Modified GOP platform

[Robert Jan]

How about a definition of it being two legal adults who want to marry?

BTW gays marry here in Holland and it didn't kill anybody

Most homo's don't actually use this right. But they appreciate having it. You'd expect Americans to understand that sort of thing from the way they usually speak.

 

[jerseyart]

Robert

Why not 2 or more adults? Why are you asking to restrict their rights.

Is Holland the country that now has like 80% of its children born in single parent homes? Its one of your neighbors if not you.

 

[bluepeter]

I wouldn't mind being raised by Lesbians of course, but not by 2 gay dudes.
Who would teach me to throw a baseball right ??

The issue of a Federal description of Marriage and another one for Same Sex unions
is needed for only one reason IMO.. And it's not a moral one..

If we allow the States to have varying descriptions of what Marriage is, vs Same Sex Unions, there will be major legal battles and confusion. When people move from Same Sex Marriage States to States with other laws, they will damand that their union be recognised and get the same benefit as they got in the previous State they lived in..

Also, without a definition of what Marriage or Unions means, it leaves open holes allowing anyone to legally challenge them wanting to be married to 4 people(group marriage) or 2 women and a man could be married and demand benefits.

Even as silly as it sounds, someone could legally marry their pet and demand life insurance etc unless a definition is made of Unions of the agreed to standards of 1
Man and 1 Woman or 1 Woman and 1 Woman or 1 Man and 1 Man..

and I have no problem with that.

Jersey, you have explained your position but you haven't answered the question. Fine, marriage isn't a right. But every person, man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual should have the opportunity to enter into a lifelong relationship. As for your assertion that having children is the sole purpose of marriage, that is preposterous. So now you are saying that couples that get married and choose not to have children shouldn't be eligible for marrital benefits either? So, I repeat. Do you admit that homosexuals are people and deserve the same opportunity as heterosexuals?

 

[Robert Jan]

Robert

Why not 2 or more adults? Why are you asking to restrict their rights.

Is Holland the country that now has like 80% of its children born in single parent homes? Its one of your neighbors if not you.

I have never heard that statistic and find it most unlikely, and directly opposite to my own experience. My parents are together and both my neighbours are "whole" homes and the vast majority of my friends come from such. It's not a fair representation of my nation but 80% seems way, way out there.

You know what? what's the big problem with bigger marriages? I don't see how it hurts anybody when 3 people get married.
It's also not a good comparison. a homosexual and heterosexual relationship are about 100 times closer in likeness than a polygamous marriage relationship

 

[bluepeter]

I have never heard that statistic and find it most unlikely, and directly opposite to my own experience. My parents are together and both my neighbours are "whole" homes and the vast majority of my friends come from such. It's not a fair representation of my nation but 80% seems way, way out there.

You know what? what's the big problem with bigger marriages? I don't see how it hurts anybody when 3 people get married.
It's also not a good comparison. a homosexual and heterosexual relationship are about 100 times closer in likeness than a polygamous marriage relationship

You have to understand that same sex marriage opponents always fall back on analogies with polygamy when they are backed into a corner with nowhere to go. "well if we allow homos to marry, why not have 2 or 3 wives!" Sounds eerily like the Southern bigots in the 50's and 60's who were against giving blacks equal rights and opportunity..........

 

[Y_lifter]

The sole reason I believe there needs to be a seperate Federal "LEGAL" decription of
unions vs: adding in Same Sex unions into Marriage is when Children eventually will be involved with SS unions.

As one example, think about 2 men or 2 women following the LEGAL surname guidelines in place today. Which name are they given ? Do they get a choice? How confusing will this be for Society ?

With a new FEDERAL 2 person Same Sex union desciption, laws and guidelines for this unique and Deserved benefit, these issues and others can be kept seperate from the current Marriage description/laws allowing flexibility..

 

[jerseyart]

and I have no problem with that.

Jersey, you have explained your position but you haven't answered the question. Fine, marriage isn't a right. But every person, man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual should have the opportunity to enter into a lifelong relationship. As for your assertion that having children is the sole purpose of marriage, that is preposterous. So now you are saying that couples that get married and choose not to have children shouldn't be eligible for marrital benefits either? So, I repeat. Do you admit that homosexuals are people and deserve the same opportunity as heterosexuals?

No everyone shouldnt have the opportunity. Nor has that ever been the case.

Further I stated at the beginning of our discussion that the courts divorcing marriage from the act of procreation as a condition of marriage is responsible for this mess. It was a birth control case, but the point is nonetheless valid. It was the first time that the two were deemed unrelated.

And homosexuals do have the same opportunity to marry, just not to those of the same gender. They aren't denied entry because of their orientation, but because of the choice in a potential spouse that oreintation leads them to make. Whatever tax and proerty benefits that are specific to marriage should remain spoecific to marriage as an enticement for heterosexual couples to raise and rear children. Otherwise, why should the institution not be done away with completely. Why should any couple that chooses to join together be forced to marry in order to receive those benefits. Why should the state be defining the relationship at all?

Your case is based on the premise that this social construct should be equally available to all. But without the original intent of procreation, there really is no reason for the construct to even exist. It is inherently biased against anyone who chooses not to marry. We have it because it is in our interest to encourage heterosexual couples to commit to lifelong relationships to raise children, and for no other reason. There is no other purpsoe to the legal institution.(seperate from religious ceremonies and practices)

 

[Robert Jan]

The sole reason I believe there needs to be a seperate Federal "LEGAL" decription of
unions is needed vs: adding in Same Sex unions into Marriage is when Children eventually will be involved with SS unions.

As one example, think about 2 men or 2 women following the LEGAL surname guidelines in place today. Which name are they given ? Do they get a choice? How confusing will this be for Society ?

With a new FEDERAL 2 person Same Sex union desciption, laws and guidelines for this unique and Deserved benefit, these issues and others can be kept seperate from the current Marriage description/laws allowing flexibility..

lol. you don't oppose gay marriage because of the name problem

there also isn't any. hetero couples can pick which of the two names they want now anyway.

I refer back to my second post in this thread about the children...

 

[AAP]

You know, if those homosexuals don't like it,maybe they should go back to Homoland where they came from.

We would. But everyone wants to come to Manhattan.

 

[Robert Jan]

George Walter Bush just came out of the closet. It's on CNN, he's a homosexual.