View Poll Results: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Voters
430. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    186 43.26%
  • Yes, explain

    244 56.74%
Page 73 of 192 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583123173 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 1915

Thread: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  1. #721
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    No one is stopping gays from getting married. They can hold their ceremony, exchange their vows before their respective deities, live happy, fulfilling lives together and its all perfectly legal. None of this really has anything to do with the issue.

    The issue here is who gets the legal goodies? A gay man and gay woman who want legal goodies, can get "married" according to the state and be entitled to legal goodies. They aren't being prevented from getting goodies on the grounds that they are both gay. The argument here is always that a gay man and a lesbian wouldn't want to marry each other because they aren't sexually attracted to each other.

    So my question is why sex is a prerequisite to getting equal treatment under the law. How is my relationship with my best friend, or with my sister, or with my grandpa, or my business partner, or my flight instructor, or anyone else I have a relationship with less deserving of privilege simply because it is not a sexual relationship?

    Things like power of attorney, and living wills, and inheritance rights, and everything else on the list of rights that gay marriage folk are fighting for should have nothing to do with sex at all. I should be able to get all those privileges with my brother if I so choose. They should have nothing to do with marriage at all.

    Legalizing "gay marriage" won't get rid of oppression. It will just move gay married couples from the oppressed class to the oppressing class. That isn't progress of any kind.

  2. #722
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    No one is stopping gays from getting married. They can hold their ceremony, exchange their vows before their respective deities, live happy, fulfilling lives together and its all perfectly legal. None of this really has anything to do with the issue..
    they want to be legally married, next

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    The issue here is who gets the legal goodies? A gay man and gay woman who want legal goodies, can get "married" according to the state and be entitled to legal goodies. They aren't being prevented from getting goodies on the grounds that they are both gay. The argument here is always that a gay man and a lesbian wouldn't want to marry each other because they aren't sexually attracted to each other.
    you cant be serious? this is pure fantasy semantics, of course a gay women and gay man can get married to EACH OTHER and you say for that reason they arent denied anything LMAO

    so if whites weren't allowed to marry blacks would your argument be the same? "they can marry each other but just not interracially" see how dumb that is

    yes they are prevented by being GAY

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    So my question is why sex is a prerequisite to getting equal treatment under the law. How is my relationship with my best friend, or with my sister, or with my grandpa, or my business partner, or my flight instructor, or anyone else I have a relationship with less deserving of privilege simply because it is not a sexual relationship?

    Things like power of attorney, and living wills, and inheritance rights, and everything else on the list of rights that gay marriage folk are fighting for should have nothing to do with sex at all. I should be able to get all those privileges with my brother if I so choose. They should have nothing to do with marriage at all.
    Sex technically isnt, some couples get married without it has some are incapable

    also currently under the law without marriage your relationship of sister, grandpa and business partner isnt less deserving in many cases its been found of HIGHER deserving because gay partners have loss houses, properties, money, belongs to those very groups because under the law without marriage they are not entitled to "the goodies" and yes these things have even been overturned with power of attorney, wills etc

    So the answer is if you want it for you brother, flight instructor etc to have those rights thats the route you can go, you can take those legal avenues you listed that are available to EVERYONE(not discrimination) but if you want it for your spouse/partner you need marriage has that is the most concrete and currently only offered between a man and a women which IS discrimination .
    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Legalizing "gay marriage" won't get rid of oppression. It will just move gay married couples from the oppressed class to the oppressing class. That isn't progress of any kind.
    this is where you argument fails the worse, there would be nothing oppressing about it LOL

    it would be progress because we would have less discrimination
    Last edited by AGENT J; 06-02-10 at 11:02 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #723
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    they want to be legally married, next
    And I want to be entitled to the same priviliges without having to get married. What makes them more deserving of privileges than I?

    you cant be serious?
    I rarely am.

    this is pure fantasy semantics, of course a gay women and gay man can get married to EACH OTHER
    I am glad we agree.

    and you say for that reason they arent denied anything LMAO
    I don't recall saying that they aren't denied anything. They are denied the same privileges that I am.

    so if whites weren't allowed to marry blacks would your argument be the same? "they can marry each other but just not interracially"
    Yes indeed. If blacks are allowed to marry blacks, then they aren't being denied a marriage license because they are black, and if whites are allowed to marry whites, then they aren't being denied a marriage license because they are white. Since both whites and blacks are being denied privilege in equal measure, such a law would not inherently favor one race over another.

