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.
The bible trumps anything in my view, God's word. By the way the bible it is a Catholic book. Bible first, constitution second. Many agree with this, not just me.
The majority of the Bible is a Jewish book. The Tanakh is larger than the New Testament, and existed long before the Catholic Church got involved.
And there are tons of things in the Bible you ignore.
Ok so as long as two people live together they can get married, and the protection is not for marriage as we know in the 1st meaning of the word but a joint sharing of a dwelling. What about renters, can a landlord and a renter keep from being discriminated against just because of a financial agreement...and what about two brothers going to college, or a son or daughter moved back home, can they get married too..?
Clearly showing that if the SSM is brought forward, and protection is awarded then it would also be necessary to include every possible agreement living under one roof to avoid discrimination....now unfortunately if you or the law agrees to this...the person who lives alone is clearly being discriminated against, a marked penalty for living alone...discrimination is unacceptable.
You are really reaching too far. Just because two assenting adults of the same sex want to be legally married does not mean that two brothers, sisters or a tenant and landlord will too. Heterosexual marriage has not caused that to encur. We just want the same legal rights to marriage that hets get. Why do you all who are against us from marrying bring up rediculous reasons like these? Banning us marriage because you are afraid it will enduce other forms of marriage is pure paranoia. As it is a single person still has the right to marry, it is not barred. Slip down that slope, but it will not be because we gays want marriage, we are not fighting for your fantasies of what could happen, it is you straight folk that bring it up. Same with sex with animals. it is you guys that bring it up. We want the same legal union you take for granted, the same legal rights, the same protections and benefits that we deserve as tax paying US citizens of this "free" country, not more, not less. If discrimination is unacceptable, then why keep discriminating against us gay people?
people are so emotional these days you can rarely find a discussion without all the you this, you that...hmm
The problem is that by allowing benefits for gays by going down and filling out a form, which is all it is....the benefits are no longer benefits because all are included except the discrimination against those who live alone. If a person lives alone or with a brother or sister....the overwhelming majority become privileged a consequence leaving a penalty. A Penalty is discrimination.
People who live alone or with bro or sis...don't deserve to be penalized, and will not due . ( BTW...I could care less what gay people do or apply for...the problem is they think, they are in keeping with fairness, not so. The gay movement in this direction causes a very good deal of discrimination, no doubt about it, money is money. Either the benefit is representing effort in example toward human flourish in the male-female promise...or its something else away from its original purpose.
people are so emotional these days you can rarely find a discussion without all the you this, you that...hmm
The problem is that by allowing benefits for gays by going down and filling out a form, which is all it is....the benefits are no longer benefits because all are included except the discrimination against those who live alone. If a person lives alone or with a brother or sister....the overwhelming majority become privileged a consequence leaving a penalty. A Penalty is discrimination.
People who live alone or with bro or sis...don't deserve to be penalized, and will not due . ( BTW...I could care less what gay people do or apply for...the problem is they think, they are in keeping with fairness, not so. The gay movement in this direction causes a very good deal of discrimination, no doubt about it, money is money. Either the benefit is representing effort in example toward human flourish in the male-female promise...or its something else away from its original purpose.
Then why should straight people get 1049 rights and benefits with their secular marriage license, We do not want those benefits just because. We want the same right to marry and the rights that go with them. Single people have that option already so they are not being discriminated against. But we are being discriminated against, even when we can get married in the states that allow it, we are being denied the same rights. Being married in the church does not get those rights and benefits, only federally sanctioned secular marriage does. The beneftis are still there, they wont dissappear because we get married. So it seems like you think discriminating against us is fine, just don't discriminate against you straight people. That is discrimination directly affecting us gay people. If my partner should die and we are now legally married, I would probably lose our house and most of our property due to unfair taxation. If a straight persons spouse were to die, they do not encur that tax. We deserve to be treated fair and equally, not separately of you straight people. What original purpose are the benefits for then in your view? It certainly is not about children, because old and sterile and non producing straight people are allowed marriage and the 1049 rights and benefits. WE WANT EQUAL RIGHTS, NOT SEPARATE RIGHTS
people are so emotional these days you can rarely find a discussion without all the you this, you that...hmm
The problem is that by allowing benefits for gays by going down and filling out a form, which is all it is....the benefits are no longer benefits because all are included except the discrimination against those who live alone. If a person lives alone or with a brother or sister....the overwhelming majority become privileged a consequence leaving a penalty. A Penalty is discrimination.
