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.
No it means that we are just as capable of marriage and raising children as any other couple. It also means that homosexual are just as worthy of the legal protections that marriage provides. Yes, people are people, but SOME people want to deny OTHER people equal protections for completely nonsensical reasons.
Agreed. Any civil society would ensure that were so.
All I've tried to relate, is that same sex couples have some very fundamental differences which I believe require a whole different set of laws to address them. The two types of marriage laws need to be separate because the laws for traditional marriage are complicated enough, but work relatively well since we have created them and refined them over the centuries.
That is what i said. Being in a lesbian relationship does not mean the two are super moms, nor does it mean they are prone to being child abusers. People are people, and if they were all moral, ethical, and worked well with others, we would need a whole bunch fewer laws and regs.
I totally agree with you on this. Unfortunately, breaking laws seems more common then following them, such as stop signs, nine out of ten drivers ever really stop their vehicle. I had to do a traffic count of cars, bikes and pedestrians in a safety study of a dangerous intersection in my neighborhood, the average was 90% of drivers never stop their vehicle and it was worse for bikes, like one out of twenty stopped.
Anyway, how does the federal government only promoting heterosexual marriages benefit the country and will not if promoting both? I would think that promoting responsible marriages for both straight and gay couples would make sense. IF we are all supposed to be equal, then we all should have the same access to the laws and rights and not have a separate set for just gay people out of all of the population. Should there be a separate set of marriage rights for interracial marriage, or cross religion marriage or should separate races have their own set of marriage rights? Why should just us gays only be denied the same full rights that as tax payers we too pay for? Is it not special rights for straights if it is only allowed for straights?
You see that I did not mention children, for children are not required of marriage, children are born out of wedlock and they are also born to gays, children are also adopted and the parents and children get the same set of family rights even if not married. Those 1049 federal benefits that come with a federal marriage license have nothing to do with children, so why deny them to us?
Agreed. Any civil society would ensure that were so.
All I've tried to relate, is that same sex couples have some very fundamental differences which I believe require a whole different set of laws to address them. The two types of marriage laws need to be separate because the laws for traditional marriage are complicated enough, but work relatively well since we have created them and refined them over the centuries.
What part of any marriage requirement requires a penis and a vagina to accomplish?
All I've tried to relate, is that same sex couples have some very fundamental differences which I believe require a whole different set of laws to address them. The two types of marriage laws need to be separate because the laws for traditional marriage are complicated enough, but work relatively well since we have created them and refined them over the centuries.
Nonsense.
Name one specific thing in civil marriage law - one benefit or protection it provides - that is applicable to straight couples but not to gay couples.
Perhaps you could point to several examples in the states that have abolished marriage discrimination where the differences have made the application of civil marriage law extremely difficult or impossible (either for a straight couple or a gay couple), and for each example could explain how setting up two sets of laws would solve the problem.
Building on that, how would these fundamentally different sets of laws for gay couples verses straight couples different? Perhaps a you could provide me with a short list of 10 differences you'd suggest.
All I've tried to relate, is that same sex couples have some very fundamental differences which I believe require a whole different set of laws to address them. The two types of marriage laws need to be separate because the laws for traditional marriage are complicated enough, but work relatively well since we have created them and refined them over the centuries.
Nonsense.
Name one specific thing in civil marriage law - one legal benefit or protection it provides - that is applicable to straight couples but not to gay couples. And even if you can list one (which I doubt you will), if it's not applicable to gay couples, why is there a need to rewrite a new law just because one small part is inapplicable?
Perhaps you could point to several examples in the states that have abolished marriage discrimination where the differences have made the application of civil marriage law extremely difficult or impossible (either for a straight couple or a gay couple), and for each example could you explain how setting up two sets of laws would solve the problem.
Building on that, how would these fundamentally different sets of laws for gay couples verses straight couples be different? Perhaps you could provide me with a short list of 10 differences you'd suggest.
Last edited by hammertime33; 01-10-2014 at 02:36 PM..
Agreed. Any civil society would ensure that were so.
All I've tried to relate, is that same sex couples have some very fundamental differences which I believe require a whole different set of laws to address them. The two types of marriage laws need to be separate because the laws for traditional marriage are complicated enough, but work relatively well since we have created them and refined them over the centuries.
Children? Nope, not required, and homosexuals DO have children.
Estates? Nope we have those too.
Medical decisions? Nope It doesn't require mixed sexes to make medical decisions.
Please explain these "fundamental differences" that only apply to mixed sexes when it comes to marriage laws..
That has exactly been what the church has been doing, forcing their beliefs upon everyone through enacting laws. it is the church and its menions that have created this war and are forcing the hand of the government that has reason to recognize all of its tax paying US citizens, not just its straight or christian citizens. We are not a theocracy that enforces religious doctrine. We never will be, for religion does not equate equality, religion is tyranny and subjugation.
