sorry to have derailed a thread, but i did not want to avoid to answer to Bunge's post. However furthers post about the adoptions subjects should be made in an another thread (there was an old one if my memory is correct).
My point about adoption wasn't to start a discussion about letting gays adopt or not, sorry about the confusion.
You had just stated that marriage was about starting the family cell, and since gays can't have a family you think gays shouldn't marry. I was just injecting the idea that two gay people CAN have a family, that is if they adopt. So, if gays can have a family through adoption, shouldn't they also have access to marriage, the foundation of the family cell as you put it?
We have had civil unions and blessing in church if the church and the priest endorse the idea and guess what? Civilisation still exist here. I work for an insemination clinic that mainly help lesbians get pregnant under the same conditions as straight couples. Guess what? Those children grow up no different than other kids.
Noone wants to force churches to do something that goes against their beliefs. But is it really our buisness to hinder churces do something they think is important?
does it harm society to outlaw marriage for everyone?
it has been shown that 50% of marriages end in divorce...often painfully and nasty divorce...children are often harmed by marriage...families are often broken up over marriage...perhaps we should just do away with the whole thing??
no, we have decided that marriage is a good thing (at least for heteros)...kids are better off with two parents, people live longer that have a life partner....why should we say marriage is great, great for kids, great for health, so, no gays may apply...sorry
gay people just want the same health benefits, same social security benefits, same love and respect as heterosexuals
so how does keeping gays from marrying hurt society...in lots of way
it continues the exclusion of gays as "not good enough" for "regular" society...this leads to a higher teenage suicide rate for gay teens...not because these children hate being gay, because they hate being treated as not normal and less than other "heterosexual" kids...and every time a child takes he's or her's life, then society is harmed...everytime we tell people they count less than others, society is harmed
does it harm society to outlaw marriage for everyone?
gay people just want the same health benefits, same social security benefits, same love and respect as heterosexuals
so how does keeping gays from marrying hurt society...in lots of way
it continues the exclusion of gays as "not good enough" for "regular" society...this leads to a higher teenage suicide rate...not because these people hate being gay, because they hate being treated as not normal and less than other "heterosexual" kids...and every time a child takes he's or her's life, then society is harmed...everytime we tell people they count less than others, society is harmed
g
Great post! thegelding has thought this through and it shows.
If pre-Christian cultures practice marriage we can probably count out the argument that marriage is a God-given sacrament, no? If we look at very ancient cultures, at least?
Before the missionaries got to the Indians of the Argentinian Amazon they were practicing marriage there. Hindus didn?t need the Portuguese to introduce the notion, neither did anyone else in Asia, neither did Madagascan animists, neither did the San people of Southern Africa. Stone age cultures like the first peoples of Australia, central South America and Southern Africa had marriage.
In Australia and Southern Africa marriage is even monogamous. Forget marriage, monogamous marriage is older than Christianity, Judaism, monotheism, agriculture, even organised religion.
And and and...
I intend to get married one of these days. If you believe that keeping God out of my heterosexual ceremony will make my marriage any less ?real? and ?valuable? than a ?proper? Christian one, please post your address and I?ll post you a photograph every anniversary / track you down and bop you in the nose (your call.) What the institution means to you has no bearing on my motives, my desire to be married, nor the 'importance' of my marriage ? unless it?s you who makes the laws.
Why would I want to get married? Firstly because it answers a social and cultural necessity (even perhaps a hardwired behaviour) that would make me very happy to fulfil and secondly? none of your business. Either way, God doesn?t come into it.
I note also that it?s possible to get married in your country in a drive-through church. Britney and her old schoolfriend did this very thing not two weeks ago. If ever I saw a wing-pulling attack on the sanctity of marriage it?s this rather than the union of two men or women who have been co-habiting for fifteen years. Maybe someone would like to start a thread bemoaning hetero attacks on the institution of marriage. I hope you?d contribute to it.
To sum up.
