100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Two more states allow same sex marriage. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Then there is no need for same sex marriage. Why not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason same sex marriage is even an issue is because of the legal state of regular marriage. It is all about property, government benefits, etc.
When your life time spouse dies, you can collect his social security if you spent your life working at home raising the children. For a same sex long term relationship, who together raised children, this benefit is not there. I'm sure there are many issues of child custody for same sex couples if one dies, the other one may not have custody of a child she has raised since birth. There are good reasons for same sex marriage, and for you religious uptight people who are grossed out by the thought, to damn bad! It's not hurting you one damn bit. Stop trying to make rules about how other people should live. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anyway 'gay sex' isnt really the issue, people are having that all over anyway the issue is slowly sneaking it into the MAINSTREAM culture via government validation of same sex marriage (which is understood to involve sex) politicians will be as pressured as the medical profession was, they are gonna eventually all cave in for their votes and their jobs,,,,, I hope they don't all Cave. Male and Female is a Marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason same sex marriage is even an issue is because of the legal state of regular marriage. It is all about property, government benefits, etc. When your life time spouse dies, you can collect his social security if you spent your life working at home raising the children. For a same sex long term relationship, who together raised children, this benefit is not there. I'm sure there are many issues of child custody for same sex couples if one dies, the other one may not have custody of a child she has raised since birth. There are good reasons for same sex marriage, and for you religious uptight people who are grossed out by the thought, to damn bad! It's not hurting you one damn bit. Stop trying to make rules about how other people should live. trying to make rules about how people live would be saying they CANT have sex or raise children,,,etc that is not my personal stance, I believe any adults should be able to financially share their assets with any other adults,, and I would be all on board for that fight there is guardians and adoptive parents that dont have to have the biological connection to have their role understood in terms of their part in a childs life I would support guardians being given a fair shot at custody when there is not a biological parent in question but I dont support the government putting its stamp of EQUALITY on homosexual SEX,, which is the issue that sets 'marriage' apart from all the other rights being debated have civil unions, allow adults to share their lives and assets with whomever they choose, without sex being a factor for the law to consider marriage is an institution that considers SEX as a factor, and which the law takes into consideration sexual behaviors,,causing the issue of same sex MARRIAGE to be about same sex SEX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anyway 'gay sex' isnt really the issue, people are having that all over anyway the issue is slowly sneaking it into the MAINSTREAM culture via government validation of same sex marriage (which is understood to involve sex) politicians will be as pressured as the medical profession was, they are gonna eventually all cave in for their votes and their jobs,,,,, I hope they don't all Cave. Male and Female is a Marriage. it doesnt have to be all of them,, ALL of the medical professionals didnt agree to removing homosxuality from their list of deviant behaviors,,,,just enough to have the power to get it done,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 05/10/13 12:42 AM
|
|
This is how we solved it in Switzerland!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_partnership_in_Switzerland Switzerland recognizes same-sex registered partnerships. In a nationwide referendum on June 5, 2005, the Swiss people approved by 58% a registered partnership law, granting same-sex couples the same rights and protections as opposite-sex couples, except:
* adoption of children * fertility treatments * facilitated Swiss naturalisation of the foreign partner to a Swiss citizen partner after 6 years of partnership abroad, unlike with a conventional marriage. However, in terms of next of kin status, taxation, social security, insurance, and shared possession of a dwelling, same-sex couples are granted the same rights as married couples. The official title of the same-sex union is "Eingetragene Partnerschaft" in German, "Partenariat enregistré" in French, "Associazione registrata" in Italian and "Partenadi Registrà" in Rumantsch Grischun meaning "registered partnership".[1] The bill was passed by the National Council, 111 to 72, on December 3, 2003 and by the Council of States on June 3, 2004, with minor changes.[2][3] The National Council approved it again on June 10, but the conservative Federal Democratic Union collected signatures to force a referendum.[4][5] Subsequently the Swiss people voted on the 5. June 2005 with 58% in favor of the bill. The law came into effect on January 1, 2007.[6] Same-sex marriages formed outside Switzerland will be recognised as registered partnerships within Switzerland. Switzerland was the first nation to pass a same-sex union law by referendum.<<<< Some of the Leftwing Parties are talking that it isn't enough and try to push for Marriage! Doubt that would pass in a Referendum! >>>>Discussions about allowing same-sex marriage are beginning in Switzerland and some politicians from the Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Liberals support it.
