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.
Normalization is the reason. Gays want to pretend that they are like their parents...after all - all gay people had parents...and all gay people would like to carry on the tradition of family - I really think it must be very difficult for them to fake being like their parents...They have the right to try though.
A piece of paper creates security that heterosexuals get with their civil marriage license. So to your original first post for this thread, all of the above that you mentioned. Without the security of a marriage license, our property together can be taxed upon either of our deaths, yet for a heterosexual couple with a civil marriage license, they do not get taxed. Those 1049 rights, protections and benefits are only granted with that civil marriage license, they do not come with holy matrimony from a church, or domestic partnerships or civil unions, just a federal civil marriage license.
So you would be happy with a contract that provided the benefits of marriage without attaching the word "marriage" to it?
Same exact benefits, just not called "marriage".
Good with that?
Oh, and polygamists and close family members get to marry, but they don't get any legal benefits whatsoever.
They just get to be called "married".
Still OK?
One more thing...the new law would assure that all same-sex unions are treated exactly the same under the law as traditional marriages, but there would be wording in the law that makes clear "marriage" is a union between a member of one sex and one or more members of the opposite sex who may or may not be closely related and that members of the same sex can never be "married".
No.....that is very rare...actually there is no such thing...Much like that stupid term "biological parents"....they are the only REAL mothers and fathers...the rest is artificial unless induced through artificial means. If a father happens to have kids with a woman and supposedly he is gay...I would surmise that he is not THAT gay.
So you would be happy with a contract that provided the benefits of marriage without attaching the word "marriage" to it?
Same exact benefits, just not called "marriage".
Good with that?
Oh, and polygamists and close family members get to marry, but they don't get any legal benefits whatsoever.
They just get to be called "married".
Still OK?
One more thing...the new law would assure that all same-sex unions are treated exactly the same under the law as traditional marriages, but there would be wording in the law that makes clear "marriage" is a union between a member of one sex and one or more members of the opposite sex who may or may not be closely related and that members of the same sex can never be "married".
We good?
The reality is with the divorce rate being what it is...and spousal disposal being almost the norm....and combine that with men marrying men or woman marrying woman...I would safely say that marriage as we know it no longer exists. Frankly I went through life raising four kids and now I have a couple of wonderful grand children....and never formally marrying...I really don't see any real use for the institution other than handing over your true human rights to the state or church...Marriage is a delusion.
No, Bent. Read the Declaration of Independence. Happiness is a right, not a guarantee, that anyone will be happy. The Declaration says happiness is a God given right to everyone. The Declaration was written to declare tyranny, whether coming from government or religion, shall not stand in America.
Faith declares we are all equal in the eyes of God. Our Declaration declares we are all equal in the eyes of our law.
Got it straight now? I can repeat if this is too complicated to wrap your head around the first time. I don't want confusion to make you unhappy, and, after all, if the Declaration of Independence was never written, there would be no Constitution that followed. The Declaration of Independence was the father to the son, the document you claim to revere so much.
Actually banjomike, any self-respecting liberal will tell you that the Declaration of Independence doesn't carry the weight of law, but since we now make up the rules and change them back at will, whatever goes I suppose.
As for that right to happiness, it's actually the right to pursue happiness and there is a right to life and liberty that go along with it, but we know the left has been ignoring those provisions for a long time.
The Declaration of Independence is silent on religion, but you wouldn't know that...
It is the Constitution that addresses the issue of religion, but that is a constraint on Congress and not the church.
Of course liberals have no issues with the state's quasi religious powers that be issuing edicts on social matters and morality provided these dictates are in line with leftist orthodoxy.
Challenges to liberal faith only occur when the will of the people runs counter to their imagined right to have courts make laws the Congress, under the current Constitution, cannot pass.
See what the government does by granting special privileges for certain groups of people?
They do it to gain votes, the first time and then use it over and over to gain more votes and more power. There comes a point where no one wants to pay for it, though.
If one gets it, we all get it.
If one is punished, we all are punished.
I believe that is how it was originally set up to be.
See what the government does by granting special privileges for certain groups of people?
They do it to gain votes, the first time and then use it over and over to gain more votes and more power. There comes a point where no one wants to pay for it, though.
That's all it has ever been about.
The idea that this is an injustice that has to be righted, in the face of much more looming issues, is an inanity and much to the folly of the homosexual voting bloc.
See what the government does by granting special privileges for certain groups of people?
They do it to gain votes, the first time and then use it over and over to gain more votes and more power. There comes a point where no one wants to pay for it, though.
If one gets it, we all get it.
If one is punished, we all are punished.
I believe that is how it was originally set up to be.
You mean those special privileges that you as a hetero receive? Those special privileges? So you admit, you receive special privileges? And how are you being punished if a gay couple marry?
I love this.
"You can't change the definition of marriage!!!!!"
reply "So you think we should go back to women being property?"
"No the OTHER definition!"
"A contract between a man and a his wifes father used as a means of property transfer used to create political alliances and property accumulation?"
"No, the OTHER OTHER, original definition!!!!"
It's no more absurd than suggesting the natives customs be grandfathered in because we tread a common territory.
No, the settlers slaughtered the natives because they wanted to set up their own society. And with new societies comes new norms.
Last edited by ChestRockwell; 03-09-2014 at 01:11 PM..
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.
