Do You Support The Right Of Any Two People, Regardless Of Gender...

[Flopper]

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.

I agree with your first statement... but I'm not sure what you're talking about in the second statement...

a government-sanctioned marriage (i.e., the kind you get when you go to the county courthouse and pick up a marriage license from the Clerk of Court) is, by definition, a "legally-recognized domestic partnership"...

but since "marriage" is a hot-button word defined differently by different people, I prefer to use the term "legally-recognized domestic partnership" to make it clear exactly what I am talking about...

and if a couple has a "legally-recognized domestic partnership", then they are, by definition, indeed "married"...

Keep in mind there are a lot of people, particularly seniors who live in a loving relationship who're not homosexuals. They want to have their relationship made legal but they certainly aren't interested in marriage.

 

[code1211]

to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership…?

simple poll... yeah or nay...

comments welcomed...

It's perfectly fine with me if someone wishes to marry a farm animal. The only requirement being the animal must not be visibly unhappy with the arrangement.

Why should anyone be concerned about who (or what) other people wish to marry? As long as no harm is being done it's nobody's business.

What are the warning signs that your farm animal partner is not happy?

 

[thereisnospoon]

to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership…?

simple poll... yeah or nay...

comments welcomed...

Does that include Incestuous relationships between consenting adults? I mean you did say ANY two.

This is the slippery slope few of us want anything to do with.

 

[thereisnospoon]

to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership…?

simple poll... yeah or nay...

comments welcomed...

It's perfectly fine with me if someone wishes to marry a farm animal. The only requirement being the animal must not be visibly unhappy with the arrangement.

Why should anyone be concerned about who (or what) other people wish to marry? As long as no harm is being done it's nobody's business.

And the concept of decency? What happens to THAT?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Need to add the very important wording, "... consenting adults ..."

With that addition, yes, of course. And further, it should be legally recognized and honored.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Uh, "freedom", try this for size:

"Marriage is an institution called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.”

That's bad form, and a terrible example of one who supports gay marriage.

Quote from the Third Reich.

Non-sequitur from a desperate person who's argument has run out of gas.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Quote from the Third Reich.

Not relevant in the debate today though. It's just playing the Hitler card.

The rage against gay marriage brought the Nuremberg laws to mind.

There is no "rage"....That is a feeling YOU have to deal with.
You are creating your own reality out of irrational fear.

 

[koshergrl]

Is the partnership called marriage?

Would it result in them receiving tax breaks we give married couples?

If so...no.

If not, yes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership…?

simple poll... yeah or nay...

comments welcomed...

It's perfectly fine with me if someone wishes to marry a farm animal. The only requirement being the animal must not be visibly unhappy with the arrangement.

Why should anyone be concerned about who (or what) other people wish to marry? As long as no harm is being done it's nobody's business.

That should be the criteria for denying any freedom of choice; will it do harm to society? We should not deny freedom of choice based on what we believe, but rather what we know. Incest leads to a high probability of congenital birth defects. Bestiality is non-consensual sex and is considered inhumane treatment of animals. But to deny a freedom of choice, because religious beliefs, fears, or hatred is just plain wrong.

That's an opinion. It is duly noted.
Here in lies the problem. Because there is a vocal minority( pro gay marriage) in support of this issue, they believe their opinion is the only one that matters.

 

[thereisnospoon]

to form a legally-recognized domestic partnership…?

simple poll... yeah or nay...

comments welcomed...

It's perfectly fine with me if someone wishes to marry a farm animal. The only requirement being the animal must not be visibly unhappy with the arrangement.

Why should anyone be concerned about who (or what) other people wish to marry? As long as no harm is being done it's nobody's business.

What are the warning signs that your farm animal partner is not happy?

Excessive shedding of body hair and foaming at the mouth?

 

[koshergrl]

That sounds like my saint bernard.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Good Point and it brings to light a Point I have always made.

I do not understand religious Types who get all in a Bunch about this, I am a Conservative myself but I have no problem with Gay Marriage by the State. I think People need to start to Understand more the Difference between a State Legal Marriage, and a Church Marriage.

