You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
Homosexual unions cannot be procreative. Women cannot produce sperm and men cannot produce eggs, both are need for procreation. The sexual inclinations you stated may indeed be viewed by some as "unnatural", however, if it is a heterosexual couple, then they may also participate in sexual activities leading to procreation. The instinct for sexual desires is deeply rooted in the species level instinct to reproduce, the taking of "mates" is rooted in instinct to provide for and protect the young produced as the result of the reproduction instinct. The fact that humans can exert control over instincts does not change the fact that these desires are based in an instinct for procreation and protection, nuturing of children. Heterosexuals who's "equipment" is broken or no longer functioning still experience these instincts.
Even though marriage licenses are issued by states, federal marriage policy is extensive. The federal government has special tax rules for married people. It gives spouses rights and responsibilities under programs like Social Security. It offers benefits to the spouses of its several million employees. And it confers citizenship on foreigners based on their marriages to U.S. citizens.
Should the federal government treat married gays as married, only if they live in jurisdictions that allow gay marriage?
But what about gays who live in states that don’t have gay marriage? Should North Carolina be able to decide that its gay residents don’t get to file joint federal income tax returns, even if they are legally married by another state? Should gay federal workers get spousal benefits only if they work in gay marriage states? Or should the federal government treat gay couples as married no matter where they move?
Some portion of marriage policy can be left up to the states. But gay marriage is also very much a federal issue requiring federal policy solutions regardless of what you call it.
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
She's uncivilized because she doesn't care what labels the government throws on private contracts? Wow, you're an idiot. Luckily for you I talk to idiots every day.Originally Posted by Daktoria
Private contracts predate government.Originally Posted by ttwtt78640
International trade involves property and the occasional conflict over said property. No government is involved in these issues, yet miraculously billions of dollars worth of goods are moved every single week. Your reliance on government for arbitration is misplaced and depressing.Originally Posted by tessaesque
I don't think anyone would force a church to perform same sex marriages, however private businesses as well as the church would have to recognize same sex marriage for the purposes insurance, medical benefits, and the like.
Private businesses have long been told what to recognize by the government- same sex marriage/union would be the same. A business may not like interracial marriage but they can't deny coverage to a mixed race couple.
The civil union concept could elminate the petty differences both sides have about marriage. You could probably say that the idea of a union came before the concept of marriage and before governments got involved to regulate the unions which by then for all intents and purposes were called marriages. The argument that there is no such thing as traditional marriage is invalid. The idea that we can in modern times ignore what we know about homosexuality and how some people are compelled to live their lives because of the nature of how they are wired is unfair. We need to give up marriage in a legal sense because it longer represents the nature of relationships in our modern society. We can't change biology and we can't go back in time and change the compelling and overwhelming reason the concept of marriage was created. Call your union a marriage by whatever philosophical and spiritual ceremony you choose or don't call it marriage because you want to completely dissociate yourself from that ancient tradition. Remove marriage from the legal argument of what is fair. This stubborness is why we are not much further along in resolving the issue. Lets' stop being spoiled children only wanting it our way.
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.