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.
If you look at the US portions of this link, you'll see the hodge podge mess civil unions already are in your country (for both straights and gays). We think you will not find those legal discrepancies under marriage. For this reason, granting the right to marriage is far easier and would spare gays a great deal of turmoil, if that matters to any. Imagine what it must be like to be married (or in a civil union) in one city or state and so not being able to travel because your marriage or civil union will evaporate or even be considered illegal depending where you go to work or visit family.
Do you have a point?...could you try to be a bit less obtuse with your argument?
You're right. I shouldn't have picked your argument apart. It is hard for you to defend your claims, isn't it?
If you care, track back to your post that I'd responded to. You were talking about some rights... I had to ask, what rights! Because you also wanted government to stay out of those rights, and yet you quote laws framed by the government.
Many say that it's up to the states, but that completely ignores the federal framework that supports marriage. For instance, a married gay couple in MA cannot file a joint federal return, a partner cannot sponsor somebody for immigration, etc.
You're right. I shouldn't have picked your argument apart. It is hard for you to defend your claims, isn't it?
If you care, track back to your post that I'd responded to. You were talking about some rights... I had to ask, what rights! Because you also wanted government to stay out of those rights, and yet you quote laws framed by the government.
ahh...Thank you. At least now I know where you are coming from. I defend my claims just fine. I did say that I disagree with DOMA and that I believe the government should not define marriage - is this what you argue against?
Rhett said, " Oh, and on a side note? Just because Canada does it, doesn't necessarily mean that the whole world should follow suit. Much as it pains you to hear that."
Nothing compares to the veiled quietly seething hatred you have for us and what we represent.
Many say that it's up to the states, but that completely ignores the federal framework that supports marriage. For instance, a married gay couple in MA cannot file a joint federal return, a partner cannot sponsor somebody for immigration, etc.
This is exactly my argument as why it needs to be a federal law. thanks.
With the variety that exists in the world, from Canada to Iran, it is hard not to follow another when you're lagging behind.
So because we haven't nationalized gay marriage, you believe we are "lagging behind" Canada?
We can argue different opinions on the subject, but to claim one moral stance as "lagging behind" the other isn't proper... Canada has always been more liberal than the United States. Is it your claim that Canada is thus, BETTER ???
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.