The church has always recognized marriage as between one man and one woman, it's some in the gay community who want to force the change, and ridicule, malign and insult the church.
Like I said, most of the population agreed to civil unions, but instead of accepting that, the gay movement has rejected it, and started a conflict to change traditional marriage, which has upset, infuriated and hardened many people against, so they refuse to budge or even agree to civil marriages.
Some people are on a crusade to force changes to traditional marriage, and are throwing bombs and burning bridges. If militant gays were not name calling and trying to destroy people's lives and businesses for disagreeing with changing traditional marriage, they would have already had civil unions.
Why can't we got the sensible route, and we had civil marriages first, and the world did not come to an end....
Same sex marriage is new, the state and local laws to govern it have not even been written yet. We still have a lot of legal battles within the same-sex community to be hammered out. These will be lawsuits brought about by gay couples against their partners, against surrogates, the government, businesses etc... to resolve issues we never really thought of. So give them a decade or so to smooth them out and get them working to everyone's satisfaction... then we might see, a quite and acceptable change to roll civil marriage into one single form of marriage.
But instead of a gradual change, with a new form of marriage to work out thru the voters, the courthouses and local and state legislators, we have a war going on in society because people want it all NOW, when we are not ready.
The church has always recognized marriage as between one man and one woman, it's some in the gay community who want to force the change, and ridicule, malign and insult the church.
Like I said, most of the population agreed to civil unions, but instead of accepting that, the gay movement has rejected it, and started a conflict to change traditional marriage, which has upset, infuriated and hardened many people against, so they refuse to budge or even agree to civil marriages.
Some people are on a crusade to force changes to traditional marriage, and are throwing bombs and burning bridges. If militant gays were not name calling and trying to destroy people's lives and businesses for disagreeing with changing traditional marriage, they would have already had civil unions.
Why can't we got the sensible route, and we had civil marriages first, and the world did not come to an end....
Same sex marriage is new, the state and local laws to govern it have not even been written yet. We still have a lot of legal battles within the same-sex community to be hammered out. These will be lawsuits brought about by gay couples against their partners, against surrogates, the government, businesses etc... to resolve issues we never really thought of. So give them a decade or so to smooth them out and get them working to everyone's satisfaction... then we might see, a quite and acceptable change to roll civil marriage into one single form of marriage.
But instead of a gradual change, with a new form of marriage to work out thru the voters, the courthouses and local and state legislators, we have a war going on in society because people want it all NOW, when we are not ready.
The church has nothing to do with civil marriage. The church can refuse wedding ceremonies for ANYONE that they choose to. So, there are two marriages here. LEGAL CIVIL MARRIAGE which is what we are fighting for, and Church marriage, which has no legal standing at all. Please remember we are discussing LEGAL CIVIL MARRIAGE. Nothing to do with a church at all.
Anti discrimination laws have nothing to do with marriage laws.
The population has BANNED civil unions and domestic partnerships in most states where SSM is banned. So please give that crap up. IF the people were all for civil unions, I would be able to get one right no, yet my state bans them. Last year there was a vote to ban civil unions in a constitutional amendment in NC which passed, so obviously the people are not all for civil unions. That still doesn't address the FACT that the federal government does not recognize ANY civil union.
What do you think is happening? The voters have approved SSM in 4 states. The legislatures are approving SSM in many more, the courthouses are filled with legal cases about SSM. We ARE doing exactly what you think we should be doing and we are winning.
The church has always recognized marriage as between one man and one woman, it's some in the gay community who want to force the change, and ridicule, malign and insult the church.
Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Religion has nothing to do with civil marriage. The issue you're bringing up here is between churches and their gay members.
(and your "always" statement is incorrect - many churches do recognize and solemnize gay marriages)
Quote:
Like I said, most of the population agreed to civil unions, but instead of accepting that, the gay movement has rejected it, and started a conflict to change traditional marriage
Again, this debate has nothing to do with traditional or religious or private marriages. It is a debate about the LEGAL INSTITUTION of civil marriage within our secular laws.
Quote:
Some people are on a crusade to force changes to traditional marriage, and are throwing bombs and burning bridges. If militant gays were not name calling and trying to destroy people's lives and businesses for disagreeing with changing traditional marriage, they would have already had civil unions.
Why can't we got the sensible route, and we had civil marriages first, and the world did not come to an end....
That's EXACTLY what us "militant gays" are asking for - civil marriages. Why are you fighting against it when right here you're calling in the "sensible route"???
Children? Nope, not required, and homosexuals DO have children.
Estates? Nope we have those too.
Medical decisions? Nope It doesn't require mixed sexes to make medical decisions.
Please explain these "fundamental differences" that only apply to mixed sexes when it comes to marriage laws..
I think that is something you need to come to on your own. You obviously have not given it much thought on your own yet, or you would know some of them, or you have forgotten posts where I discussed some of them, or you did not read them.
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.
