Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is no substitute for marriage, either one is married or he is not. If the state contrives some contractual entity with the exact-same provisions as marriage, then it is marriage, whatever the state might call it.
But the state may not play a semantic shell game, and attempt to appease same-sex couples with a cheap imitation of marriage law, a separate but equal approach is as illegal as the denial of access to marriage law itself.
That's the problem -- the government should not be dictating the terms of a religious sacrament. It's the same as the state telling your church how it should run communion.How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
The word itself has deep religious meaning to many and that meaning includes the understanding that it involves one man and one woman.
How about if you get a handle on the divorce rate among heterosexual marriages before waxing verbose about how stabilizing a force it is?Now I have a question: Exactly when did defending the most stabilizing force of society, the same one we all grew up with as the norm for legitimate reasons, from being fundamentally changed and therefore provably turning it into a more destabilizing force - become "hate"? To argue in favor of fundamentally changing it is to argue there was never any legitimate reason why marriage evolved to what it is and specifically excluded all other consensual adult relationships EXCEPT one - and we know for a fact that just isn't true. So the REAL question is which is more valuable to society itself? Preparing future generations in what is provably THE best way of doing it for the better good with long term stability? Or letting Joe and Bob call their average 8 year, childless relationship a "marriage"?
How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
Marriage isn't about coupling and it isn't about who you choose to love. You are not required to love someone to get married and the state doesn't tell you who to love. It only let's you know if the person you love is an eligible marriage partner or not. The fact you may love that person is irrelevant. Marriage is NOT a right anywhere in the world. It is a state granted privilege and one of the requirements is you must choose an eligible person as defined by the state. EVERYONE must. Gays have married and produced children within that marriage - but their spouse was not the same sex. So gays can, do and have married the same eligible partners everyone else has one.
I'm so sick of those who want to pretend only same sex partners is the only consensual adult relationship the state refuses to recognize as a marriage-it is one of many consensual relationships the state does not recognize as marriage, most of which actually involve heterosexuals! What gays are really demanding is that the state change who is a legally eligible partner based on who they choose to LOVE-except the fact who you choose to love NEVER makes someone an eligible marriage partner-straight or gay. That hasn't stopped gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex though. They want the rules changed for them based on who they happen to love at the moment. But LOVE never defines or determines who is and is not an eligible marriage partner. Because marriage isn't about who we love. The purpose of marriage is not about COUPLING.
The left mocks people who aren't praying at the altar of natural evolution- while apparently rejecting the very real, provable fact that marriage evolved to what it is because as is, it is THE most stabilizing force of society. This didnt happen by accident and it didnt happen because of bigotry. It is because it is the time tested and repeatedly tested single best way of raising and preparing the next generation to become independent, contributing members of society. Period. There is no close second and the next best scenario is so inferior as to be undesirable. There have been scores of researchers who hoped to disprove it only to prove it to be true every single time-without exception. Children do best BY FAR and away when raised by their married biological parents. That is it in a nutshell - the REAL purpose of marriage is to raise the next generation and prepare them to be contributing members of society as the provably best way of doing it.
Now I wouldn't give a crap if redefining marriage to allow same sex partners had no effect or even a minimally negative effect - but it turns out it has significant, unintended and totally unwanted consequences. Redefining marriage changes society's perception of the purpose from raising children to being about coupling. People are much less likely to marry to have children. The problem is they don't stop people having children. Every nation with the longest experience of same sex marriage/civil unions not coincidentally also have the highest out of wedlock birth rates - with all the KNOWN harm and increased risks it does to them. None of that harm, damage and increaed risks to children born out of wedlock goes away just because marriage is fundamentally changed!
Redefining marriage and pretending it should be all about making Joe and Bob happy for their average length gay marriage of just 8 years comes at the expense of the next generation - with the damage exponentially increasing with each generation. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away! Denmark has more than several decades experience jacking around changing marriage. The average child in Denmark sees an average of six men (none of whom are their father) come and go in their mother's life before they are 16. Denmark also has the highest rate of mentally ill children in the west. Only children living in a nation with an ongoing civil war are more mentally ill and have higher rates of depression and feelings of isolation and - no surprise- difficulty establishing personal relationships themselves. But they don't stop having children either and each generation is less fit to parent a child than the one before.
It isn't as if history has nothing to teach us about the very real unintended, serious and unwanted consequences for screwing around with the single best way of raising the next generation. It is NEVER discussed although the data keeps coming in. In spite of those who want to pretend there are no consequences whatsoever from redefining and thereby encouraging a fundamental change in society's very perception about the purpose of marriage -has no unwanted or unintended consequences for society itself!