Quote:
Marriage, the context of "one flesh" is a theologically based, God-given concept.
Not if it predates theology and monotheism, it isn't.
Quote:
This nonsense of homosexual marriage is simply a ploy to marginalize 6000 years of history, and it's never worked.
Why would anyone actively want to ?marginalize? 6,000 years of history? And where do you get 6,000 years from? Which 6,000 years? We?re about 80,000 years old as a species, more or less, and we?ve probably had marriage rites for all of them, so which 6,000 years are you talking about in particular? If it?s the last 6,000 years, what makes them so damn special?
Quote:
[iThere's nothing new here except the date in which this "argument" is being perpetrated
Yes there is. Women were given the vote in Britain two generations ago. Racial segregation was still practiced in the United States until the late 1960s. The Dutch Reform Church of South Africa decreed that black people had souls in the 1950s, and it?s now time that homosexual people can have the same things that the majority take for granted.
I note also that it?s possible to get married in your country in a drive-through church. Britney and her old schoolfriend did this very thing not two weeks ago. If ever I saw a wing-pulling attack on the sanctity of marriage it?s this rather than the union of two men or women who have been co-habiting for fifteen years.
That is a very very good argument you make Hassan!
Yes there is. Women were given the vote in Britain two generations ago. Racial segregation was still practiced in the United States until the late 1960s. The Dutch Reform Church of South Africa decreed that black people had souls in the 1950s, and it?s now time that homosexual people can have the same things that the majority take for granted. [/B]
I see your point : it's not because it did not existed before, that it should not change.
However your examples are not so good. Because all your examples are limited geographically or temporally :
1) For example in some society it's the woman who is in power (matriarchy), because she is the one who bring the life (and many scientist think that thousands and thousands years ago, the society was build on a matriarchic model, unless the man discovered his role in the process)
2) the racial segragation did not exist in others humans society
3) In other part of africa this concept was a joke since beginning of history
I may be wrong, but in almost every human society since the beginning of the modern human, i never eard of gay marriages. Even in the time of old greeks where homosexuality was common and considered normal, people married them in a heterosexual way.
That's why i consider by definition that a mariage is a heterosexual process. anyway i am for gay unions, in France it's called PACS, and brings some rights for the people who made this sort of union.
This had been explained ad nauseum. If gays aren't married, they're not able to do everything married couples can do in our society. That's a problem.
Actually I've heard people claim it is still 1980 and that someone wouldn't be allowed to visit their significant other in a hospital or such nonsense, but that just isn't so.
These issues have been dealth with not just as homosexual rights, but also because of the large number of straight cohabitating couples who will never marry. My father for example and his girlfriend have been living together for well over 10 years, longer than most marriages. I've never heard them once express that they have had any trouble or even any desire to marry due to trouble relating to the fact that they are cohabitating.
I won't assume the "problems." You are just going to have to name them. You are also going to have to show that they haven't been addressed and remedied by the large number of cohabitating straight couples.
no, we have decided that marriage is a good thing (at least for heteros)...kids are better off with two parents, people live longer that have a life partner....why should we say marriage is great, great for kids, great for health, so, no gays may apply...sorry
gay people just want the same health benefits, same social security benefits, same love and respect as heterosexuals
so how does keeping gays from marrying hurt society...in lots of way
it continues the exclusion of gays as "not good enough" for "regular" society...this leads to a higher teenage suicide rate for gay teens...not because these children hate being gay, because they hate being treated as not normal and less than other "heterosexual" kids...and every time a child takes he's or her's life, then society is harmed...everytime we tell people they count less than others, society is harmed
g [/B]
Actually we haven't decided marriage is a good thing. We've decided that protecting single unmarried females is a good thing and thus we have tons of them, often living with a boyfriend of a number of years, who won't marry because then they would really have to count their boyfriend's "income" as their own and wouldn't qualify for free day care, free medical for their children, etc.
