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.
What are the equal rights under the law that you are denied under "civil unions" that traditional "marriage" gives gays?
I would really like to know if there are rights they are denied if they have a civil union as opposed to being "married".
While some of the following can be obtained through civil unions and (often expensive) legal paperwork, most of these benefits are only awarded to MARRIED couples - and this is just skimming the surface, since there are over 1000 rights & benefits associated with marriage:
What are the equal rights under the law that you are denied under "civil unions" that traditional "marriage" gives gays?
I would really like to know if there are rights they are denied if they have a civil union as opposed to being "married".
Civil unions and domestic partnerships only provide about 100 or so rights and protections, a paltry sum of the 1049 plus/minus federal rights afforded to straight married couples. We are denied equal taxation, equal access to marriage rights, legal inheritance rights etc.
And do you have medical/scientific proof that one does not choose to be gay? Is homosexuality genetically linked? Is it inherited, like eye color?
Bottom line is that we know we did not choose to be gay, don't you think one would know? Did you choose to be straight and remember when you made that conscious choice? Why would one make the choice to be straight. and be persecuted? Can one really make the choice to have sex with the same sex and enjoy it, can you?
What are the equal rights under the law that you are denied under "civil unions" that traditional "marriage" gives gays?
I would really like to know if there are rights they are denied if they have a civil union as opposed to being "married".
No civil union is federally recognized, so none of the federal protections and rights (over 1400) apply. Also while marriage is legal in every state many states do not even have legal civil unions.
People who believe that homosexuality is a choice are actually bisexual. They are physically attracted to both males and females, and at some point they decided which gender they would and would not have sex with. Many of these people who CHOOSE to be heterosexual often go on to bash homosexuals in order to justify/validate their decision, because they have lingering doubts. This is one reason why conventional wisdom says that homophobes are actually closet homosexuals.
I feel the same way. They believe that because for them their sexual orientation was chosen, that it is the same for everyone. I know that I did not choose to be gay, nor did two of my brothers or my uncle. But one brother did choose to be with women and my uncle married a woman, but never had kids. For them it was a choice to conform to what society and family expected.
Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).
It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.
Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized -- some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.
The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.
Homosexual behaviour is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom... the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.
Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses.
That's exactly it! Every foetus starts off as female. It's the default mode. I'm absolutely convinced that sexual orientation has to do with the flooding of testosterone during foetal development.
I didn't make any claims. You did and I was inquiring into your proof. Don't have any?
That's OK. Neither does anyone else have any definitive proof.
from a link posted previously: There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
How exactly do you propose forcing the everyday non-business person to acknowledge or accept that two men or two women are “married”? You know, the significantly large numbers of people in society who do not want marriage changed and voted to keep marriage intact in 31 states? By waving a piece of paper in people’s faces? Calling names and other assorted bullying tactics? In non-business situations on the personal level it must be frustrating as all heck knowing that there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.
If historical precedence in the field of civil rights is anything to go by, most bigots are fair-weather friends who'll abandon their position as soon as the battle appears lost. As for the rest, well - you'll always find some individuals who cling to their cherished ideas of superiority long after rational people have abandoned them. Everybody has that crazy relative with a pet cause at their Thanksgiving dinner, right? If one can't avoid them, one can at least try to avoid bringing up the subject with them. It's only polite.
"Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed."
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.