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.
Quite frankly, we both find referendums deciding human rights the most appalling display of legalized bigotry. Just look what had to happen with interracial marriages. It required your Federal Supreme court in 1967 to make it law. Up til 1991 the majority of Americans polled still opposed it.
Ugh.
Here in Canada there is full marriage and common-law for gays and straights. We just call it marriage.
Since 2003 there have been well over 10,000 marriages for gay people and .....2 divorces.
We've been together for 20+ years ( monogamous) and were married last summer. Words fail in trying to convey the enormous boost of acceptance and equality we feel every day. Everyone at our ceremony, 30+ guests, were straight and from various denominations and races. We were the only gays present.
No church is required to marry anyone gay.
Before anyone mentions the religious stuff, ask yourselves why the religious turn the other cheek to straight atheists getting legally married. No church is required to marry atheists.
Before anyone mentions children, ask yourselves why infertile and elderly people are allowed to marry without a peep of protest from anyone, including churches, which will marry them.
What we find interesting is some people say how depraved, promiscuous and perverse gay is. Then they deny them marriage and/or equality, keeping gays in that state of suppressed existence, allowing the same bigots to continue hating them. A self-enabling cycle of hatred.
Research the number of teen/young adult suicides over being gay. It's seen by them as easier than dealing with the casual cruelty we see on these forums.
respectfully -Doug of thosemeninlove
When they allowed same sex marriage in Canada, was there an outrage? There's always going to be people against it, but, was there a lot of it in your news? How exactly did it happen? Did they just pass some legislation?? Why is it so easy for one country, and yet, nearly impossible for us?
As soon as the movement changes it's direction for civil unions to be synonymous to marriage (possibly pushing for a law to change the word marriage to civil union for all legal purposes), I think they then will get what they desire.
Do you find fault with my logic?
Logic has nothing to do with it.
Throughout time, and long before national socialism, the marriage contract was a joining of two family's property for the benefit of progeny. Recall that the sole difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate child is the claim upon the father's support and property. All the common law rights of marriage (curtesy, dower, coverture) were predicated on the existence of joined property rights and progeny.
Thanks to national socialism (starting in 1935), enumerated Americans surrendered their birthright to absolutely own private property in exchange for access to entitlements (charity from the public treasury). (See: pauperization in any legal reference, and Art.IV of Confederation, 1777)
Today's socialized American has no knowledge that marriage had zero to do with "love", but only with merging property rights for progeny. In fact, two adults "in love" didn't need a life long compact to keep them together in wed "lock".
Until homosexuals can gene splice progeny, a contract for marriage (joining their property rights for their offspring) is a nullity. However, since they really wish to access "benefits" accorded to "married couples" (licensed) by the State, under national socialism, the controversy will continue until the demise of socialism.
Until homosexuals can gene splice progeny, a contract for marriage (joining their property rights for their offspring) is a nullity.
In the entire history of this country, "progeny" has never been required for marriages to be legitimate. Marriage is not required to have children, and children are not required for a marriage to be legal.
Throughout time, and long before national socialism, the marriage contract was a joining of two family's property for the benefit of progeny. Recall that the sole difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate child is the claim upon the father's support and property. All the common law rights of marriage (curtesy, dower, coverture) were predicated on the existence of joined property rights and progeny.
Thanks to national socialism (starting in 1935), enumerated Americans surrendered their birthright to absolutely own private property in exchange for access to entitlements (charity from the public treasury). (See: pauperization in any legal reference, and Art.IV of Confederation, 1777)
Today's socialized American has no knowledge that marriage had zero to do with "love", but only with merging property rights for progeny. In fact, two adults "in love" didn't need a life long compact to keep them together in wed "lock".
Until homosexuals can gene splice progeny, a contract for marriage (joining their property rights for their offspring) is a nullity. However, since they really wish to access "benefits" accorded to "married couples" (licensed) by the State, under national socialism, the controversy will continue until the demise of socialism.
Why is it so difficult to understand that marriage is not just about having or raising another generation. Your logic then would say that marriages between two people that do not have or cannot have children should be null and void. Marriage should only be for having children then, but it is not, is it? It is no more necessary for homosexuals to have children to enter wedlock then it is for heterosexuals. All marriages of heterosexuals that do not result in children should not get any more rights then that of a domestic partnership couple in that case. Why does that straight couple get the 1039 plus marriage rights that you believe are in place to help the children? It is all bull to keep gay people as second class citizens, while being charged full class taxes. The reality is that straight people are getting all the special rights while gays get the seconds and are expected to be happy about it.
I think the rights are much more important than the government forcing a definition on anyone. In actuality, this move would allow churches who perform gay marriage to do it at their whim...and those churches who do not, don't have to....it IS a win-win situation as far as I am concerned.
Here in Canada there is full marriage and common-law for gays and straights. We just call it marriage.
