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.
so you think it's ok to discriminate because you believe a marriage license will compel a couple to contribute more to society than two adults living in a committed relationship?
A married couple is more likely to stay together, raise a family, and purchase a house than a non married couple is. There is are reasons there are incentives for married couples and not single people. Discrimination entails you not being allowed to take part in something. There is nothing stopping that couple from getting married other than personal choice. Your argument isn't solid at all.
No, 1 single person + 1 single person is not the same as a two people married. If there was no FINANCIAL benefit gays would not care about the legal benefits granted to those licensed by their respective states, and duly recognized by Uncle Sam. They could always pledge their love and commitment at any time in whatever manner they deemed appropriate. Marriage in the legal sense grants preferential treatment over single people. You refuse to admit you don't mind discrimination, as long as you benefit.
It is not just the benefits, it is also the rights and protections and that 1 single person living with a single person can get married if the want the same, they are not discriminated except for in your head. They would be discriminated against if they were not allowed to marry. It is you that is refusing to admit that two single people can get married if they want.
so you think it's ok to discriminate because you believe a marriage license will compel a couple to contribute more to society than two adults living in a committed relationship?
If they are committed to each other, they can marry and recieve the rights, protections and benefits. As it has been, simply for being gay, a gay couple has been denied that, no matter how committed. That is discrimination.
It is not just the benefits, it is also the rights and protections and that 1 single person living with a single person can get married if the want the same, they are not discriminated except for in your head. They would be discriminated against if they were not allowed to marry. It is you that is refusing to admit that two single people can get married if they want.
In the context of the thread - and knowing I'm not opposed to civil unions between anyone - it doesn't change the fact that marriage discriminates against single people.
In the context of the thread - and knowing I'm not opposed to civil unions between anyone - it doesn't change the fact that marriage discriminates against single people.
That is not a fact at all, it does not discriminate against them because they can partake of it without being denied it. And the civil unions part is gone, moot, the Feds will not recognize them and ALL STATES THAT BANNED SAME SEX MARRIAGE ALSO BANNED CIVIL UNIONS, so they were not an option, ever. But interesting that now that same sex marriage/marriage equality is almost reality, the naysayers all of a sudden say, "well you can have civil unions" , they were never on the table to begin with. It is too late to offer up second class civil unions.
First, I think the poll, as constructed is nonsense.
Second, I don't mind if the state legislatures pass gay marriage statutes. I just see no legal basis for declaring that the constitution mandates that the states allow it.
Have you read any of the appellate court briefs on the subject? Pretty hard to argue that States shouldn't have to allow it.
While I think the state has no business in peoples lives and therefore am against banning gay marriage, I also really like the idea of the states being "laboratories" for different ideas.
So I'd advocate for this issue to be a states rights issue.
While I think the state has no business in peoples lives and therefore am against banning gay marriage, I also really like the idea of the states being "laboratories" for different ideas.
So I'd advocate for this issue to be a states rights issue.
Why? Why is not interracial marriage then a state issue for each state? We are not talking about laws like speed limits or such, we are talking about rights, equal rights for gay citizens that also pay taxes, also have families and are not second class citizens. Why should our rights be up to any vote, but not anyone else?
Personally, I think government should have zero role in marriage (meaning marriage does not exist in a legal sense).
I agree, government should not be involved in marriage at all. I don't care if a guy or girl get married, two guys get married, or two girls get married, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. I think there should actually be no tax benefit to being married no matter who you are. That can only encourage people to marry, who otherwise wouldn't. Not that I think people get married just for the tax benefit... But nonetheless it's not governments role.
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.
