Can Anti-Same Sex M Advocates Address These Facts?

[LuckyDan]

So find a nice girl and settle down already. What is the problem?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

So, what are the difference between marriage and civil union. At last count, there are over a thousand. Here are a few:

1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

I've never understood these. There are maybe 5 on the list I can understand, like hospital visitation, but those have been taken care of and are easy to do, they truly aren't issues anymore. All the rest are issues that deal with mutual children, that situation is completely N/A. Take 18 for example. Why would they need a joint insurance plan? Joint insurance is for when your spouse stays home with your children and therefore cannot work.

 

[DiveCon]

So, what are the difference between marriage and civil union. At last count, there are over a thousand. Here are a few:

1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

I've never understood these. There are maybe 5 on the list I can understand, like hospital visitation, but those have been taken care of and are easy to do, they truly aren't issues anymore. All the rest are issues that deal with mutual children, that situation is completely N/A. Take 18 for example. Why would they need a joint insurance plan? Joint insurance is for when your spouse stays home with your children and therefore cannot work.

and those things should be removed from marriage
marriage is a religious ceremony and the government should get out of it
if you want those laws, then get a civil union contract

 

[Father Time]

As a Christian I can tell you we will never advocate ssm. That is not our idea but God's he states that very clearly in the Bible. Wouldn't we be a hypocrite if we did? Obliviously some of you have no idea what a church does in our communities around the country. We are not perfect never claimed to be. We know we will never be perfect. But we do try to follow the instruction of the Bible as closely as we can that is the whole point.

The secular world likes to label us as to what they think we should be like. You know we think we are perfect yet we do not live up to their standard but we always measure up to God's standard. The difference is we have been saved our debt is settled with God and he the only one we are concerned about impressing.

Like I said God says no to ssm or homosexuality period. Again I say that is not our words but God's. Does this mean we get a right to hate gay people no it does not. We should always treat each other with respect that does not mean we get to disrespect God in that effort.

I do not say that ssm will destroy the traditional marriage. We are saying is God does not approve and we are not to disagree with him. Do u understand what I am telling you?

One more thing I assure you their are many Churches that reach out to the lost the hungry and the homeless. The churches are one of the last refuge that when somebody needs help the church will step out and try and help them I have been apart of that on many occasions. One church cannot help everybody in this world but we try and cover as much as we can.

I agree with you on one thing there are Church's out there that are not houses of worship but like you said money grubbers that is very sad but we are not all like that. God will deal with them I assure you. That will be his timing not ours.

For one, there is no such thing as invisible magical spirit beings.

Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction".

The Bible God is very destructive, very into murder and death. According to the Christians, he drowned the entire world. A magical being with so many powers could have simply killed the bad and let the dinosaurs live.

This is a God who told someone to "kill" their only child and then said "Stop, I was just kidding. I only wanted to see if you would actually do it". The very definition of sadism.

Why would anyone expect gays, who are perfectly normal and part of nature, to live by such terrible and arbitrary rules? It's pathetic. If the religious had any sense, they would be ashamed.

SSM is immoral, against God's creation plan, and cannot be condoned by believers.

How exactly is SSM immoral?

Also you can allow it to be legal and not participate in it. It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to fight it.

God is absolute, and no matter what people believe about Him, He is who He is.

The Word of God, the Bible, is powerful enough to eternally save a soul, but man is free enough to say no to it.

Nothing we do can cause God to love us any less, and nothing we can do can cause God to love us any more. However, God's justice and righteousness will not allow for sin to live in His presence. That is why sin will lead to separation from the presence of God forever. The gifts of forgiveness, grace, and mercy are all because of God's love. He not only made those gifts available, He paid for them personally for us. When we reject them, it does not change His love for us, it does result in the possiblility of an eternal personal relationship
with Him.

I don't see how this is relevant. God gave man freewill so why is it you feel justified in trying to prevent a certain group of people from sinning using the force of government?