    The issue is the same whether we are talking about orientation or race, and it isn't that any one group is being "denied rights." The issue is that the law is arbitrarily giving special privileges to some at the expense of others.

    Let me put it this way, in order for a gay man currently to get these special privileges, he would have to marry someone he doesn't want to. In order for a straight man who wishes to remain single to get these privileges, he would also have to marry someone he doesn't want to. The straight man in this instance is not discriminated against any less than the gay man. They are both being denied the same privileges for choosing not to marry someone they don't want to marry.

    see how dumb that is
    I do indeed. Do you?

    yes they are prevented by being GAY
    No they aren't. Being gay has nothing to do with it.

    Sex technically isnt, some couples get married without it has some are incapable
    Ok, then if sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with marriage, then what makes you think sexual orientation has anything to do with marriage? Gay guys are allowed to marry gay girls, but straight guys aren't allowed to marry other straight guys, so it seems to me that the straight guys who want to marry other straight guys are being discriminated against, and the gay guys who want to marry gay girls are not being discriminated against.

    If straight guys are being prevented from marrying other straight guys, its hard to say that they are being discriminated against for being gay.

    also currently under the law without marriage your relationship of sister, grandpa and business partner isnt less deserving in many cases its been found of HIGHER deserving because gay partners have loss houses, properties, money, belongs to those very groups because under the law without marriage they are not entitled to "the goodies" and yes these things have even been overturned with power of attorney, wills etc
    Which is exactly my point. Power of attorney, wills, etc... should be all there is. It shouldn't matter whether you are giving power of attorney to someone you have sex with, someone you share genetic code with, someone you grew up with, etc... The "marriage rights" shouldn't exist. The avenues available to everyone (i.e. Power of attorney, living will, etc...) should be the only avenues recognized by law. The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone.

    So the answer is if you want it for you brother, flight instructor etc to have those rights thats the route you can go, you can take those legal avenues you listed that are available to EVERYONE(not discrimination)
    Right. See? You are starting to understand. AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE (not discrimination) is cool. These avenues are available everyone, even to married people, so if they want their spouse to have power of attorney, they can give power of attorney to their spouse, just like anyone else.

    but if you want it for your spouse/partner you need marriage has that is the most concrete and currently only offered between a man and a women which IS discrimination .
    See? The truth comes out. Marriage IS discrimination. Accordingly, giving gays a license to marry is not going to end discrimination, it is just going to give them a license to be discriminated in favour of, instead of against.

    this is where you argument fails the worse, there would be nothing oppressing about it LOL

    it would be progress because we would have less discrimination
    Aww... you came so close, yet you missed the point.

    A long time ago, white males were allowed to own black people as slaves.

    If someone tried to pass a law that would allow white women to own black people as slaves as well, would you support it? Would that be progress? Would there be less discrimination?

    This is my point. The entire purpose of licensing anything is to discriminate. In the case of a drivers license, the purpose is to discriminate against those who fail their driving test, in favour of those who pass their driving test. In the case of marriage, the purpose of a marriage license is to discriminate against those the state does not want getting married, in favour of those the state does want getting married.

    In fact, the entire reason marriage licenses came about to begin with was the interracial marriage issue you brought up. The state wanted a way to regulate marriage, and so the marriage license was formed. Until it is abolished, the marriage license will continue to be used as a means of regulating that which the state has no business regulating.

  4. #724
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    And I want to be entitled to the same privileges without having to get married. What makes them more deserving of privileges than I?.
    per your own examples you already are except health insurance coverage but they are working on that and already do this also
    Also nobody said here they are more deserving, if this is what you want you should fight for that too, please stay on topic



    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I rarely am..
    obviously has you have proved this


    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I am glad we agree.
    yes we do agree that you point is meaningless to the debate at hand, doesnt change that its discrimination and that you cant be serious

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I don't recall saying that they aren't denied anything. They are denied the same privileges that I am.
    You use the word prevented and yes they are clearly prevented so you are wrong again
    You are NOT prevented of course unless you want same sex marriage then you are discriminated against also which has nothing to do with this debate



    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Yes indeed. If blacks are allowed to marry blacks, then they aren't being denied a marriage license because they are black, and if whites are allowed to marry whites, then they aren't being denied a marriage license because they are white. Since both whites and blacks are being denied privilege in equal measure, such a law would not inherently favor one race over another.
    again semantics and now you just confirmed you are trolling because if they werent allowed to marry eachother they would be denied based on their races LOL just in a different way but still their race


