Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
IMO, any two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract that benefits them in the same way as a traditional marriage benefits me.
The government shouldn't be involved in the sex lives of consenting adults.
There are no civil unions that currently receive the same benefits that traditionally married couples receive.IMO, any two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract that benefits them in the same way as a traditional marriage benefits me.
The government shouldn't be involved in the sex lives of consenting adults.
But that is not marriage... that is simply a legal contract ensuring things such as inheritance, power of attorney in times of injury or emergency, joint tax return, etc....
But when 'civil unions' that do not equal marriage are brought up as alternatives, the majority of the 'gay marriage' supporters reject this
As for the sex lives part.. again that leaves out things that should be illegal such as incest... and as for gay marriage, you currently do not see the government getting involved with the sex lives part or stopping the sex lives part.. but you do see people trying to keep government out of redefining the long held definition of the institution of marriage
There are no civil unions that currently receive the same benefits that traditionally married couples receive.IMO, any two consenting adults should be able to enter a contract that benefits them in the same way as a traditional marriage benefits me.
The government shouldn't be involved in the sex lives of consenting adults.
But that is not marriage... that is simply a legal contract ensuring things such as inheritance, power of attorney in times of injury or emergency, joint tax return, etc....
But when 'civil unions' that do not equal marriage are brought up as alternatives, the majority of the 'gay marriage' supporters reject this
As for the sex lives part.. again that leaves out things that should be illegal such as incest... and as for gay marriage, you currently do not see the government getting involved with the sex lives part or stopping the sex lives part.. but you do see people trying to keep government out of redefining the long held definition of the institution of marriage
The word marriage should be bestowed by a private organization, not the government.
The reason it is rejected by gay marriage supporters is because civil unions do not give gay couples the same benefits that married couples receive.There are no civil unions that currently receive the same benefits that traditionally married couples receive.But that is not marriage... that is simply a legal contract ensuring things such as inheritance, power of attorney in times of injury or emergency, joint tax return, etc....
But when 'civil unions' that do not equal marriage are brought up as alternatives, the majority of the 'gay marriage' supporters reject this
As for the sex lives part.. again that leaves out things that should be illegal such as incest... and as for gay marriage, you currently do not see the government getting involved with the sex lives part or stopping the sex lives part.. but you do see people trying to keep government out of redefining the long held definition of the institution of marriage
The word marriage should be bestowed by a private organization, not the government.
Did not say that there were.... but said when that option is brought up, it is regularly rejected by 'gay marriage' supporters...
And I have stated so many times that the government should not redefine marriage and should only be dealing with the recognition of legal domiciled family partners in terms of census, taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc as mentioned above
The reason it is rejected by gay marriage supporters is because civil unions do not give gay couples the same benefits that married couples receive.There are no civil unions that currently receive the same benefits that traditionally married couples receive.
The word marriage should be bestowed by a private organization, not the government.
Did not say that there were.... but said when that option is brought up, it is regularly rejected by 'gay marriage' supporters...
And I have stated so many times that the government should not redefine marriage and should only be dealing with the recognition of legal domiciled family partners in terms of census, taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc as mentioned above
I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Do you support Incestuous adult relationships and think they have the right to marry?
No
Do you support multiple partners and think they all have the right to get married?
I really don't care as long as they are consenting adults. If you are legally allowed to live with two women outside of marriage and have children with them, why can't you formalize your obligation to them? How does someone having two wives hurt me?
__________________
You're wrong, DD, that's all there is too it.
Any couple can refer to themselves as married. Even if they aren't.
You are hung up on a word. They are hung up on not receiving the same benefits that straight people receive.
A hetero incestuous marriage, as you put it, wouldn't be as hard put to get married as two gay people. Relatives not getting married is a matter of practicality and just ewww......but it wouldn't be hard to wangle yourself a new identify and make it happen.
Eying your sister are you?
A hetero incestuous marriage, as you put it, wouldn't be as hard put to get married as two gay people. Relatives not getting married is a matter of practicality and just ewww......but it wouldn't be hard to wangle yourself a new identify and make it happen.
Eying your sister are you?
Personal attacks are the usual antics of you guys. It is illegal for family members to get married, IF the argument is that the criteria is loving couples and consenting adults, followed by it has no effect on me, then what is the problem with incestuous couples marrying? And this includes cousins not just mother son, father daughter, brother sister.
As for me I am married now and have been for 26 years.
As for the ewww factor, I am afraid that applies for a lot of people on gay couples. And practicality has nothing to do with it. If the argument is gays should be able to marry explain why incestuous couples can not.
A hetero incestuous marriage, as you put it, wouldn't be as hard put to get married as two gay people. Relatives not getting married is a matter of practicality and just ewww......but it wouldn't be hard to wangle yourself a new identify and make it happen.
Eying your sister are you?
Personal attacks are the usual antics of you guys. It is illegal for family members to get married, IF the argument is that the criteria is loving couples and consenting adults, followed by it has no effect on me, then what is the problem with incestuous couples marrying? And this includes cousins not just mother son, father daughter, brother sister.
As for me I am married now and have been for 26 years.
As for the ewww factor, I am afraid that applies for a lot of people on gay couples. And practicality has nothing to do with it. If the argument is gays should be able to marry explain why incestuous couples can not.
Im all for this guy. Hes got the right answers. We should all have the right to marry our family members. He is so persuasive in his arguments that I think we should amend the constitution to allow incest. Maybe pets too....what ya say Sarge?