People who live alone or with bro or sis...don't deserve to be penalized, and will not due . ( BTW...I could care less what gay people do or apply for...the problem is they think, they are in keeping with fairness, not so. The gay movement in this direction causes a very good deal of discrimination, no doubt about it, money is money. Either the benefit is representing effort in example toward human flourish in the male-female promise...or its something else away from its original purpose.
A heterosexual single person can go get married to the person that they choose. There is no discrimination.
A homosexual single person can not go get married to the person that they choose. That is discrimination.
If you have issues with the restrictions on sibling marriage, then that is another issue, and would have to stand in court based on it's own merits.
You do realize that marriage makes TWO people ONE legal entity? Why would a SINGLE person need to become ONE legal entity, they already are.
A single person can already make medical decisions for themselves.
A single person can already visit themselves in the hospital.
A single person already gets their SS benefits.
A single person can not be forced to testify in court against themselves.
A single person already can be covered under their insurance plan.
A single person can share income with themselves.
A single military person has the ability to shop on base, use base hospitals, and gets housing.
What legal benefits that marriage provides even applies to a single person?
So you agree that some people are being penalized.
It looks like there are allot of good questions and Ive been on the phone working. So...the reality is that once the benefits become available for reasons away from the original purpose, individuals "become" discriminated against by what can then become nothing more then a penalty.
The origin and purpose of the benefit would be in a recognition toward interest and effort in, "example and outcome toward human flourish in the male-female promise"... A perseverance as all relationships would be, in the source for humanity itself which includes its important social example.
Otherwise we will need to know what the benefit represents for any argument against leaving things as intended.
It looks like there are allot of good questions and Ive been on the phone working. So...the reality is that once the benefits become available for reasons away from the original purpose, individuals "become" discriminated against by what can then become nothing more then a penalty.
The origin and purpose of the benefit would be in a recognition toward interest and effort in, "example and outcome toward human flourish in the male-female promise"... A perseverance as all relationships would be, in the source for humanity itself which includes its important social example.
Otherwise we will need to know what the benefit represents for any argument against leaving things as intended.
Here is your answer, the benefits are for the protection of the assets and value of the couple. They are not about the progeny any more, they never were. If that were the situation, then only couples that are legally married and having kids would get the 1049 rights and benefits. But that is not the case, senior citizens, sterile people and those that opt to not reproduce get the same exact 1049 rights and benefits, no less, no more. There are many gay couples that are raising children and they are not getting those 1049 rights, benefits and protections. No matter how it is spelled out, it is couples legally married that get those rights. Single people are not a couple, if they want to be, that is their option, then they get those 1049 rights. Open your mind beyond the conception of children, they are not the sole reason for marriage and many people have kids without being married. Again WE ARE US CITIZENS TOO, WE PAY TAXES TOO, WE HAVE CHILDREN TOO, WE DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS TOO, WE ARE HUMANS TOO. SEPARATE IS NEVER EQUAL!!
It looks like there are allot of good questions and Ive been on the phone working. So...the reality is that once the benefits become available for reasons away from the original purpose, individuals "become" discriminated against by what can then become nothing more then a penalty.
The origin and purpose of the benefit would be in a recognition toward interest and effort in, "example and outcome toward human flourish in the male-female promise"... A perseverance as all relationships would be, in the source for humanity itself which includes its important social example.
Otherwise we will need to know what the benefit represents for any argument against leaving things as intended.
Can you show me one state law from any time in our history, that has required reproduction for a couple to be legally married?
And on the legal issue, you are wrong. The state has to show compelling state interest to DENY people rights. That is how the law works in this country. So far I haven't heard one.
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.