 

[Father Time]

So, what are the difference between marriage and civil union. At last count, there are over a thousand. Here are a few:

1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

I've never understood these. There are maybe 5 on the list I can understand, like hospital visitation, but those have been taken care of and are easy to do, they truly aren't issues anymore. All the rest are issues that deal with mutual children, that situation is completely N/A. Take 18 for example. Why would they need a joint insurance plan? Joint insurance is for when your spouse stays home with your children and therefore cannot work.

Gay couples can adopt and/or get sperm/egg donation.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

People are allowed to spend their lives with whatever consenting adult they choose, and it is no one else's business. Why do you need a piece of paper to make it official all the sudden?

So we can count on your support on the next bill to abolish all marriage, yes?

 

[CurveLight]

I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.

That's assuming the law was made using logic and reason which as you can see by any number of stupid laws on the books is not the case. So basically it's appeal to tradition.

And although I can't speak for any other state, here in California the Prop 8 side was lying their freaking heads off. "It'll be taught to kids and you can't opt out" "it will lead to hate speech laws" "you're church may be forced to marry gays". If that's the only way the anti gay marraige crowds can win ...

They did a lot of that same shit here in MA. The absolute worst organization is MA Resistance. Those bigots actually lied about petitions they were getting people to sign. As we all know, since bigotry in itself is indefensible there is no way to expect honesty from those who practice that religion.

 

[CurveLight]

Yes I did say divorce laws were a reason. There's more to "divorce laws" than whether the state is has no-fault divorce. And though I could back up everything I just said, I wont. You don't have any reason to disagree with me, but you're trying save face by saying I'm "kicking and screaming" when I just showed you how you were wrong. You had sense enough to Google and find that site you posted. What don't you agree with and why?

You claimed the stats aren't legit so it is up to you to provide the evidence. It's that simple.

I didn't say your stats aren't legit. Your ARGUMENT isn't legit. You can't just pay attention to the two things you like and then act like you have the debate sown up. There's more to the social and economic institution of marriage and divorce than mere statistics.

Can you remember what you post? Let me help ya:


(qball)
"Not only are they empty statistics, they're falsely correlative. MA has some of the toughest divorce laws in the country. They always have. It's harder in MA than in most states to actually dissolve a marriage, which thus means, fewer people actually do so. Showing the rate of divorce without also showing the rate of marriage doesn't prove anything."


You said they are empty statistics. Now you want to pretend you didn't claim the numbers aren't legit? You sure are working hard to avoid supporting your claim. When will you provide evidence showing it is justified to ignore the data?

Your hypocrisy is already in view. As shown above, you want marriage rates factored in. Setting that red herring aside for a moment, we can use your deflection technique and say

"There are a lot of factors regarding marriage so those numbers are empty until we know how much a half box of Cheerios weighs on the moon, how much pocket lint is in the laundry mats in LA, what kind of tires will Miss Evelyn Deirgo will buy, and exactly how close can you get to the sun in a can of corn (not creamed)?"

 

[mudwhistle]

We are all familiar with the claim SSM should not be allowed because it is immoral and will send an atomic wedgie up the nuclear family's fanny. Thus the strongest claim against SSM is for preservation of our Republic. On the question of its moral value: It does not matter. It truly does not. I think it's immoral for Christian churches, who operate tax free, to erect structures in the name of Christ, preach about the Love of God and the call to Sacrifice, then lock the doors to keep the homeless out. Does my indignation based on my moral compass justify robbing those Churches of their rights? No. The Constitution guarantees them the Right to gloriously display their hypocrisy on a regular basis. (this does not apply to all Christian churches, but the majority of US churches are guilty of following Caesar instead of Christ.) The cry of a moral crime without the justification of intrusion is a selfish microphone indeed.

