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.
Don't get all huffy.
I believe what he's saying is don't call it marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. I agree, but I want you to have a civil union with the person you love, and live happily ever after. Really. It just seems like gays want the extra added bonus of rubbing our noses in it.
This is about civil marriage, not a religious ceremony which has no legal status.
If you think marriage is only a religious institution, then why would you bother to get a civil marriage licence with all the legal protections and benefits attached? Just have the religious ceremony if that is what is important to you.
This shows how norrow minded some people can be: no one is saying they souldn't be allowed legal rights, very few people disapprove of legal unions, we are talking something totally different here. I think you are the one that isn't understanding the laws and how they work...nor are you understanding the word "MARRIAGE" What legal rights are you not being allowed? I can only think of one and it should be changed: that is the right to SS survivorship.
There are over 1400 rights, protections and benefits associated with civil marriage and you can only think of one?
No .... you see people like us as "the enemy" because we stand in the way of another attempt by the losers to loot the public purse, in the name of "equality"; neither religious dogma, nor personal sexual orientation, have anything to do with it.
So you expect gay and lesbian tax paying families to pay for your family, while you would deny them the same rights protections and benefits you are entitled to?
I'm 'fine' with a religious marriage ceremony for straight religious people who are against same sex marriage on 'religious' grounds.
As religious beliefs are so important to them, they can go have a religious marriage ceremony with all the spiritual non-earthly protections and benefits.
Non-religious people and gay and lesbian people can have a secular civil marriage licence with all the 1400 earthly protections and benefits.
I'm 'fine' with a religious marriage ceremony for straight religious people who are against same sex marriage on 'religious' grounds.
As religious beliefs are so important to them, they can go have a religious marriage ceremony with all the spiritual non-earthly protections and benefits.
Non-religious people and gay and lesbian people can have a secular civil marriage licence with all the 1400 earthly protections and benefits.
Isn't that's a great 'compromise'?
Some churches are willing to marry homosexuals already. I don't care about that either, so long as everyone gets what they want. And there is no harm in it dispite what the bible thumpers think.
Don't get all huffy.
I believe what he's saying is don't call it marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. I agree, but I want you to have a civil union with the person you love, and live happily ever after. Really. It just seems like gays want the extra added bonus of rubbing our noses in it.
How 'generous' of you to want him have a 'civil union' and to live 'happily ever after' with his life partner.... as a second class citizen being denied the same rights, protections and benefits you are entitled to just because you were born heterosexual...
Some churches are willing to marry homosexuals already. I don't care about that either, so long as everyone gets what they want. And there is no harm in it dispite what the bible thumpers think.
I know. I was pointing out the pure hypocrisy of those who use their 'religious beliefs' as an excuse to deny others the same secular legal rights, protections and benefits they enjoy.
The legal rights and responsibilities of marriage were created decades ago for heterosexual couples who typically married before age thirty, created children together and stayed married for life.
Sex outside of the marriage is frowned upon because these same heterosexuals can create children with someone not their spouse thereby violating the rights of the faithful spouse to not have to share their marriage partner with anyone else.
Moreover, the children created within a heterosexual marriage have the right to not be abandoned either partly or wholly by a parent who has strayed.
Social security survivor benefits are intended help a family stay together after the early death of a marriage partner.
My brother-in-law died with one child in diapers and another on the way.
My sister needed that additional income to care for her children without their biological father.
This will never happen a homosexual couple, so why should we pretend it could?
Homosexual sex doesn't create children inside or outside of marriage, so why do we need laws to prevent what is already biologically impossible?
Want to feel good about yourself?
Volunteer at a soup kitchen and leave marriage to the people it was intended for.
I sometimes wonder how heterosexuals take "marriage" for granted as if you can get in and out of it like changing your underwear!
Marriage to a gay person is more than just benefits! It's being accepted into a world that doesn't want you. It's a commitment that we have seen our parents, cousins, and friends do yet in many states we aren't allowed to.
Marriage isn't about "biologically" reproducing!
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.
