Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Seawytch]

Why can't individual churches decide whether they recognize it or not?

That is already the case. Religious marriage is something we've always had equal access to. Just like ANY other couple in the US, you find a church that will agree to perform your ceremony. It's the legal, civil form of marriage we don't have equal access to.

 

[logical4u]

WTF does checks and balances have to do with corruption?

By design, the checks and balances were to help limit corruption. The founding fathers called upon citizens to be honorable and have integrity (to "need" less laws).

It is the other forms of gov't: socialism/communism/dictators/tyrants/purely democratic societies that have rampant corruption. This particular country was the first in history designed to "limit" corruption. Even the Romans' senate was only to limit the power of Caesar, not to limit corruption.
When corruption is welcomed, it grows. It becomes "business as usual". It doesn't matter where the corruption starts, or how small it is, once it starts and is "accepted", it grows. It travels into other places in society and "rots" the society from the inside, out. Those that are calling for the corruption of the definition of marriage, are calling for "corruption". It will hurt society. And those that are screaming to have it in place, will be absolutely silent about claiming responsibility for the havoc it will have on our country, and our society. They will cry about how the "children" are suffering and demand that "someone" do something. It will be too late. There will be no way to turn back the clock. It will get really ugly, and those that ushered it into place will be able to see the fruits of their labors in the suffering of others.

Really? You've pretty much described the GOP teabaggers, as well as almost all of the Senate (notice I didn't divide between GOP and Dems, because they're all on the lobbyist payroll)............................

Sorry..................but people like Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor are all on the payroll of the lobbyists.....................

So are those like Harry Reid, because if he wasn't, then why did he bend to the will of McConnell so easily when it came to the filibuster?

Remember..................Reid said he was going to make them do it physically (meaning they had to stand on the floor and speak for an extended period of time), but then he folded.

Harry Reid should go **** himself.......................he's a ***** as a man, and a failure as a politician. The only reason I hoped he'd win was because Sharon Angle was even more fucked in the head.

If a reasonable person wants to primary Reid for the Dem position? I'd support them, because they can't be worse than Reid (especially, if they've seen the last 4 years of news).

Wow, talk about going off subject..... and still homosexual activists are about "corruption". So are you saying you have a problem with political corruption, or all corruption, or just not "some" corruption (as long as it is endorsed by "you")?

 

[Steelplate]

Why can't individual churches decide whether they recognize it or not?

That is already the case. Religious marriage is something we've always had equal access to. Just like ANY other couple in the US, you find a church that will agree to perform your ceremony. It's the legal, civil form of marriage we don't have equal access to.

That's what I was saying....make it legal and let the churches decide..... sorry if I didn't include that part, I thought that was a given.

 

[ABikerSailor]

By design, the checks and balances were to help limit corruption. The founding fathers called upon citizens to be honorable and have integrity (to "need" less laws).

It is the other forms of gov't: socialism/communism/dictators/tyrants/purely democratic societies that have rampant corruption. This particular country was the first in history designed to "limit" corruption. Even the Romans' senate was only to limit the power of Caesar, not to limit corruption.
When corruption is welcomed, it grows. It becomes "business as usual". It doesn't matter where the corruption starts, or how small it is, once it starts and is "accepted", it grows. It travels into other places in society and "rots" the society from the inside, out. Those that are calling for the corruption of the definition of marriage, are calling for "corruption". It will hurt society. And those that are screaming to have it in place, will be absolutely silent about claiming responsibility for the havoc it will have on our country, and our society. They will cry about how the "children" are suffering and demand that "someone" do something. It will be too late. There will be no way to turn back the clock. It will get really ugly, and those that ushered it into place will be able to see the fruits of their labors in the suffering of others.

Really? You've pretty much described the GOP teabaggers, as well as almost all of the Senate (notice I didn't divide between GOP and Dems, because they're all on the lobbyist payroll)............................

Sorry..................but people like Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor are all on the payroll of the lobbyists.....................

So are those like Harry Reid, because if he wasn't, then why did he bend to the will of McConnell so easily when it came to the filibuster?

Remember..................Reid said he was going to make them do it physically (meaning they had to stand on the floor and speak for an extended period of time), but then he folded.

Harry Reid should go **** himself.......................he's a ***** as a man, and a failure as a politician. The only reason I hoped he'd win was because Sharon Angle was even more fucked in the head.

If a reasonable person wants to primary Reid for the Dem position? I'd support them, because they can't be worse than Reid (especially, if they've seen the last 4 years of news).

Wow, talk about going off subject..... and still homosexual activists are about "corruption". So are you saying you have a problem with political corruption, or all corruption, or just not "some" corruption (as long as it is endorsed by "you")?

Actually, I'm against all corruption. I've seen it many times in my life, and have never understood it's use.

