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.
Canada doesn't have as many crazy, litigious people simply wanting to make a point.
True, but I don't see how that is an argument against equality. If people are worried about reactions and actions of those against them, no one would advance.
Do you think women and blacks cared one iota what others thought?
Is it for the government benefits?
Filing IRS jointly?
Is it for mandatory job benefits?
Insurance?
Is it for the end of life care?
Is it for assets after your partner is dead?
Is it so the other partner has a say in child rearing?
Or is it just to say you are a gay married couple?
I have to wonder in the reasoning?
There is an easy way out of all this, if it were not being used as a power grab over more lives, instead of setting us all free of government interference.
You have to buy friends, in these days of greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Let me get this straight. A piece of paper creates happiness.
I have no problem living together under contract, but that is not called marriage.
What is the reasoning behind SSM? Because for years, while gays would be excommunicated by their families, and have very little, if any, communication with their biological families for years, and later after having established a long term relationship with a significant other, having lived together for years, if he died, family members would come after the surviving spouse for royalties. You would see some guy rejected by his family when he was younger, establish a career, build a life with his partner, then after many years together he would die and his siblings, or nieces and nephews would come after the surviving spouse for inheritance, sometimes even if there was a will giving the surviving spouse ownership of everything, such as the house, and car, etc. it would be contested. Gay people had very little rights, and it was common for a surviving spouse to have to sell a house, give up a car, and any possessions to the deceased spouses family members.
Also, it was common place for hospitals to summarily refuse visitation rights to visit their same sex spouse in the hospital. SSM marriage was inspired through the hatred of heterosexual people. Even unmarried heterosexual couples rarely faced such adversity.
Is it for the government benefits?
Filing IRS jointly?
Is it for mandatory job benefits?
Insurance?
Is it for the end of life care?
Is it for assets after your partner is dead?
Is it so the other partner has a say in child rearing?
Or is it just to say you are a gay married couple?
I have to wonder in the reasoning?
Marriage should be removed entirely from the benefits equation and those claiming that they are for equality would want everybody to receive these benefits equally without the need, requirement or necessity of marriage. Anyone should be allowed to select any other individual(s) to act as a partner / associate for the benefits of but not limited to insurance, visitation, inheritance, property, taxes, etc.
Marriage is not part of natural law, it's a social construct that humans invented. Marriage is not yours. You hold no authority or exclusive right to the word or concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Homosexual offenders was not added to Corinthians until the 1940s. That's not what it meant in the original scriptures. And Paul mentions a lot of other sins, including numerous ones you commit. He also says you have no right to call others out on their sins, because you do the same things.
Again, words are being put in my mouth. I dont mean marriage is mine. I mean marriage is ours in that government may only recognize, not re-define marriage, as it has never been theirs to re-define.
if one wants to argue that marriage did not develop from the family unit one could, but even then marriage was clearly defined by religion before any modern government was born. Separation of Church and State would then require that the government may in no way involve itself in changing the institution of Marriage at all, and may even make our government's recognition of marriage unconstitutional.
when modern governments recognized marriage, they required a marriage license. because just as the family unit and marriage were not available to all before government's involvement, the privilege of a govt. issued license defines that certain criteria must be met. there are no "rights" involved, rather an exchange of benefits. the government deemed marriage to potentially be to its own benefit, and in return provides benefits to those who qualify.
history has taught us polygamy is damaging to society
history has taught us incest must be discouraged
and science teaches us homosexuals can not form a family unit.
In regards to Corinthians, i only include book line and verse for reference because some are not familiar when i quote without them. My view on the sins had neither been solicited nor offered previously. If it were, i would simply refer to the very next line, Corinthians 6:11, which as I understand it, says that a sinner's soul will be redeemed if they correct their sinful behavior.
Last edited by CousinMaynard; 03-08-2014 at 02:04 PM..
Marriage should be removed entirely from the benefits equation and those claiming that they are for equality would want everybody to receive these benefits equally without the need, requirement or necessity of marriage. Anyone should be allowed to select any other individual(s) to act as a partner / associate for the benefits of but not limited to insurance, visitation, inheritance, property, taxes, etc.
I disagree. Marriage, including common-law marriage is a partnership, and those partners have obligations and rights to each other.
I just can't see a spouse sitting by while their partner gives those rights away to someone else who has contribute less to the their relationship.
Again, words are being put in my mouth. I dont mean marriage is mine. I mean marriage is ours in that government may only recognize, not re-define marriage, as it has never been theirs to re-define.
if one wants to argue that marriage did not develop from the family unit one could, but even then marriage was clearly defined by religion before any modern government was born. Separation of Church and State would then require that the government may in no way involve itself in changing the institution of Marriage at all, and may even make our government's recognition of marriage unconstitutional.
when modern governments recognized marriage, they required a marriage license. because just as the family unit and marriage were not available to all before government's involvement, the privilege of a govt. issued license defines that certain criteria must be met. there are no "rights" involved, rather an exchange of benefits. the government deemed marriage to potentially be to its own benefit, and in return provides benefits to those who qualify.
history has taught us polygamy is damaging to society
history has taught us incest must be discouraged
and science teaches us homosexuals can not form a family unit.
In regards to Corinthians, i only include book line and verse for reference because some are not familiar when i quote without them. My view on the sins of others had neither been solicited nor offered previously. If it were, i would simply refer to the very next line, Corinthians 6:11, which says that a sinner's soul will be redeemed if they correct their sinful behavior.
Government defines marriage all over the world. You aren't married legally otherwise. My common-law partner has certain rights in our relationship because of the law, which of course is made by government.
" and science teaches us homosexuals can not form a family unit "
Really? Someone better inform all those gay families out there that they don't exist.
I disagree. Marriage, including common-law marriage is a partnership, and those partners have obligations and rights to each other.
The 2 member partnership is already established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci
I just can't see a spouse sitting by while their partner gives those rights away to someone else who has contribute less to the their relationship.
Once a partnership / association has been established this removes any need for further refinement or any additional member(s) or participant(s) beyond the first 2 original parties.
Again, words are being put in my mouth. I dont mean marriage is mine. I mean marriage is ours in that government may only recognize, not re-define marriage, as it has never been theirs to re-define.
But nobody is redefining heterosexual marriage. This was only a scare tactic method to sensationalize and inflame the religious right, and other conservatives to think marriage would change society as we know it, referring to SSM as some kind of an "attack." When in reality, it was just an extension of marriage to an otherwise disenfranchised segment of the population, whom wished to celebrate marriage in the same tradition.
Last edited by 9162; 03-08-2014 at 02:42 PM..
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.