    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Let me put it this way, in order for a gay man currently to get these special privileges, he would have to marry someone he doesn't want to. In order for a straight man who wishes to remain single to get these privileges, he would also have to marry someone he doesn't want to. The straight man in this instance is not discriminated against any less than the gay man. They are both being denied the same privileges for choosing not to marry someone they don't want to marry.
    wrong per your own examples the only thing he couldnt get was health coverage and even thats debatable because some insurance will allow you to cover anybody in your house hold that shares bills

    so yes I agree the straight man would not be discriminated against as he has the SAME access to laws to achieve his goals as ANYBODY

    the gay man who wants what YOU want(or what you are TRYING to make the dabate about and its clearly not lol) would not be discriminated against has he has the SAME access to laws to achieve his goals as ANYBODY

    but when it comes to marriage ONE has the access and one does NOT have the access, this is discrimination when you stay on topic



    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    I do indeed. Do you?
    Yep I see very clealry how dumb and meaningless your point was and it helps confirm you are trolling and trying to derail the debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    No they aren't. Being gay has nothing to do with it.
    only in your fantasy land, of course it does and its been proven



    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Ok, then if sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with marriage, then what makes you think sexual orientation has anything to do with marriage? Gay guys are allowed to marry gay girls, but straight guys aren't allowed to marry other straight guys, so it seems to me that the straight guys who want to marry other straight guys are being discriminated against, and the gay guys who want to marry gay girls are not being discriminated against..
    again you cant be serious and have to see how dumb this is.
    this doesn't change the FACT that gays are being discriminated against because same sex marriage isnt allowed.

    like i said if you want to start a DIFFERENT topic and say in general men should be allowed to marry men period do so, you have my support lol but that still changes nothing, this isnt rocket science.

    how about this, at a time women couldnt vote, nor could blacks. Per your non-logic I guess neither were discriminated against since both couldnt vote then right? since women wrernt the ONLY one being denied those rights it wasnt discrimination hahahahaha wrong, again your example is clearly dumb and does not apply as women were in fact discriminated against eventhough there were others that couldnt vote either

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    If straight guys are being prevented from marrying other straight guys, its hard to say that they are being discriminated against for being gay.
    actually its very easy, see example above as it was just proved nor does it effect the definition of discrimination





    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Which is exactly my point. Power of attorney, wills, etc... should be all there is. It shouldn't matter whether you are giving power of attorney to someone you have sex with, someone you share genetic code with, someone you grew up with, etc... The "marriage rights" shouldn't exist. The avenues available to everyone (i.e. Power of attorney, living will, etc...) should be the only avenues recognized by law. The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone.
    meaningless since marriage does exists but i l love your last part since you just said something that proves my exact point "The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone." agreed thats what makes it discrimination and what makes it wrong



    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Right. See? You are starting to understand. AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE (not discrimination) is cool. These avenues are available everyone, even to married people, so if they want their spouse to have power of attorney, they can give power of attorney to their spouse, just like anyone else.
    again you cant be serious because marriage is still not available to everyone and thats the problem
    Like i said if your argument is to get rid of marriage thats a different topic, different debate and doesnt change that gays are discriminated against, that doesnt change just cause you want to totally get rid of marriage



    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    See? The truth comes out. Marriage IS discrimination. Accordingly, giving gays a license to marry is not going to end discrimination, it is just going to give them a license to be discriminated in favour of, instead of against.
    wow this is just beyond dumb and trolling again
    not allowing marriage is the discrimination, period no spin can fix it




    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Aww... you came so close, yet you missed the point.

    A long time ago, white males were allowed to own black people as slaves.

    If someone tried to pass a law that would allow white women to own black people as slaves as well, would you support it? Would that be progress? Would there be less discrimination?
    again with the illogical, you are comparing owning slaves to marriage? nah thats not a stretch at all
    also it would be progress if the goal is to make everyone equal and there would be less discrimination as women would have one more equal right no matter your attempt to appeal to emotion, nice try but you fail yet again per the criteria

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    This is my point. The entire purpose of licensing anything is to discriminate. In the case of a drivers license, the purpose is to discriminate against those who fail their driving test, in favour of those who pass their driving test. In the case of marriage, the purpose of a marriage license is to discriminate against those the state does not want getting married, in favour of those the state does want getting married.

