Marriage Vs Marriage.. A question

[TEAMRICO]

Because you put children in the middle when they adopt. That child did not have a choice.
I'm all for gay divorce, gay child support, gay alimony! Didn't the first couple to marry in CA divorce already?

[Teufelhund]

I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.

Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.

This echoes my feelings on it exactly. There is no argument at all outside a religious premise, which is intentionally prohibited from being legislated.

I'm pretty surprised by the responses here, except the one guy who let his emotions get the best of him. I honestly expected to see a lot of responses in that same vein.

[BlasterBob]

"They" are just in the process of getting a "foot in the door". Next, some joker will want to "marry" his sheep or horse or cow. What the hell next? I do NOT want to see my insurance rates go up because my insurance company now has to pay benefits for some person who was not entitled to insurance but is suddenly covered by a new same sex spouse. Hey, my belief and I am entitled to one but it's also your right to see this in a totally different way.
OK, I have my flame resistant suit on so flame away at this point.

[newracer]

Anyone concerned that people will get married just to get benefits of health insurance, etc?

[Ronin13]

Gay marriage has little to do with 2 peoples devotion to each other. Any 2 people can live together and share there lives together.

Its about money. Being able to share insurance, being able to share SS benifits, and being able to make legal decisions for each other.

Actually, you can put anyone living in your household on your insurance, and life insurance pays to whoever you dictate as your beneficiary- I'm guessing you mean health insurance, but I'm pretty sure if you're living together under common law you should be okay on that too, but not entirely sure.

My opinion, I honestly don't give two shits who marries whom. I feel that social interference (from either side) will only further divide us. Freedom is a two way street, you will have one group that says one thing, and another that says the opposite, both are not wrong, both are not right, both just are.

"The way to silence religious disputes is to take no notice of them."
"Religious belief is the business of the individual, not the state." -Thomas Jefferson

[BushMasterBoy]

Between the first recognition of AIDS in 1981 and 2009 it has led to nearly 30 million deaths. Encourage the lifestyle that has killed this many? They don't publicize this much anymore, as it is politically incorrect(if you are after votes). These are just the facts, I did not make this up. The DNA is traceable as the AIDS virus uses your DNA to replicate. See no emotions!~


Feel free to discuss virology and why you should not eat beef tainted with mad cow disease either...

[crashdown]

Historically gay rights have been more about "special rights" than equal rights.
Back in the early 90's in Fort Collins when I was a lot more political, Gay's had quite a few things up for the voting public to decide. Things like employer discrimination where a subject of the propositions. On the surface it sounded fair, but underneath where things like the employer paying legal fees for gays that sued their employer even if the employer was found innocent of the charges in court. Gays also pushed for "life partner unions" that would give them access to their partners health benefits as if they were married. The reality was that they didn't really want a true legal marriage because they would have to go through divorces as well.
I'm not sure what is going on now, but back then it was full of double standards written into what was being proposed that got it all shot down.

[TriggerHappy]

I personally have no qualms with homosexuals getting married. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us. The flip side is that they should have to abide by all that that legally implies: divorce, inheritance, taxation, child support, alimony, etcetera. No rights without equal responsibility. Legally, marriage is a contract between 2 people. In the eyes of the law, the genitalia of those people should be irrelevant.

Socially, traditional marriage supporters believe that allowing nontraditional marriage to be sanctioned by the government will somehow dilute the "sanctity" of their marriages. I personally believe that the .gov should not be in the marriage business.

+1 well said

[Ronin13]

Between the first recognition of AIDS in 1981 and 2009 it has led to nearly 30 million deaths. Encourage the lifestyle that has killed this many? They don't publicize this much anymore, as it is politically incorrect(if you are after votes). These are just the facts, I did not make this up. The DNA is traceable as the AIDS virus uses your DNA to replicate. See no emotions!~


Feel free to discuss virology and why you should not eat beef tainted with mad cow disease either...

And what lifestyle is it that has killed so many? AIDS can infect anyone... I lost an uncle to that terrible virus. So are you saying that promiscuity is what we should cease to encourage?

[kanekutter05]

I love how this is a cordial, intelligent discussion (so far) involving such an incendiary issue...

But the damn bike wave thread erputed like Mt. St. Helens