If you hadn't noticed marriage has been on the decline for decades. That is because society doesn't require it and actually works against it in many instances.
As for health benefits, social security benefits, etc. I've never been asked if my wife is my wife on my medical health care. They total the number of adults, and children and that is what my total is based off. Likewise I if you want to see some real arguments on these issues, look up the nice fights between first wives and second wives on benefits, or first families and second families. (kids) Because of these sorts of issues, I have heard all the terminology regarding these benefits change. What you to be called spousal payment is now simply called survivor benefit. You can leave it to whomever you want.
With social security it assumes a)it's actually going to be solvent and b) that you can actually get a survivor benefit because you haven't divorced and remarried within a specified period of time. But what about if you are seeking a survivor benefit and you are a love child of a man that died, what about if your a child and your father or mother remarried, or were never married in the first place, etc. Why do you assume that homosexuality is the only "untidy" issue that Social Security fails to properly address? It can all be addressed with just a change in legislation the marriage argument would address it no better than any of the others I have mentioned.
I've yet to see proof of this claim of harm. Cohabitation is the norm for so many now that almost all institutions have adapted. The remaining will soon enough.
As for the higher homosexual teen suicide rate, if it is proof that those persons are hated and treated as abnormal, what do we say to society about men in general since their suicide rate is 500% higher than for females. Society must hate men as much or more than homosexuals.
I won't assume the "problems." You are just going to have to name them. You are also going to have to show that they haven't been addressed and remedied by the large number of cohabitating straight couples.
You know what they are, you just don't care. This isn't about 'winning' an argument, it's about what information is right and wrong.
How about Social Security benefits? Spousal benefits? Because your dad never mentioned anything there are no problems? After 10 years they are married by common law, so they shouldn't have any problems.
actually more women attempt suicide, but men are much better at succeeding....something to do with the fact that pills (women's most popular suicide method) make a less than stellar modality (puking, poor dose choice, poor pill choice)...while men tend to use guns or hanging...both very effective at ending one's life....
sad
as for benefits...if you claim your wife and she is your wife, great...if you claim a woman who isn't your wife, you go to jail or face big fines...gay people can't claim their S.O. in most cases
No offense to any of the women on the board, but Nick is such a woman.
Complaining about having it tough as a gender when so much of the power resides with our gender is... well... womanly.
I wasn't complaining about the gender. I was mearly saying that if teen homosexual suicide rates being higher than normal is proof of societal harm and discrimination, then that should be true for all parties that have disproportionately high suicide rates. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Stop putting up a macho facade instead of addressing the issue.
However I find it interesting that, even though you give it a disclaimer you would think I would be upset about being called a woman or having female characteristics. Go back to your neanderthal shelf because I would never consider "acting like a woman" to be something bad.
How about Social Security benefits? Spousal benefits? Because your dad never mentioned anything there are no problems? After 10 years they are married by common law, so they shouldn't have any problems.
Way to sidestep your responsibility of supporting claim you have made. Put up or don't, but the point is that just because you allege something doesn't mean I am going to buy into it. Society and it's assorted institutions have plenty of trouble defining all our new family forms, be they married or not married. The fact that they fall short doesn't show that homosexuals should receive marriage. It shows that we need civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples to make their legal commitments to each other more clear and allow them to state in what forms they wish to be legally bound.
As for how about Social Security benefits, your guess is as good a mine. After looking at the site, it starts to read like the tax code. Some common-law marriages are accepted, some aren't. Some spouses get benefits if they have been married x number of years, after y age, if they already paid in z years, etc. If you want to sort it out and show how all the other non-standard family forms are somehow getting benefits that homosexuals are not, you are welcome to do so. I will gladly read it, and even be glad to be wrong. However I am not just going to accept it because you claim it.
As for my father and his girlfriend, California does not have, nor does it recognize common-law marriage. So if for example, my Dad's girlfriend wanted to make a claim on his estate or Social Security benefits, she would not be able to do so. Is this fair? Probably not, which is why I have said that this issue needs to be addressed not just for homosexuals, but for cohabitating heterosexuals as well.
