Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,432,243 times
Reputation: 4611
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
Marriage in one form or another has been occurred organically throughout all cultures since the dawn of man. Even cultures with liberal views on homosexuality did not have gay marriage. Well until the liberals of the West found a new pet cause.
Marriages universally were between men and women, not parties of the same sex. So no you are clearly wrong, marriage as currently defined between a man and woman is very natural.
I guess California considers Gay marriage as natural:
As the song goes:
"if your going to San Fransisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair"
ONLY if she entered the country legally, and the USA doesn't recognise gay marriage for the purposes of immigration, sorry.
No marriage[gay or straight] is not recognized "for the purpose" of immigration. The question that will be before the courts is... if the state of New York recognizes same sex marriage, then should the USINS also recognize same sex marriages in sponsorship of a spouse for citizenship?
Actually, no. Most of us in favor of the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment do so because we don't believe in penalizing children for the actions of their parents. And because we see the right-wing cries about "anchor babies", "immigrant leeches on welfare", etc. as the racist, factually unsubstantiated malarkey that it is.
I believe in a re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment moving FORWARD. No children born prior to any amendment should or would be affected. In this day of birthright social services coming along with birthright citizenship (as compared to 1900 or 1800), I see absolutely no negative in removing an incentive to have children on American soil for immigration/benefits purposes. Every child born to a poor person who comes across the border is often tens of thousands per year in education, housing and food and medical assistance that has to be paid by the taxpayers ... I would much rather that money be spent on our OWN poor. Already schools in Florida have to cut back on money spent per student, and I have a more than sneaking suspicion that there is a large percentage of students in many districts that were or are born to illegal "migrants" in the system.
The problem really does effect everyone. Back in immigration's Ellis Island days, it was pretty much, "welcome to America. Go work, live 20 in a 1 bedroom tenement and find your own food".... these days we have to choose: Strong social safety net for Americans, or welcoming teeming hordes of poor and unskilled into the economy. We will NEVER eradicate poverty if the latter is our preference, and those of us concerned with poverty will have to recognize that fact.
Besides, it's not realy a "punishment" to not be born an automatic American citizen! There are very few nations especially south of the border that are absolute destitute countries with no hope or homegrown social services.
it wasnt a wide margin. further, most times the majority will vote against the minority (as was the historical case with desegregation). AND the courts help protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.
your arguments are old and tired.
gay marriage will happen, hopefully bi national couples will be able to be together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
Actually it doesn't the people voted for Prop 8 by a wide margin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.