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.
Countless gay couples who have married have already joined the ranks of the divorced--complete with property and custody battles. Just this week a gay couple who married in Vermont and later moved to Nebraska tried to get a divorce here in Nebraska. They couldn't divorce because Nebraska doesn't recognize marriage between same-sex couples. The judge told them they would have to establish residency in a state that not only recognizes their marriage but one that will also grant them a divorce. Would have been much cheaper to never have gotten married in the first place.
And thus a term once consigned to the dust bin of history--"gay divorcee"--has been resurrected.
When someone uses the term "countless" it means they have no actual data to back up their hyperbole.
There IS however, data about heterosexual divorce. Around 60% apparently.
From the looks of things in regards to homosexual marriage, as more societies evolve and remove illogical discriminations, same-sex marriage will become legalized in more and more places
Society throughout the world recognizes man woman marriage and if homosexual “marriage” was as wanted as you would like for it to be, then why do we not have it everywhere by now? Worldwide society rejects the notion of homosexual “marriage”. Perhaps the homosexual radicals believe they will be able to bend less politically correct places like China, Russia, the Middle East, etc. to their will. Not likely, but good luck with that anyway because you’re going to need it.
What is this "worldwide society" that you speak of?
I was kind of wondering the same thing. I could point to several different versions of 'society' just within the city limits of Las Vegas and across just this country, much less worldwide.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
Legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to ALL non-traditional marriages--not just close relative marriages--including polygamy, polyandry and group marriage. Many people are opposed to gay marriage on this basis and not because they have an anti-gay bias.
Your argument is akin to the one saying legalizing marijuana would lead to the legalization of all drugs. Why is there any reason to believe in either case that each item shouldn't/wouldn't be judged on its own individual merits?
Also, the protection of civil unions is not available in most states, Same Sex Marriage, therefore having the ability to marry would eliminate the need for lengthy paperwork for individual protections affrorded to all married couples with one contract of marriage.Things married couples take for granted (assumption of spouse’s pension, automatic inheritance, bereavement leave, child custody, divorce protections, exemption from property tax on partner’s death, immunity from testifying against spouse, insurance breaks, joint adoption and foster care, joint parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records), medical decisions on behalf of partner, property rights, reduced rate memberships, visitation of partner in hospital) are what I think most gay couples are looking for when talking about recognizing same-sex marriage.
I don't think that they are invovled in a conspriacy to water down marriage, destroy the moral fabric of the country, or get people to sleep with their pets. I think it is more likely that they worry about things like being hospitalized and having a homophobic mom who hasn't spoken to them in years making medical decisions. Not being able legally co-parent a child of their partner. Not receiving medical benefits or not qualifying for joint insurance. Not even getting a break on car insurance.
I don't think that heterosexuals have been the bastions of morality when it comes to marriage and that recognizing the right of homosexuals to marry will destroy the institution. I was married once and I did it to be legally recognized as a partner of another person. It didn't change the lives or marriage of any one person on this form. My divorce went unnoticed by millions; just as my marriage had. Will Nancy and Sara getting married change your marriage? Will Bill and Mark walking down the aisle destroy America? Rachel having access to Laura's health insurance after taking the plunge is fine by me, it's really none of my business. L'chaim! And best of luck.
Society throughout the world recognizes man woman marriage and if homosexual “marriage” was as wanted as you would like for it to be, then why do we not have it everywhere by now? Worldwide society rejects the notion of homosexual “marriage”. Perhaps the homosexual radicals believe they will be able to bend less politically correct places like China, Russia, the Middle East, etc. to their will. Not likely, but good luck with that anyway because you’re going to need it.
YOu do realize that many countries world-wide do have homosexual marriage?
YOu do realize that many countries world-wide do have homosexual marriage?
I would venture that if he had realized that, or the implications of the 14th amendment... he probably would not have said what he did.
As I have said before... bottom line is simply equal rights regardless of the composition of a union so long as said union is within legal allowance. Deciding the values of A and B for union X is imposing and restricting... an exclusive action which is technically speaking unconstitutional according to aforementioned amendment.
Many people have said that gays should be allowed to be marry since as consenting adults who love each other they should have the same equal rights as heterosexual couples.
But with that logic, then shouldn't other non-traditional couples also be allowed to marry as well?
...
Yes and no. As long as the participants are consenting adults who want to get married, I can think of no rationale to justify my interference. However, in regards to reproduction, I recognize that there may be sound medical reasons why the marriage between closely related individuals would have to be regulated (or outright prohibited).
[I'm ignoring for a moment how uncommon and unlikely there is an occurrence of such relationships]
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.