And....................exactly how are homosexual activists about "corruption"? Is it because you personally find them to be "sinners"?

 

[ima]

Why does anyone care what vocabulary gays use? Nobody seems to object that gays have appropriated the word "macho" (as in the Village people song "Macho Man"), and some people "marry" their pets, so gays aren't even on the same level as a chihuahua?

 

[LittleNipper]

The simple reality is that tax incentives (if they are to exist at all) should exist to stimulate a better society and not to promote fun and games.

 

[Seawytch]

Why can't individual churches decide whether they recognize it or not?

That is already the case. Religious marriage is something we've always had equal access to. Just like ANY other couple in the US, you find a church that will agree to perform your ceremony. It's the legal, civil form of marriage we don't have equal access to.

That's what I was saying....make it legal and let the churches decide..... sorry if I didn't include that part, I thought that was a given.

Yours is the conclusion that should be a given. Legal marriage, by whatever name you want to call it, should be granted to all non familial consenting adult couples. Churches have been and will always be free to perform "marriages" in whatever manner they see fit and to deny it to any couples they don't want to.

 

[Seawytch]

The simple reality is that tax incentives (if they are to exist at all) should exist to stimulate a better society and not to promote fun and games.

Absolutely! All couples over breeding age must have their marriages annulled immediately. Couples wanting to legally marry from this point forward must swear an oath to procreate AND must have their marriage annulled if they haven't procreated within 10 years!

 

[ima]

The simple reality is that tax incentives (if they are to exist at all) should exist to stimulate a better society and not to promote fun and games.

Absolutely! All couples over breeding age must have their marriages annulled immediately. Couples wanting to legally marry from this point forward must swear an oath to procreate AND must have their marriage annulled if they haven't procreated within 10 years!

Just end all tax benefits from being married. Marriage is supposed to be about love and commitment, not more cash. But then again, I'm gay, what do I know about marriage?

 

[bodecea]

The simple reality is that tax incentives (if they are to exist at all) should exist to stimulate a better society and not to promote fun and games.

Tell that to the wedding chapels in Vegas.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The simple reality is that tax incentives (if they are to exist at all) should exist to stimulate a better society and not to promote fun and games.

Absolutely! All couples over breeding age must have their marriages annulled immediately. Couples wanting to legally marry from this point forward must swear an oath to procreate AND must have their marriage annulled if they haven't procreated within 10 years!

Just end all tax benefits from being married. Marriage is supposed to be about love and commitment, not more cash. But then again, I'm gay, what do I know about marriage?

Thats EXACTLY our point, dude.

The debate over the legal definition of marriage isnt about cash or love and commitment.

It is about the public policy by the government to encourage people to engage in the very costly endeavor of giving birth to, raising and educating our next generation. Its an incentive to live a life of parenting that causes one to sacrifice their own pleasure and self interest for the sake of their children, something you will not liekly ever understand.

 

[pinqy]

It is about the public policy by the government to encourage people to engage in the very costly endeavor of giving birth to, raising and educating our next generation. Its an incentive to live a life of parenting that causes one to sacrifice their own pleasure and self interest for the sake of their children, something you will not liekly ever understand.

Then why do some states allow first cousins to marry on the condition that they first prove they cannot have children? If what you say is correct then there shouldn't be any laws that limit marriage to those who cannot have children.

 

[Seawytch]

It is about the public policy by the government to encourage people to engage in the very costly endeavor of giving birth to, raising and educating our next generation. Its an incentive to live a life of parenting that causes one to sacrifice their own pleasure and self interest for the sake of their children, something you will not liekly ever understand.

Then why do some states allow first cousins to marry on the condition that they first prove they cannot have children? If what you say is correct then there shouldn't be any laws that limit marriage to those who cannot have children.

Not only that, but there is no state or municipality that bases legal marriage on an ability or inability to procreate so to attempt to use it as a reason to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians is ludicrous.

 

[logical4u]

Really? You've pretty much described the GOP teabaggers, as well as almost all of the Senate (notice I didn't divide between GOP and Dems, because they're all on the lobbyist payroll)............................

Sorry..................but people like Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor are all on the payroll of the lobbyists.....................

So are those like Harry Reid, because if he wasn't, then why did he bend to the will of McConnell so easily when it came to the filibuster?

Remember..................Reid said he was going to make them do it physically (meaning they had to stand on the floor and speak for an extended period of time), but then he folded.

Harry Reid should go **** himself.......................he's a ***** as a man, and a failure as a politician. The only reason I hoped he'd win was because Sharon Angle was even more fucked in the head.

If a reasonable person wants to primary Reid for the Dem position? I'd support them, because they can't be worse than Reid (especially, if they've seen the last 4 years of news).