What I mean by no problems, is that many things allow you to do them with partners even without being married. My brother was in a major auto accident and they never once questioned if his girlfriend should be allowed up in the room. I've seen dozens of cohabitating couples buy homes, cars, set up legal relationships with each other, without being married.
What I'm getting at, and what you SHOULD be getting at is showing what problems would be fixed for homosexuals by granting them marriage rights.
A perfect example is of course the link you posted. There was nothing on their site that said they could not adopt because they were not married. The ban is on homosexuals, not on unmarried couples. The lawsuit is addressing the issue, the ban on homosexual parents adopting. The lawsuit nor the site claims anything about discrimination related to not being married.
actually more women attempt suicide, but men are much better at succeeding....something to do with the fact that pills (women's most popular suicide method) make a less than stellar modality (puking, poor dose choice, poor pill choice)...while men tend to use guns or hanging...both very effective at ending one's life....
sad
as for benefits...if you claim your wife and she is your wife, great...if you claim a woman who isn't your wife, you go to jail or face big fines...gay people can't claim their S.O. in most cases
g
I didn't say I could claim someone was my wife who wasn't my wife. I said many health plans now allow you to add spouses, dependents, domestic partners, etc. and you pay according to who is on your plan, not because they are your wife.
My brother was in a major auto accident and they never once questioned if his girlfriend should be allowed up in the room.
But if she had to make a life or death decision, or any medical decision for your brother while he was incapacitated, she couldn't do it. Only once they're married would it be allowed.
Comments
Originally posted by Powerdoc
sorry to have derailed a thread, but i did not want to avoid to answer to Bunge's post. However furthers post about the adoptions subjects should be made in an another thread (there was an old one if my memory is correct).
My point about adoption wasn't to start a discussion about letting gays adopt or not, sorry about the confusion.
You had just stated that marriage was about starting the family cell, and since gays can't have a family you think gays shouldn't marry. I was just injecting the idea that two gay people CAN have a family, that is if they adopt. So, if gays can have a family through adoption, shouldn't they also have access to marriage, the foundation of the family cell as you put it?
Originally posted by trumptman
Does it harm society to have homosexuals unmarried? How so? Please explain.
This had been explained ad nauseum. If gays aren't married, they're not able to do everything married couples can do in our society. That's a problem.
Noone wants to force churches to do something that goes against their beliefs. But is it really our buisness to hinder churces do something they think is important?
it has been shown that 50% of marriages end in divorce...often painfully and nasty divorce...children are often harmed by marriage...families are often broken up over marriage...perhaps we should just do away with the whole thing??
no, we have decided that marriage is a good thing (at least for heteros)...kids are better off with two parents, people live longer that have a life partner....why should we say marriage is great, great for kids, great for health, so, no gays may apply...sorry
gay people just want the same health benefits, same social security benefits, same love and respect as heterosexuals
so how does keeping gays from marrying hurt society...in lots of way
it continues the exclusion of gays as "not good enough" for "regular" society...this leads to a higher teenage suicide rate for gay teens...not because these children hate being gay, because they hate being treated as not normal and less than other "heterosexual" kids...and every time a child takes he's or her's life, then society is harmed...everytime we tell people they count less than others, society is harmed
g
Originally posted by thegelding
does it harm society to outlaw marriage for everyone?
gay people just want the same health benefits, same social security benefits, same love and respect as heterosexuals
so how does keeping gays from marrying hurt society...in lots of way
it continues the exclusion of gays as "not good enough" for "regular" society...this leads to a higher teenage suicide rate...not because these people hate being gay, because they hate being treated as not normal and less than other "heterosexual" kids...and every time a child takes he's or her's life, then society is harmed...everytime we tell people they count less than others, society is harmed
g
Great post! thegelding has thought this through and it shows.