Massachusetts has often been the iconic ridicule of radio pundits and Christian religious groups who claim it is a great example of the product of immorality, and especially in the Same Sex M debate. This demonstrates the fundamental cognitive dissonance of mob mentality. Here is why: MA has long been a leader in respecting and protecting the sanctity of Marriage. We are approaching a 20 year celebration of having the lowest divorce rates of any State in the entire nation:

"Massachusetts and Connecticut rank first and second, respectively, for having the lowest divorce rates in the nation, according to new 1994 divorce data from the National Center for Health Statistics."
STATE-BY-STATE DIVORCE RATES


That was a time when SSM was being lobbied here. Let's jump a decade and see those numbers:


"The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5."
Divorce Statistics, Marriage Statistics: Divorce Rates in America, Marriage

It was around that time the Constitution chalked up another victory of being a more honest National manifesto. The anti-SSM crowds were ballistic with predictions. Five years later:



Provisional 2008 data from the CDC's National Vital Statistics Report show that after over four years of legal same-sex marriage, the divorce rate in Massachusetts has actually dropped, from 2.3 per thousand residents in 2007 to about 2.0 per thousand in 2008, the lowest rate in the nation—and one that hasn’t been seen since the 1940's.
Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents


Wow. If that is the type of destruction gays bring to the sanctity of marriage and society I am scared as hell to find out what good it could possibly accomplish.

Iam not citing the data in a claim of causation and saying SSM made divorce rates go down. I am citing it to show the argument of causation put forth by anti-SSM crowds that Same Sex Marriage causes enough harm on society to justify burning portions of the Constitution is simply too damn gay to be true.

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

 

[CurveLight]

So, what are the difference between marriage and civil union. At last count, there are over a thousand. Here are a few:

1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

I've never understood these. There are maybe 5 on the list I can understand, like hospital visitation, but those have been taken care of and are easy to do, they truly aren't issues anymore. All the rest are issues that deal with mutual children, that situation is completely N/A. Take 18 for example. Why would they need a joint insurance plan? Joint insurance is for when your spouse stays home with your children and therefore cannot work.

and those things should be removed from marriage
marriage is a religious ceremony and the government should get out of it
if you want those laws, then get a civil union contract

Wow. Any subject you talk about shows you don't know much of anything. Marriage is not a religious ceremony dumbass. There are a lot of atheist couples who are a testament to that fact.

 

[CurveLight]

As a Christian I can tell you we will never advocate ssm. That is not our idea but God's he states that very clearly in the Bible. Wouldn't we be a hypocrite if we did? Obliviously some of you have no idea what a church does in our communities around the country. We are not perfect never claimed to be. We know we will never be perfect. But we do try to follow the instruction of the Bible as closely as we can that is the whole point.

The secular world likes to label us as to what they think we should be like. You know we think we are perfect yet we do not live up to their standard but we always measure up to God's standard. The difference is we have been saved our debt is settled with God and he the only one we are concerned about impressing.

Like I said God says no to ssm or homosexuality period. Again I say that is not our words but God's. Does this mean we get a right to hate gay people no it does not. We should always treat each other with respect that does not mean we get to disrespect God in that effort.

I do not say that ssm will destroy the traditional marriage. We are saying is God does not approve and we are not to disagree with him. Do u understand what I am telling you?

One more thing I assure you their are many Churches that reach out to the lost the hungry and the homeless. The churches are one of the last refuge that when somebody needs help the church will step out and try and help them I have been apart of that on many occasions. One church cannot help everybody in this world but we try and cover as much as we can.

I agree with you on one thing there are Church's out there that are not houses of worship but like you said money grubbers that is very sad but we are not all like that. God will deal with them I assure you. That will be his timing not ours.

For one, there is no such thing as invisible magical spirit beings.

Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT
"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction".

The Bible God is very destructive, very into murder and death. According to the Christians, he drowned the entire world. A magical being with so many powers could have simply killed the bad and let the dinosaurs live.

This is a God who told someone to "kill" their only child and then said "Stop, I was just kidding. I only wanted to see if you would actually do it". The very definition of sadism.

Why would anyone expect gays, who are perfectly normal and part of nature, to live by such terrible and arbitrary rules? It's pathetic. If the religious had any sense, they would be ashamed.

