Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[WorldWatcher]

So, this lobby to get benefits connected to being married was just some horseshit you made up to support your arguement?




Surprise, not.

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Can someone tell me why Brittany Spears and her five minute marriage deserve these benefits and my 27 year partnership does not?

Sure...

1. The Bible says so...

and

2. Your partner does not produce sperm.​

Not saying I agree with it, just saying why some thing you don't deserve equal treatment under the law.


>>>>

 

[Ava]

The fact is that kids do not need a mother and a father. If they did, it would be illegal to be a single parent. Instead, single women have babies all the time, and no one bats an eye.

As a person who grew up without a father, i have to disagree.


Children need a father.

I do think children benefit from having an intact family structure and having an effective father role model would be beneficial to any child.

The most important thing is as someone mentioned, for a child to have two or more parents who not only love this child but offers him/her consistency and stability.

 

[Katzndogz]

So, this lobby to get benefits connected to being married was just some horseshit you made up to support your arguement?




Surprise, not.

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Can someone tell me why Brittany Spears and her five minute marriage deserve these benefits and my 27 year partnership does not?

She's divorced and not getting any benefits.

 

[Seawytch]

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Can someone tell me why Brittany Spears and her five minute marriage deserve these benefits and my 27 year partnership does not?

She's divorced and not getting any benefits.

All you had to say is that you couldn't come up with a valid response.

 

[Katzndogz]

Can someone tell me why Brittany Spears and her five minute marriage deserve these benefits and my 27 year partnership does not?

She's divorced and not getting any benefits.

All you had to say is that you couldn't come up with a valid response.

There is only one valid response to a claim that she derived some benefit from a five minute marriage that you don't get. She's divorced and not getting any benefits. What you obviously meant was that Brittany Spears would have derived some benefit from a sham marriage that is unavailable to you in a long term relationship.

If there were no such thing as five minute marriages and the divorce rate was as low as it was in the 40s or 50s, we wouldn't be having a discussion on same sex marriage. FIRST marriage itself has to be devalued. Now you can claim some kind of equality with the devalued marital relationship. Progressive liberals created a circumstance and now uses the circumstance it created to support something that is a complete aberration. The reason why your 27 year long relationship doesn't have the rights you think it should is because your relationship is an aberration, an anomaly, something outside the norm. It does not benefit the larger society in any way, although it might benefit you personally in many ways. Harmless and benign aberrations should always be protected but that doesn't mean expansion of aberrations into the mainstream.

 

[Oscar Wao]

She's divorced and not getting any benefits.

All you had to say is that you couldn't come up with a valid response.

There is only one valid response to a claim that she derived some benefit from a five minute marriage that you don't get. She's divorced and not getting any benefits. What you obviously meant was that Brittany Spears would have derived some benefit from a sham marriage that is unavailable to you in a long term relationship.

If there were no such thing as five minute marriages and the divorce rate was as low as it was in the 40s or 50s, we wouldn't be having a discussion on same sex marriage. FIRST marriage itself has to be devalued. Now you can claim some kind of equality with the devalued marital relationship. Progressive liberals created a circumstance and now uses the circumstance it created to support something that is a complete aberration. The reason why your 27 year long relationship doesn't have the rights you think it should is because your relationship is an aberration, an anomaly, something outside the norm. It does not benefit the larger society in any way, although it might benefit you personally in many ways. Harmless and benign aberrations should always be protected but that doesn't mean expansion of aberrations into the mainstream.

Actually, the gay rights movement started happening BEFORE quickie marriages and quickie divorces became widespread.

 

[Seawytch]

She's divorced and not getting any benefits.

All you had to say is that you couldn't come up with a valid response.

There is only one valid response to a claim that she derived some benefit from a five minute marriage that you don't get. She's divorced and not getting any benefits. What you obviously meant was that Brittany Spears would have derived some benefit from a sham marriage that is unavailable to you in a long term relationship.

If there were no such thing as five minute marriages and the divorce rate was as low as it was in the 40s or 50s, we wouldn't be having a discussion on same sex marriage. FIRST marriage itself has to be devalued. Now you can claim some kind of equality with the devalued marital relationship. Progressive liberals created a circumstance and now uses the circumstance it created to support something that is a complete aberration. The reason why your 27 year long relationship doesn't have the rights you think it should is because your relationship is an aberration, an anomaly, something outside the norm. It does not benefit the larger society in any way, although it might benefit you personally in many ways. Harmless and benign aberrations should always be protected but that doesn't mean expansion of aberrations into the mainstream.

