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.
These contrary opinions have no bearing on how life really is. It is what it is, whether you or they want to acknowledge that.
So, only your opinion reflects how life really is?
There's obviously no point in continuing this conversation.
Quote:
I didn't bring it up. That's my belief about life, it was not up for debate, it was me making a statement about something else and it has no bearing on anything to do with this topic.
Of course you brought it up. Since you are going to out and out lie, there is not point in continuing this conversation.
Since your beliefs are not up for debate, there is no point in continuing this conversation.
The special relationship between mom and baby starts in utero. I guess you'll also say your husband carried the child and breastfed him/her as well.
Neither of us breastfed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
I'm definitely surprised that you would say I'm sexist against my own sex.
Didn't call you sexist. Merely that the thought of "Females, because they are females, are inherently better at xyz" is sexism (against males, if you missed it the first time).
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Now not only are conservatives racist and bigoted, they're also sexist.
> implying that I'm making a blanket statement about conservatives
In the end, it really boils down to:
Your situation works great for you.
My situation works great for me.
Meaning
There are multiple ways that a household can run.
Ergo, I don't see a problem with two women, two men, one man and many women, or even one woman and many men running a household and raising children.
I have no problem with FMLA. But should 2 men be able to claim FMLA? No. They're not married.
Therefore proving the point that we need to either extend marriage to homosexuals or repeal it from heterosexuals and hand civil unions to all legal parties, be they hetero, homo, family, or numerous.
Therefore proving the point that we need to either extend marriage to homosexuals or repeal it from heterosexuals and hand civil unions to all legal parties, be they hetero, homo, family, or numerous.
Why? same-gender couples have no reason to expect to be granted special rights based on sexual attraction.
If I wanted to take marry a man, I can't expect to get FMLA rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
Um.....
You asked for an example of a marriage benefit that cannot be achieved through a legal document drafted by a lawyer.
I provided you an example.
You say they shouldn't have it because they're not married.
Wasn't that the point of this exercise? To give an example of a marriage benefit that cannot be given without a marriage certificate?
I guess I don't much care if Tad and Rick can't get time off work because one of them gets sick.
I am the one who originally proposed the compromise in another thread. It is gratifying to see that some homosexuals actually do support it and in the small sampling that CD can provide those gays supporting the proposal outnumber those opposed by a significant percentage. (Actual numbers 5 in favor, 2 opposed.) To be expected are a large number of heterosexuals who do not, and probably never will, support legalizing gay unions no matter what.
Overall, 12 in favor and 17 opposed with 3 abstentions.
Enough in favor of it to support considering it as a sensible compromise to what is proving to be a very divisive issue.
Same sex marriage may exist in some countries around the world, as it exists in some states in the US. That does not mean it is broadly accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual marriage.
Traditional marriage was not awful in any way, and not "especially for women." Women were put here to carry children, care for them and serve their husband. That does not mean it's awful or that they're slaves. My duty as a wife is to support my husband in whatever way he needs. He usually needs me to just keep the house clean and make dinner. Make sure the bills get paid. Do errands that might need done. Other than that, I can do whatever I want. My duty as a mother is to take care of our daughter, I take the primary caretaker role. The husband's duty is to make sure that we're okay financially (i.e., to ensure that we are cared for, have a roof over our head, gas in the car, food on the table, whatever). Traditional marriage still exists today and is the ideal arrangement for procreation and perpetuation of the species.
"Serve" their husband? OMG. You really have been brainwashed.
Why? same-gender couples have no reason to expect to be granted special rights based on sexual attraction.
If I wanted to take marry a man, I can't expect to get FMLA rights.
So basically, when presented with two different benefits of marriage that cannot be drawn up with a lawyer (by your request), your response is "well I don't think gays should have those benefits anyways".
What it boils down to is that you know your argument ("But they can get all those benefits with contracts and legal documents") is a downright lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
I guess I don't much care if Tad and Rick can't get time off work because one of them gets sick.
Whelp. This right here explains it.
You just don't care about fellow human beings.
Thanks for letting us in on this tidbit.
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.
