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.
Once again, how can a right that never existed be taken away?
I fully support elevating and strengthening civil unions to give them all the spousal rights and privileges currently given to married couples.
That doesnt mean that the definition of marriage has to change. Does it?
seperate but equal huh?
if you don't agree with what homosexuals do.. why would you promote civil unions? that is government sponsorship of it isn't it??? You're already contradicting yourself...
You're a mess... first you say.. the government should not be validating harmful immoral behavior, and then you turn around and advocate civil unions??? You've got to be kidding me...
You're a biggot.. it's completely apparent that you are now...
you have no basis for your standing and rants... you don't stand for anything other than semantics and pride... petty... really petty...
Because removing Marriage from Govt removes any chance that something as subjective as faith is involved in the conversation.
Or do wish for faith to be further diluted in govt?
Quote:
You're already contradicting yourself...
You're a mess... first you say.. the government should not be validating harmful immoral behavior, and then you turn around and advocate civil unions??? You've got to be kidding me...
You're a biggot.. it's completely apparent that you are now...
you have no basis for your standing and rants... you don't stand for anything other than semantics and pride... petty... really petty...
Personal attacks are usually what opponents revert to when they can't deal with the truth.
Divorce Rate in Same-Sex Partnerships In Sweden (http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html - broken link)
Firstly, I wouldn't trust anything on the NARTH website. Anyone who looks more deeply into their "claims" knows about their unscientific, non peer reviewed "studies" and distortion of facts. Fairly typical for a religious based anti-homosexual organization.
Secondly, I looked up the original study:
It was not looking at "divorce rates", but a "divorce risk assessment" by the authors based on their own extrapolation and massaging of data which compared same sex "registered partnerships" to opposite-sex marriages.
The data was from both Norway and Sweden over different time periods last decade. Norway introduced same-sex registered partnerships several years before Sweden.
The number of same sex registered partnerships was very small compared to the number of opposite-sex marriages...and they were not over the same time period.
Comparing registered partnerships to marriages is like comparing apples and pineapples.
Sweden only just introduced same-sex marriage 3 weeks ago effective 1st May 2009.
Hard to look at divorce rates when the couples weren't even "married" in the first place.
No need to be disrespectful and hurl personal insults.
It cheapens everything else you have to say.
You are the one who equated gay marriage w/beastility. You then went on to claim that you were gay. Is there not an obvious connection going on here that YOU made or did I miss something? You should be more ashamed w/yourself for degrading your own gayness down to beastiality. By the way, your wording in the above post makes me seriously question whether you are in fact gay.
The courts are supposed to rule on what's constitutional or unconstitutional; not what's fair or unfair. Sure, there's some overlap, but simply because it's unfair (and I agree it is) doesn't make it unconstitutional.
I'm sorry man.
you're right.. I'm not saying that... the court did rule it unconstitutional... they also cited common law principles in the ruling.. namely interacial marriage.. it was already ruled unconstitutional.. so 52 percent of the population changed the constitution..
People need to see that the constitutuion never limited gays from marriage before.. these halfwits are going around CHANGING the constitution...
You are the one who equated gay marriage w/beastility. You then went on to claim that you were gay. Is there not an obvious connection going on here that YOU made or did I miss something? You should be more ashamed w/yourself for degrading your own gayness down to beastiality. By the way, your wording in the above post makes me seriously question whether you are in fact gay.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who is confused. I had a whole response typed about the differences between plural marriage, incest, bestiality and same sex marriage, then after re-reading the post I was responding to, I couldn't tell if I was agreeing or disagreeing with this poster. So I deleted it.
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.
