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.
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.
Boy oh boy another person who is ignorant of the law, none of those 1049 rights that come with a federal civil marriage license have anything to do with kids or reproducing kids, ever. And no one has to have kids if they marry, or prove that they intend on having kids even. Kids are not required of marriage and reproduction does not require marriage. There is no reason to deny gays the same exact full marriage rights. None.
Boy oh boy another person who is ignorant of the law, none of those 1049 rights that come with a federal civil marriage license have anything to do with kids or reproducing kids, ever. And no one has to have kids if they marry, or prove that they intend on having kids even. Kids are not required of marriage and reproduction does not require marriage. There is no reason to deny gays the same exact full marriage rights. None.
Ok, well i think it should be tied to having kids or they should do away with government in the marriage business. Why does the government need to recognize and reward sexual relationships? That's not a legit function of government.
It also discriminates against singles.
Why can't other people in a relationship, like father-daughter apply for marriage benefits if gays can and has nothing to do with kids resulting from the relationship?
Ok, well i think it should be tied to having kids or they should do away with government in the marriage business.
So no-one over 50 can get married, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod
Why does the government need to recognize and reward sexual relationships? That's not a legit function of government.
You probably have never gotten married if you think it means sex Which is why I prefer to live in sin by the way (just to lighten the atmosphere)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod
It also discriminates against singles.
There you go
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod
It also discriminates against singles.
You know what? To be more serious... I could actually agree with a movement that wanted to eliminate benefits for married couples altogether. But then, it'd be against the OP's statement, no? Still, it'd be more honest than denying those rights to same sex couples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod
Why can't other people in a relationship, like father-daughter apply for marriage benefits if gays can and has nothing to do with kids resulting from the relationship?
Okay, this might be a difficult legal matter to understand but sibblings or parents don't need marriage to get those benefits, because, hey... they're family, they lawfully HAVE benefits! Glad to have cleared that for you.
(Notice how I didn't adress the fact that you implied father and daughter could and would have something to do with kids resulting from their relationship? Oups, I just did)
A child is better off being raised by two opposite sexes instead of same sex. A father serves a distinct role as does the mother. Plain and simple. One of the main reasons that we have such an angry violent generation of young people is because the traditional family unit is gone.
You probably have never gotten married if you think it means sex Which is why I prefer to live in sin by the way (just to lighten the atmosphere)
There you go
You know what? To be more serious... I could actually agree with a movement that wanted to eliminate benefits for married couples altogether. But then, it'd be against the OP's statement, no? Still, it'd be more honest than denying those rights to same sex couples.
Okay, this might be a difficult legal matter to understand but sibblings or parents don't need marriage to get those benefits, because, hey... they're family, they lawfully HAVE benefits! Glad to have cleared that for you.
(Notice how I didn't adress the fact that you implied father and daughter could and would have something to do with kids resulting from their relationship? Oups, I just did)
they can't get the marriage benefits of married couples unless they are married.
you are saying government should give marriage benefits to gays simpbly b/c they love each other so why should that critieria only apply to gays, if kids has nothing to do with it? why not two friends, they love each other? or is it only for sexual relationships? lol
In my mind the point of marriage benefits would be to encourage men to stay with the women they knock up for the good of the kids. if it isn't about that, then there should be no marriage benefits at all. and obvously gays don't get knocked up so this doesn't apply to them thus they are ineligible.
Also, these new laws are used to attack other people's beliefs. There are many examples where the new laws are used by homosexuals to attack people foe simply refusing to accept gayness as normal. These kinds of things harm the society, because all of a sudden we are not allowed to express our religious beliefs anymore.
Religious beliefs? Like the baker in Denver who wouldn't provide a cake for a gay wedding claiming it went against his religious beliefs, but was happy to provide one for a DOG wedding?
they can't get the marriage benefits of married couples unless they are married.
Actually, yes they can as they already are FAMILY, unless one of them is married to another person. You're not advocating polygamy, are you? Don't parents have tax reductions for their children? Aren't their children immediate heirs? etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod
you are saying government should give marriage benefits to gays simpbly b/c they love each other so why should that critieria only apply to gays, if kids has nothing to do with it? why not two friends, they love each other?
Okay, I feel that you're not as close-minded as others we have both seen here on this topic. So I will trust you to answer me truthfully.
Who said that it should only apply to gay people? it would still apply to hetero couples you know...
But that isn't the question I want you to answer from the bottom of your heart.
Should a hetero couple, who has been married for 10 years+ and bear the challenge of not being able to have kids although they want to, see their "marriage privileges" revoked?
Truthfully? Don't you see now the difference between two friends and two people who deeply love each other and yes, sexually also?
I trust that you will be honest, if not on the forum, with yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryTimrod
In my mind the point of marriage benefits would be to encourage men to stay with the women they knock up for the good of the kids. if it isn't about that, then there should be no marriage benefits at all. and obvously gays don't get knocked up so this doesn't apply to them thus they are ineligible.
Wow, you're such a romantic. Maybe I should have read that before I wrote what I posted above(although, as I asked you to be truthful, I will not remove it and be honest myself).
Actually, yes they can as they already are FAMILY, unless one of them is married to another person. You're not advocating polygamy, are you? Don't parents have tax reductions for their children? Aren't their children immediate heirs? etc, etc.
Okay, I feel that you're not as close-minded as others we have both seen here on this topic. So I will trust you to answer me truthfully.
Who said that it should only apply to gay people? it would still apply to hetero couples you know...
But that isn't the question I want you to answer with from the bottom of your heart.
Should a hetero couple, who has been married for 10 years+ and bear the challenge of not being able to have kids although they want to, see their "marriage privileges" revoked?
Truthfully? Don't you see now the difference between two friends and two people who deeply love each other and yes, sexually also?
I trust that you will be honest, if not on the forum, with yourself.
Wow, you're such a romantic. Maybe I should have read that before I wrote what I posted above(although, as I asked you to be truthful, I will not remove it and be honest myself).
lol so you think the government should care about romantic couplings?
i like to think there is a better reason for government to be involve din something than two people love each other and are in a physical relationship. lol i think society would survive without government recognizing that and rewarding it, as though being single is a bad thing.
And just as a reminder... I don't know if basic biology isn't taught in US schools anymore, but it isn't a wedding ring that makes children
you seem to think two gays can have a kid eespite your mastery of biology. i don't think marriage rights really about rewarding two guys who have anal sex with each other. lol sounds pretty goofy to me if so
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.
Which is why I prefer to live in sin by the way (just to lighten the atmosphere
)