But the real problem I have are those who know it to be true, know for a fact the fundamental changes run far deeper than people realize and just don't give a shit if they fuck up the lives of millions and millions for what in reality is a teeny minority. 99.9% of this tiny minority won't be married 8 years later anyway and have nothing to do with preparing future generations at all- but will be the ones who suffer for it anyway. Somebody's priorities are really fucked because what it boils down to is an incredible arrogance by a tiny minority who are driven to insist BILLIONS of our predecessors got it all wrong and THEY got it correct- or worse, insist making that teeny minority happy for a few years is worth making millions of children miserable, fucked up people incapable of assuming the responsibilities of an independent, contributing member of society. Laws are written based on the good of ociety itself - not for the personal benefit of a fe at the expense of many.
Now I have a question: Exactly when did defending the most stabilizing force of society, the same one we all grew up with as the norm for legitimate reasons, from being fundamentally changed and therefore provably turning it into a more destabilizing force - become "hate"? To argue in favor of fundamentally changing it is to argue there was never any legitimate reason why marriage evolved to what it is and specifically excluded all other consensual adult relationships EXCEPT one - and we know for a fact that just isn't true. So the REAL question is which is more valuable to society itself? Preparing future generations in what is provably THE best way of doing it for the better good with long term stability? Or letting Joe and Bob call their average 8 year, childless relationship a "marriage"?
to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership ?
simple poll... yeah or nay...
comments welcomed...
Do U support the right of any 2 people to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership ?
simple poll... yeah or nay...
comments welcomed...
Key word "any".
So...no. Of course not. If one of the two was eight years old and the other was 50, hell no.
How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
Marriage isn't about coupling and it isn't about who you choose to love. You are not required to love someone to get married and the state doesn't tell you who to love. It only let's you know if the person you love is an eligible marriage partner or not. The fact you may love that person is irrelevant. Marriage is NOT a right anywhere in the world. It is a state granted privilege and one of the requirements is you must choose an eligible person as defined by the state. EVERYONE must. Gays have married and produced children within that marriage - but their spouse was not the same sex. So gays can, do and have married the same eligible partners everyone else has one.
I'm so sick of those who want to pretend only same sex partners is the only consensual adult relationship the state refuses to recognize as a marriage-it is one of many consensual relationships the state does not recognize as marriage, most of which actually involve heterosexuals! What gays are really demanding is that the state change who is a legally eligible partner based on who they choose to LOVE-except the fact who you choose to love NEVER makes someone an eligible marriage partner-straight or gay. That hasn't stopped gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex though. They want the rules changed for them based on who they happen to love at the moment. But LOVE never defines or determines who is and is not an eligible marriage partner. Because marriage isn't about who we love. The purpose of marriage is not about COUPLING.
The left mocks people who aren't praying at the altar of natural evolution- while apparently rejecting the very real, provable fact that marriage evolved to what it is because as is, it is THE most stabilizing force of society. This didnt happen by accident and it didnt happen because of bigotry. It is because it is the time tested and repeatedly tested single best way of raising and preparing the next generation to become independent, contributing members of society. Period. There is no close second and the next best scenario is so inferior as to be undesirable. There have been scores of researchers who hoped to disprove it only to prove it to be true every single time-without exception. Children do best BY FAR and away when raised by their married biological parents. That is it in a nutshell - the REAL purpose of marriage is to raise the next generation and prepare them to be contributing members of society as the provably best way of doing it.
Now I wouldn't give a crap if redefining marriage to allow same sex partners had no effect or even a minimally negative effect - but it turns out it has significant, unintended and totally unwanted consequences. Redefining marriage changes society's perception of the purpose from raising children to being about coupling. People are much less likely to marry to have children. The problem is they don't stop people having children. Every nation with the longest experience of same sex marriage/civil unions not coincidentally also have the highest out of wedlock birth rates - with all the KNOWN harm and increased risks it does to them. None of that harm, damage and increaed risks to children born out of wedlock goes away just because marriage is fundamentally changed!
Redefining marriage and pretending it should be all about making Joe and Bob happy for their average length gay marriage of just 8 years comes at the expense of the next generation - with the damage exponentially increasing with each generation. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away! Denmark has more than several decades experience jacking around changing marriage. The average child in Denmark sees an average of six men (none of whom are their father) come and go in their mother's life before they are 16. Denmark also has the highest rate of mentally ill children in the west. Only children living in a nation with an ongoing civil war are more mentally ill and have higher rates of depression and feelings of isolation and - no surprise- difficulty establishing personal relationships themselves. But they don't stop having children either and each generation is less fit to parent a child than the one before.
