- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 25,566
- Reaction score
- 36,346
- Location
- American Refugee in Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Love doesn't appear to have anything to do with it. All I ever hear about is how awesome the benefits are.
From what I hear from people like Roguenuke(I think that is right) it's all about the benefits.
Apparently, it's just too much of a bother to be so shallow without government. Who knew?
So people in opposite gender marriage would be fine with giving up the benefits then? A married couple in Australia just recently promised to dissolve their government marriage license should ssm come to their country, which seems principally consistent. Is that what you're suggesting?
Because it does nothing for me. Thanks, though.
You give so many ****s you responded to a post that wasn't even addressed to you. You can be a flaming faggot all you want, you'll never be accepted. You'll always be an outcast, no matter what the court says. I hate you.
The fact that you can marry means I will not be asking my girlfriend to marry me...I don't want to share the same institution as you.
You may have won a court case, and the left-leaning folks on this site may support you, but you will NEVER be socially accepted by mainstream America.
I never had a problem with gays before today, but this is too much. I will not be your friend.
I truly, truly pity you if you actually think marriage has nothing to do with love and everything to do with benefits.
They wouldn't have to give up their benefits. People that are married would keep their benefits, but the government would not issue any further licenses effectively ending government marriage once all current marriages end by either death or divorce. This wouldn't lead to any issues with the fourteenth amendment as the same conditions would be applied across board.
I didn't expect it would.
That's the impression I get from people on DP.
That's the impression I get from people on DP.
Actually reserch shows that you're more likely to remain married if your parents are still married, or to divorce if your parents divorce. It's all about social stability, one of the supporting reasons to allow SSM.That's your opinion which polls show that most Americans don't agree with.
Gay people getting married will have zero effect on any other marriage.
That's the impression I get from people on DP.
And why get married for love anyway? You don't need marriage to say you love someone, to commit to another person, to live with someone, to share your life with someone, to have children, to share your stuff, to raise children, etc, etc, etc. Why get married if there wasn't cool stuff to get because of it? Seems kind of pointless.
Actually reserch shows that you're more likely to remain married if your parents are still married, or to divorce if your parents divorce. It's all about social stability, one of the supporting reasons to allow SSM.
Sounds like maybe you shouldn't get married.
Hold on, don't swerve away. You suggested that those who wanted to have ssm legalized were just in it for the benefits. Are you suggesting that those in opposite sex marriages are not interested in the benefits?
That's not what he said, though.Agreed, but I think he was referring to some imaginary negative impact of a gay couple's marriage on some unconnected straight couple's marriage.
Stable, self-sufficient, productive households are a legitimate state interest and therefore efforts to promote that pass the rational basis test.
Only a whackjob interprets equal protection arguments as "no law can affect any person differently from any other person for any reason."
Correct and your problem with that is what exactly? Citizens are more equal than non citizens. Charities are tax exempt and I can deduct contributions to them but not if I give a homeless man a gift of $5.
Etc....................
Stable, self-sufficient, productive households are a legitimate state interest and therefore efforts to promote that pass the rational basis test.
Only a whackjob interprets equal protection arguments as "no law can affect any person differently from any other person for any reason."
On the contrary, I'm for finding a way to make that work, make marriage available to them in a way that does not financially burden the rest of society and actually provides protections for each of those spouses, not just dropping a legitimate limit on number of spouses because some feel butt hurt that same sex couples can now enter into marriage. There is a difference in the way a two person marriage with any sex/gender combination would operate compared to having more than two spouses in a marriage or a single person with more than one legal spouse.
Those who propagate heterosexual relation may be at risk of lawsuit or discrimination at hiring. If not already.
This is not connected to gay marriages, but global tendency. The balance between rights of one and discrimination of others is very thing.
I can feel christ's love just radiating off of you.
"Sorry babe, I'd love to marry you, but I simply can't share an institution of marriage with faggots."
Since Sodom and Gomorrah had problems which had absolutely zero to do with same sex marriage or homosexuality (there is a difference between homosexuality and dominance/power assertion rape, even of people of the same sex), it stands to reason if we were to see something, it'd have been before now.
Yes, the roots of the modern American left.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?