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.
What I do believe should also be unconstitutional though and probably is already, is that states should not have the right to force any religious institution to recognize marriages they do not wish to recognize if Govt's demands violate the religious group's religion, provided they are a religious institution because this would violate the freedom of religion clause of the first amendment.
That very same first amendment though, protects the right of non-religious or other religious groups to have equal protection under the state and also legal tax marital rights even if not associated with any religious entity because of the freedom FROM religion also expressed in the same 1st amendment.
Exactly! And that is true of heterosexual marriage as well. No one needs paper from the city hall to love someone and care for them if the need arises. The government has no reason to be abutting a religious ceremony like marriage to any union no matter the sexes involved.
What saddens me is that extraordinary homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc. & etc. thinkers and doers attained something truly wonderful: Freeing people, especially women, from the bonds of forced matrimony in order to be considered 'complete' and sane. This was a glorious thing to achieve!
Now, in dazzling ignorance, these same folk now want to take a backward step in social evolution simply to feel 'valid'. The legal needs can be gotten, have been given and will continue to be given. What reason is there to want a continuance of a tradition that has died? On this I can see why traditionalists are mortified. They want a certain rite that they have enjoyed to remain theirs. Forward-thinking (NO REFERENCE TO MSLSD and that fount of foulness) people don't need such shackles, ought to understand the importance of creating new rules for a new day, not shunting efforts into adopting old, dead ceremonies if all they are given is a patina of being staid and tedious. The legal rights can be gotten w/o the drama of wanting to feel 'traditional'.
So just what is it about opposite sex members and their members involved in a sex act makes it more normal? Sex is not solely about reproduction; it never has been.
Also, the tax code changed the implications of marriage since 1913 so the issues of law are new and don't apply to the days of the 18th century when there was no tax code for filing jointly
Also, the tax code changed the implications of marriage since 1913 so the issues of law are new and don't apply to the days of the 18th century when there was no tax code for filing jointly
Taxes and marriage and breaks on one because two people have entered into a spiritual or emotional union has what to do with anything?
I can totally understand why people would want certain abilities in the event of misfortune and in personal finance and everyday living. The problem is that the corporatists have turned every facet of society into a business deal over the last century. That and people who earnestly desire to live their life w/o causing harm to others have been hoodwinked into asking for something as asinine as this trite form of a business contract to validate their emotional and social well-being, especially thru a rite that has been usurped for business purposes and was to die out anyway in a less constricted society that had seemed to be evolving away from proprietary emotional relations.
Yes Americans are becoming more supportive.This is an international trend and it will continue to grow exponentially as we win more countries.Soon gay marriage will be regarded the same as interracial marriage.
Also to all the homophobes commenting based on some crappy perceived heterosexual privilege.Get over yourselves.Gay marriage will be a reality nationwide by June 2015 when the Supreme Court strikes down the dehumanising bs laws that banned it for years.Get over it and join the progress of the human civilisation
I think I am rather mainstream. Several of our friend's children are gay. They came out in their twenties and thirties. They were all raised with religion and middle class values, and they are all loved by their parents an siblings. If they could have flipped a switch and been straight they probably would have. All have found partners, some are legally married and some are in legal partnerships.
It is because of my exposure to them, as well as my exposure to many gay couples who came up in the days when they were all forced to live a lie, that I know that we are all entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and life is short. Gay couples should be able to be legally bound, if they wish. I don't know why they insist on calling it marriage, a religious institution, but I don't have a dog in the fight, so I choose to live and let live.
The "pro 'gay marriage' crowd like to claim that Americans are coming around to accept homosexuality and gay "marriage" in the 21st Century (which seems to have for them some almost magical meaning).
No. It's all a labyrinthine conspiracy by pretty much every pollster in the country. Because pollsters aren't interested in having accurate business models, they're interested in falsely claiming that more people support same-sex marriage than really do. Every last pollster... Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PS - How have the votes gone in the last four states that voted on the issue?
Hint #1 - November 2012: those states were Maine (voted to institute a new law allowing same-sex marriage), Maryland (voted to uphold a new law allowing for same-sex marriage), Minnesota (voted not to enact a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages) and Washington (also voted to uphold a new law allowing for same-sex marriage).
Hint #2 - There's a reason that no more Republican-controlled states are putting such measures on the ballot, like Indiana earlier this year, which decided it would be embarrassing to see their version of get-out-the-anti-gay-vote result in their proposed ban being shot down.
PPS - Maybe that guy who was busy 'unskewing' all the polls showing that Obama would win re-election on this case. Remember that? The usual suspects justcouldnotbelieve that Mitt Romney wasn't winning. I'm sure he'd be happy to produce results that you'd like (they'd have no basis in reality, but that doesn't seem to be an issue with the we-ignore-all-the-unpleasant-evidence crowd).
Last edited by Unsettomati; 08-24-2014 at 06:40 PM..
I think I am rather mainstream. Several of our friend's children are gay. They came out in their twenties and thirties. They were all raised with religion and middle class values, and they are all loved by their parents an siblings. If they could have flipped a switch and been straight they probably would have. All have found partners, some are legally married and some are in legal partnerships.
It is because of my exposure to them, as well as my exposure to many gay couples who came up in the days when they were all forced to live a lie, that I know that we are all entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and life is short. Gay couples should be able to be legally bound, if they wish. I don't know why they insist on calling it marriage, a religious institution, but I don't have a dog in the fight, so I choose to live and let live.
Marriage is not just a religious institution, it is primarily a legal issue, that is why couples get a marriage license, for those 1049 federally supported rights and the state rights. A religious marriage/union does not afford a couple any of those rights, not one iota. For legal purposes, marriage is Federal before it is religious. Many couples wed who are not religious or are atheists, my spouse and I got married in the courthouse with zero mention of god or religion.
I think I am rather mainstream. Several of our friend's children are gay. They came out in their twenties and thirties. They were all raised with religion and middle class values, and they are all loved by their parents an siblings. If they could have flipped a switch and been straight they probably would have. All have found partners, some are legally married and some are in legal partnerships.
It is because of my exposure to them, as well as my exposure to many gay couples who came up in the days when they were all forced to live a lie, that I know that we are all entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and life is short. Gay couples should be able to be legally bound, if they wish. I don't know why they insist on calling it marriage, a religious institution, but I don't have a dog in the fight, so I choose to live and let live.
Very well said for the most part. With that being said as far as why they insist on calling it marriage, keep in mind marriage is far more than something that is just religious, and has been for far longer than same-sex couples have had the right to marry. Marriage is a legal matter, not a religious one. When someone gets married they need to get a license through city/town hall county clerk, etc. I grew up in an area that had a large Italian population and fairly large Jewish population as well. There were many marriages in which one person was Catholic, the other was Jewish. Many of whom did not get a religious marriage, they went through the Town Hall to get married. It is the same for those who simply aren't religious, they don't need and have never needed a church sanctioned marriage in order to be legally married.
The legal rights can be gotten w/o the drama of wanting to feel 'traditional'.
Bluntly put, you're wrong here. Many, many states deliberately made sure the legal rights were kept out of reach as well. The narrative that it was all about the word "marriage" and that there was other avenues open to gay couples who just wanted equal rights is a smokescreen covering the bigots' retreat. They never intended to acquiesce in granting equal rights.
Can one be born a homosexual and never perform a homosexual act?
If so, what makes that person a homosexual?
Are you attracted to the same sex or opposite sex regardless if you've had sex or not?
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.
