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.
It was illegal to be gay in several states only until recently.
Marriage, by the way, entitles a spouse to inheritance, hospital rights, tax benefits, and several other issues that aren't nothing.
As one has stated previously none of those rights are etched in stone, and as such can be altered or simply taken away. Long as it applies to "all" married couples then that would be that.
In France for instance children (both bastards and legitimate) inherit over a spouse. In fact since the days of Napoleon a portion of the estate is legally set aside for children. It cannot be sold or otherwise disposed of either. If the wife gets less or nil afterwards, then tough cheddar.
Also in France widow/widower Social Security benefits are means tested. That is a spouse is not automatically entitled to any portion of her or his late husband's or wife's SS. In fact France had gotten shot of spousal SS benefits a few years before, but it was restored under this compromise.
What one is saying is that same sex marriage per se never was nor still is the issue, but the one thousand and some odd benefits federal and local governments attach to that union.
As one has stated previously none of those rights are etched in stone, and as such can be altered or simply taken away. Long as it applies to "all" married couples then that would be that.
No rights are etched in stone. If enough people wished to, we could create a totalitarian fascist government that controls the daily lives of its citizens. Rights exists because people want them too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
In France for instance children (both bastards and legitimate) inherit over a spouse. In fact since the days of Napoleon a portion of the estate is legally set aside for children. It cannot be sold or otherwise disposed of either. If the wife gets less or nil afterwards, then tough cheddar.
That's something that should be reformed, but has no bearing on a discussion in the US, which is not France. The point is there is no logical reason to keep a same-sex partner from the same type of inherent an opposite-gender partner would receive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
Also in France widow/widower Social Security benefits are means tested. That is a spouse is not automatically entitled to any portion of her or his late husband's or wife's SS. In fact France had gotten shot of spousal SS benefits a few years before, but it was restored under this compromise.
I'm pretty sure you're saying rights change from country to country, and you are going to have a hard time convincing me of something I already believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
What one is saying is that same sex marriage per se never was nor still is the issue, but the one thousand and some odd benefits federal and local governments attach to that union.
That's what I've been arguing.
I'm actually not entirely sure if you're post was disagreeing with me, so forgive me if it wasn't.
As one has stated previously none of those rights are etched in stone, and as such can be altered or simply taken away. Long as it applies to "all" married couples then that would be that.
In France for instance children (both bastards and legitimate) inherit over a spouse. In fact since the days of Napoleon a portion of the estate is legally set aside for children. It cannot be sold or otherwise disposed of either. If the wife gets less or nil afterwards, then tough cheddar.
Also in France widow/widower Social Security benefits are means tested. That is a spouse is not automatically entitled to any portion of her or his late husband's or wife's SS. In fact France had gotten shot of spousal SS benefits a few years before, but it was restored under this compromise.
What one is saying is that same sex marriage per se never was nor still is the issue, but the one thousand and some odd benefits federal and local governments attach to that union.
If you want to call 1049 rights, protections and benefits a few odd rights. I do not not call them odd, I call them full marriage rights granted by the US federal government, nothing odd about them.
A lot of them don't care one way or the other either.
If I "don't care" about something, and someone else wants to do it, then it would be childish of me to say that they cannot do it. While homophobes may act like children when driven by their irrationality, true independents tend not to.
Obviously you cherry picked that part and didn't read the entire post . The point was the argument that "if the people would vote there wouldn't be gay marriage" was false, because the people did decide in multiple states.
If this poll was accurate, Romney would have easily won.
Funny how you on one hand say Gallup is inaccurate and on another use them as a source . He was right by the way. He said only about 22 percent of people are against it, and that poll confirms it. Just because people think the access should be less than legal in all circumstances doesn't mean they oppose abortion. Nice try though.
If you aren't gay, then why do you(and other straights) feel so strongly about it? I can understand if you were gay or had a gay family member, but it has no affect on you if gay marriage was illegal(unless you are gay yourself).
Pretty much can go right back at you pal. Why do you even care what other adults do if you aren't gay yourself ?
They can essentially do whatever they want with each other, even without marriage. Its not illegal to be gay. There are countries where you are put in prison for any homosexual activity. They can still remain lifelong partners. I know straight people who have been together but never married and they are still happy.
Yes because you are obviously intimately involved in their marriages and know what goes on in them . The difference is they CHOOSE to not get married. There is a difference between being able to choose and simply not wanting to get married.
And look at North Carolina just 2 years ago. Gay marriage was voted against with only 39% in support. Do you really think only "old people" voted against it in NC? I know for a fact of college age students who voted to protect traditional marriage. I can direct you to the tweets and facebook posts, but I'm sure they want their privacy. Someone on twitter tweeted in support of protecting marriage and many people his age retweeted it and favorited the tweet.
Turnout in NC was also quite low since the GOP decided to have the vote during the Primaries rather than during the General Election. Of course some who are younger are opposed, the vast majority are in favor and to think otherwise is delusional.
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.
. The point was the argument that "if the people would vote there wouldn't be gay marriage" was false, because the people did decide in multiple states.
. He was right by the way. He said only about 22 percent of people are against it, and that poll confirms it. Just because people think the access should be less than legal in all circumstances doesn't mean they oppose abortion. Nice try though
.