The Green Party of Switzerland supports same-sex marriage, according to its 2007 electoral manifesto.[14]<<<< |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did anyone ever think the whole idea may be to make marriage obsolete? It is now more of a tax, immigration, or acceptance thing than an institution. When our leaders want to devalue or change public opinion on something they turn it over to the media machines with talking points.... the rest is history after the animals are fed. Just like they are doing to the constitution and bill of rights, giving us 2 decades of war as business as usual, telling us who our enemies are, what to eat, drink, wear, where we are "allowed" to go or not go, known or not know...... who we want as leaders and statesmen We simply feed the beast by our acceptance and that will be our downfall.... greed and pacifism. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 05/10/13 06:21 AM
|
|
Did anyone ever think the whole idea may be to make marriage obsolete? It is now more of a tax, immigration, or acceptance thing than an institution. I think it's more an idea of how to divide again than anything else, they could careless about either side as long as they arguing with each other and not with them. Best way to maintain power, keep the focus on everyone else but you. They are masters at this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good, let a few more northeast states allow it too... then all the gays can go there and have all the gay sex they want... good luck with that anyway 'gay sex' isnt really the issue, people are having that all over anyway the issue is slowly sneaking it into the MAINSTREAM culture via government validation of same sex marriage (which is understood to involve sex) politicians will be as pressured as the medical profession was, they are gonna eventually all cave in for their votes and their jobs,,,,, i think everyone has different "issues" about this... just because someone made it legal somewhere, doesn't make it right... I agree, but I believe legalizing something does remove the 'stimga' that it isnt right, and actually changes the social perception and with it social behavior,,, future kids will be brought up seeing it as reasonable an option as heterosxual relations,,,and with the inundation of 'sex' as a necessity in this culture,,,,,I can only imagine the direction we are traveling,,, So, Boy Scouts will be brought up thinking that it was ok for his scout master to f**k him in the a$$ or to suck his d**k on the last camping trip. That will make it ok? only if we start respecting the 'rights' of pedophiles to have love and relationships with whom they love,,, I think we are far off from that more like boy scouts will feel like its 'ok' to mess with each other on camping trips, to experiment,,etc,,, and no, none of it makes it ok "more like boy scouts will feel like its 'ok' to mess with each other on camping trips, to experiment,,etc,,," While the adult scout leader condones it because it's legal? i think the boy scouts had the original idea "to make a man out of them"... so much for that... no man is perfect, sexual activity isnt the definition of female or male thats a matter of opinion... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is how we solved it in Switzerland! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_partnership_in_Switzerland Switzerland recognizes same-sex registered partnerships. In a nationwide referendum on June 5, 2005, the Swiss people approved by 58% a registered partnership law, granting same-sex couples the same rights and protections as opposite-sex couples, except:
* adoption of children * fertility treatments * facilitated Swiss naturalisation of the foreign partner to a Swiss citizen partner after 6 years of partnership abroad, unlike with a conventional marriage. However, in terms of next of kin status, taxation, social security, insurance, and shared possession of a dwelling, same-sex couples are granted the same rights as married couples. The official title of the same-sex union is "Eingetragene Partnerschaft" in German, "Partenariat enregistré" in French, "Associazione registrata" in Italian and "Partenadi Registrà" in Rumantsch Grischun meaning "registered partnership".[1] The bill was passed by the National Council, 111 to 72, on December 3, 2003 and by the Council of States on June 3, 2004, with minor changes.[2][3] The National Council approved it again on June 10, but the conservative Federal Democratic Union collected signatures to force a referendum.[4][5] Subsequently the Swiss people voted on the 5. June 2005 with 58% in favor of the bill. The law came into effect on January 1, 2007.[6] Same-sex marriages formed outside Switzerland will be recognised as registered partnerships within Switzerland. Switzerland was the first nation to pass a same-sex union law by referendum.<<<< Some of the Leftwing Parties are talking that it isn't enough and try to push for Marriage! Doubt that would pass in a Referendum! >>>>Discussions about allowing same-sex marriage are beginning in Switzerland and some politicians from the Social Democratic Party, the Greens and the Liberals support it.
