- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Without children involved the state has no reason to poke it's nose in your bedroom, so why you would invite the state in when a few documents from legalzoom.com would do the same thing is beyond me.
that's a ridiculous statement, heard many times.
what is your particular problem with gay marriage?
why doesn't that right exist, if the right to marry the opposite sex does? where did THAT right come from? as long as a person can't marry who they choose to marry, they are not being treated equally.Truth is ridiculous in your eyes. What a perverted world view you have.
I don't know that I have any problem with gay-marriage.
That doesn't mean I'm going to adopt just any argument in favor of it. Truth has value to me, even though you think truth "ridiculous", so I'm not going to lie just to get my way.
Maybe we should create gay-marriage, maybe society would be better off, but until we do, the right to marry a person of the same sex does not exist, therefore it's not an issue of equality.
They don't. There's about 130 rights' difference between marriage and domestic partnership. More if you consider the federal level.
Yeah I've seen those lists, their about as fake as this alleged right to visit a spouse in the hospital, being filled with companies failing on their own to comply with the law or unexplored legal issues.
why doesn't that right exist, if the right to marry the opposite sex does?
where did THAT right come from?
as long as a person can't marry who they choose to marry, they are not being treated equally.
So then, you are gonna try to peddle your opinion and not anything of substance or fact?
i suspect there are good reasons for that.......For the same reason my sammich doesn't exist: You haven't made it yet.
They knew they couldn't do everything when they made this country, that's why they gave us the tools to better it.
A compelling desire for successful societies to protect relationships which formed and maintained a family.
I can't marry whom I choose to, therefore I'm being treated unequally as well.
i suspect there are good reasons for that.......
do you want to marry a non related adult? if so, you're right, you aren't being treated equally.Maybe, maybe not, but your criteria doesn't allow for reasons either way, so who cares.
I can't marry just whomever I want, so therefore, by your standard, I'm not being treated equally.
That is a totally false statement. Totally false.
Really? Until the last decade or so, can you name anyplace in the world that defined marriage as something other than a legally recognized union between a man and a woman? I honestly can't think of any nation, civilization, or culture--even among primitive indigenous tribes--that marriage has been defined as anything else. By 'legally recognized' I mean that marriage is a legal contract in some places and in all places it implies a more or less permanent union that includes certain expectations of duties, rights, privileges, etc. that vary from group to group.
Even in cultures allowing polygamy nobody married two people at once. Each marriage was between one man and one woman even when that action happened multiple times.
do you want to marry a non related adult?
if so, you're right, you aren't being treated equally.
Marriage is a contract between two people, from which some people can be excluded b/c of gender. Two people can marry, unless their gender is the same. It's so silly. Actually, silly diminishes the wrong done. It's most definitely a civil rights and equality issue. Nobody is changing the definition, it's not a new contract being defined, it's simply eliminating exclusion b/c it's two people of the same gender rather than two people of different genders.
It's still a simple, straight-up, two-party contract.
a civil union isn't a new institution, it's simply a new name for "marriage" outside a church. any marriage outside a church is a civil union, no more, no less.
so, gays should be allowed to civilly marry. get a license, go to a jp (lol.....hopefully) and marry.
And also:
heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals cannot. not equal. simple as that.
You seem badly confused on alot of things, but I am only going to talk about one. When the law is such that it is the same for all, but really only effects one group, then it is not equal. Sometimes there is a good reason for this, but not in this case. There is no harm from allowing gays to marry, no reason to protect society from gays being married, and as such, there is no logical reason not to allow gays to marriage. Hell, gays can hardly do worse at it than strait people do.
And when gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals can marry anyone of the same sex just like gays can. Equality achieved as well.
Poligamy ftw
I was waiting for the polygamy red herring. You are using all the same tired old arguments that have been destroyed time and again.
How can you as an American say you want rights refused to other citizens? FReedom to choose is basic. You may not like it but how can you deny one the right?
Sparta. It's the example that comes to mind immediately.
It's well known that India had marriages between two men.
And you don't get to move the goal posts here. Your statement was a blanket statement concerning all cultures going back millenia. It is a fairly recent development, relatively speaking, that marriage is a legal institution and not just a cultural/religious one. For you to now place expectations of modern standards to ancient practices only shows that you already know yourself to be wrong about this and are simply trying to do damage control.
How can you as an American say you want rights refused to other citizens? FReedom to choose is basic. You may not like it but how can you deny one the right?
Who is this post directed to?
Also I am not the least bit homophobic. I have absolutely no problem with two guys or two gals falling in love, enjoying sex to the fullest, and I have been a long time advocate for making such unions legal and providing all the protections such unions now lack. You once were an ally with me in that. What happened since I've been away?
You :mrgreen:
How can you as an American say you want rights refused to other citizens? FReedom to choose is basic. You may not like it but how can you deny one the right?
I still think the government shouldn't be involved in legitimizing relationships. I still think civil unions would be the best choice.
However, after watching, first hand, how the gay marriage debate was tainted with deceit, hysteria, and the lowest of radical tactics by the far right here in California, my opinion on maintaining moderacy has changed.
I think there are some forces at play that don't have any motivations beyond hate and a desire to devalue other human beings and this debate is the most convenient way to express that sickness. As long as they are at work, I can't, in good conscience, maintain the neutral attitude toward the rights of my peers that I once held.
Moderates like you will always be appreciated and you will always have my nod of assent to your arguments and beliefs...because they are wholesome and good beliefs. But the extremists on the anti-gm side have turned this moderate away from believing there is a compromise to be had without forcing capitulation through activism.
Thank you for your kind and reasonable words.
In all due respect, however, present company excluded, I think gay people are not winning any points by emulating the very tactics that you resent among unreasonable rightwing extremists. Many people, even in California, who voted to defend gay marriage would have preferred to do it as I would prefer to do it. But I think some of the radical extremist leftwing California courts left them with little option to fight back for what they believe even if the 'war' included provisions they would not have chosen. I think even in California there are a lot more folks who share my views than there are of the activists that offend you. Many of those rightwing activists offend me too as do some of the extremist pro-gm side.
It is too bad that the extremists were allowed to frame the debate.
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?