My question is... why is this even being taken by the courts as Wisconsin already permits domestic partnerships. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a domestic partnership have the same legal status and rights as a married couple?? If so... than isn't this lawsuit frivilous to begin with and therefore should be thrown out?
I support Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions, but am opposed to gay 'marraige' for namesake purposes only. Marraige is solely exclusive to heterosexual couples and has been for thousands of years of human history. If gays have the same rights and are simply referred to differently in regards to their union status I see no reason for this lawsuit to be relevant.
so using your own failed rational what about religions that already allow ssm? do you then support "overreaching into a religious practice" since its a marriage you deem not equal?
what about religions different from yours?
what about marriages that already dont involve religion? are you claim that only religious marriages should also be legal? no more marriages by judges or magistrates or anybody with a license?
He supports gay marriage.
There is nothing loving in confirming people in causing their own damnation.
Your point?
theirs nothing loving about damming people for being together with someone of the same gender its immoral
I think that reformation will take awhile.
I lived in Mid-town Atlanta, the French Quarter, had a homosexual roommate in the Army before don't ask, don't tell and had various and sundry homosexuals trotted into the barracks by him most weekend nights. I've known quite a few homosexuals, so another swing and a miss by the good captain.
Then shouldn't the focus be on suing the fed for not recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships?? If that were the plaform the LGBT movement was trying to push then I'm sure that the middle-right wing of the GOP would have less to object to and the religious right wouldn't really have anything to yell about. The solution is to sue the FED for Civil Union and Domestic Partnership recognition.... NOT suing states for marraige status.
How am I opposed to equal rights if I support equal treatment and only differ on the namesake of the situation???
My reason behind this would be a seperation of church and state. Marraige is a religious ceremony and has only recently in the past 60 or so years been granted priviledges by the federal government and "recognition." To understand why the feds interviened in this religious practice you have to understand what they wanted to do. These benefits are no less than subsidies to encourage same sex couples to spur population growth and to stablize american family life. Same sex couples have no reproductive capabilities and thus offering them the same subsidies would be a waste of time and money. The distinction in name would be to appease the needs and "rights" of same sex couples while at the same time not overreaching into a religious practice where government has no real business interloping.
Given the changes that I proposed care to explain how they would be inferior?? If they are given all the same legal rights?? Prove to me that the statement I made was wrong without simply stating otherwise, thank you.
i really don't believe a word of what he said there
How about heterosexual couples have their marriages annulled and be given the civil union option and homosexuals can have marriages?
Separate but equal is inherently unequal, my friend. It creates a state-sanctioned stigma, declaring that homosexual couples just aren't good enough to use our word. If you need proof, just think about your first reaction to the question above.
I asked about this, no response.
Sorry had to sleep. Anyways I'm awake and ready for some action let me first start by saying I have many homosexual friends half of whom have made the very same arguement that I made to you and YES my friends happen to be CONSERVATIVE HOMOSEXUALS. Something that must be very foreign and quite oxymoronical to those of you on the left. However they make the case that the core of the LGBT wishes to do as much as possible to destroy conventional views and family lifestyles (keep in mind those conservatives IN the LGBT get shunned by the largely liberal group). One arguement that I have been presented with by people who are gay themselves is that this opens a very slippery slope. If we let gays marry then what? Polygamy? Beastiality? What about the man who is quite partial to that foot mannequin?? When you open something like marraige up to redefinition you open the flood gates for other objectors outside of the norm.
So you propose 'separate but equal?' The decision was that it is not equal.
And why should tax payers pay for the bureaucracy to maintain two systems? I thought Republicans and conservatives wanted smaller govt?
So then all new straight civil ceremonies would also be moved to the new civil unions?
And you are incorrect about reproduction. There are millions of families headed by gay couples. They have bio kids, step-kids, adopted kids, and use in-vitro and surrogacy. Gay couples wish to have families just as much as straight people...being gay doesnt damage your reproductive instincts.
Next question would be tho...would any sterile couples, couples beyond reproductive years, and couples who chose not to have kids also have to have a civil union? It seems "equal.'
Master Liberty, do these ring any bells?
Sorry had to sleep. Anyways I'm awake and ready for some action let me first start by saying I have many homosexual friends half of whom have made the very same arguement that I made to you and YES my friends happen to be CONSERVATIVE HOMOSEXUALS. Something that must be very foreign and quite oxymoronical to those of you on the left. However they make the case that the core of the LGBT wishes to do as much as possible to destroy conventional views and family lifestyles (keep in mind those conservatives IN the LGBT get shunned by the largely liberal group). One arguement that I have been presented with by people who are gay themselves is that this opens a very slippery slope. If we let gays marry then what? Polygamy? Beastiality? What about the man who is quite partial to that foot mannequin?? When you open something like marraige up to redefinition you open the flood gates for other objectors outside of the norm.
the fastest way to not be taken seriously on ths equal rights topic is to bring up "beastilaty". Nobody honest and educated will ever take that failed asinine argument seriously.
the fact is with dealing in legality there is no "slippery slope" its all made up just like the factually notequal solution you proposed.
Can you present any arguments that actually are accurate have merit and pertain to equal rights? or a solution that is equal besides simply granting equal rights?
There is a "slippery slope" LAW IS by its very nature a SERIES of slippery slopes as all past law, and future law is based on PRECEDENT assuming you are a liberal this should be a very foreign idea to you. It is that past laws and present laws effect FUTURE laws in the same way that past decisions by SCOTUS are typically cited in current decisions by SCOTUS. And to single out the word "Bestiality" out of the other examples such as "polygamy" and the whole foot mannequin thing... anyways I find it rather disturbing that you try to discredit my opinion with by saying that no "educated or honest person" could take it seriously. No my good sir just no Progressive LibDems will take me seriously (Not that I care what the LibDems think).
Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you'll know people of different economic classes will want to marry. Just remember that the thing about slippery slopes is they start at the top.
Point being is that if a "slippery slope" law is, as you say, a series of slippery slopes of all past law, then all you've managed to successfully argue is that nothing should be legalized and no laws should be made. Much more sensible is to argue the merits of each proposed law.
Finally someone says something that makes sense diggin your post Card thank you for making that point.
I suppose you are right that some laws DO have merit those laws which are specifically designed to PROTECT the rights of individuals are ones I'd say have the most merits. Laws that restrict the rights of citizenry are laws that are ones to be more vigilant against. I mean I suppose at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is people being happy. Mostly I am concerned about some of my less open and homophobic friends further to the right of myself I worry that something like this could cause more harm than good with enough outrage.
Ahhh yes thanks ^_^. The two systems would be treated the same only the name would be different which is as simple as adding an extra box to check on forms so that won't cost tax payers anything.
Straight couple may pursue a civil union if they wish to over a conventional marraige although the two are the same thing.
While you have listed many ways for Gays to "procure" kids as I would say not "reproduce". Artificial production of children has opened the door for them to be more family oriented and to have kids that may have 1 of the parent's DNA so yes that does help.
As legal marraige is SOLELY for tax purposes I would suppose that sterile couples, and older couples, as well as couples who do not wish to have kids would be EXCLUDED from having any benefits associated with having children however their union would still be referred to as a marraige as this is still the legal precedent in place today and to change precedent would upset the balance.
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?