W
WinterBorn
Guest
Yes they can. But they cannot have the same benefits that other couples who choose to get married can have. And couples who do not have any religious ceremony also get those same benefits.
APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next
- Thread starter DamnYankee
- Start date
Yes they can. But they cannot have the same benefits that other couples who choose to get married can have. And couples who do not have any religious ceremony also get those same benefits.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I would like to ask Southern Man, what do you think of my solution? Could you live with it?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.
Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Good question, he might have changed his mind since the same solution was suggested in the other thread.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
dude...i have never attacked religion you lying sack.
i've stated repeatedly over the years that i agree with your solution. my first solution and i've even stated it in this thread is for government to get out of marriage. contrary to the lying PMP, i have not changed my position on gay marriage, it has been the same now as it was years ago when i posted on DP and USMB....
however, my argument is valid, now, because the government is involved in religion. and you continue to argue that gay marriage will never happen because it will lead to this slippery slope argument.....so you are in fact making the argument above, you are just so deluded you can't see it. you think your solution gives you carte blanche to argue against gay marriage and somehow makes you a saint is naive and unpersuasive.
you will let a murderer marry, but not a homosexual....that is unequal and has no merit.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Which post?
Again, you set the bar by your religion then say, "They are not qualified"...
Any adult is qualified to enter into a personal contract, and that is where it should end for the government.
Let your church tell you who is qualified, and force the government outside your religion rather than trying to force others to follow your beliefs.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That wasn't my logic.i thought it was funny....i used your logic and you called it a hissy fit
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Dixie's solution, which Damo and I happen to agree with, is:
"I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line."
"I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line."
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
That wasn't my logic.
sure it is...
you said, if we allow gays to marry our children would be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal....your whole thread is based on a slippery slope argument...
so i said....if we allow murderers to marry, our children will be forced to learn that murder is normal....and i said that if we allow blacks and whites to marry the next thing will be horses or something....
both are an exact use of your logic. different subjects, but the same exact logic....
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Its simple biology Damo. Queer relationships are just too far out of the norm to be considered qualified.
Total rubbish. You can enter into any contract you want, regardless of your biology, so long as you are a capable adult.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So now marriage is about biology? Thats a stretch, at best.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I've heard several folks here claim that homosexuality is normal; I've never heard anyone claim that about murder. You're trying to develop an analogy that makes no sense.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
If you don't have eyesight you can't get a license to drive...
I support this, it is just semantics, basically you want the government to allow gay marriage, just stop calling it marriage!
Homosexuality is normal at a rate of about 12% in any given population.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You have claimed that homosexuality goes against society and harms children. Murder does that too.