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.
Opinions about dont enter the equation.. The LAW says its between a man and a woman.
Liberals love to just ignore the law and pretend it says stuff it doesnt..
Some people love to support the idea that words only have meaning as to those who choose to define it at will. That argument fails because we end up with a people who can't communicate because they have no standard to understand each other. Hence problems with some groups who can't seem to communicate intelligently to function in society.
Their next position is to proclaim meaning based on social majority. If they attempt to make that argument, then by their own conditions the definition has already been established by majority. California made that clear at least.
So, when they are backed into a corner, the only option is to deny all logical oppositions and demand submission like a child stamping their feet who didn't get their favorite toy. I know it sounds harsh to say so, but all too often in these types of arguments am I reminded of that child who can not accept rational discussion and so must emotionally demand servitude.
Regardless of which argument that is achieved and held to, society becomes relegated to nothing more than a bunch of screaming children throwing tantrums to get their way.
i live in massachusetts. gay marriage since 2004 and STILL no harm done. Gay marriage creats jobs, tax revenue. The LGBT people pay their taxes, follow laws and are good members to society. Why shouldn't they be able to yield the benefits to a civil marriage?
Marriage creates jobs?
It creates tax revenues?
I mean really, did you just claim that, and if so, how?
I mean really, did you just claim that, and if so, how?
yes i really did claim that and your rediculous not to be able to not understand why.
Read this article, this is for DC alone if gay marriage was legalized. It would create 700 Jobs! DC only has 600k people! And tons of revenue for hotels, marriage licenses, tourism, restaurants ect. This says $53 million over 3 years for 1 city alone! Weddings are expensive and BIG business.
Is it your assertion that the LAW is always right?
If so, Please give us all your opinion on the following LAWs:
The LAW also used to say that blacks were 3/5's of a person; The LAW used to state that blacks had to drink from different fountains, eat in separate restaurants, etc, etc; the LAW used to state that blacks could not marry whites; The LAW also used to state that women did not have the rights to vote or own property. Should we go ahead and reinstate these LAWS or do you think we were right to change them, as we did?
The biggest straw man used by the radical right wing in opposition to marriage is that LGBT's would FORCE churches to marry them. I do not know anybody personally, nor have I seen any credible stories that claim a desire to force churches to do anything.
As the OP stated, this is an issue of a contract with the STATES, not the church. There are many, many, many marriages that have absolutely no connection with a church of any kind, and are conducted in city halls and justice of the peace offices all over the country. In fact, when you delve deeper into the matter, a church is completely irrelevant in the entire process. It only gains relevance if the couple chooses to do so.
I have 2 questions for those opposed to LGBT's being given the same equal rights that all other Americans share:
1. If Congress passed, and President Obama signed a law granting LGBT Americans ALL the exact same rights that heterosexual couples currently enjoy under their contracts of marriage with the States, so long as they were called "Civil Unions" (or anything other than "marriages"), what would your reaction be?
2. Since the word "sanctity" is tossed about in connection with the "preservation of marriage", would you support a law making it ILLEGAL to obtain a divorce punishable by imprisonment? (I ask this question since the sanctimonious nature of Marriage is ALREADY under assault by a greater than 50% divorce (ie FAILURE) rate, which has nothing to do with Gay Americans)
(1) The registered voters of each state should decide the fate of homosexual marriage. The results have proven that the majority of citizens do not favor same-sex marriages. Constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman have passed in every state where they were on the ballots.
(2) Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, and an abnormal lifestyle that goes against nature. Why should any government saction anything that is repulsive and degenerate? What's next, legalizing adult-child marriages?
Why should same sex couples not be given a legal marriage license.
So, would anyone care to answer my question?
Short answer: wrong contract.
Long answer: The institution of marriage was to legally join the property rights of the parents for the benefit of progeny. Those who had common law standing, as sovereign Americans, could form a common law marriage. Their exchange of vows, with or without witnesses, was sufficient for curtesy and dower (*common law rights of inheritance) to operate.
For those who lacked common law standing (impaired, i.e., chattel slaves), required permission (license) to enter into the bonds of matrimony. And thus, the state gained inroads into the family property (ex: estate and inheritance taxes). And the state imposed complex rules for dissolution (divorce) of the licensed marriage.
In either case, the real beneficiaries of the marriage contract were the children. Any child can lay claim for support and the property of his mother, but only legitimate children had a legal claim upon the father... before voluntary national socialism came along.
Since homosexual couples cannot gene splice progeny, there is no reason under the common law for a marriage contract. A simple partnership agreement with rights to the survivor would suffice.
But the current impetus for same sex marriage is access to entitlements that are reserved for married couples under socialism. Unfortunately, socialism, is unAmerican, and a problem. That's why participation is 100% voluntary, according to the law.
(1) The registered voters of each state should decide the fate of homosexual marriage. The results have proven that the majority of citizens do not favor same-sex marriages. Constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman have passed in every state where they were on the ballots.
(2) Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, and an abnormal lifestyle that goes against nature. Why should any government saction anything that is repulsive and degenerate? What's next, legalizing adult-child marriages?
The words "repulsive and degenerate" are your opinion and don't have anything to do with the government. You really need to stop worrying about what other people do in the bedroom.
Is it your assertion that the LAW is always right?
You had a huge posting which was completely flawed based upon this part. I NEVER claimed the law was right, I claimed its the law, a law we all must follow. If your going to understand the law and ask for it to be changed, you must first recognize what the law says.
Ran into the same arguments here with liberals and "torture".. Just because I understand what the law says, doesnt mean I support it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by equality4all
1. If Congress passed, and President Obama signed a law granting LGBT Americans ALL the exact same rights that heterosexual couples currently enjoy under their contracts of marriage with the States, so long as they were called "Civil Unions" (or anything other than "marriages"), what would your reaction be?
Congress shouldnt be passing ANY law in regards to marriage, marriage is a contract between two individuals, recognized by the STATE they live in..
Quote:
Originally Posted by equality4all
2. Since the word "sanctity" is tossed about in connection with the "preservation of marriage", would you support a law making it ILLEGAL to obtain a divorce punishable by imprisonment? (I ask this question since the sanctimonious nature of Marriage is ALREADY under assault by a greater than 50% divorce (ie FAILURE) rate, which has nothing to do with Gay Americans)
No, the government has no right to force two individuals to stay in a contract that they have entered into.. Offers nothing to the argument because governments can choose to recognize a contract, they cant choose to recognize a cancellation of a contract..
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.
