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.
They may marry a person of the opposite gender, the same as everyone else. There is no discrimination.
An interesting point of view. Back in the 1950s, people were free to marry within their own race, same as everybody else. Hence, no discrimination. Or?
Talk to a lawyer and get a contract drawn up granting those protections. Heck, if you want to have a cutesy little ceremony while you do it, that's fine w/me.
That's nice. It's just that bigotry is alive and well, and prejudiced people in positions of power will do all they can to thwart those contracts. Apparently God loves them more if they keep gays from visiting each other in hospitals or some such nonsense. (Always struck me as a great deal, by the way. The gays do the suffering, the bigots reap the rewards with the all-loving heavenly father. So much easier than changing your own ways to achieve salvation.)
So - it's been tried, it doesn't work. Apparently there's only one way to go, gay marriage. And while it sucks for you if you'd rather not change the definition of marriage, the necessity is brought on by those on your side in the debate.
Why should a gay couple go to a lawyer and pay thousands to just get a fraction of rights that heteros get at a court house with a certificate that costs less than 50 bucks? And no guarantee that the lawyer drawn contract would even be upheld when needed.
And a lot of things have changed since this country started and changed for the better. This should be one of them.
And it's not being changed or anyone forced to do anything. Why do people think that? Your straight marriage stays the same. Just other people will get the opportunity. I just never understood the mindset of these people who can't recognize the inequality of such a law as DOMA.
Talk to a lawyer and get a contract drawn up granting those protections. Heck, if you want to have a cutesy little ceremony while you do it, that's fine w/me.
Except no lawyer can draft a contract providing FMLA benefits/protections to same-sex couples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
For as long as this country has been in existence marriage has been 1 man, 1 woman. Why should we be forced to change that now because 200 + years later a small minority of people decide they don't like that and want a new version?
Same argument could be used in regards to any and all changes in society - not just social ones, either.
See, the thing is, societies are fluid. They change, adapt, and advance as time progresses. Whether it's technological changes like electricity, phones (later cellphones), or computers. Whether it's social changes like women's rights, civil rights for all people regardless of color, or marriage rights.
Every single adapation made to what we call "today's society" started off with a small number of people (a minority) who wanted a change from the "norm".
Spoiler
inb4 "marriage is not a right" which will be responded to with quotes from the Virginia vs. Loving case where the Supreme Court explicitly states that marriage is in fact, one of the "basic civil rights of man".
For as long as this country has been in existence marriage has been 1 man, 1 woman. Why should we be forced to change that now because 200 + years later a small minority of people decide they don't like that and want a new version?
Ahh, the tradition argument (another irrational argument). It's a crying shame when things change from the way they use to be.
How disgusting was it when we redefined "person" to include black people? Slavery is an American tradition, and I for one think it's shamful we let a small minortiy of people decide on a new version of what a person acutally is. How disgusting was it when we redefined "voting" to include women? Only allowing the vote to white men is an American tradition, and it's a complete and utter shame we let it fall to the wayside.
And also, civil marriage contracts were not limited to contracts between 1 man and 1 women for 200+ years. Maryland was the first state to ban two people of the same sex from entering into civil marriage contracts - in 1973. That ban was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States then, and it still is in 2011.
For as long as this country has been in existence marriage has been 1 man, 1 woman. Why should we be forced to change that now because 200 + years later a small minority of people decide they don't like that and want a new version?
200 years ago, segregation and slavery were the norm in this country. Why should we not keep those in place based on your logic?
Societies change. This country is not based on Christianity, and marriage far predates that religion anyway.
An interesting point of view. Back in the 1950s, people were free to marry within their own race, same as everybody else. Hence, no discrimination. Or?
Some posters use the same lines over and over; even though the logic is convoluted and in plain English.......just stupid!
How very convenient for you to say that no discrimination exists, I would expect as much from a heterosexual conservative. The fact remains that regardless of what you say discrimination against homosexuals does exist.
The desire that some gay people have for some sort of civil union, or marriage with the same rights, benefits and responsibilities is not preferential treatment...no matter how you spin it, it is not preferential treatment, it is equal treatment...nothing more, and nothing less.
This "they may marry a person of the opposite gender" line, is nonsense, utter nonsense...and any reasonable person knows that.
oh please
the only discrimination is the the gays and their GREED want the benefits that are NOT a right, but a priviledge
the only discrimination is the the gays and their GREED want the benefits that are NOT a right, but a priviledge
the push for same-sex marriage is about GREED
Civil marriage contracts confer to the people who enter into them some 1400 LEGAL RIGHTS. Many states, and the federal government, have passed laws that ban homosexuals from having or accessing these LEGAL RIGHTS (Maryland was the first to do so in 1973).
I, as a homosexual, want to be able to access those LEGAL RIGHTS. You're more than welcome to call it GREED if you want. I call it what it is - equal access to and equal treatment under the law (something our Constitution requires). How would you feel if Government discriminated against you and passed a law banning you from accessing the LEGAL RIGHTS of a civil marriage contract?
Last edited by hammertime33; 03-22-2011 at 04:53 PM..
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.