The Green Party of Switzerland supports same-sex marriage, according to its 2007 electoral manifesto.[14]<<<< registered partnership sounds like a grand idea,, but I Really th ink the point here is to force people to view homosexual activity as equal to heterosexual activity,,,to force acceptance of the sexual choice,,, if it was just about the civil end, civil unions would have sufficed,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did anyone ever think the whole idea may be to make marriage obsolete? It is now more of a tax, immigration, or acceptance thing than an institution. When our leaders want to devalue or change public opinion on something they turn it over to the media machines with talking points.... the rest is history after the animals are fed. Just like they are doing to the constitution and bill of rights, giving us 2 decades of war as business as usual, telling us who our enemies are, what to eat, drink, wear, where we are "allowed" to go or not go, known or not know...... who we want as leaders and statesmen We simply feed the beast by our acceptance and that will be our downfall.... greed and pacifism. I think we have had more than 2 decades of war, I dont recall having to agree with who an enemy is, although the social pressure is certainly there regarding who to lump together as friend or foe and Im pretty certain I have quite a bit of freedom in what I eat, drink, or wear, where I go and where I dont go,,,,,, I will agree that greed (including selfishness) is a destructive force in the modern culture.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For or against, anyone who begins their argument with the assumption that government is obligated to regulate ANY type of marriage between two consenting adults is fundamentally wrong....Marriage is a PRIVATE institution; it is often RELIGIOUS in nature...Federal government has no right to interfere....Don't forget that it was government involvement in marriage that made it possible for states to ban inter-racial marriages...In a republic, the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals are IDENTICAL...The PRIMARY responsibility of government is to defend these rights by upholding the constitution...As long as marriage is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION between consenting adults, no one has the right to interfere ...Same sex marriage is not the problem, government overreach is the problem....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For or against, anyone who begins their argument with the assumption that government is obligated to regulate ANY type of marriage between two consenting adults is fundamentally wrong....Marriage is a PRIVATE institution; it is often RELIGIOUS in nature...Federal government has no right to interfere....Don't forget that it was government involvement in marriage that made it possible for states to ban inter-racial marriages...In a republic, the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals are IDENTICAL...The PRIMARY responsibility of government is to defend these rights by upholding the constitution...As long as marriage is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION between consenting adults, no one has the right to interfere ...Same sex marriage is not the problem, government overreach is the problem.... People keep saying this, but what about the laws concerning divorce? i rarely hear of people willing to amicable in a divorce... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 05/10/13 10:38 AM
|
|
The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice. What a ridiculous thing to say. Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century. And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For or against, anyone who begins their argument with the assumption that government is obligated to regulate ANY type of marriage between two consenting adults is fundamentally wrong....Marriage is a PRIVATE institution; it is often RELIGIOUS in nature...Federal government has no right to interfere....Don't forget that it was government involvement in marriage that made it possible for states to ban inter-racial marriages...In a republic, the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals are IDENTICAL...The PRIMARY responsibility of government is to defend these rights by upholding the constitution...As long as marriage is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION between consenting adults, no one has the right to interfere ...Same sex marriage is not the problem, government overreach is the problem.... People keep saying this, but what about the laws concerning divorce? i rarely hear of people willing to amicable in a divorce... divorce becomes a property and custody issue, which could also be taken care of with contracts regarding those issues,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The day they legalize gay sex in Wisconsin is the day its hunters turn in their rifles for a glass of cranberry juice. What a ridiculous thing to say. Gay sex does not have to be "legalized." As far as I know there are no laws against it, at least laws that can be enforced. If Wisconsin still has any laws against what people can do in private con-sensually, they need to come into this century. And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused. "And what does gay marriage have to do with cranberry juice? I'm confused." because it's good for the urinary system...silly woman. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For or against, anyone who begins their argument with the assumption that government is obligated to regulate ANY type of marriage between two consenting adults is fundamentally wrong....Marriage is a PRIVATE institution; it is often RELIGIOUS in nature...Federal government has no right to interfere....Don't forget that it was government involvement in marriage that made it possible for states to ban inter-racial marriages...In a republic, the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals are IDENTICAL...The PRIMARY responsibility of government is to defend these rights by upholding the constitution...As long as marriage is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION between consenting adults, no one has the right to interfere ...Same sex marriage is not the problem, government overreach is the problem.... People keep saying this, but what about the laws concerning divorce? i rarely hear of people willing to amicable in a divorce... divorce becomes a property and custody issue, which could also be taken care of with contracts regarding those issues,,,,, no, contracts wouldn't be enough... still would have to impose laws to enforce contracts... people keep saying they don't want the government involved, but they are sure happy to see a lawyer when the ex is trying to take everything... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 05/10/13 11:12 AM
|
|
For or against, anyone who begins their argument with the assumption that government is obligated to regulate ANY type of marriage between two consenting adults is fundamentally wrong....Marriage is a PRIVATE institution; it is often RELIGIOUS in nature...Federal government has no right to interfere....Don't forget that it was government involvement in marriage that made it possible for states to ban inter-racial marriages...In a republic, the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals are IDENTICAL...The PRIMARY responsibility of government is to defend these rights by upholding the constitution...As long as marriage is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION between consenting adults, no one has the right to interfere ...Same sex marriage is not the problem, government overreach is the problem.... People keep saying this, but what about the laws concerning divorce? i rarely hear of people willing to amicable in a divorce... divorce becomes a property and custody issue, which could also be taken care of with contracts regarding those issues,,,,, no, contracts wouldn't be enough... still would have to impose laws to enforce contracts... people keep saying they don't want the government involved, but they are sure happy to see a lawyer when the ex is trying to take everything... true of course the irony of the argument that government shoudl stay out of it is the demand that government be involved in it,,,lol never understood that either,,, certainly it is already the case that people are free to love, sex and commit to whomever they choose as long as they leave the government out of it ,,the government sets conditions upon which they are willing to be involved in it,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For or against, anyone who begins their argument with the assumption that government is obligated to regulate ANY type of marriage between two consenting adults is fundamentally wrong....Marriage is a PRIVATE institution; it is often RELIGIOUS in nature...Federal government has no right to interfere....Don't forget that it was government involvement in marriage that made it possible for states to ban inter-racial marriages...In a republic, the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals are IDENTICAL...The PRIMARY responsibility of government is to defend these rights by upholding the constitution...As long as marriage is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION between consenting adults, no one has the right to interfere ...Same sex marriage is not the problem, government overreach is the problem.... People keep saying this, but what about the laws concerning divorce? i rarely hear of people willing to amicable in a divorce... For the most part, state law governs marriage and divorce...Federal government has no right or responsibility in either....By not recognizing same sex marriages, states invite involvement at federal level ... Constitutionally speaking, every "type" of marriage between consenting adults should be permitted and recognized as a legally binding contract in every state in the union...If this were the case, the need for federal involvement in same sex marriage and divorce issues would all but cease to exist....Very few, if any, heterosexual divorce issues reach federal level because their constitutionality is being questioned.... |
|
|
|
|
