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.
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.
Yet only the blood relative has legal holding on the child.
For instance, if lets say one woman had a child and gained custody and then were to have a relationship with another woman. If she were to pass, blood line relation would automatically establish parental rights to the child. The partner would have no legal claim to the child because they are not a blood relative.
This is the legal standing of blood line relation to which marriage signifies. The same is with property and so forth.
The homosexual couple produces no bond as such and therefore does not meet the additional issues to which marriage in its understanding does which is why there exists civil unions.
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.
It is not though. the fact that some have ignored intelligent understanding to embrace social idiom is not evidence or right, it is simply the progression of ignorance through mob influence. The issue is not "water under the bridge", that is a fallacy used to push on to proclaiming ones position correct.
What part of the country would that be, by the way?
Proud that they are educated in the definition of a word. Some might be. In this case, tI appears to be an accomplishment these days considering the number of people who are ignorant of the definition of words.
State Supreme Court decisions and bills signed by governors are because of "mob influence"?
It is when they serve public ignorance. That is, pandering to public social trends rather than serving the best interest of the people. Serving social ignorance is not in the best interest of the people.
Yet only the blood relative has legal holding on the child.
For instance, if lets say one woman had a child and gained custody and then were to have a relationship with another woman. If she were to pass, blood line relation would automatically establish parental rights to the child. The partner would have no legal claim to the child because they are not a blood relative.
This is the legal standing of blood line relation to which marriage signifies. The same is with property and so forth.
The homosexual couple produces no bond as such and therefore does not meet the additional issues to which marriage in its understanding does which is why there exists civil unions.
Nonsense. If a child is adopted the adoptive parent or parents do have the same legal standing as a "blood" parent.
Homosexuality is not marriage. It never has nor can be. Homosexuals can never produce a bloodline, ever.
Marriage in its historical context was to respect the relation of bloodlines and identify legal hold to property rights, assets, and responsibilities. Its religious context is irrelevant to the legal one.
Civil unions are an adaption to meet the contract between two to establish these responsibilities and rights for a legal system to recognize. The laws protect all, not just one segment.
Two men or two women are nothing more than agreed sexual partners. the contract of such an agreement was never considered because its establishment is small and insignificant in terms of the population. That does not mean it should not be considered as has been brought up by the homosexual community. So, it is reasonable to establish such parameters of recognition within the legal system to which civil unions attempt to accomplish. If they are not fully doing so, then by all means, strengthen them.
That said, changing the meaning of a word in this case to suit this condition that is contrary to the purpose of the word is ignorant.
As for the claim of a straw man, much like the issue concerning two of the same sex, so must then the subjects brought up by that poster. Plural marriages are not considered because they are illegal, much like homosexual marriages and even actions in the past. If one is valid, all are valid. Ignoring them is to place yourself no different than the bigots you claim to object to.
Sigh, so much fail,...
Homosexuality is not marriage? Of course it's not, it implies sexual orientation, not marital status. Just like heterosexuality is an sexual orientation rather than marital status. What you've said is completely nonsensical, it's just like saying "The bottle of Pepsi is not drinking." No, you have to open it and drink the contents of said bottle in order to be drinking. Geeze, is the concept of reading a dictionary completely alien to you?
And let me get this straight, homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against and denied a fundamental human right simply because they don't produce offspring?
That's just ridiculous. The purpose of marriage is not just for the sake of reproduction, there are other benefits to marriage, such as visitation rights for example. And even so, it is still no justification for denying homosexuals equal rights.
No, I don't see your position as anything more than just bigotry. You're just simply making excuses for your intolerance.
Nope, but nice try. The other partner has as much claim as a friend or stranger walking down the street.
You are wrong. Adoption is a legal fact and gives legal parental rights to the adopting parents. Try telling the parents of adopted children across this country that they have no legal right to their child because they do not have a blood tie. Ridiculous.
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?
