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.
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?
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?
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
Most of the benefits were put in place to protect children. Since homosexual unions cannot produce offspring they should not be eligible to the same benefits as the biological mother and father of a child
So you would support infertile and elderly couples being denied benefits too right?
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.
No, those considerations were made when the benefits were established.
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.
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.
Marriage is not historically a religious institution. Why do Christians hold exclusive rights to something created 10,000 years before Christianity?
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
I thnik the Ops soltuion would allow anyone the same 1400 benefits claimed if they live in the same household. Why give beenfits under laws applied to marriage to one group and not anther.In fact why discrimante as mnay would say aginst people ahvig pets insteqad of children who afterall need support. I would much rather see marriage treated as two single individuals, The let contract determine things like whether a employer wnats to cover the both as part of the contract. In fact income tax reform could actuly solve mnay of the issues by allowig for household members being consider as one.The reason governamnt gave marriage benefits was to promote familyt unit and procreation which was valuable when doen. Its not to benefit one over another without benefit to the nation.Two people livig togther not married jst aprtner would ahve the same benfits under law;but mnay other would dependd on empoyer decisions in contract.
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.
