here that "civil partnerships" are legally identical to marriage; the only difference between the two is that one is purely a legal construct while the other refers to a millennia-old tradition reserved almost exclusively for one man and one woman for the purpose of starting a family and protecting and raising their offspring.

If you think this is about homosexuals getting equal treatment then you're missing the big picture.

Kill yourself.

their is literally no difference between marriage and civil partnership bar religon

Religon doesn't want to marry gays, so we have a legal term(civil partnership) so that gay couples can have all the rights of the married.

Why would they care if it's literally the same rights?

Only people who don't respect the integrity of the US elections are the left and all their bratty chimpout behaviors since. Nice projection, there.

Except you don't receive the same legal rights with a civill union.

As a fag, sorry but it's called for here, I totally agree. Gay marriage is just another way to flaunt how virtuous one is for the sake of polilitical posturing. Shit sucks.

Why can't you fags ever link the fucking article?

inews.co.uk/opinion/heterosexual-people-cant-get-civil-partnerships-good-now-know-feels-like-not-get-want/

stupid fucks

commit suwako (sp?)

why don't they change the laws so they do?

instead of forcing a religious ceremony to accommodate every mental illness?

It is virtue signaling superiority

Most of us are just concerned about survival at this point. That is why many supported Trump, they were scared that their country was falling apart and that things were becoming unstable and less safe. Trump offered them an answer compared to other politicians, hence why they chose him.

Left doesn't see that a country cannot stand without stable citizens with jobs whose taxes will maintain the system.

They are obsessive control freaks. I'm convinced the lefts porn of choice right now is Donald trump porn. They can't get over the man

It's also not true. Most gays wanted the discrepancy in pension entitlement changed and were otherwise happy with civil partnership.
Everyone I knew who had a civil partnership called it a wedding anyway.

Very few gays wanted to ape straight people. I'm not sure what Cameron's driving force for this was. It didn't get him any gay votes either.

Obviously (((their))) plan.

Why do homo couples deserve the same perks as a heterosexual couple? Heterosexuals are actually able to biologically create another human, who will be ready to pay taxes in 18 short years. Homo couples cannot do this.

want real redpills instead of fake Sup Forums and slide threads with no content?

>'The left' is one person.
Of course you're going to think that. You're on a board which is basically a right-wing circle jerk at this point; you're already coming in with a bias. Fuck off.

100% accurate. (Former Bernout with almost all leftist friends here, so I know what I'm talking about.)

It's almost sad to watch them constantly own themselves, but they're WAYYYYY too far up their own asses to do anything else.

The left as in many left articles, news outlets, people, I have many many different left sources. They aren't one person but that doesn't stop everyone saying if you voted Brexit you must be racist. It doesn't stop saying if you voted for Trump you must be too. It goes both ways

It's true, every leftist I know is a unique, precious snowflake, and yet the characterization applies to all of them!

>

in spite of all the changes, and your little alt right echo chamber, its the racial, ethnic, religious, sexual and gender minorities who face real discrimination, not pampered white (anglosaxon) men. thats the truth in the real world out there, whatever your twatter tells you.

you have the same victim complex you accuse the left of.

>Why would you divide people and say, we had to suffer so should you.
>so should you.

This article headline does not suggest that the author wants straight people to suffer. Suggesting that it is hypocritical for straight people to tell gay people how great civil partnerships are is not the same thing as saying "we had to suffer, so should you."

Why give them the right to marry? At least they would shut up with the other solution.

It's a compromise.

I mean gassing them would be the best solution.

Kys

I wish the whole gay marriage debate drove people to do some serious critical thinking about why the government should be involved in marriage (it shouldn't) but of course it all just boils down to "republicans are evil and hate gays"

Not only can homo couples biologically create another human through a surrogate mother, but they can also adopt children who are given up at birth.

>fought hard
Didnt the SC just invent a law? How does that equal "working hard"? They couldn't get any one state to pass it (including California), and they couldn't pass it through legislation, so the liberal SC just invented a law (which is outside of their powers btw). I hope the fags realize that gay marriage will be outlawed very soon.

Every marriage straight or gay involves a government certification. The reason has to do with shared taxes.

>your little
>you have
Hello, ShareBlue.

What I don't get is how they feel proud of forcing Christianity to adopt a new practise that is a sin in the bible.
The separation of church and state is quite important in a free society and getting the state to force the church to act in a certain way is questionable.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the notion of gay marriage being legal but the church should be able to decide according to their doctrine unless they are genuinely threatening the fabric of society.

