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.
You mistakenly believe that society supports and promotes marriage because society gives a crap if two people love each other or not. But you are wrong. Society knows that its future is tied to the future generation, the children created by couples of men and women. Two gay men who love each other is not why society puts so much money, time and effort into promoting and supporting marriage.
I don't see how marriage encourages men and women to reproduce. They seem perfectly capable of doing so without the ring on their fingers.
Quote:
If a happy couple that is allowed to be married is all you are concerned with, then any private ceremony two gays want, in order to pledge their love and devotion to each other is fine.
If two gays marry each other, and want to share names, property and inheritance then they can draw up a legal contract, and lobby government to honor their wishes.
If that's what gays should have to do, then heteros should have to as well.
I received the Red Carpet Treatment for my heterosexual marriage. I was able to apply for my license, have it signed, and made official - in a span of about 45 minutes. That same license is a perfectly good "contract". The Justice of the Peace (who was not forced to sign it) is a perfectly good person to make that "contract" into a "legal contract".
What I'm reading is that there are three things at play here in regards to marriage:
Raising Children Pledging Devotion Legal Recognition
You can do one or more of these, without doing all of them.
You can be devoted to somebdoy and raise a kid - but not be married. **Gene Simmons, for instance**
You can have legal recognition and pledge devotion - but not raise children.**Jay Leno, for instance**
You can raise children and have legal recognition - but not pledge devotion. **Mark Sanford, for instance**
So, if heterosexuals can pick and choose which of the three things they want, why can't homosexuals do so just as easily?
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 01-05-2010 at 11:54 AM..
Reason: @@; BLONDE MOMENT
Agreed! If we're going to re-define the commonly accepted concept of marriage, why limit it? To be truly all-inclusive and all-welcoming, let's include everything. If my wife and I want to readjust our marriage to include our cat, our TV, our house (but not the mailbox), and our bridge club (just the club, not the members), then why not? Let's include the kitchen sink also! Who appointed the gay community to be in charge of the redefinition process? Any why limit it to just two? How about only odd numbers of partners? or prime numbers? What about only a number of partners which falls into the Fibonacci sequence? Siblings, parents, grandparents, amphibians - all fair game! (Personally I'd choose that each marriage must include at least one mammal but that's just me.)
If you think this is silly, I can say the same about the pro- discussion I've read so far here.
Who appointed the gay community to be in charge of the redefinition process? Any why limit it to just two? How about only odd numbers of partners? or prime numbers? What about only a number of partners which falls into the Fibonacci sequence? Siblings, parents, grandparents, amphibians - all fair game! (Personally I'd choose that each marriage must include at least one mammal but that's just me.)
If those are things that you want to see legalized, you have just as much of a right to pursue them as the same-sex couples who have been fighting for years to be able to marry each other.
Quote:
If you think this is silly, I can say the same about the pro- discussion I've read so far here.
Let's see. The "pro" side has won the right to marry in five states plus the District Of Columbia. Still think it's silly? Then let's see you fight for something. I wonder if they'll even let you inside the courtroom doors.
Agreed! If we're going to re-define the commonly accepted concept of marriage, why limit it? To be truly all-inclusive and all-welcoming, let's include everything. If my wife and I want to readjust our marriage to include our cat, our TV, our house (but not the mailbox), and our bridge club (just the club, not the members), then why not? Let's include the kitchen sink also! Who appointed the gay community to be in charge of the redefinition process? Any why limit it to just two? How about only odd numbers of partners? or prime numbers? What about only a number of partners which falls into the Fibonacci sequence? Siblings, parents, grandparents, amphibians - all fair game! (Personally I'd choose that each marriage must include at least one mammal but that's just me.)
If you think this is silly, I can say the same about the pro- discussion I've read so far here.
Lets see; your cat cannot give consent, neither can your TV or house or a club or the kitchen sink. Gays are not any of those, we are living breathing tax paying people just like you and your wife. Likening us to kitchen appliances is absurd, silly, degrading and de humanizing. And think about this; it is straight farmers going after the sheep, not gay farmers. Beastiality seems to be more of a fad for straight people, than for gays or lesbians. The reason behind forbidding parents from marrying their kids or siblings marrying each other is based on the chance that two individuals with related genes may have a greater chance of creating mutations.
Agreed! If we're going to re-define the commonly accepted concept of marriage, why limit it? To be truly all-inclusive and all-welcoming, let's include everything. If my wife and I want to readjust our marriage to include our cat, our TV, our house (but not the mailbox), and our bridge club (just the club, not the members), then why not? Let's include the kitchen sink also! Who appointed the gay community to be in charge of the redefinition process? Any why limit it to just two? How about only odd numbers of partners? or prime numbers? What about only a number of partners which falls into the Fibonacci sequence? Siblings, parents, grandparents, amphibians - all fair game! (Personally I'd choose that each marriage must include at least one mammal but that's just me.)
If you think this is silly, I can say the same about the pro- discussion I've read so far here.
Your post is not only silly, it's insulting. If you would liken your marriage to that between a human and an inanimate object, than have at it. I think most fighting for marriage equality are more concerned about marriage between 2 unrelated consenting adults who love one another. Maybe it's just me, but when I think of love or marriage, the first thing to pop into my head has never been the TV or amphibians. Guess I'm strange that way.
What is disparaging about what I said? It is the truth, if people like you had their way in the 60's then black Americans would still be forbidden from marrying anyone of a race other that black. No one is seeking special treatment, just the same treatment. We want to have all the same protections and rights as you do and not pay through the teeth for them. If anyone has special treatment, it is heterosexuals. You are so special that you get 1049 special rights and privileges granted by the US government and if that were not enough you get DOMA , the defense of straight marriage act. Talk about special treatment. You are so used to your marriage rights that you do not even realize it is special treatment till others want the same and then you think that others want special treatment instead.
Why not? If they've a bed large enough to accomodate and everyone is happy with the situation? How would it change your life? Let them have their Civil Union and you can be happy with yours.
Special, in that when they have sex they will produce children, even if they do not want children. Which is why society encourages its men and women to get married, and why society wants their government to support married couples, because of the children they produce for succeeding generations.
Because obviously, only married men and women have children, and when your gay, your reproductive organs automatically wither away and die, amirite?
Funny how the person I put it up for didn't even respond to it.
I guess he doesn't like facts contrary to his little opinions.
Possibly. There is a reality show where one couple is married to a gay man and they seem to have a wonderful marriage. I have only seen the show a coulple of times so I cannot remember the name of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08
He needs to address post 57. He asked me to post stories showing where gay couples were denied the right to make medical decisions for one another.
As for your video, anyone can make up any story they want. Show me lawsuits or the ACLU coming in on a story like that. Gays love to sue for the media attention. I don't buy any of it.
Possibly. There is a reality show where one couple is married to a gay man and they seem to have a wonderful marriage. I have only seen the show a coulple of times so I cannot remember the name of it.
As for your video, anyone can make up any story they want. Show me lawsuits or the ACLU coming in on a story like that. Gays love to sue for the media attention. I don't buy any of it.
LOL, hilarious.
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.
(Personally I'd choose that each marriage must include at least one mammal but that's just me.)
