The American Child After Same-Sex Marriage

[sleuth]

Originally posted by Pete
So by changing the name it will make everything cool? WAKE UP ! Call it marriage, civil union, or whatever. It is not a religious thing it is a LEGAL thing. Try going to a church and getting a divorce is marriage is just "religious".

Government is a reflection of morality, it is called societial norm. Right now in this counrty the norm in society is that marriage/civil union or whatever is between a male and a female. The traditional, natural fmaily unit. It is a small very vocal minority that is : because they cannot get there way.

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.

 

[Kizzy]

Seems easier to outlaw marriage.

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by Barbra
Be careful tho'. You might go gay by just looking @ the website.

Hey Barbie.........wouldn't they go gay too if they're plunging the girlfriends??

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by IM4Change
On the news, the radio, the newspaper, talk shows, hollyweirds announcing their sexual preference, etc. etc., and it is already an issue in the next election. Sure, they are not getting busy in front of me in the streets, but I do think the issue is in everyone's face everyday.

In that case, so is heterosexuality.
Damn married couples... all over the place, on the news, in the newspaper, on talk shows, hollywood straight actors announcing their mariages, and it is already an issue in the next election.

 

[Hello6]

If it's good enough for Slim Whitman to sing about:

"Live and let live and be happy
Love and let love and be GAY
Smile at all of life's problems
You'll feel much better that way"

I don't have a problem with it.

 

[http]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I got your back Barbara...
Although I don't really agree that it is natural, I don't believe it is our government's place to dictate morality. So I don't think they have the right to tell me I can't shack up with a guy if I want to.

And to further press the issue, I don't think it's the government's job to recognize marriages. What I do suppose is their right, is to recognize civil unions, and that all marriages should be civil unions, but not all civil unions a marriage. To me, marriage is a religious institution, and the only ones who should be able to 'officially' recognize a civil union as a marriage, is a church.

Government should be a reflection of morality, not an enforcer of it. What I want to do inside the privacy of my own bedroom, or who I want to love, is between myself, my bedmate, and my God.

I give a rat's @$$ what the government thinks.

The funny thing about your post is that you couldn't be more backwards.

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).

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 Fag Grail", all marry themselves off and stop wasting my taxpayer money?

 

[nomoney]

Originally posted by http
"Church of the Holy Fag Grail",

I bet those sermons would be a blast

 

[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.

 

[justhangn]

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 Fag 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.

 

[justhangn]

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]

http

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.

 

[sleuth]

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

I was being facecious (sp?).
Truth is, I don't know why gays want it. I'm not gay and I haven't done the research.

And truth is, I don't care why they want it. But I do think it's their prerogative.

 

[http]

Originally posted by sleuth14
I was being facecious (sp?).
Truth is, I don't know why gays want it. I'm not gay and I haven't done the research.

And truth is, I don't care why they want it. But I do think it's their prerogative.

That's interesting because for once, I thought you had a very valid point, although as an unintended mind-you Fruedian slip of sorts.

And that is that perhaps these gay couples are trying to get tax breaks by marrying. The only problem with this is that the "marriage tax break" is a 25 year old going-defunct law on the books that was made for married couples back in the 60s and 70s who's husband was the money earner and the wife was a stay-home mom or student, and the differentiation in their incomes were costing them more in taxes compared to a "going steady" couple that does not have the financial burden of staying home, taking care of the house and raising the children without an income. Nowadays however, women are making equal if not more than their spouses and married couples are actually experiencing tax penalties.

 

[Sharon]

And the answer to this is quite simply... gays can't get married

They have the same marriage rights as anyone else in this country, no one is stopping them from getting married as millions have before them. What they want are special rights.