It isn't as if history has nothing to teach us about the very real unintended, serious and unwanted consequences for screwing around with the single best way of raising the next generation. It is NEVER discussed although the data keeps coming in. In spite of those who want to pretend there are no consequences whatsoever from redefining and thereby encouraging a fundamental change in society's very perception about the purpose of marriage -has no unwanted or unintended consequences for society itself!
But the real problem I have are those who know it to be true, know for a fact the fundamental changes run far deeper than people realize and just don't give a shit if they fuck up the lives of millions and millions for what in reality is a teeny minority. 99.9% of this tiny minority won't be married 8 years later anyway and have nothing to do with preparing future generations at all- but will be the ones who suffer for it anyway. Somebody's priorities are really fucked because what it boils down to is an incredible arrogance by a tiny minority who are driven to insist BILLIONS of our predecessors got it all wrong and THEY got it correct- or worse, insist making that teeny minority happy for a few years is worth making millions of children miserable, fucked up people incapable of assuming the responsibilities of an independent, contributing member of society. Laws are written based on the good of ociety itself - not for the personal benefit of a fe at the expense of many.
Now I have a question: Exactly when did defending the most stabilizing force of society, the same one we all grew up with as the norm for legitimate reasons, from being fundamentally changed and therefore provably turning it into a more destabilizing force - become "hate"? To argue in favor of fundamentally changing it is to argue there was never any legitimate reason why marriage evolved to what it is and specifically excluded all other consensual adult relationships EXCEPT one - and we know for a fact that just isn't true. So the REAL question is which is more valuable to society itself? Preparing future generations in what is provably THE best way of doing it for the better good with long term stability? Or letting Joe and Bob call their average 8 year, childless relationship a "marriage"?
How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
Standing in the middle of the room and repeatedly screaming your point of view does not make it a stronger one.
Once is enough.
Now, if there's nothing else you have to add, bugger off!
Do U support the right of any 2 people to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership ?
simple poll... yeah or nay...
comments welcomed...
Key word "any".
So...no. Of course not. If one of the two was eight years old and the other was 50, hell no.
Minors can't enter into contracts.
Key word "any".
So...no. Of course not. If one of the two was eight years old and the other was 50, hell no.
Minors can't enter into contracts.
Anti-union rhetoric in this thread?
Some states grant almost the same rights as marriage in their domestic partnership laws. Other do not. However most states offer nothing at all. If all states offered domestic partnerships with the same rights as marriages then gay marriage would not be such a major issue. However, there are many on the Right that vehemently opposite giving any rights to gay couples. I know two elderly women that live together in a loving relations but they are not homosexuals. They truly have a domestic partnership but the state does not recognize it.How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
Marriage isn't about coupling and it isn't about who you choose to love. You are not required to love someone to get married and the state doesn't tell you who to love. It only let's you know if the person you love is an eligible marriage partner or not. The fact you may love that person is irrelevant. Marriage is NOT a right anywhere in the world. It is a state granted privilege and one of the requirements is you must choose an eligible person as defined by the state. EVERYONE must. Gays have married and produced children within that marriage - but their spouse was not the same sex. So gays can, do and have married the same eligible partners everyone else has one.
I'm so sick of those who want to pretend only same sex partners is the only consensual adult relationship the state refuses to recognize as a marriage-it is one of many consensual relationships the state does not recognize as marriage, most of which actually involve heterosexuals! What gays are really demanding is that the state change who is a legally eligible partner based on who they choose to LOVE-except the fact who you choose to love NEVER makes someone an eligible marriage partner-straight or gay. That hasn't stopped gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex though. They want the rules changed for them based on who they happen to love at the moment. But LOVE never defines or determines who is and is not an eligible marriage partner. Because marriage isn't about who we love. The purpose of marriage is not about COUPLING.
The left mocks people who aren't praying at the altar of natural evolution- while apparently rejecting the very real, provable fact that marriage evolved to what it is because as is, it is THE most stabilizing force of society. This didnt happen by accident and it didnt happen because of bigotry. It is because it is the time tested and repeatedly tested single best way of raising and preparing the next generation to become independent, contributing members of society. Period. There is no close second and the next best scenario is so inferior as to be undesirable. There have been scores of researchers who hoped to disprove it only to prove it to be true every single time-without exception. Children do best BY FAR and away when raised by their married biological parents. That is it in a nutshell - the REAL purpose of marriage is to raise the next generation and prepare them to be contributing members of society as the provably best way of doing it.