SSM is immoral, against God's creation plan, and cannot be condoned by believers.

God is absolute, and no matter what people believe about Him, He is who He is.

The Word of God, the Bible, is powerful enough to eternally save a soul, but man is free enough to say no to it.

Nothing we do can cause God to love us any less, and nothing we can do can cause God to love us any more. However, God's justice and righteousness will not allow for sin to live in His presence. That is why sin will lead to separation from the presence of God forever. The gifts of forgiveness, grace, and mercy are all because of God's love. He not only made those gifts available, He paid for them personally for us. When we reject them, it does not change His love for us, it does result in the possiblility of an eternal personal relationship
with Him.

Forgetting for the moment your little Falwell diatribe has nothing to do with the OP, I must point out the irony of people who claim to be authorative on the bible yet reveal their ignorance at the same time. The Bible is not the "Word of God." John 1:1-3 defines the Word of God yet you reject it and create your own definition. So tell us, why should anyone believe you respect scripture when you re-define terms defined by scripture?

 

[Toro]

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

Because children, or animals or things, do not have full rights under the law. The law recognizes that children, and animals and things, do not have full mental capacity and are unable to fully and freely enter contracts under the law. The law confers some rights to children, and animals and things, but not all.

The slippery slope argument is vacuous. I'm sure that some people truly believe it but most people use it to rationalize their prejudice. Few people want to believe that they are prejudiced so they make reasonable arguments to convince themselves and others that they are not prejudice.

There were also all sorts of arguments that people thought were reasonable why blacks should not have the same full legal rights during Segregation - blacks did not have full cognitive abilities as whites, Jesus was white and slavery was in the Bible, etc. It is no different today with gay marriage.

Eventually, gay marriage will happen. It is only a matter of time. In polling, young people generally are in favor while old people oppose it. The old people will die off before the young people, and the young people will become middle-aged and old people and will see no reason to keep opposing it.

 

[mudwhistle]

I've never understood these. There are maybe 5 on the list I can understand, like hospital visitation, but those have been taken care of and are easy to do, they truly aren't issues anymore. All the rest are issues that deal with mutual children, that situation is completely N/A. Take 18 for example. Why would they need a joint insurance plan? Joint insurance is for when your spouse stays home with your children and therefore cannot work.

and those things should be removed from marriage
marriage is a religious ceremony and the government should get out of it
if you want those laws, then get a civil union contract

Wow. Any subject you talk about shows you don't know much of anything. Marriage is not a religious ceremony dumbass. There are a lot of atheist couples who are a testament to that fact.

Going off on a tangent again???

I think he meant that marriage should be a religious ceremony.....and that he wants the state to stay out of it....however what it has become is a legal contract that the state levies fees on. The meaning is almost lost.

However who am I to say that SSM couples shouldn't be afforded the same pain and suffering and legal hardship that heteros suffer from.

 

[CurveLight]

and those things should be removed from marriage
marriage is a religious ceremony and the government should get out of it
if you want those laws, then get a civil union contract

Wow. Any subject you talk about shows you don't know much of anything. Marriage is not a religious ceremony dumbass. There are a lot of atheist couples who are a testament to that fact.

Going off on a tangent again???

I think he meant that marriage should be a religious ceremony.....and that he wants the state to stay out of it....however what it has become is a legal contract that the state levies fees on. The meaning is almost lost.

However who am I to say that SSM couples shouldn't be afforded the same pain and suffering and legal hardship that heteros suffer from.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony and it never has been endemic to any church.

 

[mudwhistle]

Wow. Any subject you talk about shows you don't know much of anything. Marriage is not a religious ceremony dumbass. There are a lot of atheist couples who are a testament to that fact.

Going off on a tangent again???

I think he meant that marriage should be a religious ceremony.....and that he wants the state to stay out of it....however what it has become is a legal contract that the state levies fees on. The meaning is almost lost.

However who am I to say that SSM couples shouldn't be afforded the same pain and suffering and legal hardship that heteros suffer from.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony and it never has been endemic to any church.

