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.
So no civil unions in NC either? What about NC laws that allow same-sex couples to adopt children?
No civil unions either.
The amendment (as per the topic) states clearly that marriage is the only domestic legal union. It also limits marriage to one man and one woman.
Sure, same-sex couples can adopt children, but they cannot receive all of the protections, privileges, etc of being parents together. The same goes for unwed hetero couples.
This amendment removes benefits/protections/etc from all couples who are not married.
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.
You don't see heterosexual couples getting tax breaks for kids when they don't have any do you?
Look, I don't care about the way the system is currently structured. I'm "persecuted" as a single white male with I children every time April 15th CDs around. I pay for the fact that married couples with children get nearly all of their taxes back (and many times they get more than they even paid).
I'm simply pointing out why it's structured as it is. Just like with abortion I changed my opinion and currently don't care if people are willingly taking themselves out of the gene pool for whatever reason theyve chosen. More power to them.
If a gay couple do adopt children, then I'm all in favor of them getting a government endorsed civil union, because now they are taking part in raising the next generation of citizens.
The procreation argument is that men and women will make babies if they have sex, so we want sexually active adults to get married. Even if the couple are not planning on making a baby, they still can, and will.
If one million gay male couples live together for a few months or a few years, fall out of love and split up, they have no negative impact on the nation. So we don't have any reason to wish they get married.
If one million couples of men and women live together for a few months or a few years, fall out of love and split up, they have a negative impact on the nation, because of the bastard children they created. So we do have a real concern that they get married and stay married.
It's cute how you say "we don't have any reason for them to get married," as though your (or anyone but their) opinion actually matters. Clearly their reason for wanting to marry goes way beyond raising children, and it's already been pointed out numerous times how many rights & benefits come with marriage - which are NOT equal to those gained from a civil union or domestic partnership. This isn't about making babies or having some personal affirmation, or these very same arguments could & should be used against many straight couples seeking to marry. As un-romantic as it might sound, the primary reason most gay couples want to legally marry has more to do with these benefits.
The amendment (as per the topic) states clearly that marriage is the only domestic legal union. It also limits marriage to one man and one woman.
Sure, same-sex couples can adopt children, but they cannot receive all of the protections, privileges, etc of being parents together. The same goes for unwed hetero couples.
This amendment removes benefits/protections/etc from all couples who are not married.
That is ignorant, to allow people to adopt, and then hamper their ability to best raise that child.
Haha. Oh, so all straight couples are entitled to those rights regardless if they have kids or not, but gay couples only get them once they have children. That seems to me like an unequal double standard based on sexual orientation.
To bring your proposal into the real world, should I be murdered, my husband should only be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the murders if we had adopted children? However, straight widows should be able to file such lawsuits regardless of whether they have children or not. Is that about right?
Also, the wife of a military man should be able to shop at the base commissary and PX regardless of whether they have children or not, but the husband of a military man should only be able to shop at the base commissary and PX if they have children? Is that about right?
Then what is your primary opposition against gay marriage?
The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Same sex couples don't meet that definition. I support civil unions for gay persons - not marriage.
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.
Then you also support denying marriage contracts to straight couples who cannot or don't want to have children, right? I mean, if they don't need the tax breaks and so forth there's no reason for them to marry either... according to your logic, at least.
How about they want to marry, and should have that right - just like any childless or infertile straight couple does? And as I'm sure you've already been told (but choose to ignore), there are non-child-related benefits that come with marriage. For example the right to visit your spouse in the ER, the right to use their veteran benefits, to inherit property/assets without hiring expensive contract lawyers, immigration rights, tuition breaks, etc. Is that enough, or should I post a comprehensive list?
The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Same sex couples don't meet that definition. I support civil unions for gay persons - not marriage.
Which is not a good reason to oppose homosexual marriage, due to the fact that language is fluid and changes over time.
Not to mention many other countries defy that definition.
If I marry a military member here in New York, I'd like to be able to shop at the base commissary and PX like the spouse of a straight military member can. I'd be denied that right based on my sexuality.
No you are not - you are denied that privelege because you are not married to a member of the military. No one is preventing you from getting married.
The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Same sex couples don't meet that definition. I support civil unions for gay persons - not marriage.
That is your definition, and maybe your church's definition... but any modern dictionary would disagree, as would a good number of churches/temples and state governments. But I guess you know more than Merriam-Webster, other houses of worship, and all of those states which don't define marriage as such.
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.
