Marriage isn't a human right

What benes wouldnt they get with a civil union. Seems to me if your a straight single person your the only one that really gets the shaft in this country. You cant pass on to anyone even your immediate family your health benes or SS and you get the privledge of paying more taxs becaue your straight how cool is that.

 

If you really think that people in civil unions get all of the same rights and benefits as those who are married, you need to seriously educate yourself on the topic:

The issue of Civil Unions keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all had the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” erhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html

And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

 

except marriage is a right.

 

none of those say you have to be able to procreate in order to marry. so there exists no justification for denying same sex marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

sterile individuals have no relation to your fabricated governmental interest. which is why procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Marriage is a natural right; any questions?

 

I have a question if that is the case then how come a father who never met his son until they met in a bar one night can't marry that son even though they are aged 50 and 30?

Why can't a polygamist marry his 20 Wives? If it is because that does not fit the definition of marriage then why don't they just do exactly like the homosexuals did and change the definition of marriage to fit polygamists? What Is the problem?

 

They can through any private ceremony.

 

It has been argued time and time again by lawyers in the courts that the compelling interest the state has in marriage that allows them to regulate that institution is procreation. Without the benefit of procreation the state has no compelling interest in which to regulate the institution.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then so could gays, so tell me why were paying them and not the other groups again?

 

Someday almost all such impediments to marriage will be struck down. It's just a matter of time.

 

I believe it is only due to a fallacy of composition and Cause; our constitutional form of governments specifically enumerate those social powers only delegated to our elected representatives. Non specifically enumerated powers should always sacrificed to the end of our enumerated rights. Freedom of association is a natural right in our republic.

It may have been merely due to the effect of wealth from those civil Persons under our form of Capitalism.

 

I am sure the homosexual pedophiles in NAMBLA will love to hear that.

You see folks this is the kind of depravity that you must eventually succumb to because you have accepted homosexual marriage. At least this guy is being honest and he acknowledges that once he accepts homosexual marriage he has no position in which to deny these other groups marriage either.

So Gatewood, me ask you this do you feel it will be acceptable, as the homosexuals have done, for the incestuous and polygamist groups to push for our schools to teach our children that their relationships are just as valid and moral as any other relationship? Clearly you won't have any problem with that correct?

 

Actually what I have problems with and what I see as inevitable cultural and legal changes are two different things. I see these things as pretty much the shape of the future regardless of how any of us might feel about them. We can adapt to those changes or we can fight against them until the day we die but I don't see any real way to stop them.

 

I am sure all of the practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy really don't have a problem with it.

Only the right by habit and custom, forgets that moral forms of indignation require morals.

 

You're mixing up two different subjects here. Marriage is a right and you can get married at any time in a private ceremony that you so choose. What is not a right are the benefits that are paid for by the tax payer that or do you derived from that marriage.

 

The second point is actually a form of moral turpitude regarding bearing true witness to our own laws; and as such, should be considered null and void from inception, by any patriot to our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

See the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is, indeed, a Constitutional right. Whether you like it, or not, is completely irrelevant.

 

Oh it will stop. It will stop because it is economically and socially and culturally unsustainable not to mention it is morally reprehensible. Do you think this is the first time that homosexuals have advocated for their dBase lifestyle to become mainstream? They successfully did it in many societies like Greece. Just to point out very soon after Greece accepted homosexuality they also started to accept pedophilia (this is true with most cultures who accepted homosexuality... (That is not a coincidence).

Suffice to say, homosexuality always returns to a state in which it is considered abominable and reprehensible. Marriage on the other hand does not.

 

I have a question if that is the case then how come a father who never met his son until they met in a bar one night can't marry that son even though they are aged 50 and 30?

Why can't a polygamist marry his 20 Wives? If it is because that does not fit the definition of marriage then why don't they just do exactly like the homosexuals did and change the definition of marriage to fit polygamists? What Is the problem?

 

Other than many logistical issues, I have no philosophical objection to either plural marriage nor incestuous, so long as all parties in either case are consenting adults. What other people choose to do with their lives does not affect mine. Nor yours.

 

---I wasn't clear enough, let me rephrase: "we, as human beings, have the prerogative to determine the constitution of marriage". I wasn't making a political or partisan statement. This being a political forum, I should have used definite terms. My apologies.

---EDIT: I didn't actually answer the question. Yes, if republicans return to power are are able to muster the political will, it is their prerogative.

 

For the Republicans to regain power, they need to attract the youth vote which is much more 'open' in their thinking---tradition does not impress them. I personally, as a conservative Boomer, dont see allowing homosexual marriage as a matter of converting to liberalism, but in being more graceful as a citizen in following the founding documents...marriage is a civil contract presently between 'citizens' which shud not be limited to non-same gender unions.

 

---I agree. It certainly seems to be an issue with the Republicans that alienates young voters. personally I'm am sick and tired of the issue being political. I'd like to see emphasis on the economy and education rather than social issues that can mostly be resolved by exercising your freedom to either participate or not participate.

 

That was marriage between a man and a woman that was held to be a constitutional right.

 

Morality has become increasingly irrelevant in today's leftwing dominated culture. Or -- if you prefer -- the generally accepted cultural definition of morality has changed (evolved or devolved, take your choice). I do suspect, however, that the line will be drawn at pedophilia . . . but I don't know that for certain. It's a wait and see proposition.

 

Of course Rahl runs to his favorite straw man. No one is claiming you "have to be able to procreate". The other poster asked for cases "that talks of marriage existing for procreation". Let go of the strawmen and comment upon the actual discussion, if you can.