What I am trying to say, badly is this. That If hard Core Religious Types want something sacred to a man a woman let that be with in their Churches. Don't go after churches for not Including Gays. Let them have their Man and Woman only Marriage with in their Churches, but let Gays Have Legal Unions by the State. Call the Marriages if you want or call them what ever.

Who knows, I was at the ER for a Hernia Earlier and am a Tad Doped up lol. Don't think I made much sense just now, and will probably be misunderstood and attacked for it, so I am going to go lay down now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and if a couple has a "legally-recognized domestic partnership", then they are, by definition, indeed "married"...

True.

But then it’s incumbent upon the state to determine what word or words will be used to identify this union allowing the general public to respond accordingly. It might be called ‘marriage,’ it might be called ‘civil union,’ however both can’t exist concurrently.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

I agree with your first statement... but I'm not sure what you're talking about in the second statement...

a government-sanctioned marriage (i.e., the kind you get when you go to the county courthouse and pick up a marriage license from the Clerk of Court) is, by definition, a "legally-recognized domestic partnership"...

but since "marriage" is a hot-button word defined differently by different people, I prefer to use the term "legally-recognized domestic partnership" to make it clear exactly what I am talking about...

and if a couple has a "legally-recognized domestic partnership", then they are, by definition, indeed "married"...

Keep in mind there are a lot of people, particularly seniors who live in a loving relationship who're not homosexuals. They want to have their relationship made legal but they certainly aren't interested in marriage.

That Makes no sense at all. If they are not Interested in Marriage why do they want all the Rights of a Married Couple? WTF if that is what they want why would they not just go to the Justice of the Peace and fucking get married, It's not like they are going to a church and promising to god to stay together for ever. They are signing a contract that has an out Included called Divorce lol.

Or is what they really want, is to have all the rights of marriage, but be able to just walk away from the Union when ever they want with out a legal Separation of some kind? I mean I just don't understand why there would be Heterosexual Couples out there seeking some kind of Union that is not marriage? Makes no sense.

 

[koshergrl]

It's just vapid nothingness meant to further marginalize the traditional family.

 

[bayoubill]

It's just vapid nothingness meant to further marginalize the traditional family.

I grew up as a product of a traditional marriage...

you wanna talk about "vapid nothingness"...? come down here and I'll buy the drinks...

 

[bayoubill]

and if a couple has a "legally-recognized domestic partnership", then they are, by definition, indeed "married"...

True.

But then it’s incumbent upon the state to determine what word or words will be used to identify this union allowing the general public to respond accordingly. It might be called ‘marriage,’ it might be called ‘civil union,’ however both can’t exist concurrently.

why not...?

 

[bayoubill]

Could someone please remind us all again why gay marriage threatens "traditional marriage" more than "traditional marriage" threatens itself...?

 

[Crackerjack]

Could someone please remind us all again why gay marriage threatens "traditional marriage" more than "traditional marriage" threatens itself...?

Buttsecks.

 

[koshergrl]

Could someone please remind us all again why gay marriage threatens "traditional marriage" more than "traditional marriage" threatens itself...?

We support, as a society, the structure that is most beneficial to us as a society. The structure that is best suited to produce productive, functional citizens is...brace yourself....the traditional, stable family unit, consisting of one mother and one father.

We, as a society, recognize that and offer people incentives for participating in that structure (which at its base consists of "marriage"...the union and subsequent recognition of said union, of male and female). We reward people for getting married by allowing them a few tax breaks and other incentives.

Any male and female can obtain the incentives if they participate in the construct.

But when we have to offer incentives to people, even though they aren't participating in the construct, suddenly there's no motivation to participate in the most successful foundation we have for a successful society, and the society itself, that is dependent upon the development of functional, productive members, begins to fall apart.

Are you taking notes?

We reward behavior that is proven most conducive to the production of self reliant, stable, successful people...and that behavior is "marriage". Anyone can be married...but they have to, in fact, be "married" which means they have to be taking part in the male/female construct that is "marriage" to gain the privileges of "marriage".

The traditional family is the most successful vehicle for raising children. It is the premier. That isn't to say homosexuals can't do it, or shouldn't. But we REWARD people for participating in the single construct that is most likely to result in success of the members (children), and we have a special name for them...they're "married".