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.
Everything else you posted is an argument to a point that is irrelevant to the issue.
That is, why should they have to defend the meaning of a word past its meaning across boundaries to which you contest?
You make a single point that is relevant right at the start. They contest because of what they lack in terms of legal recognition. This is what Civil Unions are for, this is what they serve. Everything else is simply attempting to demand conformity to a view.
I have said this is in past discussions like these. While there are some states that it might be an issue, if the homosexual community put even a 1/4 of the effort they do into demanding Marriage be changed to include homosexuals into Civil unions being up to par with the federal/state/civil responsibilities and legal protections that marriage has, this would have been over decades ago.
They chose a battle which lends itself far more to demanding acceptance and thumbing ones nose in the face of those who have rational arguments against their "marriage" position than it does to actually achieving what it claims it wants.
Due to this reason, I personally hope they get nothing. They are devious, narcissistic, and belligerent and they deserve nothing more than society giving them a hard kick in the teeth for their arrogant demands.
This issue is and always has been about complete and submissive acceptance of homosexual practice. Nothing more.
I am a gay man, and if by being gay I am "devious, narcissistic, and belligerent" simply for wanting to be treated equally than so be it. I will continue to be "devious, narcissistic, and belligerent" until such a time.
and the 14th also says EVERYONE should get the sane privileges.....married gets more than unmarried
And most legal adults have the option to change their status from 'single' to 'married' any time they want. Gays and lesbians who wish to marry the partner of their choice, however, do NOT have that option in most of this country. And THAT is what my GLBT friends and I want to change.
And most legal adults have the option to change their status from 'single' to 'married' any time they want. Gays and lesbians who wish to marry the partner of their choice, however, do NOT have that option in most of this country. And THAT is what my GLBT friends and I want to change.
ahh...you said it OPTION
the the point is the 14th amendment states, that EVERYONE should be afforded the same privileges....therefore all marriage BENEFITS should be abolished as they are unconstitutional if some get and some dont get
why should gays get a benefit that a single/divorced/widowed person cant get
the the point is the 14th amendment states, that EVERYONE should be afforded the same privileges....therefore all marriage BENEFITS should be abolished as they are unconstitutional if some get and some dont get
why should gays get a benefit that a single/divorced/widowed person cant get
The question is why should heterosexuals get a benefit that gay people cannot get.
the the point is the 14th amendment states, that EVERYONE should be afforded the same privileges....therefore all marriage BENEFITS should be abolished as they are unconstitutional if some get and some dont get
why should gays get a benefit that a single/divorced/widowed person cant get
They can get it by becoming a married person. I was once single. I subsequently chose to become married. And I was able to marry the sort of person to which I am attracted -- ie, a person of the opposite sex. So it should be for all.
By your logic, government jobs including serving the military violate the Fourteenth Amendment because someone with such a job gets various benefits while someone without such a job does not.
Needless to say, your idea that the government cannot offer any options which, when taken, give varying benefits because this violates the Fourteenth Amendment is, shall we say, a novel one.
Marriage is a legal status that provides protective rights to spouses. People often confuse this with a spiritual matrimony that is granted by a church.
The legal status of marriage should be allowed without regard to race, religion, or gender.
Matrimony within a church should be dictated and controlled by each individual church. A church should not be required to perform any ceremony against their doctrine.
The question is why should heterosexuals get a benefit that gay people cannot get.
they shouldnt
now answer why a 'married' should get a bbenefit that an 'unmarried' cant
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.
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.
