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.
I would love the irony if these minority protection laws began protecting Whites because we are becoming the minority quickly. I'm sure that Jesse Jackson, La Raza, and the other race baiters would quickly decide that minority "protection" laws aren't necessary anymore.
It's not surprising that Whites are becoming the minority when 53% of Hispanics are pregnant by 20.
1. If marriage is only for the purpose of producing children and protection of their "bloodlines" then older people should not be allowed to marry and those incapable of or unwilling to produce children should have their marriage disolved.
Marriage recognized legally was to deal with the production of such case in terms of rights associated with that bloodline. The fact that a couple may not produce one, does not change the fact that a heterosexual couple can produce generally. A homosexual couple can never produce, ever. They are irrelevant to the position of the definition which is why it was never considered legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML
2. The back of the bus and the front of the bus go to the same place but if everyone pays the same fare then you can not force some fare paying riders to sit at the back of the bus while allowing others fare paying riders to sit at the front of the bus. GLBT citizens pay the same "fare" of citizenship as do all other citizens and should not be forced to sit at the back of the bus (civil unions) while allowing hetrosexual citizens the front of the bus (marriage.)
Demanding social idioms into acceptance is not a civil rights issue, it is one of ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML
3. Marriage is the pledge of two people to love, honor, and be faithful to one another as long as they both shall live. Two GLBTs are just as capable of loving, honoring, and being faithful to one another as are two hetrosexuals. To dismiss their love and committment to one another as nothing but "agreed sexual partners" is both ignorant and demeaning of the meaing of love.
Marriage in its legal form is not concerned with love, honor and being faithful. It is concerned with the appropriation of assets and responsibilities in and how it concerns the bloodlines it may establish. Civil unions seek the same, yet do not contain blood line establishment because there is nothing produced from the relationship. Again, your definition is irrelevant to the legal state to which it exists.
Perhaps heterosexual marriages where the man is found to be impotent or the women is infertile should have their marriage licenses revoked. After, all they can't "produce anything".
Marriage recognized legally was to deal with the production of such case in terms of rights associated with that bloodline. The fact that a couple may not produce one, does not change the fact that a heterosexual couple can produce generally. A homosexual couple can never produce, ever. They are irrelevant to the position of the definition which is why it was never considered legally.
Again, sorry. Things change. Your definition of marriage has already changed in six U.S. states and several countries around the world, with more on the way.
Perhaps heterosexual marriages where the man is found to be impotent or the women is infertile should have their marriage licenses revoked. After, all they can't "produce anything".
So, you are saying two men can between themselves produce a child? Now I am starting to see why there is problems with understanding definitions.
Again, sorry. Things change. Your definition of marriage has already changed in six U.S. states and several countries around the world, with more on the way.
thats it? No reason, a childish "I don't care... Whaaa!" response?
Ok, I can play along. You are a minority insignificant to the whole of the picture. Your demands are irrelevant, you do not matter so accept it and run along.
So, you are saying two men can between themselves produce a child? Now I am starting to see why there is problems with understanding definitions.
No, I'm saying that they can produce children with women and then raise them on their own or with a same-sex partner.
Obviously, having children is not a requirement when two people get married, so to use that as a reason to deny same-sex couples a marriage license is meaningless to me.
thats it? No reason, a childish "I don't care... Whaaa!" response?
Ok, I can play along. You are a minority insignificant to the whole of the picture. Your demands are irrelevant, you do not matter so accept it and run along.
No, no. My point is that you're making an argument that is "water under the bridge" in a growing number of places. The marriage licenses given to same-sex couples in the states where it is legal are just as legitimate as the licenses given to opposite-sex couples.
No, no. My point is that you're making an argument that is "water under the bridge" in a growing number of places. The marriage licenses given to same-sex couples in the states where it is legal are just as legitimate as the licenses given to opposite-sex couples.
Not if they come to my part of the country,we will not recognize your marriage and that my friend will not change for a very very long time
Not if they come to my part of the country,we will not recognize your marriage and that my friend will not change for a very very long time
And you are proud of that fact?
What part of the country would that be, by the way?
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.
What part of the country would that be, by the way?
