Same-sex couples begin marrying

USFREEDOM911 said:
You are incorrect; because two people who love each other, who are violating no laws, should be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

then you should let them.....but you shouldn't use the law to force everyone to let them.....because the fact you don't care doesn't make the abnormal, normal.....
 
WinterBorn said:
There is not rational reason the gov't should not recognize their unions in the same way it recognizes straight ones, and for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

we've already covered that......gays didn't accept mere recognition of their union in Massachusetts.......stop pretending that is what the argument is about......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then you should let them.....but you shouldn't use the law to force everyone to let them.....because the fact you don't care doesn't make the abnormal, normal.....
Click to expand...

It appears that you have interchanged the words of "let them" and "accept them"; because our laws will state who can and who can't be married, but no one said you have to accept it.
You just have to abide by it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but unacceptable to gays....because benefits are not the issue......
Click to expand...

If you're going to argue just part of my quote, at least have the courtesy to quote the entire post and show which part you don't agree with.

OH; but wait.
It's the Government who have all those pesky rules regarding surviorship, inheritance, medical procedures, etc.
Easier to just allow them the same benefits that come from marriage.
Click to expand...

But benefits are PART of the issue and those are benefits that the Government "allows or requires".
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Care to give some examples of these document changes?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to pick a fight? This is the one issue you have right, douchebag.

Independent is arguing they should get out of "marriage" and have "domestic partnerships." Apparently, the only difference is the terminology. So under his system they would have to change the language on any document using the word "marriage" and all it's different forms (e.g., marry, married, etc.). It serves no purpose.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Are you trying to pick a fight? This is the one issue you have right, douchebag.

Independent is arguing they should get out of "marriage" and have "domestic partnerships." Apparently, the only difference is the terminology. So under his system they would have to change the language on any document using the word "marriage" and all it's different forms (e.g., marry, married, etc.). It serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

I was trying to see what documents you were talking about, fuck face.
 
This is a made-up conflict. If gays would accept civil unions instead of trying to ram this down the 60% or so who are against queer marriage the discussion would have ended years ago.
 
DamnYankee said:
This is a made-up conflict. If gays would accept civil unions instead of trying to ram this down the 60% or so who are against queer marriage the discussion would have ended years ago.
Click to expand...

And right wingers would be able to make them unequal by passing laws that grant benefits to marriages but not civil unions.

At best, the only purpose of these seperate classifications would be to create invidious discrimination. The courts would have to overturn previous rulings and develop new standards to allow it. That is not going to happen.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the law would force me to treat their relationship as the equivalent of an actual marriage......
Click to expand...

What would they go about forcing you to TREAT the relationship as an equivalent marriage?
Would they MAKE you attend the wedding?
Would they MAKE you give wedding gifts and/or anniversary gifts?
Would they MAKE you invite them to your house?

What exactly what............?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top