Fellows
I strongly disagree with you on a few things.
If pre-Christian cultures practice marriage we can probably count out the argument that marriage is a God-given sacrament, no? If we look at very ancient cultures, at least?
Before the missionaries got to the Indians of the Argentinian Amazon they were practicing marriage there. Hindus didn?t need the Portuguese to introduce the notion, neither did anyone else in Asia, neither did Madagascan animists, neither did the San people of Southern Africa. Stone age cultures like the first peoples of Australia, central South America and Southern Africa had marriage.
In Australia and Southern Africa marriage is even monogamous. Forget marriage, monogamous marriage is older than Christianity, Judaism, monotheism, agriculture, even organised religion.
And and and...
I intend to get married one of these days. If you believe that keeping God out of my heterosexual ceremony will make my marriage any less ?real? and ?valuable? than a ?proper? Christian one, please post your address and I?ll post you a photograph every anniversary / track you down and bop you in the nose (your call.) What the institution means to you has no bearing on my motives, my desire to be married, nor the 'importance' of my marriage ? unless it?s you who makes the laws.
Why would I want to get married? Firstly because it answers a social and cultural necessity (even perhaps a hardwired behaviour) that would make me very happy to fulfil and secondly? none of your business. Either way, God doesn?t come into it.
I note also that it?s possible to get married in your country in a drive-through church. Britney and her old schoolfriend did this very thing not two weeks ago. If ever I saw a wing-pulling attack on the sanctity of marriage it?s this rather than the union of two men or women who have been co-habiting for fifteen years. Maybe someone would like to start a thread bemoaning hetero attacks on the institution of marriage. I hope you?d contribute to it.
To sum up.
Marriage, the context of "one flesh" is a theologically based, God-given concept.
Not if it predates theology and monotheism, it isn't.
This nonsense of homosexual marriage is simply a ploy to marginalize 6000 years of history, and it's never worked.
Why would anyone actively want to ?marginalize? 6,000 years of history? And where do you get 6,000 years from? Which 6,000 years? We?re about 80,000 years old as a species, more or less, and we?ve probably had marriage rites for all of them, so which 6,000 years are you talking about in particular? If it?s the last 6,000 years, what makes them so damn special?
[iThere's nothing new here except the date in which this "argument" is being perpetrated
Yes there is. Women were given the vote in Britain two generations ago. Racial segregation was still practiced in the United States until the late 1960s. The Dutch Reform Church of South Africa decreed that black people had souls in the 1950s, and it?s now time that homosexual people can have the same things that the majority take for granted.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I note also that it?s possible to get married in your country in a drive-through church. Britney and her old schoolfriend did this very thing not two weeks ago. If ever I saw a wing-pulling attack on the sanctity of marriage it?s this rather than the union of two men or women who have been co-habiting for fifteen years.
That is a very very good argument you make Hassan!
Spot on.
Fellows
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
[B
Yes there is. Women were given the vote in Britain two generations ago. Racial segregation was still practiced in the United States until the late 1960s. The Dutch Reform Church of South Africa decreed that black people had souls in the 1950s, and it?s now time that homosexual people can have the same things that the majority take for granted. [/B]
I see your point : it's not because it did not existed before, that it should not change.
However your examples are not so good. Because all your examples are limited geographically or temporally :
1) For example in some society it's the woman who is in power (matriarchy), because she is the one who bring the life (and many scientist think that thousands and thousands years ago, the society was build on a matriarchic model, unless the man discovered his role in the process)
2) the racial segragation did not exist in others humans society
3) In other part of africa this concept was a joke since beginning of history
I may be wrong, but in almost every human society since the beginning of the modern human, i never eard of gay marriages. Even in the time of old greeks where homosexuality was common and considered normal, people married them in a heterosexual way.
That's why i consider by definition that a mariage is a heterosexual process. anyway i am for gay unions, in France it's called PACS, and brings some rights for the people who made this sort of union.