I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying it shouldn't

If a married couple receives some sort of government sponsored economic benefit that two single individuals don't, then single people are subsidizing married people.

Not fair.

That's actually a fair point. It doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage though. And I think most couples would fight hard to maintain their economic benefit. Especially parents in this economy. Trying to change that though seems like an uphill battle whose effort might not be worth the reward.

The Supreme Court's decision throwing out civil bans on gay marriages doesn't actually change how individual churches operate. It just allows gay marriages to be officially recognized from a legal and tax perspective. Churches can still decide not to officiate gay weddings if they really don't want to. For example, the Mormon church still insists on not officiating gay weddings, and it's perfectly legal for them to exercise that choice.

Are you able to think in any frame besides the oppression olympics? I can't even tell what you think you're responding to.

>Churches can still decide not to officiate gay weddings if they really don't want to

Thats where fags and lefties get buttblasted. They are trying to make it illegal to do that.

>virtue signalling
There isn't even any virtue there. It is just petty, tit-for-tat and outright hatred of the people who tried to helped them out.

I'm confused. I thought marriage was not recognized in the eyes of the law, and that's it's a religious ceremony only, because religion and state are separate in our society. Marriages of all types still need to apply for civil partnerships in order for government recognition.

>They are trying to make it illegal to do that.

Is there some sort of pending bill in Congress that suggests that there's an active effort to make that happen?

Personally I feel like if a church doesn't want to marry you, go to a different church. Or better yet, don't go to a church at all to get married.

The whole point of the original Supreme Court decision was to provide options where there are none. I doubt any laws will come anywhere near fruition or suggestion that would make it a crime for a church to not marry a couple.

I don't know of any active effort to spearhead that on the left.

What's the difference between marriage and civil union anyway? Is it just a rhetoric thing? Calling it a marriage isn't going to make fundie christians accept it any faster.

Some municipal courts are allowed to perform non-religious wedding ceremonies under state-specific laws.

legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html

"Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses. Marriage for same-sex couples became legal in 2015, meaning that it is now an option for most couples."

"A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections, such as tax breaks and social security benefits, are unavailable to the civilly united. Civil unions are currently only available in Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Colorado. They are also recognized in Vermont."

"A domestic partnership is another legal status that gives some of the rights of marriage. Many states have made domestic partnerships available to certain groups of people. Usually, domestic partnerships allow couples to enjoy a list of rights and responsibilities that are limited compared to those granted to couples in a marriage."

What about heterosexual marriages that don't want or can't have kids? They still get all the perks of being married. Why not just allow the faggots to be happy and give them the same rights as everybody else

Since the original economic benefits were a way to encourage children, maybe we should move it to families. That is you (a) get married (b) make baby (c) apply for tax exemptions/relief, in that order, couples that separate lose tax exemptions, encouraging them to try and make it work, just a little bit.

This narrative simply doesn't work

Another good example is this Bono/Mike Pence story. The left wants to destroy Bono for being gracious to thank Pence for his work on AIDS because Pence had a AIDS outbreak he accidentally caused in Indiana.

If you read the story though the outbreak was caused by shared needles, Pence thought it would be a good idea to save money by not providing fresh needles for addicts. It ended up being a grave mistake.

The actual story though is that after Pence saw that he made a mistake he and the other Indiana politicians made a program that solved the problem and dramatically reduced the cases of AIDS in Indiana.

So its actually a positive story of someone looking for redemption and Bono decided to recognize that.

The left would rather see people burned at the proverbial stake and left for dead rather than show forgiveness and be happy about the achievement of reducing AIDS. A mistake is legit worth never trusting someone forever.

This must be why they like Islam so much, it doesn't teach forgiveness.

That's a pretty stupid mistake though, as I don't think needle sharing is ever condoned in medical practice.

Nobody in their right mind believes they will not come after churches. We know they will. No other reason to use the word marriage.

You could have just improved civil unions. There was no reason to call it marriage. Or you could have invented something entirely new.

The left got too greedy. Had they stopped at homo marriage and given the public a generation or so to settle (much like abortion has needed time to settle), then the right wouldn't be so energized about this topic. But noooooo the left wanted more shekels so they pushed other issues like pedophilia and sex changes on children.