Sorry but your religious and bigoted bias should not have any influence on any law. Marriage is a legal union sanctioned by the state and there is NO reason it should not be OK for two male, two females or for that matter, 20 females and 97 males to be legally married.
If you want a religious marriage get a religious person to marry you. If you want a civil marriage get a secular person to marry you. That goes for Straight and gays, there is no reason for any difference, except religious bigotry and hatred.
then we're not talking about the same thing. can two gay men, with a civil union, file a joint tax return?
Common law marriage is not applicable in all states. Virginia, my state, does not recognize common law marriage.
Well if there is no legal protected definition of marriage then everything goes. Everything that people label marriage is ok without standards. One man and one woman has worked for thousands of years. Why let the degenerates change it?
You're giving a "legally protected definition of marriage" way more credit than is justified. The existence of such a definition doesn't determine how people capable of independent thought will live their lives. Nor is it controlling of the words people will use to describe what they consider a marital relationship, with or without the blessing of the law. As for calling people who disagree with your preferred definition "degenerates", that says more about you than them.
The fact that you used the term "degenerates", proves that your opinion is worthless, bigoted and nothing but ignorance.
It is society that is involved which uses the government we created to encourage and support and sanction heterosexual marriage, the nuclear family, because it is in the best interest of society to do so. We benefit by doing so.
Sure. But i don't buy the argument that we can't encourage, support, and sanction the relationships of same-sex couples and the families they raise as well. I seriously don't get the whole schtick about marriage needing 'protection' from my husband and I.
The state has always been involved in Marriage, in fact, the STATE invented marriage. Read the bible, the OT is the LAW of the HEBREW state thousands of years ago.In that bible law, of the Hebrew state it defines marriage for the Hebrews. I am quite sure that if you look you will find marriage all throughout every religion in the world and religions are nothing but the laws of primitive STATES.
Recognition that only heterosexuals have the capacity to procreate, isnt religious bias, bigotry and hatred of gays. Birds dont pair off into couples of one male and one female each year to build a nest, because of religious bias, bigotry and hatred of gays and marriage isnt limited to heterosexuals for those reasons either. Its biology.
Trick question. What benefits society is to support, encourage and sanction enduring unions of commitment as a means toward producing a more stable society. Since gay people are more likely to form such unions with a person of the same sex, and may raise children within that family unit, it makes no sense for society to encourage instability in those unions by withholding marriage recognition.
Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post What is the benefit to society to support, encourage and sanction homosexuality? Not at all How does eliminating heterosexual unions, by encouraging homosexuality produce a more stable society? How does raising children without a mother AND a father by encouraging homosexuality produce a more stable society?
Government encourages, supports, and sanctions behavior that is beneficial to society. Children raised by their married, biological parents tend to thrive better than children who are not. Ive not seen any evidence that children raised by gay couples do better than children who are not.
While I agree there are two things. Supporting you: I never heard of hetero people giving their kid hormones in preparation for a sex change. Tells me some of these gays are not fit to be called human. Supporting the funky butt lovers: If the parents have traditional roles it may be better than one parent. And my take: Another non issue coming to the front. Who the hell cares? Let them marry. I care about the real problems of this nation. Things like this are distractions put out there for you to see while they sell America out.
??? Not sure I follow. "Parent"??? anybody can be a parent. Marriage isnt required to be a parent and marriage wont transform a gay lover into a parent.
Very much so. Also a trick question, relying on a false dichotomy. No one is advocating the elimination of heterosexual unions. There is no real reason to believe that recognizing same-sex unions would lead to the elimination of heterosexual unions. Pretending that the two can't co-exist - especially when the overwhelming majority remain heterosexual and would therefore continue to pursue opposite-sex unions - is ludicrous. As for your second question, it presupposes that raising a child without opposite-sex parents is destabilizing, but that isn't borne out by the research. Allow me to anticipate your next move, which would be to waste our time by quoting us research on single parents, which doesn't apply since that's a wholly different situation from raising children in stable two-parent families. Moreover, not all opposite-sex parents are optimum parents. There's no valid reason to assume that same-sex parents would automatically be worse. I prefer reality to idealism. I likewise prefer reality to complete distortion, the latter accurately describing your ridiculous questions.
Well you say parents are better a parent and if they fill the parental toles would it not be better for the child?
Marriage is a legal issue duhhhhhhhhh--nothing in any legal definition of marriage says there have to be children or even the capability of having children. So who cares if the married people are hetero or homo? Only bigots care.
Society always benefits by FAIRNESS, the elimination of BIGOTRY and DESCRIMINATION. Society benefits by created equality for ALL citizens and on and on and on and on.
Well it was supposed to but my brain was sleeping. Well you say parents are better than a single parent and if they fill the parental roles would it not be better for the child? If I understood the post I was replying to the point of two parents was brought into play. I am saying if the parents have traditional roles would it still not be better than a single parent? I am not saying I believe this but I am asking the question. Is a kid better off being in a welfare home or home where the parent is never there or are they better off with two supporting and loving parents that can juggle work and parental responsibilities?