Yes, I understand your argument and your criticisms of my examples.
My examples were abitrary, of course. The underlying point is that, as Groverat said, we're sort of obliged to rethink the consensus.
Originally posted by bunge
This had been explained ad nauseum. If gays aren't married, they're not able to do everything married couples can do in our society. That's a problem.
Actually I've heard people claim it is still 1980 and that someone wouldn't be allowed to visit their significant other in a hospital or such nonsense, but that just isn't so.
These issues have been dealth with not just as homosexual rights, but also because of the large number of straight cohabitating couples who will never marry. My father for example and his girlfriend have been living together for well over 10 years, longer than most marriages. I've never heard them once express that they have had any trouble or even any desire to marry due to trouble relating to the fact that they are cohabitating.
I won't assume the "problems." You are just going to have to name them. You are also going to have to show that they haven't been addressed and remedied by the large number of cohabitating straight couples.
Nick
Originally posted by thegelding
no, we have decided that marriage is a good thing (at least for heteros)...kids are better off with two parents, people live longer that have a life partner....why should we say marriage is great, great for kids, great for health, so, no gays may apply...sorry
gay people just want the same health benefits, same social security benefits, same love and respect as heterosexuals
so how does keeping gays from marrying hurt society...in lots of way
it continues the exclusion of gays as "not good enough" for "regular" society...this leads to a higher teenage suicide rate for gay teens...not because these children hate being gay, because they hate being treated as not normal and less than other "heterosexual" kids...and every time a child takes he's or her's life, then society is harmed...everytime we tell people they count less than others, society is harmed
g [/B]
Actually we haven't decided marriage is a good thing. We've decided that protecting single unmarried females is a good thing and thus we have tons of them, often living with a boyfriend of a number of years, who won't marry because then they would really have to count their boyfriend's "income" as their own and wouldn't qualify for free day care, free medical for their children, etc.
If you hadn't noticed marriage has been on the decline for decades. That is because society doesn't require it and actually works against it in many instances.
As for health benefits, social security benefits, etc. I've never been asked if my wife is my wife on my medical health care. They total the number of adults, and children and that is what my total is based off. Likewise I if you want to see some real arguments on these issues, look up the nice fights between first wives and second wives on benefits, or first families and second families. (kids) Because of these sorts of issues, I have heard all the terminology regarding these benefits change. What you to be called spousal payment is now simply called survivor benefit. You can leave it to whomever you want.
With social security it assumes a)it's actually going to be solvent and b) that you can actually get a survivor benefit because you haven't divorced and remarried within a specified period of time. But what about if you are seeking a survivor benefit and you are a love child of a man that died, what about if your a child and your father or mother remarried, or were never married in the first place, etc. Why do you assume that homosexuality is the only "untidy" issue that Social Security fails to properly address? It can all be addressed with just a change in legislation the marriage argument would address it no better than any of the others I have mentioned.
I've yet to see proof of this claim of harm. Cohabitation is the norm for so many now that almost all institutions have adapted. The remaining will soon enough.
As for the higher homosexual teen suicide rate, if it is proof that those persons are hated and treated as abnormal, what do we say to society about men in general since their suicide rate is 500% higher than for females. Society must hate men as much or more than homosexuals.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Society must hate men as much or more than homosexuals.
Nick
The miniature violins are weeping.
No offense to any of the women on the board, but Nick is such a woman.
Complaining about having it tough as a gender when so much of the power resides with our gender is... well... womanly.
Originally posted by trumptman
I won't assume the "problems." You are just going to have to name them. You are also going to have to show that they haven't been addressed and remedied by the large number of cohabitating straight couples.
You know what they are, you just don't care. This isn't about 'winning' an argument, it's about what information is right and wrong.
http://www.lethimstay.com/
How about Social Security benefits? Spousal benefits? Because your dad never mentioned anything there are no problems? After 10 years they are married by common law, so they shouldn't have any problems.
