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.
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.
Well, many believe that homosexuals are just out for the label "married". This proposal would be a show of good faith. Homosexuals could have the word "marriage" while those heterosexuals who feel the need to distinguish between their unions and same-sex unions could do so by electing "civil unions"
North Carolina in its May Primary will vote for constitutional amendment to ban marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
North Carolina in its May Primary will vote for constitutional amendment to ban marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
Yup pretty sad. And I may be moving there next year
Most of the benefits were put in place to protect children. Since homosexual unions cannot produce offspring they should not be eligible for the same benefits as the biological mother and father of a child
A lot of these, if not all of these, benefits can be extended to people who wish to have legally recognized unions which may or may not be sexual.
Consider for a moment a child being raised by a grandparent because the biological father left and the biological mother is a drug addict or otherwise MIA. If another relative or even concerned friend wanted to help raise that abandoned child, should not the benefits the biological parents would be entitled to be given to the grand parent and his/her friend or relative? Shouldn't they be entitled to the benefits of a married couple raising children?
Of course the traditional marriage contract would be off limits for these individuals as would be all sex. The same restrictions on sex outside the union would have to apply even though the relationship is non-sexual. The reason for this is unintended pregnancies outside the union is destructive to it and the children who are protected by it.
So it's a simple formula. If the relationship is a heterosexual one in which normal vaginal intercourse takes place, it's a marriage. All others, to include heterosexual couples who want one, are civil unions. The same restrictions on heterosexual sex outside marriage would apply to both types of unions since a love child would be destructive to the union in either case.
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.
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Gen 2:24
So it's a simple formula. If the relationship is a heterosexual one in which normal vaginal intercourse takes place, it's a marriage. All others, to include heterosexual couples who want one, are civil unions.
Did you notice the opposition to the TSA "groping" individuals? I would think the "vaginal intercourse" inspectors would not be met very warmly.
I enjoy vaginal intercourse. I also enjoy getting a blow job and ****ing *******. Would I still be eligible for a marriage?
I can see the logic in this. I could probably be swayed if religious marriage had no legal standing and all benefits would be dependent upon filing for a civil union.
This argument has some weight. I think everyone would agree that our most personal relationships, sexual or otherwise, are none of the government's business. I would add one other stipulation. Since so many children are being raised by relatives, one or more adult relatives (typically a grandmother) or even a close friend of the family, the same civil union benefits should be available for people wishing to raise children even though they are not in a sexual relationship. For example, a grandmother and an aunt or even a family friend, regardless of gender, could form a civil union for the purpose of raising children.
Did you notice the opposition to the TSA "groping" individuals? I would think the "vaginal intercourse" inspectors would not be met very warmly.
I enjoy vaginal intercourse. I also enjoy getting a blow job and ****ing *******. Would I still be eligible for a marriage?
Obviously the rule would be one penis and one vagina per marriage. What you do with it after that is your business.
Heterosexuals need a special classification because they not only are able to produce children within the marriage, but they are also able to produce children outside the marriage which has a detrimental effect on the marriage, the children produced within the marriage and those produced outside the marriage. In other words everyone loses when a love child is conceived. Homosexual intercourse has yet to produce a single child, so I see no practical need for the sexual exclusivity marriage requires to be required of non-heterosexuals. Civil unions will work just fine for them.
While the idea certainly SOUNDS fair, the compromise itself ISN'T fair.
The only reason to compromise is to throw cavemen a bone and make them "feel normal", when in reality, the only difference between gay people marrying and straight people marrying is the genetials. Nothing more, nothing less
The gays need to have their own ceremonies. Why this is so hard to accept, I'll never know. Grant the gays the rights that would be afforded under a marriage (hospital visitation, insurance, etc.), but do not call it marriage. There is no reason for the gays to get married. I don't know why we need to cave in to the desires of people with a chemical imbalance. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.
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.