Now I wouldn't give a crap if redefining marriage to allow same sex partners had no effect or even a minimally negative effect - but it turns out it has significant, unintended and totally unwanted consequences. Redefining marriage changes society's perception of the purpose from raising children to being about coupling. People are much less likely to marry to have children. The problem is they don't stop people having children. Every nation with the longest experience of same sex marriage/civil unions not coincidentally also have the highest out of wedlock birth rates - with all the KNOWN harm and increased risks it does to them. None of that harm, damage and increaed risks to children born out of wedlock goes away just because marriage is fundamentally changed!
Redefining marriage and pretending it should be all about making Joe and Bob happy for their average length gay marriage of just 8 years comes at the expense of the next generation - with the damage exponentially increasing with each generation. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away! Denmark has more than several decades experience jacking around changing marriage. The average child in Denmark sees an average of six men (none of whom are their father) come and go in their mother's life before they are 16. Denmark also has the highest rate of mentally ill children in the west. Only children living in a nation with an ongoing civil war are more mentally ill and have higher rates of depression and feelings of isolation and - no surprise- difficulty establishing personal relationships themselves. But they don't stop having children either and each generation is less fit to parent a child than the one before.
It isn't as if history has nothing to teach us about the very real unintended, serious and unwanted consequences for screwing around with the single best way of raising the next generation. It is NEVER discussed although the data keeps coming in. In spite of those who want to pretend there are no consequences whatsoever from redefining and thereby encouraging a fundamental change in society's very perception about the purpose of marriage -has no unwanted or unintended consequences for society itself!
But the real problem I have are those who know it to be true, know for a fact the fundamental changes run far deeper than people realize and just don't give a shit if they fuck up the lives of millions and millions for what in reality is a teeny minority. 99.9% of this tiny minority won't be married 8 years later anyway and have nothing to do with preparing future generations at all- but will be the ones who suffer for it anyway. Somebody's priorities are really fucked because what it boils down to is an incredible arrogance by a tiny minority who are driven to insist BILLIONS of our predecessors got it all wrong and THEY got it correct- or worse, insist making that teeny minority happy for a few years is worth making millions of children miserable, fucked up people incapable of assuming the responsibilities of an independent, contributing member of society. Laws are written based on the good of ociety itself - not for the personal benefit of a fe at the expense of many.
Now I have a question: Exactly when did defending the most stabilizing force of society, the same one we all grew up with as the norm for legitimate reasons, from being fundamentally changed and therefore provably turning it into a more destabilizing force - become "hate"? To argue in favor of fundamentally changing it is to argue there was never any legitimate reason why marriage evolved to what it is and specifically excluded all other consensual adult relationships EXCEPT one - and we know for a fact that just isn't true. So the REAL question is which is more valuable to society itself? Preparing future generations in what is provably THE best way of doing it for the better good with long term stability? Or letting Joe and Bob call their average 8 year, childless relationship a "marriage"?
Some states grant almost the same rights as marriage in their domestic partnership laws. Other do not. However most states offer nothing at all. If all states offered domestic partnerships with the same rights as marriages then gay marriage would not be such a major issue. However, there are many on the Right that vehemently opposite giving any rights to gay couples. I know two elderly women that live together in a loving relations but they are not homosexuals. They truly have a domestic partnership but the state does not recognize it.How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
Marriage isn't about coupling and it isn't about who you choose to love. You are not required to love someone to get married and the state doesn't tell you who to love. It only let's you know if the person you love is an eligible marriage partner or not. The fact you may love that person is irrelevant. Marriage is NOT a right anywhere in the world. It is a state granted privilege and one of the requirements is you must choose an eligible person as defined by the state. EVERYONE must. Gays have married and produced children within that marriage - but their spouse was not the same sex. So gays can, do and have married the same eligible partners everyone else has one.
I'm so sick of those who want to pretend only same sex partners is the only consensual adult relationship the state refuses to recognize as a marriage-it is one of many consensual relationships the state does not recognize as marriage, most of which actually involve heterosexuals! What gays are really demanding is that the state change who is a legally eligible partner based on who they choose to LOVE-except the fact who you choose to love NEVER makes someone an eligible marriage partner-straight or gay. That hasn't stopped gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex though. They want the rules changed for them based on who they happen to love at the moment. But LOVE never defines or determines who is and is not an eligible marriage partner. Because marriage isn't about who we love. The purpose of marriage is not about COUPLING.
