Maryland recognises same sex marriages?

[mAlice]

I have a cell phone, and a few vehicles. However, I'm not sure how technological advances applies here.

I do not in any way find women inferior to men, simply different.

In terms of adapting to changing family structures, I'm willing to do that. As I said, I'm for civil unions. But, I'm not for changing what a parent is, or a husband or a wife is, or a grandmother or a cousin is, just because we have cars now. There are certain things that remain the same, consistent, throughout all of time.

I do not feel it is proper to deny someone the right to receive state recognition of their commitment to each other, or their group, or whatever. But, I equally feel it improper to call a club a spade - I call spades spades. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that same-gendered unions are inherently different, psychologically, to opposite gendered unions. When society finds a benefit of that different union that is equal to the benefits historically considered from opposite gendered unions, then they should recieve appropriate benefits in return. I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages". Those benefits may exist, or they may not. There is simply no reason to assume they exist at this time, though.

Wow! They needed a study for that? Of course they're different. Just like any other individual relationship is different.

Why do I, as part of society, need to benefit from someone else's relationship?

 

[mAlice]

You talked about choice vs. non choice. This has nothing to do with whether or not it effects you personally.

If you are not raped, why is it a problem? If the only reason to have an opinion on something is if it effects you personally, why is rape against anyone else a problem for you?

It's too bad you don't get it. Like someone else said, "apples and oranges".

Let me add, if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me. Does that help?

 

[Chasey_Lane]

I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages".

Why do you need a study regarding something that is consentual between two individuals?

 

[This_person]

Dude, come on. This is a poor argument, and it has been from the beginning. Comparing rape to same sex marriage is comparing apples and oranges.



Rape is a crime and it is the active violation of one human being by another, and a heinous attack on their person.

In same-sex marriage there is no violation, and there is no crime. It's two consenting adults who want to enter into a relationship based on affection, sex and companionship.

Nobody is being violated, and no crime is being committed.

I'd say that's a huge goddam difference, and makes your comparison invalid.




So unless gay marriage has a negative impact on those not involved (which it does NOT), then this continued ban on it is nothing more than 'might is right' oppression.

I wasn't comparing the acts of rape and same gendered unions. I was saying that the attitude of "it doesn't effect me" is a stupid argument, when speaking of laws.

I know, agree, and accept that there is no comparison to rape and same-gendered unions. But, to say that someone else's actions don't effect me personally, so therefore I have no reason to have an opinion on the law involved is a stupid argument.

 

[This_person]

* Does not null and void the other definitions.

Was that your addition, or was it in there already?

 

[mAlice]

Was that your addition, or was it in there already?

Whatta' you think?

 

[This_person]

I still say that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (Hetero or Homo). It's not their job. :shrug:

They only get involved if specifically requested by the parties involved.

For example, two men, three women, nine people of whatever genders, can all live in the same house, share checking accounts and bills and children, and family holidays, and have a ceremony of their choice saying they're eternally committed to one another and celebrate that day each year. They can call themselves whatever they want. None of this is enforceably illegal. Until they ask the state to recognize it.

 

[This_person]

If you want to compare rape to marriage, I'll surely compare a lady bug to a garage door. Your opinion of marriage means nothing, just as mine doesn't mean anything.

Again, I wasn't comparing rape to marriage. I was comparing laws that effect you personally to those that don't, and saying it's okay to have an opinion on both.

 

[mAlice]

I wasn't comparing the acts of rape and same gendered unions. I was saying that the attitude of "it doesn't effect me" is a stupid argument, when speaking of laws.

I know, agree, and accept that there is no comparison to rape and same-gendered unions. But, to say that someone else's actions don't effect me personally, so therefore I have no reason to have an opinion on the law involved is a stupid argument.

again...if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me.

 

[mAlice]

Again, I wasn't comparing rape to marriage. I was comparing laws that effect you personally to those that don't, and saying it's okay to have an opinion on both.

and again...if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me.

 

[This_person]

So basically you want to bandy about semantics, and nothing more.

To me, it's much more than semantics. I use the analogy of semis and motorcycles for a reason - there are many differences in what it takes to obtain and retain these licenses. Differences in what you have to do when you have them. Because, as similar as they are (both just driving vehicles on the road), they are also different, and are treated differently because of the potential impact they have on society at large.

So, no, it's not JUST semantics.

 

[Toxick]

I wasn't comparing the acts of rape and same gendered unions. I was saying that the attitude of "it doesn't effect me" is a stupid argument, when speaking of laws.

I think that it is less of "it doesn't effect ME" and more of, "It doesn't affect anybody outside of an extremely limited group of people".

I know, agree, and accept that there is no comparison to rape and same-gendered unions. But, to say that someone else's actions don't effect me personally, so therefore I have no reason to have an opinion on the law involved is a stupid argument.

Well, I am sure you're entitled to your opinion. The problem is that laws should not be based on opinion. Especially laws which are discriminatory in nature.

 

[This_person]

Why do I, as part of society, need to benefit from someone else's relationship?

You don't. But, if you, as a society, are going to offer benefits based on a relationship status, you should know if there are any benefits to society from that relationship status.

 

[mAlice]

You don't. But, if you, as a society, are going to offer benefits based on a relationship status, you should know if there are any benefits to society from that relationship status.

Okay.

 

[This_person]

It's too bad you don't get it. Like someone else said, "apples and oranges".

Let me add, if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me. Does that help?

No, that doesn't help. We're talking about whether a law that does not effect you personally should be something you have an opinion on. I think it's a-okay to have an opinion on something whether it effects you personally or not.

 

[This_person]

Why do you need a study regarding something that is consentual between two individuals?

How is the effect on society "between two individuals"?

 

[mAlice]

No, that doesn't help. We're talking about whether a law that does not effect you personally should be something you have an opinion on. I think it's a-okay to have an opinion on something whether it effects you personally or not.

I can't believe this is still out of your grasp.

 

[This_person]

Whatta' you think?

As I've read the definition before, I think you put that footnote on yourself.

 

[This_person]

again...if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me.

Fair enough. So, since what Bernie Madoff did couldn't be forced upon you, you have no opinion as to whether what he did should be legal or not

 

[ylexot]

They only get involved if specifically requested by the parties involved.

For example, two men, three women, nine people of whatever genders, can all live in the same house, share checking accounts and bills and children, and family holidays, and have a ceremony of their choice saying they're eternally committed to one another and celebrate that day each year. They can call themselves whatever they want. None of this is enforceably illegal. Until they ask the state to recognize it.

And when a straight couple asks the state to recognize it, the state should say, "not our job." :shrug: