100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > xxkonstantine125xx
|
|
|
I think you'd do well to read the constitution and the bill of rights before they were amended to appease the rich, and maybe you'd also gain some knowledge reading the annotated codes written prior to our democracy being over ridden by surbanites who forgot the blood that was spilled to allow them to live there......as to the rights to bear arms, granted, so open the military instead of the prisons for petty *** crimes, like they used to do in the sixties, many of those wayward souls died for your habitat and many still went on to lead very productive lives as good citizens.....apples and oranges, we could debate it all day, but it seems useless when you are stuck in a world of black and white, the law is the law right, but who makes them, surely not the majority. Unfortunately people are used to the dichotomous thinking method. What is that suppose to mean? I quoted that because it has the date 1795, the constitution was written 4 years earlier. That shows that in that time period the term bare arms meant to serve in a military/ milita. There is even a Supreme Court case in the 1800s that stated a man may carry a rifle every day to hunt for food and would not have been said to bare arms. I guess you just don't think highly of people having the intelligence and forethought to try to interpret laws for how they were written, and then show evidence of this. (this was my idea, but I wanted to show factual data to support it.. but I guess that isn't good in your book either) I guess people should just see them for how they want them to be. (you called the other lady out for not citing her source, and when I cite one you just insult... what a good debater) I wasn't insulting you. I was saying people not you lol. I wasn't calling you dichotomous, I meant people who you pointed out as only think in black and white. I was agreeing with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so that's why Psychiatrists ask "have you ever had a desire to sleep with your mother", I wonder if Adam asked his son that in regards to Eve.....lmao Personally Love, religion and the judicial system need to stay seperated. Who the hell are any of them to tell you who you can love and whom you can wed, unless you are living in their house they don't really have that right...Oh yes they do, the mighty tax payer gave it to them.....Being Homophobic is just as much as a sin as be homosexual according to the word of "God"....... AMEN. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems the supreme courts in various areas disagrees about marriage being a right: Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to “rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388. There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry: Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay couples the right to marry. BTW marriage was around long before the christian bible. But the Bible was around long before the Constitution,,, Actually, the Supreme Court decisions support states rights to determine marriage boundaries. Most states still uphold the belief that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” FOUNDATION OF FAMILY ,the root from which family grows, is when a man and woman join together. The Constitution argument is centered around civil rights issues that specifically arose to protect against RACIAL discrimination, race which is a social construct and not something someone defines for themself is quite different than gender which is a biological difference between people, as is biological and emotional age(an interest protected in the guidelines of marriage) , and biological closeness(protected in the guidelines of marriage). Nowhere in the constitution is marriage specifically mentioned but many people stretch the fourteenth amendment to apply to marriage and homosexuality. Marriage is defined by popular culture and will always be. It is the reason some cultures permit children to be married off while our culture considers a child with an adult to be pedophilia. IT is nothing BUT cultural beliefs that are agreed upon. That is one reason noone wants to compare incest and homosexuality. Our culture PREDOMINATELY agrees incest is undesirable but there are no LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL reasons we shouldnt allow brothers and sisters to marry, and there are cultures which do allow such things. And, I suppose, should our culture become bored enough and start sleeping with its siblings in large numbers, that lifestyle will become protected under law as well. Cultures change, and along with them laws are made and amended. I dont see a time when homosexual marriage will stop being a STATE issue but I do see a swing in basic values which could bring more people to agree with homosexual marriage and entice their politicians and STATE leaders to amend marriage to include any consentual relationship that makes 'consenting adults' happy. I'm sorry but you can't be bisexual when you keep referring to religion. Stop ignoring the fact that I keep saying that this has nothing to do with religion, its about being recognized that's all most of us want. Incest is very different, and in Mexico isn't a big deal. SPeaking of Mexico, they already legalized gay marriage. They are considered a STRONG OLD FASHIONED CATHOLIC country yet they took the biggest step. People here are so self absorbed, I can guarantee you that even if I wasn't a lesbian I would still be fighting for this right. Seems "worse" countries are becoming more advanced than the people here. That is interesting, as I have heard of many 'religious' gay people and even pastors, so why cant a bisexual speak of religion? I have a bisexual attraction, that makes me a sinner , which I can aknowledge by aknowledging religion. But I will put religion aside for a moment to ask this question. I keep hearing that incest is different, but noone explains HOW. What makes it any different? Both are disapproved of by some but not all. Both involve consenting adults wanting to be happy. Where is the difference except in our own cultural upbringings that stigmatize one more than the other? Some religions change, expand, and new ones are created. So I don't see why we can't change marriage. Because incest is wrong. I love my brothers, but sleeping with either of them is definitely not even an idea. How can you compare incest and same sex marriage? like I said there are states who allow first cousins to marry, others with restrictions, and the majority don't allow it. Because the possibility of a child being born with disabilities is a higher risk. You are trying to compare two things that are more different than the same. There you have made my point. I just posted an article stating that the risks of genetic defect in children born from cousins is NO higher than non related parents. Your argument is that its 'just wrong' which is pretty much the same argument made by those who oppose homosexuality. The stigma is cultural, the laws and amendments are made largely by popular values of the time. When people stop stigmatizing cousins being in love and having sex, I am sure they will want just the same protections as men who are in love with men and women who are in love with women. Actually, your source isn't cited. And there are many research and studies that prove that the rate for defects is higher. It's wrong in a different way. Blood shouldn't wed blood. However, in royalty it was common. Times have changed and so has society. Love is genderless. But when family plays a role it is different. You cannot say that these two things are similar. How would you feel if you couldn't marry who you loved because of their color of skin? color of eyes? the fact that they're blind? It's discrimination. Incest in my eyes is nowhere close to same sex marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems the supreme courts in various areas disagrees about marriage being a right: Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to “rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388. There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry: Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay couples the right to marry. BTW marriage was around long before the christian bible. But the Bible was around long before the Constitution,,, Actually, the Supreme Court decisions support states rights to determine marriage boundaries. Most states still uphold the belief that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” FOUNDATION OF FAMILY ,the root from which family grows, is when a man and woman join together. The Constitution argument is centered around civil rights issues that specifically arose to protect against RACIAL discrimination, race which is a social construct and not something someone defines for themself is quite different than gender which is a biological difference between people, as is biological and emotional age(an interest protected in the guidelines of marriage) , and biological closeness(protected in the guidelines of marriage). Nowhere in the constitution is marriage specifically mentioned but many people stretch the fourteenth amendment to apply to marriage and homosexuality. Marriage is defined by popular culture and will always be. It is the reason some cultures permit children to be married off while our culture considers a child with an adult to be pedophilia. IT is nothing BUT cultural beliefs that are agreed upon. That is one reason noone wants to compare incest and homosexuality. Our culture PREDOMINATELY agrees incest is undesirable but there are no LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL reasons we shouldnt allow brothers and sisters to marry, and there are cultures which do allow such things. And, I suppose, should our culture become bored enough and start sleeping with its siblings in large numbers, that lifestyle will become protected under law as well. Cultures change, and along with them laws are made and amended. I dont see a time when homosexual marriage will stop being a STATE issue but I do see a swing in basic values which could bring more people to agree with homosexual marriage and entice their politicians and STATE leaders to amend marriage to include any consentual relationship that makes 'consenting adults' happy. I'm sorry but you can't be bisexual when you keep referring to religion. Stop ignoring the fact that I keep saying that this has nothing to do with religion, its about being recognized that's all most of us want. Incest is very different, and in Mexico isn't a big deal. SPeaking of Mexico, they already legalized gay marriage. They are considered a STRONG OLD FASHIONED CATHOLIC country yet they took the biggest step. People here are so self absorbed, I can guarantee you that even if I wasn't a lesbian I would still be fighting for this right. Seems "worse" countries are becoming more advanced than the people here. That is interesting, as I have heard of many 'religious' gay people and even pastors, so why cant a bisexual speak of religion? I have a bisexual attraction, that makes me a sinner , which I can aknowledge by aknowledging religion. But I will put religion aside for a moment to ask this question. I keep hearing that incest is different, but noone explains HOW. What makes it any different? Both are disapproved of by some but not all. Both involve consenting adults wanting to be happy. Where is the difference except in our own cultural upbringings that stigmatize one more than the other? Some religions change, expand, and new ones are created. So I don't see why we can't change marriage. Because incest is wrong. I love my brothers, but sleeping with either of them is definitely not even an idea. How can you compare incest and same sex marriage? like I said there are states who allow first cousins to marry, others with restrictions, and the majority don't allow it. Because the possibility of a child being born with disabilities is a higher risk. You are trying to compare two things that are more different than the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you'd do well to read the constitution and the bill of rights before they were amended to appease the rich, and maybe you'd also gain some knowledge reading the annotated codes written prior to our democracy being over ridden by surbanites who forgot the blood that was spilled to allow them to live there......as to the rights to bear arms, granted, so open the military instead of the prisons for petty *** crimes, like they used to do in the sixties, many of those wayward souls died for your habitat and many still went on to lead very productive lives as good citizens.....apples and oranges, we could debate it all day, but it seems useless when you are stuck in a world of black and white, the law is the law right, but who makes them, surely not the majority. Unfortunately people are used to the dichotomous thinking method. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the bible was around before the constistution but marriage was around before the bible. Christianity did not invent marriage, there were romans and greek that were getting married long before the bible even existed. If they really don't want gay people to have "marriage" and be miserable with everyone else, then give them better civil unions. Make it so businesses HAVE to abide a civil union just like they would a marriage, cuz at this stage businesses do NOT have to adhere to a civil union or a domestic partnership. Some places see a civil union as nothing more than legalized dating. So in order for a civil union to be fully binding, they MUST be given every single right that a married couple has. In which case the civil union is no longer a civil union but has become a marriage. Thanks for seeing things the way it should be seen, and for having a brain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems the supreme courts in various areas disagrees about marriage being a right: Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to “rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388. There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry: Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay couples the right to marry. BTW marriage was around long before the christian bible. But the Bible was around long before the Constitution,,, Actually, the Supreme Court decisions support states rights to determine marriage boundaries. Most states still uphold the belief that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” FOUNDATION OF FAMILY ,the root from which family grows, is when a man and woman join together. The Constitution argument is centered around civil rights issues that specifically arose to protect against RACIAL discrimination, race which is a social construct and not something someone defines for themself is quite different than gender which is a biological difference between people, as is biological and emotional age(an interest protected in the guidelines of marriage) , and biological closeness(protected in the guidelines of marriage). Nowhere in the constitution is marriage specifically mentioned but many people stretch the fourteenth amendment to apply to marriage and homosexuality. Marriage is defined by popular culture and will always be. It is the reason some cultures permit children to be married off while our culture considers a child with an adult to be pedophilia. IT is nothing BUT cultural beliefs that are agreed upon. That is one reason noone wants to compare incest and homosexuality. Our culture PREDOMINATELY agrees incest is undesirable but there are no LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL reasons we shouldnt allow brothers and sisters to marry, and there are cultures which do allow such things. And, I suppose, should our culture become bored enough and start sleeping with its siblings in large numbers, that lifestyle will become protected under law as well. Cultures change, and along with them laws are made and amended. I dont see a time when homosexual marriage will stop being a STATE issue but I do see a swing in basic values which could bring more people to agree with homosexual marriage and entice their politicians and STATE leaders to amend marriage to include any consentual relationship that makes 'consenting adults' happy. I'm sorry but you can't be bisexual when you keep referring to religion. Stop ignoring the fact that I keep saying that this has nothing to do with religion, its about being recognized that's all most of us want. Incest is very different, and in Mexico isn't a big deal. SPeaking of Mexico, they already legalized gay marriage. They are considered a STRONG OLD FASHIONED CATHOLIC country yet they took the biggest step. People here are so self absorbed, I can guarantee you that even if I wasn't a lesbian I would still be fighting for this right. Seems "worse" countries are becoming more advanced than the people here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
btw,when it comes to straight people,the guy always gets the shaft in the divorce....how will that work with gays/lesbians?how are they going to decide? ^simple, the one with the biggest toy will get the shaft..... Personally I don't believe in civil rights, affirmative action, gay rights or even the feminine rights, Thank God we have them, but seriously if we were all "created Equal" then there should be no need for such a thing in a society that claims the "land of the free" Secondly having to be married for monetary benefits and what not is a joke, why should anyone have to go before a minister or city hall to proclaim their love for each other. It should be ordained by the God of your choice or just between the two of you, they call it a living will....I could care less who you sleep with, or play toys with as long as you're a law abiding citizen who should give a damn who your shacked up with....and speaking of rights, I don't see any of you talking about restoring the rights of ex-cons once they have served their full sentence, as the constitution states. Most of them can no longer vote, are heavily discrimated against in the job field and do not have the right to bear arms, I mean fair is fair, if you're gonna cry, cry for all the injustices, not just one.... Have a TOYFUL holiday. Actually what matters the MOST to me is the recognition. Sure the benefits are a plus but the recognition is what really matters to me. Ex cons don't even get me started on them. The ones that are guilty deserve what they get. If flogging were still legal, I'm sure there would be less repeat offenders. Some don't pay for what they have done. If you killed someone intentionally you deserve to die. You don't deserve the 50,000 plus that tax payers are paying for your ***. you know? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
since I'm not in this position, can you explain it to me. everyone can have a ceremony (doesn't even have to be in a church) This is basically for sentiments and memories now legally is different. Even though there is common law, it's recognized by the government and a legal marriage has benefits. So even though you can have a ceremony, you just wouldn't be recognized by the government. Is it the recognition and marriage benefits that you want? If so....I have nothing against that. As long as it's between consenting adults, then it's not my business. I was just curious if it's being recognized as legal that is what is important. Yes that's exactly right. The recognition and benefits is what matters to me. That's what it comes down to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite not all marriages are religious, it does not mean that is not considered a religious event. In Christian religions it is considered a union under God. Even if you do not agree with them it doesn't mean that is not their belief. You are allowed to get married, right now it just means you have to marry someone of the opposite sex. My point is not about a civil union as it is written now. It is more along that idea in the southpark episode. Have all the same rights, but call it something different. I know we say there should be a seperation btw church and state, but we must also realize our country was founded by christians trying to find a place to practice their faith without fear. Its in our pledge (one nation under God) on our money (in God we trust). Oh I agree with you in some things. But the state I live in was inhabited by people already, the Europeans just came over and killed the original owners of the land. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we really need to go over this gay marriage topic over and over again?It already has been established that gay marriage is not a right,never has been a right,and never will be a right because marriage itself has never been a right.Marriage is and never has been part of a local or federal government nor is marriage mentioned in the constitution.Marriage is still a private institution and tradation that has nothing at all to do with Government or the United states of America.It has always been up to the general public to decide who should get married and what marriage is. You think marriage is a right?Go to court and claim your marriage rights have been violated.They will have no idea what you are talking about.If someone wants to divorce you are you going to claim your rights are being violated since someone is ending your marriage? Yes we do because everyone should be entitled to it. It's spelled tradition btw. Well how would you feel if you couldn't marry someone you wanted to spend the rest of your life with because strangers said no? Tradition? You want to talk about tradition? Lynching, Flogging, and all that nonsense was tradition does that mean it's okay? Lynching wasn't okay, and with experience we grow. I don't see how it would affect you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will disagree with you. (though I personally don't mind same sex marriage). Most people that don't like it is not because of "equal rights" it is about marriage. To many people marriage is a religious event. It is in the bible and the bible has been around a lot longer than our country and its ideas of equal rights. If gays just want the same rights and the religious dont want them to get married and both of those are the true beliefs, then howcome there is so much arguement when it comes to the discussion of civil union. What I mean is call it a civil union but give them all the same rights. It seems that this would be the middle ground, but it never seems to work either. Marriage isn't necessarily about religion, I'm agnostic and want to get married one day. The bible was written by man, and translated by man. This has nothing to do with the church or religion this is about recognition under the law. Because civil unions don't grant the same benefits and protections that marriage provide, that's why there's a big fuss. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought marriage was a union of souls not a union of genitals but apparently since marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, love doesn't matter just their genitals. I am all for equal marriage rights but it should be made clear that churches are not required to perform said marriages, if they choose to then that's the churches decision. Marriage itself grants many more rights than domestic partnerships or civil unions. It's not just those partnerships that have to be reworded but also the business that can choose to ignore them. It won't do alot of good to fix the partnerships if they continue to be ignored. I agree with you with the religion and church part completely. and you're absolutely right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fully agree with same sex marriage if your devoted happy and in love then why not its showing total commitment one day i hope to marry the girl of my dreams i just have to find her 1st!!  Anna x
Exactly you are right. same here! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support civil rights, I dont support changing the definition of marriage. People in all types of commitments who are adults should have legal rights to each others property , benefits, etc,, so long as such a contract is signed giving consent. No need for marriage to be involved for equal rights to be attained...in my opinion. Actually marriage is the greatest type of commitment. Civil unions doesn't grant the same 1,049 benefits that marriage does. Neither does domestic partnership. If an Illegal immigrant can marry in the USA, why can't I when I pay my share of taxes and am a citizen? equality is equality. All for going to work on those benefits,, not changing marriage. Yeah and divorce used to be illegal. It changed, so why can't the definition of marriage change? Love is love right? Dont know when divorce was ever illegal in the US. The definition of marriage can change, but I dont agree that it should. Love is love but all love is not the same love. I love my brothers differently than my mom whom I love differently than a friend,,,etc,,,etc,,, Well it was, and why is that? Give me a valid reason as to why? Everyone should have the same rights, right? Marriage is one of them. So how is same sex love different. No one is talking about incest if that's what you're leading to. If that's not the point you're trying to make then it's irrelevant to the topics. Well, why shouldnt we talk about incest? IF an argument for legal same sex marriage is based upon equality of rights, why should a brother and sister not share the right of a man with a man or a woman with a woman? This is a flaw in the argument that I have not seen anyone address logically? Everyone has never had a RIGHT to marriage. Marriage has been defined within specific guidelines which makes it more a privilege than a right. I am bi sexual, I have loved ones who are gay, I support their right to live the life they choose to live but I do not support tampering with marriage to do so. I believe it is every bit as reasonable to withhold the male female bond as it is to try and keep children from having Uncle dads and Aunt moms. The structure of marriage is a significant and logical one that does not need to be altered. How does same sex marriage link into incest? I'm surprised you didn't throw in bestiality in there. That love is different and that is wrong. Incest isn't okay, yet in California it's legal for first cousins to marry. So incest does exist. I don't see how same sex marriage is a flaw. How does it personally affect you? It doesn't. What about single parents? should we treat them as second class citizens because they don't have the opposite sex in the house? Studies conducted on children in each imaginable situation have concluded that children in same sex homes are more artistic, tolerant, and have higher self esteem. Flaws were that they were bullied, but that's a part of childhood. I can't think of anyone I know that wasn't bullied. Many kids need homes out there, so I don't see why we should try to prevent that from happening. You're a bisexual? No offense, but that explains a lot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support civil rights, I dont support changing the definition of marriage. People in all types of commitments who are adults should have legal rights to each others property , benefits, etc,, so long as such a contract is signed giving consent. No need for marriage to be involved for equal rights to be attained...in my opinion. Actually marriage is the greatest type of commitment. Civil unions doesn't grant the same 1,049 benefits that marriage does. Neither does domestic partnership. If an Illegal immigrant can marry in the USA, why can't I when I pay my share of taxes and am a citizen? equality is equality. According to Immigration Law, a marriage to an Illegal is not legal. Having knowledge the person is Illegal is harboring, aiding and abetting.If caught, before Napatalino's time, the Illegal would still have been deported. yeah but that was then, this is now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes,if straight people have to go through hell dealing with a divorce,so should gays and lesbians 
btw,when it comes to straight people,the guy always gets the shaft in the divorce....how will that work with gays/lesbians?how are they going to decide? 
lol true. Uhm guys have no issues...lesbians can use toys? idk lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support civil rights, I dont support changing the definition of marriage. People in all types of commitments who are adults should have legal rights to each others property , benefits, etc,, so long as such a contract is signed giving consent. No need for marriage to be involved for equal rights to be attained...in my opinion. Actually marriage is the greatest type of commitment. Civil unions doesn't grant the same 1,049 benefits that marriage does. Neither does domestic partnership. If an Illegal immigrant can marry in the USA, why can't I when I pay my share of taxes and am a citizen? equality is equality. All for going to work on those benefits,, not changing marriage. Yeah and divorce used to be illegal. It changed, so why can't the definition of marriage change? Love is love right? Dont know when divorce was ever illegal in the US. The definition of marriage can change, but I dont agree that it should. Love is love but all love is not the same love. I love my brothers differently than my mom whom I love differently than a friend,,,etc,,,etc,,, Well it was, and why is that? Give me a valid reason as to why? Everyone should have the same rights, right? Marriage is one of them. So how is same sex love different. No one is talking about incest if that's what you're leading to. If that's not the point you're trying to make then it's irrelevant to the topics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..to me commitment is a state of mind..not a piece of paper... 
Yeah, but it's proven that many people see marriage as the biggest contract compared to living together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I support civil rights, I dont support changing the definition of marriage. People in all types of commitments who are adults should have legal rights to each others property , benefits, etc,, so long as such a contract is signed giving consent. No need for marriage to be involved for equal rights to be attained...in my opinion. Actually marriage is the greatest type of commitment. Civil unions doesn't grant the same 1,049 benefits that marriage does. Neither does domestic partnership. If an Illegal immigrant can marry in the USA, why can't I when I pay my share of taxes and am a citizen? equality is equality. All for going to work on those benefits,, not changing marriage. Yeah and divorce used to be illegal. It changed, so why can't the definition of marriage change? Love is love right? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
