The American Child After Same-Sex Marriage

[sleuth]

Originally posted by http

Marriage and unions are exactly what the government needs to control. I will give you just a few of COUNTLESS reasons why:

So 8 year olds are getting married and having kids by 10,
So 40 year old perverts aren't marrying and knocking up your 13 year old daughter,
So McCoy brothers aren't marrying their McCoy sisters,
So Utah polygamists aren't sleeping with their 12 year old dauthters,
So Juan-Manuel Estaban doesn't marry Petunia just to become a citizen and then bring the wife and the rest of the 64 children behind him,
So Mohammed Al Bin-Barak doesn't marry Claireborn Clarrington for 10 grand so he gains citizenship and blows your Port Republic house off the face of the planet, (and other reasons to protect against duel citizenship).

Citizenship laws are one thing. Marriage laws between two consenting American adults are another thing. And I never said that minors should be allowed to have "Civil Unions".

I say leave it to myself, and my family to dictate my own morality. I'm not inflicting on your rights. Please don't inflict on mine.

I would hope my family would raise me that marrying my sister is wrong, but not because "the government says so".

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by sleuth14
You are absolutely right. It IS a LEGAL thing, because the government MADE it that way, and I believe they were out of their jurisdiction to do so.

I'd like to know where it says in our constitution that government has the right to dictate morality. Last I saw was that its job was to regulate trade, make laws to protect rights, and provide defense.

It was made a legal thing to protect women and children. (spare me the wimmen lib thing, we're talking history here) What's to stop a guy from getting married, making the woman dependant on him, then taking off with all the money and leaving her in poverty. Yeah, they still do it, but at least she can sic the authorities on him. If there were no legal marriage, she has no rights to demand he support her.

Even today, when people get married, they generally merge their assets. The legal aspect of marriage protects their rights to access those assets even if their name isn't recorded as an owner. From a legal standpoint, marriage gives spouses certain rights to make demands on each other, primarily financial demands. The morality of marriage is completely seperate.

Originally posted by Barbra
Hey JHie, could you translate that into English?

Otherwise, if they are porking their girlfriends in the azz, wouldn't doing that act make them gay too?

that azz!!

[sleuth]

Originally posted by http
And you're wrong about the church. If that what was so important, than why are the gays wanting to get government approval so much? Why don't they just invent the "Church of the Holy ### Grail", all marry themselves off and stop wasting my taxpayer money?

And the answer to this is quite simply... gays can't get marriage OR civil unions. And perhaps the reason they want civil unions that are recognized by the government is so they can get that insurance break.

Originally posted by nomoney
I bet those sermons would be a blast

Penetrating even........

[sleuth]

Originally posted by cmcdanal
It was made a legal thing to protect women and children. (spare me the wimmen lib thing, we're talking history here) What's to stop a guy from getting married, making the woman dependant on him, then taking off with all the money and leaving her in poverty. Yeah, they still do it, but at least she can sic the authorities on him. If there were no legal marriage, she has no rights to demand he support her.

Even today, when people get married, they generally merge their assets. The legal aspect of marriage protects their rights to access those assets even if their name isn't recorded as an owner. From a legal standpoint, marriage gives spouses certain rights to make demands on each other, primarily financial demands. The morality of marriage is completely seperate.

So couldn't a Civil Union accomplish the same "merge"?
Why does it have to be a woman and man? Two men or two women can merge their assets as well as anyone else can.

[pixiegirl (Premo)]

I have missed you!

[http]

Originally posted by sleuth14
Citizenship laws are one thing. Marriage laws between two consenting American adults are another thing. And I never said that minors should be allowed to have "Civil Unions".

I say leave it to myself, and my family to dictate my own morality. I'm not inflicting on your rights. Please don't inflict on mine.

I would hope my family would raise me that marrying my sister is wrong, but not because "the government says so".

Your post is just riddled with oxymorons and contradictions, I can't even begin to get into it. Oh yea, and another thing, never use the word "hope" in an argument.

[http]

Originally posted by sleuth14
And the answer to this is quite simply... gays can't get marriage OR civil unions. And perhaps the reason they want civil unions that are recognized by the government is so they can get that insurance break.

Insurance break? Huh? What are you talking about like a multi-family discount on your Huyndai? Are you trying to say marraige tax break?

[Dymphna]

Originally posted by sleuth14
So couldn't a Civil Union accomplish the same "merge"?
Why does it have to be a woman and man? Two men or two women can merge their assets as well as anyone else can.

That is a valid argument. OTOH The merging of assets can be accomplished without a marriage, but putting everything in both names. The arguement could be made that legal marriage is obsolete because women don't need that kind of protection anymore, they can stand up for themselves.

About the only thing left is to require employers offer health insurance. Marriage is considered an implied contract, besides financial, there is also the promise to provide physical care for each other in the event of infirmity and old age. That may be the reason for the push for health care benefits.