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

[uscitizen]

Is the partnership called marriage?

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

If so...no.

If not, yes.

No one should get a tax break for being married.

 

[koshergrl]

No one should wear white loafers.

So?

 

[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.

why not...?

Because to name a law ‘civil union’ to appease those opposed to same sex couples accessing marriage law would still constitute an equal protection violation.

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court held that even if two groups are afforded identical access to a given public sector entity, and are held separately in those two equal entities, that such a separation remains un-Constitutional:

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.

Brown v. Board of Education

To be offensive to the Constitution the separation need not be physical alone, as any legal separation is just as offensive, however ‘equal.’

 

[uscitizen]

No one should wear white loafers.

So?

You get a tax break for wearing white loafers?

I did not realize that the mentally ill got a tax break.

 

[koshergrl]

the mentally ill get SSI...it's not a tax break, but it's definitely an incentive....payment for being crazy, and lazy.

 

[bayoubill]

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".

I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to put all that down in writing...

but I gotta say, by your description, it sounds like you believe that menopausal women (as well as any other infertile person) does not deserve the "REWARDS" (i.e., the benefits) of marriage...

 

[bayoubill]

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...?

Because to name a law ‘civil union’ to appease those opposed to same sex couples accessing marriage law would still constitute an equal protection violation.

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court held that even if two groups are afforded identical access to a given public sector entity, and are held separately in those two equal entities, that such a separation remains un-Constitutional:

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.

Brown v. Board of Education

To be offensive to the Constitution the separation need not be physical alone, as any legal separation is just as offensive, however ‘equal.’

so what's your point...?

 

[freedombecki]

I don't have a problem with it.

Does this legally recognized domestic partnership allow the couples to receive things such as being able to file joint fed taxes, having their partner be beneficiary in a will, have the partners be able to have medical rights for what happens to their partner if they get sick, etc.?

I have a problem with incest, pedophilia, bigamous religious prostitutes (Michener's The Source) and (Warren Jeffs) statutory rape, caregiver rape, work-related rape, handicap rape, power-figure rape, spreading sexually transmitted diseases to a spouse, multiple abortions as a birth control method, serial rape, murder to cover up rape, sexual mutilation of a man or woman's body to preclude him or her from ever experiencing human orgasm (Lorenna Bobbit), wife murder and decapitation to eliminate an impending child support issue (Scott Peterson), serial murder/rapes (Gary Leon Ridgeway).

Sorry to be so picky.

 

[freedombecki]

How can any sane American object to two adult humans marrying?

Because there is a point at which an open mind starts spilling all over the place. It is not a pretty sight.
<blinking and blinking>

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.”

I stated my opinion, and it is not for sale for any price.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

oops... shoulda put "adult" instead of "people"...

some folks will of course put the worst possible spin on the question...

The wording deserved what it got. Next time, say what ya mean, dear.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's nothing stopping gays now from forming a domestic partnership or any kind of partnership they want to form. In states that recognize civil union partnerships they can form civil partnerships with exactly the same kind of rights and obligations that married people have.

In the beginning, only same sex couples could have domestic partnerships, That was changed after a year to allow domestic partnerships among those over 65. Now anyone can register as a domestic partnership. There is little difference between a domestic partnership and marriage, in those states that permit them.

 

[freedombecki]

There's nothing stopping gays now from forming a domestic partnership or any kind of partnership they want to form. In states that recognize civil union partnerships they can form civil partnerships with exactly the same kind of rights and obligations that married people have.

In the beginning, only same sex couples could have domestic partnerships, That was changed after a year to allow domestic partnerships among those over 65. Now anyone can register as a domestic partnership. There is little difference between a domestic partnership and marriage, in those states that permit them.

Not exactly. Michael Devlin took advantage of Shawn Hornbeck for 4 years in a homosexual partnership and is now serving 72 life sentences plus 170 years.

 

[bayoubill]

There's nothing stopping gays now from forming a domestic partnership or any kind of partnership they want to form. In states that recognize civil union partnerships they can form civil partnerships with exactly the same kind of rights and obligations that married people have.

In the beginning, only same sex couples could have domestic partnerships, That was changed after a year to allow domestic partnerships among those over 65. Now anyone can register as a domestic partnership. There is little difference between a domestic partnership and marriage, in those states that permit them.

Not exactly. Michael Devlin took advantage of Shawn Hornbeck for 4 years in a homosexual partnership and is now serving 72 life sentences plus 170 years.

ummm... I'll be charitable and give you the benefit of the doubt, imagining that you missed the point that we were talking about adults making non-coercive fully-informed decisions...

 

[freedombecki]

Just responding to a post the way the writer wrote it, Bill.

 

[bayoubill]

Just responding to a post the way the writer wrote it, Bill.

fair enough...

I've previously acknowledged that my wording wasn't as precise as it should have been...

 

[Flopper]

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".

I don't think there is enough evidence to support your conclusion. A "traditional" family is what was thought to be the normal family unit. It consists of a mother and a father of opposite sexes in traditional gender roles, married and living in the same house with their 2 or 3 children. The traditional family today accounts for only 7% of the households.

IMHO, the quality of the parenting is much more important than the sex of the parents.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't think it's true that the traditional family today accounts for only 7 percent of households..but even if that were true, I think that's evidence right there that the deterioration of the traditional family has led to the deterioration of society. This can easily be seen as we look at increasing murder rates, abortion rates, child abuse rates, child murder rates, increased teen pregnancy, increased rates in stds, NEW stds, the list goes on and on.

Our society has deteriorated terribly since 1964, which is when Kinsey put sex ed in the schools and we started to teach our children as if his perverted crap was "science". And it is directly attributable to the deterioration of the traditional, 2-opposite sex parent, family.

 

[koshergrl]

And I honestly have never heard anyone make the claim that the traditional family is not the foundation upon which our society is based, or that it is not the best recipe for success (which certainly has been proven) that we have in regards to raising children. So I'm not sure if I should just ignore that patently...backward...comment, or if I should waste effort to go and pull up evidence. Generally if I respond to an idiotic comment like that, I find that I'm just responding to a troll, and my effort is wasted as said troll has no interest in learning anything...they either already knew it...or they just don't read.

 

[koshergrl]

I had to go back and see who made the statement...it's Flopper, I'm not going to bother.