Whatever..........

 

[CurveLight]

We are all familiar with the claim SSM should not be allowed because it is immoral and will send an atomic wedgie up the nuclear family's fanny. Thus the strongest claim against SSM is for preservation of our Republic. On the question of its moral value: It does not matter. It truly does not. I think it's immoral for Christian churches, who operate tax free, to erect structures in the name of Christ, preach about the Love of God and the call to Sacrifice, then lock the doors to keep the homeless out. Does my indignation based on my moral compass justify robbing those Churches of their rights? No. The Constitution guarantees them the Right to gloriously display their hypocrisy on a regular basis. (this does not apply to all Christian churches, but the majority of US churches are guilty of following Caesar instead of Christ.) The cry of a moral crime without the justification of intrusion is a selfish microphone indeed.

Massachusetts has often been the iconic ridicule of radio pundits and Christian religious groups who claim it is a great example of the product of immorality, and especially in the Same Sex M debate. This demonstrates the fundamental cognitive dissonance of mob mentality. Here is why: MA has long been a leader in respecting and protecting the sanctity of Marriage. We are approaching a 20 year celebration of having the lowest divorce rates of any State in the entire nation:

"Massachusetts and Connecticut rank first and second, respectively, for having the lowest divorce rates in the nation, according to new 1994 divorce data from the National Center for Health Statistics."
STATE-BY-STATE DIVORCE RATES


That was a time when SSM was being lobbied here. Let's jump a decade and see those numbers:


"The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5."
Divorce Statistics, Marriage Statistics: Divorce Rates in America, Marriage

It was around that time the Constitution chalked up another victory of being a more honest National manifesto. The anti-SSM crowds were ballistic with predictions. Five years later:



Provisional 2008 data from the CDC's National Vital Statistics Report show that after over four years of legal same-sex marriage, the divorce rate in Massachusetts has actually dropped, from 2.3 per thousand residents in 2007 to about 2.0 per thousand in 2008, the lowest rate in the nation—and one that hasn’t been seen since the 1940's.
Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents


Wow. If that is the type of destruction gays bring to the sanctity of marriage and society I am scared as hell to find out what good it could possibly accomplish.

Iam not citing the data in a claim of causation and saying SSM made divorce rates go down. I am citing it to show the argument of causation put forth by anti-SSM crowds that Same Sex Marriage causes enough harm on society to justify burning portions of the Constitution is simply too damn gay to be true.

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

"One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces."
Catholic Answers Special Report: Gay Marriage

 

[mudwhistle]

We are all familiar with the claim SSM should not be allowed because it is immoral and will send an atomic wedgie up the nuclear family's fanny. Thus the strongest claim against SSM is for preservation of our Republic. On the question of its moral value: It does not matter. It truly does not. I think it's immoral for Christian churches, who operate tax free, to erect structures in the name of Christ, preach about the Love of God and the call to Sacrifice, then lock the doors to keep the homeless out. Does my indignation based on my moral compass justify robbing those Churches of their rights? No. The Constitution guarantees them the Right to gloriously display their hypocrisy on a regular basis. (this does not apply to all Christian churches, but the majority of US churches are guilty of following Caesar instead of Christ.) The cry of a moral crime without the justification of intrusion is a selfish microphone indeed.

Massachusetts has often been the iconic ridicule of radio pundits and Christian religious groups who claim it is a great example of the product of immorality, and especially in the Same Sex M debate. This demonstrates the fundamental cognitive dissonance of mob mentality. Here is why: MA has long been a leader in respecting and protecting the sanctity of Marriage. We are approaching a 20 year celebration of having the lowest divorce rates of any State in the entire nation:

"Massachusetts and Connecticut rank first and second, respectively, for having the lowest divorce rates in the nation, according to new 1994 divorce data from the National Center for Health Statistics."
STATE-BY-STATE DIVORCE RATES


That was a time when SSM was being lobbied here. Let's jump a decade and see those numbers:


