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, I am showing you how the law works. You do not remove all restrictions just because ONE is removed.
Pot was legalized in some states, does that mean all controlled substances are now legal? Nope. ONE restriction was removed it did nothing to the other restrictions.
There was a restriction on which race a person could marry. THAT restriction was removed, yet did not remove any other restriction. When the restriction on gender is removed it does not remove any other restriction. Just like when some states removed the restriction on marijuana use it did not remove the restriction on any other controlled substances.
EVERY restriction stands or falls based on it's own merits.
So, since gays can get federal recognition of their marriages it is more difficult for heterosexuals to get married? What?
OR
IS it that heterosexuals no longer get special treatment over other American citizens who PAY for them to get those special benefits?
How about this. I will agree to never get married, but I never have to pay another dime in taxes. That includes federal, state, sales, gas, nothing. If I can not have access to the benefits and protections MY yax dollars pay for, then I shouldn't have to pay for them for you.
Have you seen this hilarious ad about how same-sex marriage ruins heterosexual marriages?
What? How????? There is no connection between these two sentences. Allowing gay marriage in no way whatsoever makes it more difficult to "promote traditional marriage." (Not to mention we're talking about gay marriage, not some fictitious law you think exists about pushing the "gay agenda" in schools).
But they don't, so you're safe.
Maybe he thinks that if same-sex marriage wasn't available, gay and lesbian people would marry straight people of the opposite sex? Doesn't make sense I know, but very little they say does.
I'm sorry but I may have misunderstood as English isn't my first language.
Do you mean promote as in "tv ads" or promote as in giving even more benefits to heterosexual marriages in a time where same sex marriage is about to rightfully be obtained in the whole USA for those benefits also?
why should gays be eligible for marriage benefits if they are incapable of having kids. Marriage rights were set up to protect women in an inbalanced relationship that results in kids.
No marriage isn't about procreation. It ADDRESSES procreation. Marriage exists because of procreation. If we divided like amoebas we wouldn't have marriage.
You are wrong again, marriage exists because two people want to make a legal commitment, it has nothing to do with procreation. One can get married and not have kids, one can have kids and not get married. Do you need Sesame Street type songs to make it easier for you to understand? Those 1049 federal rights never address children, ever. Read them. None of them are about children or procreation or protecting children, zip, zilch, nada, zero. Marriage is not required for humans to reproduce anymore than a dog or cat would need marriage to reproduce.
why should gays be eligible for marriage benefits if they are incapable of having kids. Marriage rights were set up to protect women in an inbalanced relationship that results in kids.
Actually no, marriage rights were set up to join assets and power. Assets that could then be given to kids resulting from the marriage or, as was often prefered, the extended family. Until very recently, and still now for a very large part of the world, marriage was a very economical decision. Kids only mattered as to whom those assets and power could be transfered to. See the divorce of Napoleon from Josephine de Beauharnais, for example. Or practically all of european royalty and their illegitimate kids.
It also worked for very poor farm workers as they could pay less in taxes (la dime, for example), were they united as a family or adding their family's privileges, as little they might be.
What HAS changed is the fact that for the past 40 years or so, people now marry for love (in the western world). And that gives every right for gay people to marry. And if you think it's for the benefits, well then, no more than heterosexuals.
REALLY??? NOT allowing reproduction, say in cases where the two parties are too closely related, prevents children from being born who might have genetic issues...
However, AGAIN, reproduction is front and center.... but marriage isn't about procreation is it???
Right, you got it, marriage is about two people getting married, not about kids. Forget it now.
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.
