Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
I think removing the gov't from marriage would be an excellent idea. No tax benefits, no immunity from testimony against your spouse, and the things that can be gained by proper contracts and legal documents would be fair to do so.

But the gov't has never had any business in marriage.
Click to expand...

Visitation rights in hospitals
Legal claims for the loss of a spouse
Rights of ownership in property
Assumption of paternity regarding children
Parental rights
Survivorship rights to property jointly owned
Child support
Alamony

Just to name a few protections that marriage allows a spouse.
 
Jarod said:
No but you can choose to live your life as if a pound equals 17 ounces. That would be your choice. If you had a compelling reason I would support the government changing the defination of a pound.
Click to expand...

and there we stand.....let gays live their lives the way they choose without compelling the government to change the definition of marriage.....
 
Jarod said:
So do Gay people... They want the government to allow more freedom and to get out of the business of defining marriage in a way that limits them.
Click to expand...
no, they want the government to act on their behalf....to redefine marriage so that they gain acceptance by society.....
 
WinterBorn said:
So you agree that gays are born that way?

So you expect them to never marry, simply because you don't want to change the definitoion of marriage?
Click to expand...

/shrugs....I expect them never to marry because I don't expect them to choose a woman to live with.....that's what marriage would require......why should I change the definition of marriage just because they choose to live with another man instead of a woman?......
 
Jarod said:
Visitation rights in hospitals
Legal claims for the loss of a spouse
Rights of ownership in property
Assumption of paternity regarding children
Parental rights
Survivorship rights to property jointly owned
Child support
Alamony

Just to name a few protections that marriage allows a spouse.
Click to expand...

We would still be better off if we removed the gov't from the entire situation.



How about it, Post and SM? Remove the gov't from marriage all together?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....I expect them never to marry because I don't expect them to choose a woman to live with.....that's what marriage would require......why should I change the definition of marriage just because they choose to live with another man instead of a woman?......
Click to expand...

You are trying to play both sides of the fence. You agree they are born that way, but won't agree with changing the definition of marriage just because they choose to have a relationship with another man.

And just a reminder, their relationships are not based on sex any more than your marriage or my marriage is based on sex. Its based on love.
 
I like the fact that the government will provide for benefits to protect individuals based on a special relationship of mutual cooperation.
 
Jarod said:
I like the fact that the government will provide for benefits to protect individuals based on a special relationship of mutual cooperation.
Click to expand...

Its a nice idea, but I prefer the gov't not be involved.


How about it SM? What say you Post?
 
Visitation rights in hospitals- appointment of a health care advocate or living will
Legal claims for the loss of a spouse - based on loss of support, loss of consortium, not loss of spouse
Rights of ownership in property - joint deed with right of survivorship
Assumption of paternity regarding children - got me on that one, though I suspect an assumption of maternity would be even more problematic
Parental rights - if they've adopted, it will be "the best interests of the child" in any respect...
Survivorship rights to property jointly owned,- if it is truly jointly owned survivorship rights won't be an issue
Child support - see comment above re: adoption
Alamony - could be covered by a statute....

Just to name a few protections that marriage allows a spouse
 
WinterBorn said:
And how would allowing gays to marry be a change for the worse? It would provide good benefits for some, and no negative impact for others.
Click to expand...

forcing all of society to accept an abnormal relationship as the equivalent of a normal one?.....almost as bad as what happened in '72 when the liberals changed the law to state that killing your unborn child was acceptable.....look at how badly that's fucked us up......
 
WinterBorn said:
You are trying to play both sides of the fence. You agree they are born that way, but won't agree with changing the definition of marriage just because they choose to have a relationship with another man.
Click to expand...

????...it's on both sides of the fence because they are in two different fields.....alcoholics are born alcoholics.....that doesn't mean I should encourage them to drink......tell them it's normal......
 
Jarod said:
Visitation rights in hospitals
Legal claims for the loss of a spouse
Rights of ownership in property
Assumption of paternity regarding children
Parental rights
Survivorship rights to property jointly owned
Child support
Alamony

Just to name a few protections that marriage allows a spouse.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
Visitation rights in hospitals- appointment of a health care advocate or living will
Legal claims for the loss of a spouse - based on loss of support, loss of consortium, not loss of spouse
Rights of ownership in property - joint deed with right of survivorship
Assumption of paternity regarding children - got me on that one, though I suspect an assumption of maternity would be even more problematic
Parental rights - if they've adopted, it will be "the best interests of the child" in any respect...
Survivorship rights to property jointly owned,- if it is truly jointly owned survivorship rights won't be an issue
Child support - see comment above re: adoption
Alamony - could be covered by a statute....

Just to name a few protections that marriage allows a spouse
Click to expand...

you must admit that if they have to create a seperate legal document that a married couple does not have to, that is de facto not equal....and not at all the same rights
 
PostmodernProphet said:
forcing all of society to accept an abnormal relationship as the equivalent of a normal one?.....almost as bad as what happened in '72 when the liberals changed the law to state that killing your unborn child was acceptable.....look at how badly that's fucked us up......
Click to expand...

thats the same argument that racists used to fight against interracial marraige, congrulations :good4u:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Visitation rights in hospitals- appointment of a health care advocate or living will
Legal claims for the loss of a spouse - based on loss of support, loss of consortium, not loss of spouse
Rights of ownership in property - joint deed with right of survivorship
Assumption of paternity regarding children - got me on that one, though I suspect an assumption of maternity would be even more problematic
Parental rights - if they've adopted, it will be "the best interests of the child" in any respect...
Survivorship rights to property jointly owned,- if it is truly jointly owned survivorship rights won't be an issue
Child support - see comment above re: adoption
Alamony - could be covered by a statute....

Just to name a few protections that marriage allows a spouse
Click to expand...

There are other benefits, see if you can do the same for them?

Benefits such as pension plans, SSI, and Medicare?
Joint filing of Customs Claims when travelling?
Wrongful death benefits for the surviving partner or child?
Bereavement Leave?
Sick leave to care for the partner?
Domestic violence protection orders?
Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity?

Just to name a few.
 
Yurt said:
you must admit that if they have to create a seperate legal document that a married couple does not have to, that is de facto not equal....and not at all the same rights
Click to expand...

I see no obligation to treat them equally with a married couple.....they aren't married......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
let's just eliminate taxes completely.....
Click to expand...

That is not feasible. The Fair Tax Act would fix it. But there are other benefits that would still not be available to domestic partners.


You would not agree to remove the gov't from the entire marriage scene and remove all the gov't benefits of being married?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
forcing all of society to accept an abnormal relationship as the equivalent of a normal one?.....almost as bad as what happened in '72 when the liberals changed the law to state that killing your unborn child was acceptable.....look at how badly that's fucked us up......
Click to expand...

Their relationships exist now. Does it effect you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top