"The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5."
Divorce Statistics, Marriage Statistics: Divorce Rates in America, Marriage

It was around that time the Constitution chalked up another victory of being a more honest National manifesto. The anti-SSM crowds were ballistic with predictions. Five years later:



Provisional 2008 data from the CDC's National Vital Statistics Report show that after over four years of legal same-sex marriage, the divorce rate in Massachusetts has actually dropped, from 2.3 per thousand residents in 2007 to about 2.0 per thousand in 2008, the lowest rate in the nation—and one that hasn’t been seen since the 1940's.
Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents


Wow. If that is the type of destruction gays bring to the sanctity of marriage and society I am scared as hell to find out what good it could possibly accomplish.

Iam not citing the data in a claim of causation and saying SSM made divorce rates go down. I am citing it to show the argument of causation put forth by anti-SSM crowds that Same Sex Marriage causes enough harm on society to justify burning portions of the Constitution is simply too damn gay to be true.

I don't think the threat this issue may cause is the destruction of the family...but what it does is cause a slippery-slope condition where eventually anyone can marry anyone or anything.

That is the primary reason for those who are against SSM to fight it.

Course you ask any SSM advocate that question they always say....no way. That isn't possible.

What gall they have!!! Who are they to say that Michael Jackson couldn't marry Macaully Culkin if he had wanted to.

"One of the downsides to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would be the weakening of the meaning of marriage, which would cause more divorces."
Catholic Answers Special Report: Gay Marriage

The Catholic Church doesn't exactly speak for all religions....nor all SSM opponents.

Talk about using an extremist view as an example.

 

[CurveLight]

Going off on a tangent again???

I think he meant that marriage should be a religious ceremony.....and that he wants the state to stay out of it....however what it has become is a legal contract that the state levies fees on. The meaning is almost lost.

However who am I to say that SSM couples shouldn't be afforded the same pain and suffering and legal hardship that heteros suffer from.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony and it never has been endemic to any church.

Whatever..........

This is why you get pwned on a regular basis. Instead actual participation you freak out any time you say something that is not exactly accurate. Even if your interpretation of his post is correct (which we already know is not) he would be advocating discrimination against atheists. Also, if you're going to plagiarize, how about giving due credit? (Dolly Parton came up with the "suffer like heteros" part.)

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Wow. Any subject you talk about shows you don't know much of anything. Marriage is not a religious ceremony dumbass. There are a lot of atheist couples who are a testament to that fact.

Going off on a tangent again???

I think he meant that marriage should be a religious ceremony.....and that he wants the state to stay out of it....however what it has become is a legal contract that the state levies fees on. The meaning is almost lost.

However who am I to say that SSM couples shouldn't be afforded the same pain and suffering and legal hardship that heteros suffer from.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony and it never has been endemic to any church.

Marriage has always been religious. In modern times it has become more secularized. Most people have a religious wedding and are legally married secondarily.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

So, what are the difference between marriage and civil union. At last count, there are over a thousand. Here are a few:

1.Joint parental rights of children
2.Joint adoption
3.Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4.Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5.Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6.Crime victims recovery benefits
7.Domestic violence protection orders
8.Judicial protections and immunity
9.Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10.Public safety officers death benefits
11.Spousal veterans benefits
12.Social Security
13.Medicare
14.Joint filing of tax returns
15.Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16.Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17.Child support
18.Joint Insurance Plans
19.Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20.Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21.Estate and gift tax benefits
22.Welfare and public assistance
23.Joint housing for elderly
24.Credit protection
25.Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

I've never understood these. There are maybe 5 on the list I can understand, like hospital visitation, but those have been taken care of and are easy to do, they truly aren't issues anymore. All the rest are issues that deal with mutual children, that situation is completely N/A. Take 18 for example. Why would they need a joint insurance plan? Joint insurance is for when your spouse stays home with your children and therefore cannot work.

Gay couples can adopt and/or get sperm/egg donation.

They need to decide whether or not they are gay. Gay people don't have children. Straight people do.