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.
Marriage between one man and one woman has eons of history and tradition behind it. Modify it once, and someone else will try to stretch it again... and again. Where will it end?
Lol, "once"? Do you really believe this is the first modification to marriage, letting gays marry? Marriage has been transformed from its original state so many times (and in fundamental ways, not just a change of cast) it's not even funny. This is really a weak argument, because even women's rights changed marriage more than gays marrying ever could. And it was a good change for society in general. And you know what else seems like it would be a good change?... Yep, you guessed it!
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Fine.
Nothing there that prevents: (see my points above)
+ Best friends from marrying to pass on benefots
+ Group marriage
+ Passing pensions to cats
Lol, "once"? Do you really believe this is the first modification to marriage, letting gays marry? Marriage has been transformed from its original state so many times (and in fundamental ways, not just a change of cast) it's not even funny. This is really a weak argument, because even women's rights changed marriage more than gays marrying ever could. And it was a good change for society in general. And you know what else seems like it would be a good change?... Yep, you guessed it!
One Man, One Woman (the stable combination that produces offspring)
THAT is pretty fundamental. Whatever spin you may throw at it.
And NO ONE HERE, in all the postings so far, has even tried to refute my initial point: It is all about the money. Gays are looking to get on the gravy train with this change in law, and they are not ready to try to reign in the huge number of financial predators that will be draw to Gay Marriage, if it bcomes legal.
I so wish this IMPORTANT debate was being had on a much wider platform, so the whole world could see what they are being set up for: Another round of state handouts and abuses
Based on that logic (as I have said previously), where do you draw the line:
+ If single, do you marry you best friend (when you are on death's door) to pass benefits to them?
+ Do three people or four people, have a group marriage to "share the wealth"?
+ Do you marry your cat, so he/she will be provided for, by your benefits, after your death?
As I said: WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?
Claiming "rights" is not good enough - there must be a principle behind them somewhere.
Marriage between one man and one woman has eons of history and tradition behind it. Modify it once, and someone else will try to stretch it again... and again. Where will it end?
No offense, but I think my dog understands concepts better than you.
This is very simple. I will speak slowly so try and keep up.
Nothing stops that from happening now. Most of my friends are women and if I wanted to leave my money to them - tax free - I could do so.
The legal system doesn't support polygamy. The divorce, child support, child custody, asset division, next of kin, etc do not support more than 2 parties.
Do you understand what consent means? When your cat can give consent then and only then can you make an argument for human + animal marriage.
Gays don't have to demonstrate why they should be granted the same rights as everybody else. The burden of proof is on the party denying the rights'. You have to demonstrate why gays should be denied rights'.
The fact that you can't sell your daughter for 3 goats and a cow means marriage has already been redefined. People still can't marry animals.
Gay marriage goes back thousands of years. It wasn't until Catholicism was established with the help of Rome that gay marriage became banned. Even then though, we still have gay marriage occurring within the catholic church.
One Man, One Woman (the stable combination that produces offspring)
THAT is pretty fundamental. Whatever spin you may throw at it.
And NO ONE HERE, in all the postings so far, has even tried to refute my initial point: It is all about the money. Gays are looking to get on the gravy train with this change in law, and they are not ready to try to reign in the huge number of financial predators that will be draw to Gay Marriage, if it bcomes legal.
I so wish this IMPORTANT debate was being had on a much wider platform, so the whole world could see what they are being set up for: Another round of state handouts and abuses
Why can't you seem to grasp the FACT that reproduction is not a requirement of marriage?
In fact there are some situations in which the couple has to prove INABILITY to reproduce in order to get
married.
OR The FACT that homosexuals can and do have children?
We can and do use the very same methods that some heterosexual couples use.
???
Where does that come from?
I don't take one penny from the US - and have paid taxes that would make your head spin
Are you married? If so, you are sucking off of us gay people who pay taxes and do not get the benefits that go with marriage. Explain why if the benefits are for the kids why gay couples with kids are denied the benefits. It is all a lie to justify denying us equal marriage rights. That is all that the religious right can do, lie to get their way and say their god approves of them discriminating against gay people.
Why can't you seem to grasp the FACT that reproduction is not a requirement of marriage?
In fact there are some situations in which the couple has to prove INABILITY to reproduce in order to get
married.
OR The FACT that homosexuals can and do have children?
We can and do use the very same methods that some heterosexual couples use.
Are you married? If so, you are sucking off of us gay people who pay taxes and do not get the benefits that go with marriage. Explain why if the benefits are for the kids why gay couples with kids are denied the benefits. It is all a lie to justify denying us equal marriage rights. That is all that the religious right can do, lie to get their way and say their god approves of them discriminating against gay people.
Nope. Not married. No children. I felt that it was unfair for me to pay for schools etc, until I thought it through more clearly.
Society is not only about my own selfish ends. I think gays are mature enough to see that too.
Actually, if you read my posts carefully, I think that Marriage and Divorce needs reigning in.
If that was done in a certain way, I might be in favor of Gay Marriage. But with the laws the way they are now, Gay Marriage Laws are going to be horribly exploited IMHO.
I'm gay and married.. My partner and I love one another - share our hopes and aspirations with one another for a bright future and are there to support eachother through good times and bad... I think we have captured the meaning of being married as well or if not better than most any straight couple out there.. More than most - we value the bond that we have with one another because we know that in the hands of those like you that would all be ripped away from us...
I'm sorry - but in the case of my partner and I, we are far more qualified to substantiate our marriage than the ignorant likes of those that would diminish the true value of what we have.
If this means nothing to you - keep trying to quantify things with your 'logic'
We on the otherhand - will continue to hope for a humanity that will rule with not just a fair and righteous mind, but with heart and soul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
Who is spouting nonsense now?
One Man, One Woman (the stable combination that produces offspring)
THAT is pretty fundamental. Whatever spin you may throw at it.
And NO ONE HERE, in all the postings so far, has even tried to refute my initial point: It is all about the money. Gays are looking to get on the gravy train with this change in law, and they are not ready to try to reign in the huge number of financial predators that will be draw to Gay Marriage, if it bcomes legal.
I so wish this IMPORTANT debate was being had on a much wider platform, so the whole world could see what they are being set up for: Another round of state handouts and abuses
It is a question of where to draw the line.
It is not easy to Draw it around the creation of children (though it would make sense to do so.)
" homosexuals can and do have children"
???
How does that work?
Seems to me that a basic law of science needs to be busted for that to happen.
Adoption, IVF, surrogacy.
Why are seniors and women over 35 allowed to get married? If I marry my gf am I required to have kids with her?
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.
