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.
Yes. I'd be in favor of civil unions for any same-sex couple that adopts, but until they do adopt, I see no reason for government to get involved.
After all, one million gay men living together is not harmful nor beneficial to the community, so we have no reason to involve government, and sure as hell have no reason to give them government benefits, tax breaks and treat them as a married couple.
I think we've established that civil unions are a watered down, lame sauce version of marriage rights. Seems silly to deny one family the same exact rights as another family.
Considering that allowing same sex marriages does not cause heterosexual marriages to suddenly dissolve, your argument is weak at best.
If you actually wanted to increase the number of children born in the country (and it seems as if you do), don't go after the gays. Instead, prevent women from going to college. Denying women education has proven to be the best way to increase a country's population growth rate.
Those benefits cost something so law makers expect something in return. Giving away the farm to any newly "oppressed" group is the opposite of what's expected in giving away benefits. Imagine the EIC for pets. Pets aren't productive. Pets won't grow up to add to the GDP. Pets don't need diapers and baby food and toys etc so the best the EIC would do if you gave it to people with pets is it would increase the GDP in the pet food industry (maybe the dog waste bag industry if people picked up their pet's crap).
So as you can see once again tax breaks and other benefits aren't free, they require something from you in return and with something like EIC they expect you to spend that money you get back or in some instances get for free.
But the only reason we give a rat's ass if they get married, is because they will most likely have children. The only reason we make people pass a written and practical test, before they get a drivers license, is because we assume they will drive.
That trend is changing.
Folks having children outside of wedlock is very much on the rise
As of 2009, more than half of all children born to women under 30 were born to unmarried women.
Except that now, in the state of North Carolina, this cannot be the case, as Amendment One explicitly states that marriage is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized. A homosexual couple cannot get married in North Carolina, so their union would not have the same rights and privileges as a hetero married couple who have adopted. By that same token, an unmarried hetero couple who've adopted would not have the same rights and privileges as a hetero married couple who have adopted.
So no civil unions in NC either? What about NC laws that allow same-sex couples to adopt children?
100 years ago, voters would have "decided" that lynching blacks was less of a crime than murdering a white person.
The constitution was designed to promote FREEDOM. Not to allow special interest groups to run roughshod over the rights of others so long as more than 50% of them agree to do so.
Prayer in school is still allowed. Forced prayer was removed and the religious right screamed that religious liberties were destroyed.
There are a lot of people whose religious beliefs allow for gay marriage. They are being denied the ability to practice that belief.
That trend is changing.
Folks having children outside of wedlock is very much on the rise
As of 2009, more than half of all children born to women under 30 were born to unmarried women.
Which is bad for the nation.
It may be incidental, but it seems the more people push for gay marriage, and the more some of their proponents trash traditional marriage, the fewer young people who view the importance of marriage.
That trend is changing.
Folks having children outside of wedlock is very much on the rise
As of 2009, more than half of all children born to women under 30 were born to unmarried women.
True. And how's that working out for society? How much better are kids being taken care of and how much better are they taught right and wrong? We've repeatedly been told that there's nothing wrong with single motherhood but every time you look at the statistics of an out of control section of single motherhood like in AA households what do you see?
At some point we need to see or talk about the score to see if we're winning the game or not. That foo-foo every one wins crap is for the birds.
100 years ago, voters would have "decided" that lynching blacks was less of a crime than murdering a white person.
The constitution was designed to promote FREEDOM. Not to allow special interest groups to run roughshod over the rights of others so long as more than 50% of them agree to do so.
Prayer in school is still allowed. Forced prayer was removed and the religious right screamed that religious liberties were destroyed.
There are a lot of people whose religious beliefs allow for gay marriage. They are being denied the ability to practice that belief.
That is not FREEDOM.
So what are you suggesting, that religion play a larger or smaller role in government, and that gay marriage is about bigotry??
Why did you feel the need to be so graphic and crude? you should not have repeated his crudeness.
How could I respond to a comment about sticking penises into butts without being graphic, and why didn't you ask him the same question? I'm not the one who is focused on sex here, LOL. We're all adults (I hope), so if it bothers you I'd suggest not reading.
Those benefits cost something so law makers expect something in return. Giving away the farm to any newly "oppressed" group is the opposite of what's expected in giving away benefits. Imagine the EIC for pets. Pets aren't productive. Pets won't grow up to add to the GDP. Pets don't need diapers and baby food and toys etc so the best the EIC would do if you gave it to people with pets is it would increase the GDP in the pet food industry (maybe the dog waste bag industry if people picked up their pet's crap).
So as you can see once again tax breaks and other benefits aren't free, they require something from you in return and with something like EIC they expect you to spend that money you get back or in some instances get for free.
Oh ok, you have the same views as Wapusha. We've already been through this with her/him, so you might want to review the past 180 pages. Having babies isn't a requirement of heterosexual couples. We don't persecute them for not having kids, and we allow women over 45 to get married. Because homosexual couples can either have their own children (through artificial insemination) or adoption, there is no logical reason that we shouldn't allow them the same marriage benefits that heterosexual couples have.
Since we don't know whether gay couples will raise a family or not, just as we don't know if heterosexual couples will decide to have kids or not, there's no reason to discriminate between the two. If you deny homosexual couples the right to marry because of babymaking ability, then you're going to have to institute mandatory ob/gyn screenings and sperm count tests for heterosexual couples.
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.
you should not have repeated his crudeness.