paddymcdougall
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,032
- Reaction score
- 1,687
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
They look very happy in their pictures, good for them.
Also it's not really a 'marriage' that would be recognized legally, it was a Buddhist ceremony.
I'm fine with that as well. I also am of the strong opinion that the government should be out of the marriage business all together.
Well, that's the thing. They should be allowed. They just shouldn't expect the state to recognise it. The Thai example shows that marriage can exist within a religious setting and not conflict with a legal definition of the word. They were married under Buddhist law. The state didn't have to recognize it. In the US what people are asking is for the state to recognize gay marriage, not that the churches recognize it.
You can be, but it's hardly a realistic or pragmatic position to take. The government has never been disconnected from marriage. As a matter of fact, marriage is an institution of government and has been for a myriad of reasons including: population controls, conversion, power alliances, etc.
If the government simply registered "civil unions", this whole "Gay marriage" issue would disappear.
If the government simply registered "civil unions", this whole "Gay marriage" issue would disappear.
Let people call thier unions whatever they want, the government should have no say.,
There's no argument against you and your spouse moving to Thailand. Lot's of reasons against turning America into Thailand.So the question is why do we think having all these benefits for married couples are a good idea.
??? What's the issue here? Polygamy is legal in many countries.
Wouldn't this technically be polyandry?
Marriage is just another name a civil union. If the government "regulated" civil unions tomorrow, we'd have other people trying to ban gays from getting them. Just look at the gay adoption issue. You have people arguing that legally married gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. If that doesn't give you a clue that the hatred is towards gays doing what straights are allowed to do and not a meagre definition of a word, I don't know what will.
A myth. Conservatives turn out in droves to vote against same-sex civil unions.
Numerous states banned civil unions in their constitutions.
This "let's just compromise and call it something else" is just a smokescreen, attempting to appear reasonable mostly because they know the fight is already lost.
The religious do not own the word marriage. They don't get to take it away from everyone else.
If we're going to proclaim that people have a fundamental right to have their "marriage" recognized by the state, there's really no way to stop it.ROTFLOL... how long until this "right" is bestowed on US citizens?
Oughta be a field day for divorce lawyers.
Will it be limited to only homosexuals? LOL...
ROTFLOL... how long until this "right" is bestowed on US citizens?
Oughta be a field day for divorce lawyers.
Will it be limited to only homosexuals? LOL...
Don't care, people should be able to marry as many people of any sex they want.
If the government simply registered "civil unions", this whole "Gay marriage" issue would disappear.
Let people call thier unions whatever they want, the government should have no say.,
Marriage is just another name a civil union. If the government "regulated" civil unions tomorrow, we'd have other people trying to ban gays from getting them. Just look at the gay adoption issue. You have people arguing that legally married gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. If that doesn't give you a clue that the hatred is towards gays doing what straights are allowed to do and not a meagre definition of a word, I don't know what will.
No idea. What's the term that covers 'marriage between multiple participants?'
Group marriage is a better term because polyamory doesn't necessarily imply marriage.Doesn't Polyamory cover it?
There's no argument against you and your spouse moving to Thailand. Lot's of reasons against turning America into Thailand.
Good luck with having no Social Security or virtually any retirement benefits, access to non-corrupt court systems, fair or reasonable tax policies (or even the pleasure of knowing that the government will actually receive your tax money), assurance that your family will receive any benefits from your spouses' employer, or after you spouse dies, any benefits whatsoever from anyone.
Good luck in paradise!!
ROTFLOL... how long until this "right" is bestowed on US citizens?
Oughta be a field day for divorce lawyers.
Will it be limited to only homosexuals? LOL...
Link.
which ones?
Link?
I hate this stupid comment.
I support gay marriage. I always have, you can search my posts. I simply think that if you get the government out of the marriage business and have it's ONLY role is to register "civil unions" for census or whatever purposes, you take the wind out of the anti-gay marriage bigots.
Is that clear enough for you or do you want to continue to infer things that are not true?
How does what I propose do this? anybody is free to call thier whatever, a marriage.
They look very happy in their pictures, good for them.
Also it's not really a 'marriage' that would be recognized legally, it was a Buddhist ceremony.
You spend a lot of time crying about the lives of other people that has absolutely nothing to do with you. Why do you care? Is your life not fulfilling enough that you have to try to tear down other people's happiness?
ROTFLOL... how long until this "right" is bestowed on US citizens?
Oughta be a field day for divorce lawyers.
Will it be limited to only homosexuals? LOL...
Why is it wrong to be concerned about the impact social changes will have on society?
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?