    In fact, the entire reason marriage licenses came about to begin with was the interracial marriage issue you brought up. The state wanted a way to regulate marriage, and so the marriage license was formed. Until it is abolished, the marriage license will continue to be used as a means of regulating that which the state has no business regulating.
    again your point is meaningless unless you want to start your own topic, you want all marriage gone, fine BUT the fact that it isnt gone and its here to stay the OP still stands and you whole post is again proved meaningless to the debate at hand since gays are still being discriminated against.

    that was hilarious by the way, so many funny things you said and meaningless points that played no part in anything being debated here, oh well I hope you and the "no move marriage for anyone" movement success

    UPDATE: 6/3/10
    Still holding at zero reasons
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #725
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    per your own examples you already are except health insurance coverage but they are working on that and already do this also
    Also nobody said here they are more deserving, if this is what you want you should fight for that too, please stay on topic
    I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, even after getting past the lack of punctuation or sentence structure. If I am already entitled to the same privileges except for health care, and they are working on that, then it stands to reason that gay men are entitled to the same. Name one thing that that I, as a straight male, am allowed to do that a gay male is not allowed to do.

    yes we do agree that you point is meaningless to the debate at hand, doesnt change that its discrimination and that you cant be serious
    I am pretty sure that isn't what we agreed on. We agree that a gay man and a gay woman are allowed to marry each other.

    You use the word prevented and yes they are clearly prevented so you are wrong again
    You are NOT prevented of course unless you want same sex marriage then you are discriminated against also which has nothing to do with this debate
    You seem confused. I said that they were not prevented from getting married, and they are not. I did not say they were not denied anything, as they are.

    again semantics and now you just confirmed you are trolling because if they werent allowed to marry eachother they would be denied based on their races LOL just in a different way but still their race
    You seem to have reading comprehension issues. If you believe I am wrong that such a law does not favour one race over the other, then tell me which race is being favoured and which race is being discriminated against.

    wrong per your own examples the only thing he couldnt get was health coverage and even thats debatable because some insurance will allow you to cover anybody in your house hold that shares bills
    Ok, so if these benefits are already accessible to everyone, then what is the problem? Why are you acting like they aren't accessible to gays?

    but when it comes to marriage ONE has the access and one does NOT have the access, this is discrimination when you stay on topic
    What do you mean? They both have the same access. The gay guy can marry a woman just like the straight guy can. In fact, more than one gay man has done just that.

    Yep I see very clealry how dumb and meaningless your point was and it helps confirm you are trolling and trying to derail the debate
    I fail to see how such an ad hominem helps either your argument for gay marriage or your warrantless accusations of trolling.

    only in your fantasy land, of course it does and its been proven
    Ok, lets review here:

    I said:
    Things like power of attorney, and living wills, and inheritance rights, and everything else on the list of rights that gay marriage folk are fighting for should have nothing to do with sex at all.
    to which, you said:
    Sex technically isnt, some couples get married without it has some are incapable
    So, if sex isn't necessarily related to marriage, then it stands to reason that sexual orientation is not necessarily related to marriage either. In order to prove that people are being denied privileges because of their sexual orientation, you need to demonstrate that marriage is somehow related to sex. I am happy to concede this fact.

    Gay men can marry women just like straight men can, but this is more advantageous to straight men because straight men like having sex with women. What I am asking you to demonstrate is why inheritance rights and tax benefits should have anything to do with sex whatsoever.

    again you cant be serious and have to see how dumb this is.
    this doesn't change the FACT that gays are being discriminated against because same sex marriage isnt allowed.
    Only if marriage is related to sex. In which case, there needs to be some reason behind giving special privileges for sexual relationship above all others.

    how about this, at a time women couldnt vote, nor could blacks. Per your non-logic I guess neither were discriminated against since both couldnt vote then right? since women wrernt the ONLY one being denied those rights it wasnt discrimination hahahahaha wrong, again your example is clearly dumb and does not apply as women were in fact discriminated against eventhough there were others that couldnt vote either
    Your analogy is flawed, because voting is not an inherently discriminatory practice, whereas marriage is.

