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.
Those twins are a heck of a lot better off in that family than any self-righteous, uneducated, judgmental conservative household.
How do you know?
How do you know what kind of parents those two guys would be?
You may like NPH as an actor/entertainer (who doesn't?)
but you have no idea what their household would be like, how they'd raise those two babies, etc.
You are assuming that they are all hearts and flowers simply because they're gay.
And you're certainly holding the "self-righteous, judgemental" argument on your own.
I suuport the legal rights, but forceing churchs, temples, mosques ect. to do a same-sex marriage ceremony unwillingly is unfair.
Religious institutions are not forced to perform them, and most gays would never associate with any of those idiotic institutions who would actually turn them away.
In another thread a possible win-win solution to the same-sex debate was proposed.
Many who are against the idea of same-sex marriage feel that way because of the use of the term "marriage". Some feel that same-sex marriage would corrupt the term "marriage" thereby corrupting their own marriages.
Others feel that the homosexual community is rejecting a compromise of calling same-sex unions "civil unions" because it is their 'agenda' to make homosexuality normal and accepted.
The solution put forth in the other thread was to give same-sex unions the same 1400 benefits as heterosexual marriages and allow same-sex unions to use the term "marriage". The proposal would also allow heterosexual unions the 1400 benefits and use of the term "marriage". it would also allow heterosexuals to 'opt-out' of the term "marriage" and, instead, use the term "civil union".
Do you agree that this is a fair compromise and a win-win solution?
There should be no objections to legal unions with equal rights for same sex couples, but "marriage" is between a man and woman. I don't think I could ever change my mind on this one and I consider myself pretty open to equal rights for all.
No they weren't. You're being inconsistent and hypocritical. If benefits were created for the sole purpose of raising kids, then any couple incapable or unwilling to have children should be denied rights.
I'd also like to point out, most of the 1500 benefits, do not directly affect child rearing. Hospital visitation and spousal visas have nothing to do with having kids.
And, gays can have children through surrogates and raise them with their partner.
Exhibit A:
Those twins are a heck of a lot better off in that family than any self-righteous, uneducated, judgmental conservative household.
and that statement is about a biggoted as any I have ever seen. There are uneducated families of gays, there are uneducated poor families or uneducated Democrat, liberal families. as well as many who are judgemental like you. Because one is conservative, or liberal, has nothing to do with education or the ability to be good parents.
No. I prefer it if everyone was in a union if the ceremony was done in the courtroom, and the government would recognize marriage if the ceremony was performed by the church. That's win-win to me and that's how it worked for most of this country's history. Marriage is preserved for us with religious observance, and everyone else that doesn't believe in religion or God or a tree spirit can be in a union and even Christians can sign on to a union if they so wish.
I can see the logic in this. I could probably be swayed if religious marriage had no legal standing and all benefits would be dependant upon filing for a civil union.
I don't know what anyone's issues with this would be ..
If you want to call it a marriage it is, if you want to call it a civil-union then it is that.
No one has ever stated churches should be forced to marry everyone that comes there, if a church chooses to marry or not marry a couple for whatever reason that is fine.
The rise of Christianity produced a profound change in European marriage laws and customs, although this change came about only gradually. The first Christian emperors were more or less content with the traditional Roman law. However, under varying political and religious pressures, they alternately broadened and restricted the divorce regulations. They also repealed older laws which had penalized the unmarried and childless, since the new Christian asceticism favored virginity and sexual abstinence over marriage. In most other respects they resisted change. Marriage and divorce continued to be civil and private matters.
In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church. Compared to Rome, the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe had rather barbaric marriage customs and treated women little better than domestic slaves. In Germanic law, for example, marriage was essentially a business deal between the bridegroom and the bride's father ("sale marriage").
Furthermore, theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments.
It was not until the 12th century that a priest became part of the wedding ceremony, and not until the 13th century that he actually took charge of the proceedings.
The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century rejected the prevailing concept of marriage along with many other Catholic doctrines. Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin. The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace.
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.