The left mocks people who aren't praying at the altar of natural evolution- while apparently rejecting the very real, provable fact that marriage evolved to what it is because as is, it is THE most stabilizing force of society. This didnt happen by accident and it didnt happen because of bigotry. It is because it is the time tested and repeatedly tested single best way of raising and preparing the next generation to become independent, contributing members of society. Period. There is no close second and the next best scenario is so inferior as to be undesirable. There have been scores of researchers who hoped to disprove it only to prove it to be true every single time-without exception. Children do best BY FAR and away when raised by their married biological parents. That is it in a nutshell - the REAL purpose of marriage is to raise the next generation and prepare them to be contributing members of society as the provably best way of doing it.
Now I wouldn't give a crap if redefining marriage to allow same sex partners had no effect or even a minimally negative effect - but it turns out it has significant, unintended and totally unwanted consequences. Redefining marriage changes society's perception of the purpose from raising children to being about coupling. People are much less likely to marry to have children. The problem is they don't stop people having children. Every nation with the longest experience of same sex marriage/civil unions not coincidentally also have the highest out of wedlock birth rates - with all the KNOWN harm and increased risks it does to them. None of that harm, damage and increaed risks to children born out of wedlock goes away just because marriage is fundamentally changed!
Redefining marriage and pretending it should be all about making Joe and Bob happy for their average length gay marriage of just 8 years comes at the expense of the next generation - with the damage exponentially increasing with each generation. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away! Denmark has more than several decades experience jacking around changing marriage. The average child in Denmark sees an average of six men (none of whom are their father) come and go in their mother's life before they are 16. Denmark also has the highest rate of mentally ill children in the west. Only children living in a nation with an ongoing civil war are more mentally ill and have higher rates of depression and feelings of isolation and - no surprise- difficulty establishing personal relationships themselves. But they don't stop having children either and each generation is less fit to parent a child than the one before.
It isn't as if history has nothing to teach us about the very real unintended, serious and unwanted consequences for screwing around with the single best way of raising the next generation. It is NEVER discussed although the data keeps coming in. In spite of those who want to pretend there are no consequences whatsoever from redefining and thereby encouraging a fundamental change in society's very perception about the purpose of marriage -has no unwanted or unintended consequences for society itself!
But the real problem I have are those who know it to be true, know for a fact the fundamental changes run far deeper than people realize and just don't give a shit if they fuck up the lives of millions and millions for what in reality is a teeny minority. 99.9% of this tiny minority won't be married 8 years later anyway and have nothing to do with preparing future generations at all- but will be the ones who suffer for it anyway. Somebody's priorities are really fucked because what it boils down to is an incredible arrogance by a tiny minority who are driven to insist BILLIONS of our predecessors got it all wrong and THEY got it correct- or worse, insist making that teeny minority happy for a few years is worth making millions of children miserable, fucked up people incapable of assuming the responsibilities of an independent, contributing member of society. Laws are written based on the good of ociety itself - not for the personal benefit of a fe at the expense of many.
Now I have a question: Exactly when did defending the most stabilizing force of society, the same one we all grew up with as the norm for legitimate reasons, from being fundamentally changed and therefore provably turning it into a more destabilizing force - become "hate"? To argue in favor of fundamentally changing it is to argue there was never any legitimate reason why marriage evolved to what it is and specifically excluded all other consensual adult relationships EXCEPT one - and we know for a fact that just isn't true. So the REAL question is which is more valuable to society itself? Preparing future generations in what is provably THE best way of doing it for the better good with long term stability? Or letting Joe and Bob call their average 8 year, childless relationship a "marriage"?
Because there is a point at which an open mind starts spilling all over the place. It is not a pretty sight.How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
Let's say fundamentalist polygamist Morman marries 8 women. Do you want ALL of them and ALL of their children drawing Social Security on he if he dies of over exertion?
I don't necessarily have a problem with polygamy,
but the OP for this discussion expressly said "two people"...
Oops, Sunshine just showed that she is mathematically challenged.
Look, we understand your position. You're not running for office and you're certainly not trying going ot convince everyone into agreeing with you. So again, once is enough.How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?
Standing in the middle of the room and repeatedly screaming your point of view does not make it a stronger one.
Once is enough.
Now, if there's nothing else you have to add, bugger off!
No, too many in the past have done so with tragic results.
