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.
Originally Posted by Langlen hospital visitation, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
This one I keep hearing, but the ONLY individual that can deny a patient a visitor in the hospital is the PATIENT.. Straight or married, if the VISITOR decides you should visit, NO ONE can stop you..
I guess you've never heard of those cases where the patients parents, as legal next of kin, exclude the partner from visitation? And follow that up with going to court to seize the property that the partners acquired together, leaving the partner not only grieving but destitute?
I'm not gay, so if I have this wrong, please (someone of the gay community) correct me.
But, the way I see it is that civil unions are a huge slap in the face. It's like saying "Your not good enough to be recognized by the state of [wherever]." I mean, if we're going to keep the gays from getting married, then I also think there should be some sort of IQ or standardized test that should be completed before any of the "real" married couples have kids so that our country isn't grossly overpopulated with illiterate children. Just sayin'.
That's right - it's akin to a university awarding a graduate a G.E.D. instead of a legitimate college degree because of their sexual orientation.
why do we allow the single people to be discriminated against, by denying them the same bennies as 'married' people
allowing marriage and its bennies is discrimination against single people
Because a married couple is oft considered a "single person" so to speak, so instead of charging them like they were two people, it's one whole.
And then we get into the whole spiel of family, which is often the result of marriage.
Which is what all these benefits go towards.
Which, by the by, can still be applied to single parents.
But the fact of the matter is, this isn't discrimination against single people. Oft times, single people get bigger breaks on taxes than married families. Especially single parents.
It's very hard to describe without disgracing other relationships, but marriage has a social stigma to it. That stigma is one of commitment. While it is true that many people get divorced, it is NOT as easy as merely "breaking up." There is a level of commitment that is recognized by the government when you sign a marriage contract.
Let's say my husband and I were still boyfriend-girlfriend and we decided it was not going to work out. We split our stuff (with or without court help) and we're done with it. Cut, Dry, End of Story.
However, because we are married, this situation can not happen. If we did not have a child, we would need to be separated for 6 months before even seeing a judge. Since we do, we would have to be separated for 12 months. During this period of separation, we would still be married, and therefore not permitted by law to date any other person. Adultery is still a misdemeanor. Only after a period of separation could we see a judge and get the marriage ended. I have a friend who went through a divorce with no kids and it took her 18 months from separation to finalization.
You just don't get that with a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.
But that is NOT what this case is about. This case was to ensure that consenting couples should be allowed to make the plunge into the hell that is marriage. This case was to ensure that if you and your girlfriend or boyfriend decide to make the commitment that marriage is supposed to be, then you should have the right to.
rita, if me and my boyfriend make a commitment, it is between us....not the government
why should you need the government to DICTATE that it will take 18 months to end a relationship, if it needs to end?????
my point is that if 2 people (OF ANY ORINTATION) LOVE EACH OTHER, AND ARE COMMITTED TO EACH OTHER, why should they need permission and a licence from the government
my second point is why should me and my boyfriend BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST and not RECIEVE THE SAME BENNIES as a married couple
my issue is not against gays or anyother group....my issue is the GOVERNMENT DICTATION who I can marry, and what bennies I will get depending on STATUS of married or single
The majority of the people said NO to gay marriage.
Why can one man whether he is gay or straight change that???
That is the question we should be asking.
Many posters have asked this same question and it has been answered dozens of times. Rights provided by the constitution cannot be taken away by a majority vote. I think you might feel differently if the voters had decided to:
1. Ban all private ownership of firearms
2. Ban all forms of religious services, texts and prayer
3. Eliminate the right to a jury trial
4. Abolish the requirement that a warrant is necessary prior to a search
The freedom and liberty of persons whom consider themselves homosexual to marry a man or a woman is not inhibited, so long as they marry a person of the opposite gender.
The very same argument was used in Loving v Virginia more than 40 years ago - "a black man has the very same right to marry as a white man, providing he marry a black woman and the white man marries a white woman." - it was struck down as invalid then and your argument will be struck down again.
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.