Again, all you had to say is that you have no valid response.

 

[High_Gravity]

She's divorced and not getting any benefits.

All you had to say is that you couldn't come up with a valid response.

There is only one valid response to a claim that she derived some benefit from a five minute marriage that you don't get. She's divorced and not getting any benefits. What you obviously meant was that Brittany Spears would have derived some benefit from a sham marriage that is unavailable to you in a long term relationship.

If there were no such thing as five minute marriages and the divorce rate was as low as it was in the 40s or 50s, we wouldn't be having a discussion on same sex marriage. FIRST marriage itself has to be devalued. Now you can claim some kind of equality with the devalued marital relationship. Progressive liberals created a circumstance and now uses the circumstance it created to support something that is a complete aberration. The reason why your 27 year long relationship doesn't have the rights you think it should is because your relationship is an aberration, an anomaly, something outside the norm. It does not benefit the larger society in any way, although it might benefit you personally in many ways. Harmless and benign aberrations should always be protected but that doesn't mean expansion of aberrations into the mainstream.

Why does her partnership have to benefit society? there are plenty of straight marriages that go down in flames and create broken homes, how does that benefit society? I was married for 5 years and it ended in a messy divorce, how did that benefit anyone?

 

[ima]

Consequences of Redefining Marriage

All the homo haters will be outed.

 

[Samson]

I'm not married and have no intention of getting married.

You really need to learn to read, learn to think, or shut up.

So, this lobby to get benefits connected to being married was just some horseshit you made up to support your arguement?




Surprise, not.

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Your link =

Human Rights Campaign
Working for Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights

How the fuck is this supposed to be a Lobby for Marraige?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, this lobby to get benefits connected to being married was just some horseshit you made up to support your arguement?




Surprise, not.

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Your link =

Human Rights Campaign
Working for Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights

How the fuck is this supposed to be a Lobby for Marraige?

They are promoting Civil Marriage equality in all 50 states. Nine down (plus DC), they've got 41 states to go.


>>>>

 

[Samson]

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Your link =

Human Rights Campaign
Working for Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights

How the fuck is this supposed to be a Lobby for Marraige?

They are promoting Civil Marriage equality in all 50 states. Nine down (plus DC), they've got 41 states to go.


>>>>

The original post, which I will not be happy to recite, did not mention "Civil Marriage" but ONLY referred to a "Marriage Lobby" that would GAIN in power with legalized Queer Marriage.

In fact, there is no such lobby, and instead of simply admitting the obvious error, the red herring has been thrown which you've managed to swallow, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

Its icky.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

Its icky.

All sex is icky

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

Because if I know that Sally and Jane three counties over are doing the nasty...

.................... I will never be able to make love to my wife again.



>>>>

 

[ArmyCowboy]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

Because if I know that Sally and Jane three counties over are doing the nasty...

.................... I will never be able to make love to my wife again.



>>>>

I would imagine thinking about Sally and Jane doing it would make sex with the old lady easier.......

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

it redefines my (and all of society's) traditional definition of marriage....

it violates natural law and thus violates my own (and all of society's) sense of normalcy...

it validates the homosexual lifestyle....what is a sin to half of America will be taught in the public schools as being A-ok....and acceptance will be legally forced upon religious people....

need more...?

 

[Samson]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

Its icky.

I see someone has been reading his bible.



It would be the board's Belligerent Drunk.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

I'm still waiting patiently to hear from opponants of gay marriage as to how allowing gays to marry will adversely affect them.

Anyone?

it redefines my (and all of society's) traditional definition of marriage....

it violates natural law and thus violates my own (and all of society's) sense of normalcy...

it validates the homosexual lifestyle....what is a sin to half of America will be taught in the public schools as being A-ok....and acceptance will be legally forced upon religious people....

need more...?

How does it change your marriage? "traditional" man/woman marriage will not change, therefore neither will your marriage.

As for "society's sense of normalcy" (whatever the hell that means) that is ever evolving. Furthermore, no society exists where every member agrees about everything. Allowing gay marriage will still allow you to be a bigot and a homophobe.

Finally, if you believe homosexuality is a sin, don't engage in it. But in a free society, you have no right to tell gay people they cannot.