Since 2003 there have been well over 10,000 marriages for gay people and .....2 divorces.
Let's see, the one of the first gay couples married in Canada separated FIVE DAYS after taking the vows (This was in 2004 BTW)... They didn't divorce immediately because Canada didn't have a legal mechanism set up for 'Gay Divorce'.... That was taken care of though.
Canada also has a rule that they will allow anyone from ANYWHERE to come there and marry. The "hitch"? (pun intended). They must have lived in Canada for at least one year in order to get divorced. (BTW as of 2005, over 50% of gay marriages in Canada are between foreign nationals.).
That law was as of February of 2009... Anyway, at LEAST two divorces among homosexual couples occurred by June, 2005, so are you saying that none have occurred since?
You throw this statistics around, yet I see no recent documentation that proves this to be the case.
Regardless, there appears to be no statistical analysis done on divorce rates in Canada from 2005 to present. I guess they tend to do these statistics in 10 year blocks and Gay Marriage has not existed in Canada for that long yet...
Bottom line. I think your statistic is patently false. However, the research I was able to do DOES seem to point to gay marriages holding up better than heterosexual ones... I don't think in the long-run the stats will be that different, but it's inconsequential to the discussion.
As a gay man who has been in a relationship going on 5 years:
I could care less if it's marriage or civil union. I live in NJ and I can get a civil union. However, we don't. The reason is, the civil union is not perfect. You see, here is the problems with civil unions: They need to absolutely equal to marriage in a definition by law. Sure, when I filed my taxes this year there was a civil union option. HOWEVER, insurance companies are still allowed to only take someone's MARRIED spouse. Hospital visitations can be be granted to family and their MARRIED spouse.
This is why it's important that if we make civil unions federal, they have to be absolutely 100% equal to marriage. The only difference is that.. they didn't take place in a church. I think that churches should be allowed to have their say if they want to marry same sex couples, but not be forced to.
Now, I just wish more gays thought the same way I did. They just want the term marriage just because. I could care less if I am "married". But if I am with my partner and we have the marriage benefits, that's all I care. Call us BFFs. Call us crazy. We need that piece of paper. That piece of paper = equal rights. Let's let this battle over a damn word go!
Agreed... If they're going to do it, they need to do it right.
Look it up Rhett, in wikipedia for starters continuing with religoustolerance.org. You can also research Stats Can. Much of what you've brought up here is inconsequential to this discussion. Whether or not the divorces in question were newly marrieds or not, please find refuting cititations ot the stats we provided before slinging your usual misinformation. One couple was married for two years :
CBC news: "Two women who got married in Parksville two years ago have been granted a divorce by a B.C. Supreme Court judge in Nanaimo.
Gay and lesbians in B.C. won the legal right to marry in 2003, sparking a wedding boom.
Here, we'll give you this much - wiki:
"On September 13, 2004, a lesbian couple known as "M.M." and "J.H." in Ontario were granted Canada's first same-sex divorce"
"In June 2005, a lesbian couple in British Columbia, whose names cannot be released, obtained a similar ruling."
Your attempt to discredit us is a failure. What you want to do is engage in a direct flame war.
simple solution.......outlaw marriage and unions all together.........then there would be no squabbles about gay, poly, beast, or hetro MARRIAGES
why should we 'allow' you to marry, when the only thing you are interested in is the marriage BENEFIT, ie the money,, the gay marriage issue is about greed.
if you love him/her then marriage would not be an issue,, just live together since its supposed to be about love....not greed
Last edited by workingclasshero; 03-02-2010 at 08:21 AM..
When they allowed same sex marriage in Canada, was there an outrage? There's always going to be people against it, but, was there a lot of it in your news? How exactly did it happen? Did they just pass some legislation?? Why is it so easy for one country, and yet, nearly impossible for us?
Well, hOtness, up here in Canada we have hate speech laws with teeth. This means that both sides had to remain polite in their condemnation of the other. It's amazing what happens when people have to think before they place misleading ads to stir up fear. Alberta threatened to use the notwithstanding clause, but in the end could see huge issues arising should they do so, so never did.
The US religious right poured money from their war-chests into a Canadian effort to do a US style legal bigotry referendum. Canadians weren't fond of the concept, and in fact found it extremely distasteful.
We've provided two sources where you can read all about it:
wikipedia look up gay marriage in Canada, and religioustolerance.org
respectfully -us
Likely what will happen in the US is either a similar court ruling like Loving vs Virginia or civil unions like the UK.
PS hOtness, straight atheists can marry anywhere in your country. No church performs the ceremony, nor does any church persecute them the way they do to gays.
Your human rights in the US are very very fluid. Quite frankly, civil unions will not be seen as the same as marriage and the civil union laws ( what they grant you and what they don't) we suspect will be endlessly revisited and tinkered with.
Last edited by thosemeninlove; 03-02-2010 at 08:29 AM..
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.