    Suppose that women and blacks were allowed to vote, but had to wait their turn at the voting booths, while white males were allowed to cut in front blacks, so that they didn't have to wait. If a group lobbied for women to be allowed to take cuts in front of blacks as well, would they be justified?

    actually its very easy, see example above as it was just proved nor does it effect the definition of discrimination
    Please do try to make some sense. What example are you referring to? How can I be discriminated against for being gay when I am not gay?

    meaningless since marriage does exists
    To return to the example of slavery. I say slavery shouldn't exist, and you say that is meaningless because slavery does exist.

    but i l love your last part since you just said something that proves my exact point "The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone." agreed thats what makes it discrimination and what makes it wrong
    You seem so close to understanding, then shy away from enlightenment at the last second. It boggles the mind. "The law should not recognize privileges that are not available to everyone." This is the statement that you just agreed with, and yet your entire purpose here is to facilitate the opposite.

    A marriage license is a piece of paper that says "these people are entitled to special privileges that aren't available to everyone." That is its sole function. Without special privileges that aren't available to everyone, marriage licenses cannot exist. They would serve no function, and would therefore be completely irrelevant.

    again you cant be serious because marriage is still not available to everyone and thats the problem
    Marriage is available to everyone. There are plenty of gay people who are also married. The real issue is that the privileges of marriage are not available to everyone unless they engage in some state sanctioned relationship that they may or may not wish for themselves.

    wow this is just beyond dumb and trolling again
    Unlike that statement which was clearly so germane to the conversation.

    again with the illogical, you are comparing owning slaves to marriage? nah thats not a stretch at all
    Apparently you've never been married. ;-)

    also it would be progress if the goal is to make everyone equal and there would be less discrimination as women would have one more equal right no matter your attempt to appeal to emotion, nice try but you fail yet again per the criteria
    So you would have supported women's right to own slaves? If the opposition claimed that women owning slaves was just as bad as men owning slaves, would you have called them a dumb troll?

  6. #726
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    blah blah blah blah blah, trolling , trolling, meaningless point, meaningless point, off topic, off topic, doesn't matter doesn't matter, blah blah blah blah
    LMAO!
    you are funny and now its confirmed you must be trolling.
    Its really this simple, please argue against the OP has im not playing your meaningless games, though its entertaining answering your every question while shooting holes in all of them becuase they are meaningless rhetoric, its lost its appeal has it serves nothing of substance to the debate and OP

    If you need a point of reference please see OP

    just like yesterday
    the count stands atZERO has no one has provided a good reason per the criteria and OP
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #727
    Student CrazyMcCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    08-27-13 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    233

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    I dont see what the problem is..If a man wants to marry a man he should be allowed to with 100% support of the law..

    Otherwise, cause I dont think the law is suppose to have a bias...Its suppose to make sure we are all are givin our rights..and the consitiution does not say anything about gays not being allowed to get married...Infact it says the oppisate..

    Seperation of Religon ( aka opperation, no use in denying it people) and state...

    If me ****ing my girl friend sideways while hanging upsidedown and listening to classical music does not matter, why would it matter if some guy ****s another guy...It makes no sense..

    HEY YOU I UR NOT EQUAL TO ME! U R EATING ICE CREAM AND THATS EVIL!

    thats the exact same thing thats happening here..

    We might as well go back to saying Nig*er and oppresing black people



    I mean ffs I live in Israel, which under defenition is a JEWISH STATE and we allow gays to get married here! hell we let them march throu Jerusalem !
    How can we respect Democratic values more than Americans do? thats unheard of
    Last edited by CrazyMcCool; 06-04-10 at 09:16 AM.
    'DON'T WORRY SIR, I'M FROM THE INTERNET.'

    THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UN ( Click on the UN to see! )

  8. #728
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Panache View Post
    Name one thing that that I, as a straight male, am allowed to do that a gay male is not allowed to do.
    "Get married to the person you love" comes to mind.

  9. #729
    Student CrazyMcCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    08-27-13 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    233

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    "Get married to the person you love" comes to mind.
    Also join the army comes to mind? =]
    'DON'T WORRY SIR, I'M FROM THE INTERNET.'

    THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UN ( Click on the UN to see! )

  10. #730
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    In my perfect world, the following would be the case:

    No marriage as currently defined - replaced with exclusively legal/financial "civil unions" or the like.

    The above mentioned legal joining is available to everyone.

    Any tax breaks and the like are given if the legally joined persons meet standards set for such by the government offering them.
    Note: As I understand it, the tax breaks were originally meant to promote stable families and homes, but that may be different now.

    No restrictions except a requirement for mutual consent on religious/social/personal marriage between two or more persons - issues must be resolved between the individuals and/or religious entities involved, within the boundaries of law of course (as in, don't kill anyone, ect.).
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •