Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-15-2012, 07:29 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,103,566 times
Reputation: 4828

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Singles are not entitled to these benefits.

Are their Fourteenth Amendment rights being denied?
Civil marriage rights are jointly defined rights. They don't make any sense in the context of single people. I've always found it a bit strange that we talk about marriage rights in terms of individuals. They're really rights of couples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-15-2012, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, MD
3,236 posts, read 3,939,231 times
Reputation: 3010
We're much less urbanized than Europe, even lower middle class people can afford a detached house with a yard in many cases. That kind of life where you basically live on your own island insulates you from people different than you and allows ignorance and bigotry to fester. In dying states like Mississippi, there is no influx of new blood or new thought so things remain in the past socially. No one ever learns or evolves. It's no coincidence the stupidest Americans live in largely rural areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 08:20 PM
 
496 posts, read 483,903 times
Reputation: 61
Dictionary definition: ( first of two points:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>


Now, a document is a in fact a formal written representation of not only the nature of the contract or agreement, but most importantly very specific well itemized particulars of the form

Above , note that marriage by definition " is only similar" to that of what is clearly shown to be the given interpretation of marriage in the construction of an agreement creating the spousal organization of comittment.

Therefore, without question the intentional omitting of gender specificities in compliance with word used marriage and what is implied in its full meaning, defies the integrity of a document which has its sole purpose in "describing the particulars"

As long as a society use's the English language, the license without firm well noted explanation describing the arrangement is illegal as a formal contract. (Misrepresentation

Point #2

Without a full and necessary advisory on the form with respects to CDC statistic's and factual evidence,
the governmental source of the proposed agreement is liable for with-holding knowledge with respects to the "indicating calamity" in the assembly of the non-conventional marriage.

An indicating calamity which over the years has caused the lives out of blood transfusions, children and many, many others who do not participate in known disease propagating high risk behavior. Of course science well knows, the M-M activity is responsible in the highest percentage in the reasons why....over 50,000 new case's each yr in US alone and rising. Statistic's...1 in 16 male Blk alive. are expected to contract before life's end.

Last edited by peter-1; 05-15-2012 at 08:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 08:22 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,978,162 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero View Post
Because Separate but Equal was already deemed unconstitutional 50 years ago, and you don't own the word marriage.
Exactly. It's not about equality. It's about the fight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 08:29 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,978,162 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Why so you care, since it has no effect on you? Some gays are religious I suppose, and want a church wedding...Would you find it acceptable to ban marriage for heterosexuals and only allow civil unions?

I believe the separate, but equal thing has been tried before...It didn't work then, and it won't work now...Remember move to the back of the bus?
Equating the Civil Rights movement with gay marriage is ignorant. Not even close to the same thing.

For the record, I would have been fine with a civil union since I'm not religious. But that option isn't available to me since I'm not gay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 08:31 PM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,978,162 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Ryder View Post
Then why can't heterosexuals accept a civil partnership and leave marriage in the church where it belongs?

I am not gay and I'm nether pro-gay nor anti-gay. My only interest in gay civil rights is as it pertains to my own civil rights. If they can be denied a right, so can I. That's one of those slippery slopes I'd rather not explore.

Me and my late wife are/were both atheist yet to enjoy the rights of this mythical civil union I keep hearing about, we were pretty much forced into a religious convention that neither of us supported. Do you have any idea how far religion reaches into the daily lives of everyone in this country whether they like it or not? You think the government is intrusive? The church and the government are joined at the hip with the church in control of the right hand.

So, I ask why we can't simply abolish marriage as a legal institution, as it would be in a truly secular state, and make civil unions the normal legal form and allow those who wish it to have a church wedding so they can be all pure and righteous and all that neato stuff?
I agree 100%. But gays won't have it - they insist civil unions aren't good enough. It has to be marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,545 posts, read 37,145,710 times
Reputation: 14001
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
I agree 100%. But gays won't have it - they insist civil unions aren't good enough. It has to be marriage.
Civil unions will not do, because they do not grant many of the benefits granted by marriage....Take the time to read about those inequities here.. A Primer on Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Defense of Marriage Acts &mdash; Infoplease.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2012, 10:09 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,776,567 times
Reputation: 7020
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
I agree 100%. But gays won't have it - they insist civil unions aren't good enough. It has to be marriage.
Why can't it be marriage? Do you own the word "marriage"? Is it copyrighted? It's not called marriage in any non-English speaking country, but it's the same thing and in some places like the Netherlands applies to equally to gays and straights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2012, 06:50 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,707,917 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
The bible says lots of things are sins...Do you believe eating lobster is sinful, or wearing mixed fabrics? Do you follow gods law to kill anyone you see working on the sabbath?...You are just making a choice to hate the things that YOU don't like, but ignore the dozens of other so called sins in the bible.
Jesus already debunked the "working on the Sabbath" rule. The New Testament counts too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2012, 06:54 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,707,917 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
My lifestyle involves reading lots of fiction, cooking and hosting small dinner parties, swimming and running, skiing, rabidly supporting the Denver Broncos, hiking biking and camping, spending time with my niece (although I haven't been able to do what while I've been out in New York), and argumentation. I didn't realize I'd shared these things about me with you before (except for the last one obviously).
Thats great to know. But... your friends who are pushing for "gay rights" like to portray you as the rainbow waving flamer. They hype up the gayness when it is in their best interest, but downplay it when it comes up in a negative light. You can't have it both ways.
How about we vote for HUMAN RIGHTS?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top