Same Sex Marriage

[petite]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

I suspect that you're clapping for the wrong troll. The loquacious one is still here.

 

[houtx48]

Humans have herd mentality and in having this you would have marriage no matter what you called it, people bonding for protection, food gathering and a million other reasons both opposite sex and same sex. I'm guessing that marriage is a fundamental right because it was there before law and the wacko Christian right.

 

[StormfrontFL]

I suspect that you're clapping for the wrong troll. The loquacious one is still here.

Awww, for a moment I was so happy:frown1:.

I'd like to thank you though for being a bright spot in this thread. If the "pseudo intellectual, supposed military officer" hadn't hijacked this thread then your posts along with those of some of our other intelligent and articulate members would have IMO very enjoyable.

 

[helgaleena]

Agreeing with houtx48 and ducking... :tongue:

 

[petite]

Awww, for a moment I was so happy:frown1:.

I'd like to thank you though for being a bright spot in this thread. If the "pseudo intellectual, supposed military officer" hadn't hijacked this thread then your posts along with those of some of our other intelligent and articulate members would have IMO very enjoyable.

Aw, thank you. That was sweet. :kiss:

 

[AlphaMale]

I went to sleep, hence the no reply. I must have misunderstood your comment, and for that I apologize. But what a ridiculous, childish overreaction.

You make a smartass comment to someone. They call you out for it. And simply because they had a reaction to your initial and unwarranted action they are automatically labeled as being childish? Projection much? Take a look at yourself and your own actions next time.

If you misunderstood my comment then fine, I apologize for being belligerent myself. However, if you stick your neck out don't be surprised if it gets chopped off (i.e. action/reaction).

 

[houtx48]

Get back on the subject at hand............

 

[SilverTrain]

You make a smartass comment to someone. They call you out for it. And simply because they had a reaction to your initial and unwarranted action they are automatically labeled as being childish? Projection much? Take a look at yourself and your own actions next time.

If you misunderstood my comment then fine, I apologize for being belligerent myself. However, if you stick your neck out don't be surprised if it gets chopped off (i.e. action/reaction).

Wow, it's like Time Travel to the Seventh Grade. Shall we meet after school out by the tether ball courts to settle this once and for all?

I'm done with this really juvenile tete a tete.

 

[B_Nick8]

I suspect that you're clapping for the wrong troll. The loquacious one is still here.

And by 'loquacious' you mean 'verbal diarrhea'?!

Damn you for getting my hopes up. :biggrin1:

 

[AlphaMale]

Wow, it's like Time Travel to the Seventh Grade. Shall we meet after school out by the tether ball courts to settle this once and for all?

I'm done with this really juvenile tete a tete.

Yes, dealing with you is like traveling back in time to the 7th grade. If someone challenges something that you say, it doesn't automatically make them childish for doing so. In fact, that type of mentality in itself is immature.

You said something to me first, remember? It wasn't the other way around.

 

[bigarabdick0]

yea i think that the man respects his woman rights

 

[1kmb1]

Do you work with statistics and correlations by any chance? I ask because you have the amazing ability to remove facts that don't give you the required outcome. Something I've only really seen in those fields...

Equal means "same across the board"

Equal would mean I have just as much right to obtain one for the purposes of marrying a woman as you have... I don't, it is not equal.

Equal would mean that gays have the same rights to obtain one for the purposes of marrying the person they love as straight people do... They don't, it is not equal.

Straight women are on equal terms with straight men, gay women are on equal terms with gay men... straights and gays are not on equal terms with each other.

thats a really good point, im surprised i havent heard it before. probably because it counters a borderline retarded argument that no one takes seriously.

Here is the HUGE giant thing.

Love isn't a requirement with marriage. There is nothing that says you have the right to marry the person you love. It also requires their consent. But even then, they could just as easily say no. There is no requirement in marriage or for a marriage license for sex or even sexual attraction.

Now, with that being said. I am straight. I cannot receive a marriage license with a man. A gay man can also not receive a marriage license with another man. Neither of us can do that. How is that not equal?

i like how you completely ignore her point, only to re spew your invalidated nonsense.

how is that not equal? because a woman has the right to marry a man.