Angel Of Sickness wrote:
Love knows no gender
sad
as for benefits...if you claim your wife and she is your wife, great...if you claim a woman who isn't your wife, you go to jail or face big fines...gay people can't claim their S.O. in most cases
g
Do not get sucked into a "white men are oppressed" argument with trumpt. It defines his life.
Originally posted by billybobsky
The miniature violins are weeping.
No offense to any of the women on the board, but Nick is such a woman.
Complaining about having it tough as a gender when so much of the power resides with our gender is... well... womanly.
I wasn't complaining about the gender. I was mearly saying that if teen homosexual suicide rates being higher than normal is proof of societal harm and discrimination, then that should be true for all parties that have disproportionately high suicide rates. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Stop putting up a macho facade instead of addressing the issue.
However I find it interesting that, even though you give it a disclaimer you would think I would be upset about being called a woman or having female characteristics. Go back to your neanderthal shelf because I would never consider "acting like a woman" to be something bad.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
You know what they are, you just don't care. This isn't about 'winning' an argument, it's about what information is right and wrong.
http://www.lethimstay.com/
How about Social Security benefits? Spousal benefits? Because your dad never mentioned anything there are no problems? After 10 years they are married by common law, so they shouldn't have any problems.
Way to sidestep your responsibility of supporting claim you have made. Put up or don't, but the point is that just because you allege something doesn't mean I am going to buy into it. Society and it's assorted institutions have plenty of trouble defining all our new family forms, be they married or not married. The fact that they fall short doesn't show that homosexuals should receive marriage. It shows that we need civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples to make their legal commitments to each other more clear and allow them to state in what forms they wish to be legally bound.
As for how about Social Security benefits, your guess is as good a mine. After looking at the site, it starts to read like the tax code. Some common-law marriages are accepted, some aren't. Some spouses get benefits if they have been married x number of years, after y age, if they already paid in z years, etc. If you want to sort it out and show how all the other non-standard family forms are somehow getting benefits that homosexuals are not, you are welcome to do so. I will gladly read it, and even be glad to be wrong. However I am not just going to accept it because you claim it.
As for my father and his girlfriend, California does not have, nor does it recognize common-law marriage. So if for example, my Dad's girlfriend wanted to make a claim on his estate or Social Security benefits, she would not be able to do so. Is this fair? Probably not, which is why I have said that this issue needs to be addressed not just for homosexuals, but for cohabitating heterosexuals as well.
What I mean by no problems, is that many things allow you to do them with partners even without being married. My brother was in a major auto accident and they never once questioned if his girlfriend should be allowed up in the room. I've seen dozens of cohabitating couples buy homes, cars, set up legal relationships with each other, without being married.
What I'm getting at, and what you SHOULD be getting at is showing what problems would be fixed for homosexuals by granting them marriage rights.
A perfect example is of course the link you posted. There was nothing on their site that said they could not adopt because they were not married. The ban is on homosexuals, not on unmarried couples. The lawsuit is addressing the issue, the ban on homosexual parents adopting. The lawsuit nor the site claims anything about discrimination related to not being married.
Nick
Originally posted by thegelding
actually more women attempt suicide, but men are much better at succeeding....something to do with the fact that pills (women's most popular suicide method) make a less than stellar modality (puking, poor dose choice, poor pill choice)...while men tend to use guns or hanging...both very effective at ending one's life....
sad
as for benefits...if you claim your wife and she is your wife, great...if you claim a woman who isn't your wife, you go to jail or face big fines...gay people can't claim their S.O. in most cases
g
I didn't say I could claim someone was my wife who wasn't my wife. I said many health plans now allow you to add spouses, dependents, domestic partners, etc. and you pay according to who is on your plan, not because they are your wife.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
My brother was in a major auto accident and they never once questioned if his girlfriend should be allowed up in the room.
But if she had to make a life or death decision, or any medical decision for your brother while he was incapacitated, she couldn't do it. Only once they're married would it be allowed.