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.
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?
Two males or two females cannot produce or become one in the natural construction of the species and this is well known to be so true, as the design is not designated to effect in consequence, a demonstrable representing individual legal entity, as in another citizen. The social example in keeping with the continuance of the race because we do not live forever added to the social comprehensions as well individual, of what it means and is needed to be human and survive through generations adds merit to the extra benifit. If this is argued, we will need evidence which supports a rational inference that two men or two women, can become one being. Hetro relationship well shows the oneness in the potential and consequence of another human life representing the achieved one within two. A very clear expression of oneness in the outcome of the relationship.
Last edited by stargazzer; 12-18-2012 at 12:11 PM..
Two males or two females cannot produce or become one in the natural construction of the species and this is well known to be so true, as the design is not designated to effect in consequence, a demonstrable representing individual legal entity, as in another citizen. The social example in keeping with the continuance of the race because we do not live forever added to the social comprehensions as well individual, of what it means and is needed to be human and survive through generations. If this is argued, we will need evidence which supports a rational inference that two men or two women, can become one being. Hetro relationship well shows the oneness in the potential and consequence of another human life representing the achieved one within two. A very clear expression of oneness in the outcome of the relationship.
Reproduction is not a requirement of a civil marriage for anyone.
Besides, my partner and I have 3 children. That is 3 more than some legally married couples.
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!!
Are you telling me that a single working person cannot claim as a dependent a youngster, and that a gay person cannot do same..? Why should a single working parent be penalized because they do not have another adult to live with, thats all it boils down to, a penalty.
As far as protection of asset, why should a single person be penalized if not gay and living with someone where the gay relationship is asking for special considerations, which has nothing to do with the original intent which afforded the consideration to begin with. These complaints are ok, that is to say "changing " the original purpose for an affordable gov extra...but the problem is that once they are in effect, all they do is discriminate against everyone who lives alone or with a brother, older parent or whatever and its not fair.
Two males or two females cannot produce or become one in the natural construction of the species and this is well known to be so true, as the design is not designated to effect in consequence, a demonstrable representing individual legal entity, as in another citizen. The social example in keeping with the continuance of the race because we do not live forever added to the social comprehensions as well individual, of what it means and is needed to be human and survive through generations. If this is argued, we will need evidence which supports a rational inference that two men or two women, can become one being. Hetro relationship well shows the oneness in the potential and consequence of another human life representing the achieved one within two. A very clear expression of oneness in the outcome of the relationship.
What the heck does that have to do with marriage? You do know that people get married for more than reproduction and reporduction occurs without marriage. It is not required to have children for the rights or to get married. And we are not going to go extinct at the rate the human populaton is growing. Your agrument against us getting married does not fly a kite in court. If that were the case, every couple who did not have children would find their marriages nulled and voided by the government if they did not have kids and senior citizens would not be allowed to get married and divorce would be illegal.
Are you telling me that a single working person cannot claim as a dependent a youngster, and that a gay person cannot do same..? Why should a single working parent be penalized because they do not have another adult to live with, thats all it boils down to, a penalty.
As far as protection of asset, why should a single person be penalized if not gay and living with someone where the gay relationship is asking for special considerations, which has nothing to do with the original intent which afforded the consideration to begin with. These complaints are ok, that is to say "changing " the original purpose for an affordable gov extra...but the problem is that once they are in effect, all they do is discriminate against everyone who lives alone or with a brother, older parent or whatever and its not fair.
What special consideration? That we want the same rights? What is special about that? It is straight people getting the special consideration of the 1049 rights, even if they do not have kids. Read and learn about equality. Equality is not based on ones sexual orientation. A single man with a child or a single woman with a child can and do declare the child as a dependant and gets tax breaks for it. You are just fishing for a reason to deny us equal representation and equal treatment under the US constitution. Go fly a kite.
Are you telling me that a single working person cannot claim as a dependent a youngster, and that a gay person cannot do same..? Why should a single working parent be penalized because they do not have another adult to live with, thats all it boils down to, a penalty.
As far as protection of asset, why should a single person be penalized if not gay and living with someone where the gay relationship is asking for special considerations, which has nothing to do with the original intent which afforded the consideration to begin with. These complaints are ok, that is to say "changing " the original purpose for an affordable gov extra...but the problem is that once they are in effect, all they do is discriminate against everyone who lives alone or with a brother, older parent or whatever and its not fair.
A single person can claim their child, or adopted child as a dependent. A single working parent gets the child credit.
Having a child has nothing to do with civil marriage restrictions, or requirements.
When SSM is legal all over, a couple of guys living together will be able to go get married if they wish. There is no "gay" test. You don't even have to have sex for a marriage to be legally binding.
The current laws discriminate, so we shouldn't allow more people to marry since that would be discrimination? Is that seriously your argument?
What the heck does that have to do with marriage? You do know that people get married for more than reproduction and reporduction occurs without marriage. It is not required to have children for the rights or to get married. And we are not going to go extinct at the rate the human populaton is growing. Your agrument against us getting married does not fly a kite in court. If that were the case, every couple who did not have children would find their marriages nulled and voided by the government if they did not have kids and senior citizens would not be allowed to get married and divorce would be illegal.
Who says I'm arguing that gays should not get married..? I'm simply explaining that once they do and get freebies then the benefits are not benefits anymore but penalties for people who live alone or with a few family members or something. Also, I was trying to respond to the post that was quoted and this seems away or general to its content.
I thought someone posted a study on here that disproved children were just fine in gay households.
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.
There is no such study, since it has been proven that kids do as well or better in a same sex family. By the way, my entire family are Catholics and they all support same sex marriage.
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.