Wow, talk about going off subject..... and still homosexual activists are about "corruption". So are you saying you have a problem with political corruption, or all corruption, or just not "some" corruption (as long as it is endorsed by "you")?

Actually, I'm against all corruption. I've seen it many times in my life, and have never understood it's use.

And....................exactly how are homosexual activists about "corruption"? Is it because you personally find them to be "sinners"?

The deceive.
They dishonor.
They covet.

Deception is corruption of the truth.
Dishonor is corruption of honor.
Coveting is corruption of love.

 

[logical4u]

That is already the case. Religious marriage is something we've always had equal access to. Just like ANY other couple in the US, you find a church that will agree to perform your ceremony. It's the legal, civil form of marriage we don't have equal access to.

That's what I was saying....make it legal and let the churches decide..... sorry if I didn't include that part, I thought that was a given.

Yours is the conclusion that should be a given. Legal marriage, by whatever name you want to call it, should be granted to all non familial consenting adult couples. Churches have been and will always be free to perform "marriages" in whatever manner they see fit and to deny it to any couples they don't want to.

Well I want (waaaantabe) to be a taxpayer, but not pay any taxes, so I want the law changed so that it fits "me".

 

[logical4u]

It is about the public policy by the government to encourage people to engage in the very costly endeavor of giving birth to, raising and educating our next generation. Its an incentive to live a life of parenting that causes one to sacrifice their own pleasure and self interest for the sake of their children, something you will not liekly ever understand.

Then why do some states allow first cousins to marry on the condition that they first prove they cannot have children? If what you say is correct then there shouldn't be any laws that limit marriage to those who cannot have children.

Not only that, but there is no state or municipality that bases legal marriage on an ability or inability to procreate so to attempt to use it as a reason to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians is ludicrous.

http://www.childtrends.org/files/rb_032601.pdf

".... In 1970, the overwhelming majority of children in this country - 89 percent - were born to married couples. ..."

Now, it is probably closer to 60% (statistics for children born out of wedlock subtracted from 100%.

Now you list how many children can be born naturally from homosexuals...... (that would be without them being disloyal to get pregnant, or get an "outsider" pregnant).

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is about the public policy by the government to encourage people to engage in the very costly endeavor of giving birth to, raising and educating our next generation. Its an incentive to live a life of parenting that causes one to sacrifice their own pleasure and self interest for the sake of their children, something you will not liekly ever understand.

Then why do some states allow first cousins to marry on the condition that they first prove they cannot have children? If what you say is correct then there shouldn't be any laws that limit marriage to those who cannot have children.

Not only that, but there is no state or municipality that bases legal marriage on an ability or inability to procreate so to attempt to use it as a reason to deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians is ludicrous.

Existing bad law does not justify new bad laws.

A man and wife have the *possibility* of having kids, no matter what doctors may say. Doctors are far too often wrong. How many men with vasectomies have had kids? How many 'infertile' couples have still had children?

But nothing is going to help Steve and Adam bear children, no science no miracle will change that.

And the thing that is most ludicrous about this whole topic is the pretense by homosexuals that they give a flying **** about marriage. This gay marriage movement is merely a contrived device intended to further damage/destroy traditional marriage.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wow, talk about going off subject..... and still homosexual activists are about "corruption". So are you saying you have a problem with political corruption, or all corruption, or just not "some" corruption (as long as it is endorsed by "you")?

Actually, I'm against all corruption. I've seen it many times in my life, and have never understood it's use.

And....................exactly how are homosexual activists about "corruption"? Is it because you personally find them to be "sinners"?

The deceive.
They dishonor.
They covet.

Deception is corruption of the truth.
Dishonor is corruption of honor.
Coveting is corruption of love.

You're full of shit.....................

How do they deceive if they admit to what they are?

How do they dishonor if they believe something that you don't? Apparently, they "dishonor" only the parts of your dogma that you hold sacred.

Got news for you....................dogma is the only thing that can make you dishonor your god, because if you question god, you question the belief system.

Didn't Abraham (someone picked by God) question Him when it came to his brother Lot, and the cities of Soddom and Gommorah?

 

[jgarden]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

In a nation where gun owners onsist on refusing to accept even modest attempts to protect the public against repeated attacks, gays have every right to question why they should be content to have their "marriages" relegated to 2nd hand status (civil unions).

One thing on which we can all agree on is that replacing "gay union" with "gay marriage" will not result in anyone's loss of life.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

In a nation where gun owners onsist on refusing to accept even modest attempts to protect the public against repeated attacks, gays have every right to question why they should be content to have their "marriages" relegated to 2nd hand status (civil unions).

One thing on which we can all agree on is that replacing "gay union" with "gay marriage" will not result in anyone's loss of life.

Gay marriage is against Federal law and the Constitution of my State.

gun ownership is protected by Federal law and the Constitution of my State.