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.
If that is the case then why did not black Americans and other racial minorities accept civlil unions instead of marriage. No one is trying to change any definition of the word of marriage. Gay marriage, straight marriage or interracial marriage is still a marriage. If you do not want an interracial marriage or a gay marriage, do not go into one. You are kidding about civil unions, because all of you anti gay people want to prevent us from having those too, also in the state of Washington they tried to prevent even domestic partnerships from happening. The only fair and equal footing is that everyone regardless of sex, sexual orientation or race all have the same exact equal marriage rights, not a separate set for gay people and a better set for heterosexuals. Separate is never equal, nor is it fair.
Interracial unions can still produce progeny which is the entire relevance of marriage as its definition. Marriage is not a definition that considers race, it is simply one that describes the process of joining two familes in a union which results in a single result of merging those families through offspring.
You may be tempted to claim that there are "some" individuals who "marry" yet are incapable of such? It doesn't change the definition of them just as a man who gets in an accident eliminating his ability to produce children an argument to claim they are no longer a man. The fact is, they can by the very definition of who they are.
Society merely recognized the process of marriage throughout history to deal with the legal claims that comes with it.
homosexuals never meet the core definition of marriage, they merely require the legal recognition of contract between two people, hence making them a "civil union", that is... a "union" in legal use only, not in any physical sense.
Yes, but can you go to the church and have the ceremony without the civil union?
No, in Austria they only recognize civil unions you can't only have a church ceremony.
They have a type of domestic partnership registry for gays but no civil unions.
Interracial unions can still produce progeny which is the entire relevance of marriage as its definition. Marriage is not a definition that considers race, it is simply one that describes the process of joining two familes in a union which results in a single result of merging those families through offspring.
You may be tempted to claim that there are "some" individuals who "marry" yet are incapable of such? It doesn't change the definition of them just as a man who gets in an accident eliminating his ability to produce children an argument to claim they are no longer a man. The fact is, they can by the very definition of who they are.
Society merely recognized the process of marriage throughout history to deal with the legal claims that comes with it.
homosexuals never meet the core definition of marriage, they merely require the legal recognition of contract between two people, hence making them a "civil union", that is... a "union" in legal use only, not in any physical sense.
ahhh, but that was not the case before interracial marriage was legal.
Marraige, no. Too much religious context with the term. I do not have an issue allowing for Civil Unions which contain all benefits to the couples. I think its the best of all worlds. It doesn't infringe on the religious conservatives and it allows the liberal left to have a viable alternative to get their ideas realized.
Big wrong, civil unions do not convey all the same benefits or rights as conventional marriage, they never have. Besides that, the NOM and the christian church seem to see no difference between civil unions, gay marriage and straight marriage, so they do what they can to prevent us from having those options and most states do not recognize or accept civil unions or domestic partnerships as an option over marriage. Gay marriage is the only fair and equal way to make us happy, why should we have to accept second rate, bottom class designation because of the church and its members. Keep your religion to yourself and do not force others to follow it by enforcing laws that discriminate against us. We are US citizens too and pay taxes just as you do, why should we expect less.
No, in Austria they only recognize civil unions you can't only have a church ceremony.
I disagree with that approach then. My ideal system would be marriage is a religious ceremony, you can get "married" with or without state consent. However, if you want the legal rights along with the title, then you must get the civil union.
But hey, its their country, whatever works for them.
What schools "promote and teach" homosexuality?
What kind of lesson would that look like?
You don't seem to understand the difference between acknowledging and "promoting" - homosexuality is normal.
Is it okay if they "promote and teach" heterosexuality in the schools?
What does that look like?
___________
To the poll:
What difference does it make if I "approve" of homosexual marriage?
Who am I to approve or disapprove of anything anyone else chooses to do?
Back up the truck up for a minute. Isn't something that is taught in our schools also a form of promotion? How could anything get more "approved" than what is taught in our schools? Isn't "Heather has two momies" a promotion of acceptance?
Anything taught as mainstream must be right in the eyes of our youth hence the growing acceptance of homosexuality as ages go down, which was my point.
I disagree with that approach then. My ideal system would be marriage is a religious ceremony, you can get "married" with or without state consent. However, if you want the legal rights along with the title, then you must get the civil union.
But hey, its their country, whatever works for them.
That works.
But I don't think there should be any special legal rights with marriage; no special tax breaks for being married or having kids.
Everything should be spelled out in a legal document; for example, a will; power of attorney; medical power of attorney; beneficiary selections, etc.
When will bÃsexuals be allowed to marry two partners? Afterall, it would be infringing on their civil rights not to allow them to marry the partners they desire. An additional male or female partner.
Bisexuals are not always attracted to both sexes at the same time. They have an attraction to both, but that does not mean they want to marry both. Many remain strictly with the partner they are with at the time and do not have an ongoing sexual relationship with both sexes at the same time.
ahhh, but that was not the case before interracial marriage was legal.
Explain your comment.
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.
