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.
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?
Marriage between same sex couples also has eons of history and tradition behind it. Ignore that all you want, but it is true. Same sex unions were denied because of religion. Your slippery slope does not work, that is all you can do to justify your bias against gay people. Animals cannot consent or sign a signature. Why do you straight people always bring up animals as if that was ever a choice of marriage partners? Guess what, many straight people do marry their best friend to get the benefits passed on when that person passes on. You want polygamy, go for it, change the laws. But polygamy is not the same as two people getting married, so it is not similar to either straight marriage or to gay marriage. Gay people are the only ones being singled out to deny the basic rights, such as marriage, employment protection and inheritance rights. The religious right cannot discriminate based on race anymore, or on sex, so they choose to discriminate against gay people. You all need to get a life and leave us alone.
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.
You have a very intelligent dog.
How many Harvard degrees does he have, and when did he join Mensa?
Where did you get that diagram from? A gay rights textbook?
Ask anyone anywhere today what marriage is, and they will not come up with something from Bizarro world, like that.
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
MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. It is not mandatory that married couples have kids and the benefits that go with marriage are not contengent on having kids. Play dumb all you want, use your slippery slope, but it wont work. Want to have a relationship with your cat, fine. But I feel sorry for the cat.
...Gay people are the only ones being singled out to deny the basic rights, such as marriage...
One Man, One woman... = No prejudice.
Gays often marry, and have do so for ever.
They have the right : but the current rule is: One Man, One woman
Easy and fundamental. Now you want to change that.
I vote NO, unless we tighten up on how marriage is already being abused.
Tell me: WHERE do YOU draw the line:
If it is One Human + One Human, then:
+ Do you expect that bonding to get all the same rights as:
The traditional One Man + One Woman bonding which is often but not always intended to produce children?
I might agree, but you need to tighten it up (to protect from abuse) IMHO.
MARRIAGE IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. It is not mandatory that married couples have kids and the benefits that go with marriage are not contengent on having kids. Play dumb all you want, use your slippery slope, but it wont work. Want to have a relationship with your cat, fine. But I feel sorry for the cat.
Of course Family is about chldren - Ask your parents.
Society drew the line around One Man + One Woman, because it was CONVENIENT AND EASY to do so.
If you draw it differently, then for goodness sake, let's tighten up on the abuses, and consider what new abuses will be attracted by a broader law.
You are in such a hurry, that you are bound to wind up with a mess.
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.
I am happy for you, and respect what you have in your relationship.
But do you really see no potential for widespread abuse from broader marriage laws?
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.
Well I agree with ou that marriage and divorce needs to be reigned in. Too many use divorce frivolously to get out of a relationship that would not have been gotten into if marriage was not so easy to get. Make a marriage license cost significantly more, or make it so that a trial marriage is gone through first. But gay marriage is not going to be anymore exploited than straight marriage. It is the straight people who are being selfish by taking money from us who pay taxes and do not get the benefits or the right to marry the one we love. You are straight, so you are not in our situation being discriminated against and thus do not know how it feels to be a second class citizen up for scrutiny on everything we do, to fight for the same basic rights our straight neighbors and friends enjoy with even giving it a thought.
One Man, One Woman (the stable combination that produces offspring)
THAT is pretty fundamental. Whatever spin you may throw at it.
That is not a fundamental part of marriage. The ability to produce offspring through sexual intercourse (instead of adoption, donor insemination, surrogacy, etc.) does not change the structure of marriage in the slightest. My brother and his wife had to adopt their children because they couldn't make one. Watching them together, you can't tell the difference between them and Dick Van Dyke with Mary Tyler Moore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic
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.
That's not a point; it's a claim, and an unsupported one at that. There is absolutely no more reason to suspect gays of just wanting the benefits and legal provisions of marriage than there is to suspect heteros of the same.
And what, you didn't have anything to say about the links I posted? You know, the ones giving us reason to think legalizing gay marriage may actually benefit society? Imagine that.
Gays often marry, and have do so for ever.
They have the right : but the rule is: One Man, One woman
It is prejudiced to exclude us from marriage when we to produce offspring and it is not contengent on making a baby with a penis in a vagina to get marriage rights. Many straight couples are not able to have kids, yet they get the benefits and rights. Rules are made to be broken, they are not set in stone. Can you explain why sterile straight couples get marriage benefits when they never have children, or senior citizens, can you?
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.
