Solution to Marriage Issues

[Southpaw]

Here's how you solve the whole gay marriage debate.

1. Make all of the legal/tax benefits we now associate with 'marriage' occur with a civil union which can be between any two people of legal age.

2. Make the government only be able to recognize civil unions.

3. Make 'marriages' and entirely religious affair. If someone wants to get married, they can do so through the religion/church of their choice but it will have no legal or tax implications whatsoever.

4. Done.

Just an FYI, I think it is fairly clear that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination against gays in the context of marriage.

 

[dilloduck]

Here's how you solve the whole gay marriage debate.

1. Make all of the legal/tax benefits we now associate with 'marriage' occur with a civil union which can be between any two people of legal age.

2. Make the government only be able to recognize civil unions.

3. Make 'marriages' and entirely religious affair. If someone wants to get married, they can do so through the religion/church of their choice but it will have no legal or tax implications whatsoever.

4. Done.

Just an FYI, I think it is fairly clear that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination against gays in the context of marriage.

yes---you would think it would be that simple but it doesn't complete the agenda.

 

[jillian]

So why discriminate by setting up two separate paradigms?

 

[dilloduck]

So why discriminate by setting up two separate paradigms?

because they are two different things------why have gender specific bathrooms ?

 

[jillian]

because they are two different things------why have gender specific bathrooms ?

Because of course, the fundamental right of marriage is the same as co-ed bathrooms.

 

[Southpaw]

So why discriminate by setting up two separate paradigms?

Discriminate? What are you talking about.

Under my idea, anyone and everyone who wants to get unioned can do so and receive all the legal and tax benefits.

Marriage has always been associated with religion and it should stay that way. If gay people want to get married after they get unioned, they can do so. Just find a universalist church or a buddhist temple and go for it.

By the way, the term should be unioned, not united.

 

[dilloduck]

Because of course, the fundamental right of marriage is the same as co-ed bathrooms.

there is no fundemental right to marriage---marriage is simply a term for a relationship between a man and a woman.

 

[catzmeow]

Here's how you solve the whole gay marriage debate.

1. Make all of the legal/tax benefits we now associate with 'marriage' occur with a civil union which can be between any two people of legal age.

2. Make the government only be able to recognize civil unions.

3. Make 'marriages' and entirely religious affair. If someone wants to get married, they can do so through the religion/church of their choice but it will have no legal or tax implications whatsoever.

4. Done.

Just an FYI, I think it is fairly clear that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination against gays in the context of marriage.

Hear, hear. Hooray for the libertarians.

 

[xsited1]

Just cure homosexuality. Problem solved.

 

[dilloduck]

Discriminate? What are you talking about.

Under my idea, anyone and everyone who wants to get unioned can do so and receive all the legal and tax benefits.

Marriage has always been associated with religion and it should stay that way. If gay people want to get married after they get unioned, they can do so. Just find a universalist church or a buddhist temple and go for it.

By the way, the term should be unioned, not united.

or bonded or committed etc etc etc. Damn folks---this ain't that hard. Help gays come up with a word OTHER THAN MARRIAGE for homosexuals.

 

[catzmeow]

or bonded or committed etc etc etc. Damn folks---this ain't that hard. Help gays come up with a word OTHER THAN MARRIAGE for homosexuals.

Liaison.
Partnership.
Entanglement.
Enmeshing.
Coupling.

 

[jillian]

there is no fundemental right to marriage---marriage is simply a term for a relationship between a man and a woman.

That isn't what Loving v Virginia said.

Too bad the Constitution really doesn't like discrimination.

Poor christian right... won't be able to ghettoize gays forever...

waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[sky dancer]

Just cure homosexuality. Problem solved.

There is no cure for homosexuality. Heterosexuality is not a disease and neither is homosexuality.

The only way for you to get what you want and rid the world of all gays and lesbians is mass murder. Hitler tried that already.

 

[KittenKoder]

There is no cure for homosexuality. Heterosexuality is not a disease and neither is homosexuality.

The only way for you to get what you want and rid the world of all gays and lesbians is mass murder. Hitler tried that already.

Speaking of which, not one 'cured' gay has ever really been gay.

 

[dilloduck]

Liaison.
Partnership.
Entanglement.
Enmeshing.
Coupling.

Works for me.

 

[KittenKoder]

because they are two different things------why have gender specific bathrooms ?

Actually, the US is barely holding the separate bathrooms as well. Most european countries have unisex bathrooms and so does Japan. There are many places in the US now that have unisex group bathrooms as well.

 

[KittenKoder]

What I find funny is that people want a unified US, but then they also want to discriminate against any group they can find. Then they whine about a different one once that discrimination is made illegal.

 

[sky dancer]

Speaking of which, not one 'cured' gay has ever really been gay.

We're probably talking about bisexuals, who choose to be with the opposite sex because it's too much of a hassle to put up with all the discrimination.

Is that what you mean, Kit?

 

[Gem]

Southpaw Wrote:

1. Make all of the legal/tax benefits we now associate with 'marriage' occur with a civil union which can be between any two people of legal age.

2. Make the government only be able to recognize civil unions.

3. Make 'marriages' and entirely religious affair. If someone wants to get married, they can do so through the religion/church of their choice but it will have no legal or tax implications whatsoever.

A few questions about your proposed solution. If this plan was put into place...would you advocate the legality of civil union between any two people who were consenting adults? Therefore, could I be civilly joined with my best friend, a woman who is also heterosexual, simply because I had better health benefits and we both wanted tax breaks? Could a single adult be civilly joined with an elderly parent to save money on elder care planning?

If not, why not? At this moment, our definition of "civil union" is based on our definition of "marriage." If we are removing the definition of marriage from having anything to do with civil unions (i.e. the state will only recognize civil unions, not marriages) then why would we continue to attach the emotional, spiritual connotations marriage have to civil unions?

Does your plan advocate civil unions between any two consenting adults? Or is it still "marriage" just now "state marriage" with a different name?

 

[dilloduck]

Southpaw Wrote:



A few questions about your proposed solution. If this plan was put into place...would you advocate the legality of civil union between any two people who were consenting adults? Therefore, could I be civilly joined with my best friend, a woman who is also heterosexual, simply because I had better health benefits and we both wanted tax breaks? Could a single adult be civilly joined with an elderly parent to save money on elder care planning?

If not, why not? At this moment, our definition of "civil union" is based on our definition of "marriage." If we are removing the definition of marriage from having anything to do with civil unions (i.e. the state will only recognize civil unions, not marriages) then why would we continue to attach the emotional, spiritual connotations marriage have to civil unions?

Does your plan advocate civil unions between any two consenting adults? Or is it still "marriage" just now "state marriage" with a different name?

Great question !!!!! And how many state marriages can we be in at the same time ?