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.
Did Holder say where this new spending money will come from ?
Out of the GAY Social Security Trust Fund naturally. Gay taxes will go to support only Gay people. We should be able to run up a surplus pretty quick since we won't be propping up straight peoples', childrens' and illegals' benefits/welfare. When the heterosexual systems' funds are going belly-up in 20 years, Americans will be tripping each other to the gay altar.
Ok , put it a different way, forget the boy friends , say I was a straight woman dying and wanted my straight girl friend to get my pension after I'm dead, for that to happen we could just pretend to be gay and marry .
I always try to refer to 'gay' marriage as what it is: same sex or same gender marriage.
We'll never know how many same sex straight couples have married to get health insurance or other benefits available only to spouses. Very few I suppose. Still, there's no straight/gay test, nobody lies on a license application. Hetero female/male couples marry for all sorts of reasons. Why not straight same sexers.
Ok , put it a different way, forget the boy friends , say I was a straight woman dying and wanted my straight girl friend to get my pension after I'm dead, for that to happen we could just pretend to be gay and marry .
You could do the exact same thing with a platonic male friend so that he'd get your pension. I seriously doubt if this happens often, but SS marriage hasn't created some new problem.
You could do the exact same thing with a platonic male friend so that he'd get your pension. I seriously doubt if this happens often, but SS marriage hasn't created some new problem.
We talk about the benefits of marriage but there are also the responsibilities. If you marry someone casually for some benefit, they are also the person that gets rights to pull your plug and gets inheritance rights and if things go bad and you should get divorced you may have to go through some nasty stuff. What if your marriage friend goes into debt, etc. It isn't just getting special rights, it's also taking on responsibilities and risk.
I think marriage and legal partnership should be split. The state part is business, and the other part is religious, ceremonial, or social, whatever the couple wants. That isn't a requirement. The state part has nothing to do with sex or gender, just two consenting adults choosing to be next of kin, with all the legal rights and responsibilities married couples have now. It isn't to be entered lightly because legal marriage can cause you to lose your shirt.
Wrong. Marriage has always been defined between men and women only. Even in non Christian societies, there has never been any country or culture on earth that had such a concept of gay marriage until now.
Even among the ancient Greeks and Romans where homosexuality and bi sexuality was the norm, they still only defined marriage between men and women.
Marriage is an important social institution that I believe was defined by God and natural law. Sure you don't have to be religious to be married, but the concept has always been understood in natural terms of a man and a woman.
However I do not hate gay people, and I don't blame them for marriage problems. Straight people are destroying marriage because of our infidelities and high divorces. Gay marriage is just trying to be the nail in the coffin. But I believe traditional marriage still can come back.
Und up unil the 20th century, no culture ever had television, microwaves, cars, computers, etc. Times change, so get over it.
I don't care what traditions have been. Slavery was a tradition in this country, not allowing women to vote or interracial marriage was tradition. But we, as a country, learned from mistakes and granted rights and yes, have re-defined marriage.
I'm a gay man and I'm MARRIED. I have the documentation to prove it. After 17 years together, my partner and I were able to get MARRIED. We have kids and this adds a level of protection for our family and helps us on taxes and other things. I don't care what other people believe God thinks of my marriage. Our church is just fine with it. And I fail to see any connection between me being married and the destruction of heterosexual marriage. When we were pronounced partners for life, did some happy heterosexual couple have to get a divorce?
We talk about the benefits of marriage but there are also the responsibilities. If you marry someone casually for some benefit, they are also the person that gets rights to pull your plug and gets inheritance rights and if things go bad and you should get divorced you may have to go through some nasty stuff. What if your marriage friend goes into debt, etc. It isn't just getting special rights, it's also taking on responsibilities and risk.
I think marriage and legal partnership should be split. The state part is business, and the other part is religious, ceremonial, or social, whatever the couple wants. That isn't a requirement. The state part has nothing to do with sex or gender, just two consenting adults choosing to be next of kin, with all the legal rights and responsibilities married couples have now. It isn't to be entered lightly because legal marriage can cause you to lose your shirt.
Well, yes, I understand all that. I wouldn't suggest anyone get married just to pass off a pension to someone.
Same-sex marriages have the exact same purpose as straight marriages - joining two families as one new family and offering protection and legal framework for that family. Sex has NOTHING to do with it, though sexual attraction does. After all, how often do we all joke about how sex ends after marriage? Not to mention there are people out there with low sex drives that still crave companionship and family.
I don't presume anything about others' sex lives based on their relationships. Why do you?
And as a straight woman who cannot have biological children but would like to form a family with a man some day, I'm just going to cut you off at the "but they can't have children!" pass.
Protection from what?
Legal framework for what purpose?
A gay man who copulates with another man cannot create a child, so where's the harm?
Is the state in the business of protecting insecure homosexuals from hurt feelings and herpes?
When you marry your future husband, should he be allowed to bed any female he likes?
What about a child he might father out of wedlock while married to you?
According to you, "sex has NOTHING to do with it" and yet it does.
Families are destroyed by heterosexual infidelity.
Children are robbed of their rightful claim to two dedicated parents by an uncommitted heterosexual screwing around on the side.
"I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry."
The purpose of same-sex marriage is to use the power of the state to force an implied equivalence between heterosexuality and homosexuality by bestowing marital legalese on same-sex unions as though gay sex also made babies and needed to be controlled the same way as heterosexual sex.
A gay man who copulates with another man cannot create a child, so where's the harm?
Is the state in the business of protecting insecure homosexuals from hurt feelings and herpes?
When you marry your future husband, should he be allowed to bed any female he likes?
What about a child he might father out of wedlock while married to you?
According to you, "sex has NOTHING to do with it" and yet it does.
Families are destroyed by heterosexual infidelity.
Children are robbed of their rightful claim to two dedicated parents by an uncommitted heterosexual screwing around on the side.
"I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. There are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologized to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry."
The purpose of same-sex marriage is to use the power of the state to force an implied equivalence between heterosexuality and homosexuality by bestowing marital legalese on same-sex unions as though gay sex also made babies and needed to be controlled the same way as heterosexual sex.
How ignorant, there are no limitations in the marriage benefits or the license that says marriage is about children, that is the stupidest reason to ban gays from marrying. That is why your side is losing, they cannot formulate a legitimate reason to ban it. Name one reason why seniors should be allowed marriage, or sterile couples, or couples who do not want kids. The protections afforded by those 1049 federal rights have nothing at all to do with children or reproductions, they are protections for the assets and the union. But what can I expect from a troglodyte but uninformed ignorance.
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.
