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.
Ok.. I'll bite, (although I'm going to regret it).. what cant they do without that paper? I've been living with a partner for 15 years, and we can do everything a married couple can do..
Well, here is one example of how unprotected gay couples are, regardless of how many other legal means they use to ensure rights of inheritance and kinship. And the final result.
This is a very short summation of rights denied couples who are not married under the law.
And here is a list of the 1,138 federal benefits denied same-sex couples under our current laws.
the world is not gay and straight.. black and white.. sexuality is gray..
in fact science points to sexuality following a scale.. the straightest of straight among u still have sexual thoughts about people of the same sex and it's perfectly natural.. and the gayest of gay the same...
How we express our sexuality is dependent upon our personal comfort level with ourselves and society in acting upon those desires..for someone that has strong same sex attraction.. it is enough of a drive to tell society to kiss their butt.. but for someone that it isn't so strong of a desire.. they hide it and can sweep it under a rug in the dark corners of their mind.
so if we want to be honest about the issue.. lets REALLY be honest...unfortunately the homo's who are open are the ones with ink on their hands for all to see and condemn... because they put it out there..
Don't actually read much, do you? You do realize that the people you're arguing with are actually heterosexual and/or in heterosexual marriages, right?
Your married co-workers take home more money. Just how much you're getting cornholed depends on who you ask, but a recent study pegged it at about 27 percent.
If you're single, work/life balance is yet another way for the world to punish you for being unloved. One way the "balance" is enforced is the Family and Medical Leave Act, which gives any employee the right to take time off if a spouse, child or parent gets sick.
Actually, 51 percent of married couples get a tax bonus, and it can be up to $1300 a freaking year. Just enough for your co-worker to take his wife on that Hawaiian vacation while you do all his work.
We'd hate to send the message that you single folks are all alone in this world, with nobody to rely on but yourself since you can't even rely on yourself, really. See, even your body hates you for being single. Married people have a better immune systems than you. Married often choose between two subsidized plans, and pay less per person. In fact, they get such a good deal that people literally get married just to get on their partner's health plan.
Single men were viewed as being stupid and dishonest, and single women were more likely to be harassed and treated badly at restaurants.
Yes, you are right. It is simply "their" definition. Pay no attention to historical precedence. No need to look at the relevant definition of the word, its simply those people pushing "their" definition on another.
This wouldn't be a problem if people didn't change the meaning of words like they change their shoes. It wouldn't be a problem if people made the effort to educate themselves on the meaning of words.
I find your argument a bit disingenuous, almost somewhat Alinsky in style as you seem to be confusing who the ones here who are actually "changing" the meaning of something. history doesn't support the gay position on that, but hey, we can just change that to right?
I understand your point. In your mind, gay people are advocating for change because the traditional understanding of marriage is between a man and a woman. But the legal definition has not explicitly limited marriage to a contract between a man and a woman. Hence, the anti-gay marriage activists are indeed the ones trying to change the definition legally.
Thus far, I am unable to understand why.
Some people say that gay marriages damage the institution of marriage. How? Two people committing to one another, emotionally, spiritually, financially, and otherwise. That, to me, supports the institution of marriage. How exactly do other couples marrying effect your marriage or anyone else's? In real terms.
I respect that tradition is being challenged, but isn't that what human beings do. We respect traditions that are still relevant, and discard traditions that aren't relevant. I think the relevance of marriage cannot be discussed without considering the ramifications of marriage. And those ramifications aren't just about tradition, they are about legally-defined rights. Marriage is distinct from civil unions because of the legal rights conferred on a married couple that are not conferred on a couple united civilly.
How does that inequity get justified? I don't think that it is Constitutional to justify the inequity via religion. And yet it is a religious precept that homosexuality is immoral, bad, evil, wrong and so on. In all other respects, a person's sexuality is strictly a private, personal matter.
If an older couple, a straight couple, choose to marry, how are they different from a homosexual couple? They are past child-bearing, so that is a non-issue. I don't see a difference between gay people marrying, and straight people who cannot have children marrying.
I also question those that argue that this issue is about the sanctity of marriage. Sanctity does not dwell in an institution. Sanctity is something that the people involved endow an event with. People make things sacred. People make vows sacred. If your marriage is sacred to you, it's sacred. The sanctity that you've endowed your marriage with is unaffected by anyone else. If Don and June down the street get a divorce, that doesn't make your marriage less sacred. If Pete and Toni go to Vegas and get married by an Elvis impersonator, there marriage may be sacred to them, and the how, when, why of your marriage has nothing to do with that.
Homosexuality has been around as long as man has been around. And homosexuals have been living together, and society hasn't foundered yet because of a homosexual couple. If they can live together, and that's not harmful, if they can have civil unions, and that's not harmful, then how exactly does it become harmful to allow them to marry?
Prop. 8: Judge Walker's bias will be overruled
"Judge Walker's ruling proves, however, that the American people were and are right to fear that too many powerful judges do not respect their views, or the proper limits of judicial authority.
Judge Walker has added insult to injury by suggesting that support for marriage is somehow irrational bigotry, akin to racial animus. The majority of Americans are not bigots or haters for supporting the commonsense view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because children need moms and dads.
Judge Walker's view is truly a radical rejection of Americans' rights, our history and our institutions that will only fuel a popular rebellion now taking place against elites who are more interested in remaking American institutions than respecting them."
And with this disclaimer at the bottom of the page
Well, here is one example of how unprotected gay couples are, regardless of how many other legal means they use to ensure rights of inheritance and kinship. And the final result.
This is a very short summation of rights denied couples who are not married under the law.
They needed better lawyers.. Try again..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingsy
And here is a list of the 1,138 federal benefits denied same-sex couples under our current laws.
Did you look through the list?
Many of them are
1) Items which shouldnt exist for straight couples either
2) Are state responsibilities..
3) Are indeed rights they enjoy.. Family Violence Prevention and Services for example. Individuals are protected by domestic abuse laws regardless of married or not..
People love to bring Freud in to prove their point. There is also another point that is used, yet I don't think any one dare mention it on a message board. That point is held in private conversations and it has to do with behavioral science.
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.
Probably not.
