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.
homosexual marriage is not sacred either , what's stopping homosexual from accepting domestic partnerships and civil unions that have the exact same benefits as heterosexual marriage ?
But to answer your question more seriously, in America we don't make identical laws that do exactly the same thing but with different names for different sets of people based on a certain characteristic of that group of people. That's called separate but equal, and it's unacceptable. Our Constitution requires equal treatment under our civil laws - it makes no separate provisions for sensitivities based on terminology.
What's stopping heterosexuals from accepting domestic partnerships and civil unions that have the exact same benefits as homosexual marriage?
homosexual marriages doesn't have the same benefits as heterosexual marriage because of the federal
government not signing off on the states given institutions of homosexual marriages.
But to answer your question more seriously, in America we don't make identical laws that do exactly the same thing but with different names for different sets of people based on certain characteristics. That's called separate but equal, and it's unacceptable. Our Constitution requires equal treatment under our civil laws - it makes no separate provisions for sensitivities based on terminology.
we never had separate but equal in the past regarding african american people and white caucasian people african american facilities were alway inferior to those of caucasian people.
these laws would without a doubt be totally completely equal
homosexual marriages doesn't have the same benefits as heterosexual marriage because of the federal
government not signing off on the states given institutions of homosexual marriages.
My comment was about terminology, not the current state of the laws. If neither heterosexual nor homosexual civil marriage are sacred in any way, why can't heterosexuals let us gay have the term "civil marriage" and you guys get "civil union"?
we never had separate but equal in the past regarding african american people and white caucasian people african american facilities were alway inferior to those of caucasian people.
these laws would without a doubt be totally completely equal
My point is very, very simple. There is no legal reason whatsoever to have two separate laws that do exactly the same thing but go by different names based on whether the person availing himself to the law is either gay or straight (or black or white, Christian or Atheist, short or tall, etc). As an American, I find that notion incredibly offensive. It's really a backhanded way of enshrining in our law the notion that while we'll give eveybody the same benefits, certain groups really aren't equal which is why distinctions have to be made. That's clearly the case - if not, then you'd have no problem letting homosexuals have "marriage" and heterosexuals have "partnership."
Not to mention our Constitution states that all people be must be treated equally under any law we write. It makes no provision that allows for two laws that treat various groups equally unequally but end up balancing each other over sensitive terminology.
homosexual marriage is not sacred either , what's stopping homosexual from accepting domestic partnerships and civil unions that have the exact same benefits as heterosexual marriage ?
Why are you quibbling about semantics? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Why are you quibbling about semantics? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
I am not the one it's the GBLT community that's doing that , receive domestic partnerships with the same rights as heterosexual marriage and call it a day.
I am not the one it's the GBLT community that's doing that , receive domestic partnerships with the same rights as heterosexual marriage and call it a day.
No, it seems to be you who are quibbling about semantics. As a representative of the GBLT community, again, as long as the name is the same for everybody, I could could less what it is be it "marriage", "union", "partnership", "shacking up", or "alsdfjoiasj." You seem to be hung-up on making sure that gay people not be associated with the word "marriage" anywhere in our secular, civil law.
My point is very, very simple. There is no legal reason whatsoever to have two separate laws that do exactly the same thing but go by different names based on whether the person availing himself to the law is either gay or straight (or black or white, Christian or Atheist, short or tall, etc). As an American, I find that notion incredibly offensive. It's really a backhanded way of enshrining in our law the notion that while we'll give eveybody the same benefits, certain groups really aren't equal which is why distinctions have to be made. That's clearly the case - if not, then you'd have no problem letting homosexuals have "marriage" and heterosexuals have "partnership."
Not to mention our Constitution states that all people be must be treated equally under any law we write. It makes no provision that allows for two laws that treat various groups equally unequally but end up balancing each other over sensitive terminology.
there is one and only one justifiable reason to have heterosexual marriage and homosexual partnerships under one federal law giving both institution the same benefits and rights , it would have the capability to satisfy both groups without either side seeing a defeat.
listen this is a tempest in a tea cup to me , I won't lose any sleep if homosexual marriage passes or fail. i think that it will pass in 2 to 30 years from today " judging from the current situation that america is in " ,then the homosexual community will champion the notion that homosexual sex is just as normal as heterosexual sex.
No, it seems to be you who are quibbling about semantics. As a representative of the GBLT community, again, as long as the name is the same for everybody, I could could less what it is be it "marriage", "union", "partnership", "shacking up", or "alsdfjoiasj." You seem to be hung-up on making sure that gay people not be associated with the word "marriage" anywhere in our secular, civil law.
isn't it dinner and family time hammertime I told you in a former post that I didn't mind if everybody had to go under the title of domestic partnerships and or civil unions ( because I would just go the my church ) and get a marriage license from them making domestic partnership sacred in the eyes of GOD.
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.