 

[B_Jingoist]

So you don't oppose lesbian marriages as they could be more productive from a reproductive standpoint but you do oppose Gay marriage,excluding surrogacy of course. If you do and firmly believe that marriage preforms a reproductive benefit to society then shouldn't the government preferentially cater to lesbian couples? It gets worse for your position when you factor in surrogacy which would allow for a gay couple to have a child without the legal mess of adoption.

Legal Preemption_____

The inheritance laws should be rewritten so that committed same sex couples could be considered next of kin, the same applies to life estate trusts , veterans' and military benefits for a partner,taking family leave to care for a partner during an illness, receiving wages and retirement plan benefits for a deceased partner, taking bereavement leave if your partner or one of your partner's close relatives dies,visiting a partner in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility, making medical decisions fora partner if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment,consenting to after-death examinations and procedures,making burial or other final arrangements,allowing for equitable splitting of jointly held resources if a relationship doesn't work out ( in marriage this would be divorce), and loss of consortium laws will have to be rewritten.

^^^^compelling just isn't a strong enough word

A lesbian couple, without outside interference, can't produce a child. So while they can produce children through sperm donation, that isn't what is going to happen with the majority of couples so the state feels there isn't enough of a benefit from a large enough percentage of couples to warrant the financial commitment. Where as the majority of heterosexual couples do produce children.

As for the laws you mentioned. All of those can be covered through the proper legal documentation. While I do agree, it is easier just to get it through something a simple as a marriage license, same sex couples aren't off limits. For instance, I am all of those things to my mother. It was just a matter of the proper paperwork.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Humans have herd mentality and in having this you would have marriage no matter what you called it, people bonding for protection, food gathering and a million other reasons both opposite sex and same sex. I'm guessing that marriage is a fundamental right because it was there before law and the wacko Christian right.

I agree completely. But we aren't talking simply about marriage. We are talking about many of the monetary benefits the government grants.

A same-sex couple can participate in one of those marriages that existed before law and organized religion. But the question is if there is a compelling state interest that would warrant them receiving benefits from the government.

 

[Industrialsize]

I was going to respond, but then thought it would be better not to. I realized all I would be doing is feeding the troll. In my experience, trolls wither on the vine when they are not fed.

 

[B_Jingoist]

Marriage used to be a private contract between two people. Then the State muscled in and then the Church. Then the State made it clear that a marriage would be recognised without the need for any recording or refernce to a religious body.

The State recognises marriages because they are a contract between two people. That is all that marriage is and the only interest that the State has. The only thing the State should be interested in is that the marriage is between two consenting adults, any other considerations are irrelevant.

That isn't the interest I'm talking about.

Marriage can still be a private contract between two people. There is nothing stopping anyone from participating in any of those.

The state saw a secular need for marriage ,procreation, stable families, etc, and decided they would subsidize that agreement. A same-sex couple doesn't meet all of the secular interests the state has in marriage to warrant it spending money on it. Therefor the state sees no reason to recognize it with government benefits.

I agree with you that it should be two consenting adults and that the state should have no say it. But at the same time, I don't think any married couples should receive any government benefits. I don't think the government should exist to validate a marriage.

But as long as they see a valid interest in subsidizing a certain union of people that serve a valid state interest, I have no problem with it because they are not limiting anyones rights.

 

[petite]

Instead of arguing with trolls, check this out.

Why Marriage | MarriageEqualityUSA

 

[petite]

Or this:

Understanding the Gay Marriage Debate

 

[petite]

Or this:

http://jezebel.com/5873467/same-sex...ncluded-on-their-own-childs-birth-certificate

 

[Kotchanski]

Working on the theory of marriage benefits being "gifted" to heterosexual couples due the desire to promote procreation and stable family units (and if not to promote, then to support)

The government have the following choices:

A - Removal of benefits for:

1. Couples with no children
2. Couples where one or more are suspected of child abuse/neglect
3. Couples where one or more are suspected of spousal abuse
4. Couples where there has been one or more acts of adultery
5. Couples where one or more suffer from some form of addiction
6. Couples facing extreme financial difficulties
7. Couples who face any number of other issues that would constitute an unstable family unit and/or environment.

B - Give benefits to:

1. Homosexual couples if they refuse to do all of the above (which they obviously won't, because that pretty much covers the majority of couples including themselves)