Gay Marriage: Thoughts, Opinions, etc. (legal, lawyer, insurance, government)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

You're allowed to have an opinion and express it. What you are NOT allowed to do is use your religious convictions to make laws against it (or anything else) in this country. I really don't get why that seems so hard for some to understand.

I am not really religious....I dont care what one religion says over the other

the fact is that our species continues due to hetrosexual..not homosexual

if you want to have same sex relationship..by all means go ahead, I have no problem with that
if you want to have bi relations....by all means go ahead, I have no problem with that
go ahead
if you want to have MULTIPLE relationships.... by all means go ahead, I have no problem with that

but you dont need the GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION to love someone, lust someone, or be in a relationship

my opinion is marriages are the problem, in this unequal treatment between hetro/homo/ single people...so get rid of marriage...cut the cancer of a govermnent permissionslip out

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

So did you complain when the definition of marriage was changed to accommodate blacks? Or is your whine fest very selective over what "changing the definition" means?

Non-sequitur. Skin color <> sexual choice.

The 1st Amendment prohibits your religious views from being applied to government action.

So rape, murder, etc should be ok to do? Or do you only complain when it's something you want?

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

That's my point. We don't hate. We have convictions. There is a difference. You guys are the one spouting off hatred of anyone that disagrees.

I answered. Can you comprehend it? Apparently not.

No one is being discriminated against. You have the option to marry. Just as I do. I can't marry a person of the same gender either.

Except that black people had to use a different drinking fountain. Not either/or as you would do. They were also discriminated against based on the color of their skin--not whom they choose to be intimate with.

You fail to make an actual analogy.

The law is blind to the concept of love, actually. It's irrelevant.

Yet...I have the same restriction. The exact same one.

It doesn't though. So this argument is a non-sequitur.

But it does demonstrate that marriages are about more than love.

Honestly, you're like a broken record whining all day long about this. You have yet to actually demonstrate how I can do anything that you can't do, or that you are being denied any rights.

Well said.

The government does not endorse, support, subsidize and encourage marriage because it adores love, fairytale wedding gowns, hospital visitation rights, or even because it favors public ceremonies of love and commitment.

Government is an extension of the people and the society that creates it. It was the people who formed the government, who long ago realized that the future of any society depends solely upon the next generation of children, who are born and raised by the men and women who create them. It was the people who demanded that their government endorse and encourage marriage.

Marriage is the single best institution for raising our children, it gives us our mothers and fathers, and the extended family structure of grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc... A strong family helps to create a strong nation.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

but you dont need the GOVERNMENTS PERMISSION to love someone, lust someone, or be in a relationship

This isn't about government's permission.

This is about the government extending the rights that COME with marriage to all couples or partners.

We can argue all day on whether or not we keep the term as marriage or civil unions or whatever, but the plain fact is, if we extend marriage rights to couple A, but not to couple B, it's discrimination.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro

This isn't about government's permission.

This is about the government extending the rights that COME with marriage to all couples or partners.

We can argue all day on whether or not we keep the term as marriage or civil unions or whatever, but the plain fact is, if we extend marriage rights to couple A, but not to couple B, it's discrimination.

So get married. It's that simple.

It really is. If you want the benefits of marriage...get married.

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

oh ok

marraige is a basic right...so you say...even though the constitution doesnt

Why do so many insist that something has to be listed in the Constitution before it can be considered a right? Do none of you understand the 9th amendment? I always thought it was quite clear.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by Wapasha

Well said.

The government does not endorse, support, subsidize and encourage marriage because it adores love, fairytale wedding gowns, hospital visitation rights, or even because it favors public ceremonies of love and commitment.

Government is an extension of the people and the society that creates it. It was the people who formed the government, who long ago realized that the future of any society depends solely upon the next generation of children, who are born and raised by the men and women who create them. It was the people who demanded that their government endorse and encourage marriage.

Marriage is the single best institution for raising our children, it gives us our mothers and fathers, and the extended family structure of grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc...

Yet children is not a pre-requisite of marriage. Therefore, the ability to procreate is irrelevant to the ability to wed.

In any case, just because you marry those of the same gender, doesn't mean that your parts stop working. You can still have kids. Maybe not with your partner, but there's nothing that says that a gay couple cannot raise a family.

Especially now that it's a proven fact that kids raised by homosexuals are just as balanced and well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexuals.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

Why do so many insist that something has to be listed in the Constitution before it can be considered a right? Do none of you understand the 9th amendment? I always thought it was quite clear.

Why do you and many others insist that you can read into the Constitution that which simply isn't there?

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

So get married. It's that simple.

It really is. If you want the benefits of marriage...get married.

I am married.

And if my wife falls in love with a woman as well as me, then I'd like her to have the ability to wed her as well.

The argument that "we all can get married since there's hetero marriage" is an idiotically intellectually dishonest one.

Take all gender out, and what do we get.

Couple A can get married, but couple B cannot, for the simple reasons that their genitalia are different.

Discrimination.

People can cover their ears, and act like their rosy view of the world where it's not discrimination is correct, but the plain fact is, it's a lie. And nothing they can say will change it.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

You're allowed to have an opinion and express it. What you are NOT allowed to do is use your religious convictions to make laws against it (or anything else) in this country. I really don't get why that seems so hard for some to understand.

That is a cop out, because this is not an argument that should be based upon religion.

If gay men want to be "married" in a private ceremony, let them form a group, and hand out marriage ceremonies. Why do they need my public endorsement and government sponsorship?