U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:05 PM
 
13,667 posts, read 14,536,595 times
Reputation: 11354

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gghhgg View Post
because i don't want to see gays in public holding hand and other crap.be gay but be a gay in your own house,don't show it in public it is offensive to other people
my goodness the horror of it all so many other things in life that are truly offensive seeing two people hold hands or kiss in public, showing affection bothers you? I guess you don't watch TV either for all the sex. what about two teenagers going at it on the street? is that ok or are you grossed out at any form of PDA?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:16 PM
 
1,635 posts, read 1,621,340 times
Reputation: 2597
Very easy solution to gay marriages. Two gay men get together with two gay women. The four marry each other. Then you are legally married, but have the relationships with each other. You will still get all the benefits of the tax system, and if worried about divorce issues then just have pre nuptial agreements drawn up. Oh my it is not that difficult. Why does the minority want to force the majority to change marriage laws. Really makes no sense. Marriage was originally a property law, because women used to be considered property not voting citizens in ancient times. It was a way of families trading breeding partners between clans or kingdoms. Marriage evolved into the act of falling in love with one another, but the marriage laws on most states books are like property laws, and laws of a mans responsibility to the subservient women. All gay marriage laws if allowed should be done with prenuptial legal agreements, but in my opinion just do it as a foursome wedding between two gay men and two gay women, and then you can circumnavigate the bulk of current state laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:27 PM
 
491 posts, read 852,496 times
Reputation: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus23 View Post
Very easy solution to gay marriages. Two gay men get together with two gay women. The four marry each other. Then you are legally married, but have the relationships with each other. You will still get all the benefits of the tax system, and if worried about divorce issues then just have pre nuptial agreements drawn up. Oh my it is not that difficult. Why does the minority want to force the majority to change marriage laws. Really makes no sense. Marriage was originally a property law, because women used to be considered property not voting citizens in ancient times. It was a way of families trading breeding partners between clans or kingdoms. Marriage evolved into the act of falling in love with one another, but the marriage laws on most states books are like property laws, and laws of a mans responsibility to the subservient women. All gay marriage laws if allowed should be done with prenuptial legal agreements, but in my opinion just do it as a foursome wedding between two gay men and two gay women, and then you can circumnavigate the bulk of current state laws.
We shouldn't have to do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:37 PM
 
1,635 posts, read 1,621,340 times
Reputation: 2597
Quote:
Originally Posted by godsavethequeens View Post
We shouldn't have to do that.

Marriage laws should not make a man have to pay through the nose if he divorces his wife, but they do. Marriage laws like I said are still pretty much property laws. You marry a women then your responsible for them after you end the marriage still. They laws are there to make sure the children are still the financial responsibility of the man after the divorce if that happens. Only reason for gay people to get married would be for tax purposes. You can still have a marriage ceremony with out really getting married. Why do you need the state to acknowledge a property law between two men or two women. It makes no sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:42 PM
 
491 posts, read 852,496 times
Reputation: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus23 View Post
Marriage laws should not make a man have to pay through the nose if he divorces his wife, but they do. Marriage laws like I said are still pretty much property laws. You marry a women then your a responsible for them after you end the marriage still. They laws are there to make sure the children are still the financial responsibility of the man after the divorce if that happens. Only reason for gay people to get married would be for tax purposes. You can still have a marriage ceremony with out really getting married. Why do you need the state to acknowledge a property law between two men or two women. It makes no sense.
Unless you're being denied an institution, a right, because of who you are, I don't expect you to understand. We should not have to find loopholes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 03:58 PM
 
1,635 posts, read 1,621,340 times
Reputation: 2597
Quote:
Originally Posted by godsavethequeens View Post
Unless you're being denied an institution, a right, because of who you are, I don't expect you to understand. We should not have to find loopholes.

So in gay marriage who do you decide is going to pay alimony or child support. The one that acts more masculine, and the feminine one gets the alimony and child support, or do you do it by who is the most financially better off at beginning of the marriage has the most responsibility. I don't disagree that marriage laws need to be completely re-written. If you do away with whom is responsible for whom then I am all for gay marriages, otherwise if marriage laws stay property laws then gay marriages make no sense. I don't care if same sexes love each other. Just saying marriage is considered a property law by the states still based on man and women agreement amongst themselves with the state, and the responsibility of the children that are created out of that marriage. Don't think anytime soon the adoption agencies are going to allow gay couples to adopt. So only gay couples that could have children would be women. One of the women, or both would have to be artificially inseminated. Then maybe responsibility laws would need to be created between two lesbian couples, but the child would still be considered by the state the responsibility of the women that actually had the child, and not the other women's lesbian counterpart at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
26,529 posts, read 24,908,495 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus23 View Post
Why does the minority want to force the majority to change marriage laws.
Do you realize how many laws have been changed over the years to give minorities and disfavored groups greater rights and equality?

I could argue in the other direction and say, "Why does the majority want to suppress the freedoms and rights of the minority?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
26,529 posts, read 24,908,495 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus23 View Post
Only reason for gay people to get married would be for tax purposes.
Maybe according to you, but I would bet that the many thousands of married, same-sex couples in America would disagree.

I could say the same thing about opposite-sex marriages: The only reason for straight people to get married is for tax purposes. How many heterosexuals would agree with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 04:29 PM
 
1,635 posts, read 1,621,340 times
Reputation: 2597
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Do you realize how many laws have been changed over the years to give minorities and disfavored groups greater rights and equality?

I could argue in the other direction and say, "Why does the majority want to suppress the freedoms and rights of the minority?"

Being gay is not a right sorry, nor is being heterosexual. This is the definition of marriage. So no one should be able to discriminate against someone because of sexual preference. Sex for pleasure is fine by me, but sex for child procreation holds legal responsibilities. That applies to whether your married or not.

mar·riage
Pronunciation:\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marryDate:14th century1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

So if you are gay and want legal binding rights between each other your going to need a new law, and one not called marriage. Maybe Unionship Law or something. Have fun getting any politicians to put that on their next legal agenda proceeding!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2009, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
26,529 posts, read 24,908,495 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narcissus23 View Post
Being gay is not a right sorry, nor is being heterosexual. This is the definition of marriage.
I would argue that everyone does have a right to be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. There are no laws in the U.S. that prohibit having a sexual orientation. It would be like prohibiting breathing.

And being heterosexual is the definition of marriage? How? Even in an opposite-sex marriage, the two people involved are not required to be heterosexual.

Quote:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marryDate:14th century1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
And there are other dictionaries that define it differently, including The American Heritage Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's.

Quote:
So if you are gay and want legal binding rights between each other your going to need a new law, and one not called marriage. Maybe Unionship Law or something. Have fun getting any politicians to put that on their next legal agenda proceeding!!!!
No, actually, the marriage laws are being changed in this country and around the world, with more on the way. It's just a matter of time. A growing number of politicians are making public statements in support of same-sex marriage.

The world is always changing. I know it's scary for some people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top