WinterBorn
Verified User
So you want civil unions, with identical rights and benefits as marriage, but not marriage?
How can you tell who is married and who is joined by civil unions?
SCOTUS protects marriage equality
- Thread starter Jake Starkey
- Start date
So you want civil unions, with identical rights and benefits as marriage, but not marriage?
How can you tell who is married and who is joined by civil unions?
Indeed, what infringement of rights? So no need to mess with legitimate marriage.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
So you lied. Thanks for the admission.
Mostly correct.
Marriage evolved across the globe in virtually every culture. The reason is that marriage ensures that children are cared for by fathers. Homosexual unions hence have no relation to actual marriage.
However, the legal aspects of joint property need to be addressed. Civil unions address this aspect.
Why would I need to?
That's a bizarre and extremely stupid accusation.
Thank you for admitting Obama raped a 6 year old boy.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
You said there was an infringement.
Pee wee routine won't work.
And?
You lied that I was lying about something?
I get it, you were just flinging shit because you can't support the idiocy you post.
Indeed. Try addressing what people say instead of lying.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
You didn't say that there were infringing on their marriages?
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
No, you just lied about it.
And the rational is in my reply to @WinterBorn
You're just flinging feces like a feral baboon.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Ok what did I lie about?
1263 - you lied.
Hey, that's expected.
You lie, and you play dumb - because you have no way to defend your party or the idiocy you post. It's just you being you.
When Biden was in office you were semi-reasonable. But since Trump won, you've devolved into shrill panic and make the most absurd posts.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
You lie about me. You're responsible for Trump and the MAGA Party.
Panic? That's ironic.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
That's the ruling. The appeal was quashed. Trump loses.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Hahahaha "ThatBowelMovement" ... I gotta remember that one.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It's the 'in principle' capability (aka the 'theoretical possibility') to have children that is the foundational purpose of marriage. One man and one woman are required for procreation. Ergo, marriage is the holy union between one man and one woman.
Any other gender combination (e.g. man/man, woman/woman) cannot EVER in ANY way result in procreation, so it can only IMITATE marriage... it cannot BE marriage. Feel free to call it a 'civil union' (or some other term that suits your fancy).
In principle? -- a man and a woman CAN procreate.
In actuality? -- [insert some sort of circumstance here] can hinder (or even render impossible) the aforementioned ability of a man and a woman to procreate.
This is the core distinction at hand, and the 'in principle' ability of a man and a woman to procreate is what makes a marriage a marriage, as opposed to any other type of union in which procreation is impossible even in principle.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
No.
Rather, a couple must simply possess the 'in principle' ability to procreate.
^^^ aka, if there is some sort of CIRCUMSTANCE present that is barring a couple from having children who could otherwise, 'in principle', have children.
Yes.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I want all unions between a man and a woman to be called 'marriages' and all unions between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be called 'civil unions'.
I want the aforementioned because the 'in principle' ability of procreation clearly differentiates the union between a man and a woman from the union between a man and a man or the union between a woman and a woman. The other two unions could both be called 'civil union' for all I care because there's nothing that differentiates them from each other (outside of man/man vs woman/woman).
man/woman = joined by marriage
man/man = joined by civil union
woman/woman = joined by civil union