Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[The Professor]

A marriage is between a man and a woman. You would be changing the meaning of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.
Once you change the interpretation of marriage, then you can redefine it once again to have more than one partner down the road, because marriage is no longer between a man and a woman....it's never changed before and once it has, it can keep changing.

I sure don't want to hear that it could never happen, because 40 years ago we all thought that having it changed to same sex could never happen.


Civil Unions could get everything that the gay community could ever want.

Actually thousands of years ago, and actually to this day in many parts of the world, marriage was already considered one man and many women.



>>>>

Which book in the Bible states this?

According to the Old Testament, it was not that uncommon for a man to have more than one wife. The following verses are from the KJV:

“And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart” (1 Kings 11:3, speaking of Solomon)

“And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife” (Genesis 16:3).

“And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also” (Genesis 29:20-28).

“And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah” (Genesis 4:19).

“And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives” (Judges 8:30).

“Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite: And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children” (1 Samuel 1:1-2).

“And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife. David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives” (1 Samual 25:42-43) …. "And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David” (2 Samuel 5:13).

“And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah” (1 Chronicles 4:5).

“And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters” ( 2 Chronicles 11:21).

The Old Testament appeared to require multiple wives in one particular situation; that is one a man died childless but had a living brother: “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The verse says the dead man's brother will take his widow to wife. Since the verse does not specify that the living brother be unmarried, it seems the obligation applied to any brother whether single or married.

However, there is one verse in the Old Testament which makes me doubt how multiple marriages could have been sanctioned, and it is this: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). I cannot conceive how a man could be one flesh with multiple women simultaneously.

As for the New Testament, I cannot find an instance of a man having more than one wife. However, some Bible critics use the following verses to show that Christians could have more than one wife: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2) and “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Timothy 3:12). These Bible critics opine that the requirement that Bishops and Deacons have one wife would not have to be stated if all men were held to the same standard. Christians offer a number of arguments against these critics, one being that the cited scripture means that Bishops and Deacons cannot be divorced.

I have provided what I believe to be relevant Bible verses. I am convinced that the Old Testament shows a practice of polygamy, although I have found no such practice described in the New Testament.

Edited to correct spelling (capitalization)

 

[Cowman]

Marriage isn't civil, its divine, thats the mistake you and others have made about marriage. Marriage is only for churches, it got twisted up somewhere along the lines by retards.

For this issue, marriage is purely civil. If you want your marriage blessed by a divinity there are ceremonies you can undergo for that purpose, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal benefits the condition of being married brings. God does not get involved with medical decisions, tax benefits or probate.

Civil unions are civil, MARRIAGE itself is divine and between a man and woman, therefore gays who have a civil union with all the same rights as a marriage are not being discriminated against nor do they have unequal rights, if the argument is over a fucking word you gays and gay activists are fucking retards arguing over stupid shit.

Explain to me how marriage is divine? And who made it divine? Oh right man... and man can make it not divine.

I don't think you know the history and reality of marriage.

All marriage has ever been is a social union and legal contract. Often to benefit the families more than the married partners.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, marriage is divine, its been hijacked into something civil, so technically what they call marriage in America has been corrupted into glorified civil unions. Marriage belongs to churches and was always man and woman thing. Whats the fucking problem with having civil unions for gays if they contain all the rights of a marriage? No claim of discrimination can be made.

Marriage is not divine. It has been hiacked by people who wish to turn it into something it is not. It is a legal contract, has always been a legal contract and it has never been anything but a legal contract. If you wish to pretend it is something else., if you wish to pretend that people who were not married in a manner you approve are not really married, you are free to do so. You can pretend anything you like. But so long as marriage continues to be a legal contract then it should be available to everyone equally. Anything else is discrimination.

legally, in this country, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so you can pretend whatever you like, but that is a fact. The courts will end up morphing the word marriage, and when the polygamists challenge the morphed word, marriage again will have to be changed.

This is untrue. There are several states, in this country, where there is same sex marriage. Like it or not, that is the way it is going. It is only a matter of time.

Frankly, I see no reason to ban polygamy either. If multiple adults wish to be married, that is there business. The government should not be dictating to people how they wish to live their lives.

 

[PratchettFan]

It is the little deaths that eventually steal away the freedoms we hold.

Ignoring reality does not change reality.

accepting lies is the road to enslavement. When you accept that government is the source of your liberty, you have given them utter control over your life.

Stop being a warrior for the oppressive government and start being an American who defends his or her rights to the bitter end.

Oh please. Take your macho bullshit to someone who cares.

 

[Freewill]

Why does anyone need validation from society?

I would think that gays could enter into any contract they think they need to with their partner.

But, in my opinion, that is not what they want. They want what they believe validated by the population in general. Kinda of sad when one thinks about it. There is nothing stopping anyone from loving anyone else. Marriage doesn't make someone love any one any more then they already do. The marriage contract was made to protect the woman, that is not required in Gay marriage, in my opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

legally, in this country, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so you can pretend whatever you like, but that is a fact. The courts will end up morphing the word marriage,...

This is untrue. There are several states, in this country, where there is same sex marriage. Like it or not, that is the way it is going. It is only a matter of time.

Frankly, I see no reason to ban polygamy either. If multiple adults wish to be married, that is there business. The government should not be dictating to people how they wish to live their lives.

The poster seems to have also missed that it isn't just the courts that have included same-sex couples in Civil Marriage. As a matter of fact the states that have Same-sex Civil Marriage as a function of the courts is a minority of the 10 legal entities where it is legal. The majority is a result of Legislative actions and passage of voter approved initiatives.


>>>>

 

[Political Junky]

Why does anyone need validation from society?

I would think that gays could enter into any contract they think they need to with their partner.

But, in my opinion, that is not what they want. They want what they believe validated by the population in general. Kinda of sad when one thinks about it. There is nothing stopping anyone from loving anyone else. Marriage doesn't make someone love any one any more then they already do. The marriage contract was made to protect the woman, that is not required in Gay marriage, in my opinion.

Tell that to the woman who is suing in the Surpeme Court, because she paid $300,000.+ in inheritance taxes when her wife died. She wants it refunded, and most think she will indeed get it.

 

[Seawytch]

Why does anyone need validation from society?

I would think that gays could enter into any contract they think they need to with their partner.

But, in my opinion, that is not what they want. They want what they believe validated by the population in general. Kinda of sad when one thinks about it. There is nothing stopping anyone from loving anyone else. Marriage doesn't make someone love any one any more then they already do. The marriage contract was made to protect the woman, that is not required in Gay marriage, in my opinion.

Tell that to the woman who is suing in the Surpeme Court, because she paid $300,000.+ in inheritance taxes when her wife died. She wants it refunded, and most think she will indeed get it.

It's really kind of hysterical seeing "conservatives" defend the inheritance tax (at substantial taxpayer expense I might add). The Boehner is such a boner.

 

[Seawytch]

I have provided what I believe to be relevant Bible verses. I am convinced that the Old Testament shows a practice of polygamy, although I have found no such practice described in the New Testament.

Edited to correct spelling (capitalization)

You would also not find any New Testament condemnation of same sex consenting adult relationships. Jesus sure as hell never talked about it. He had some things to say about divorce though...

 

[tjvh]

Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it? Because they wont get Tax breaks. This is all about cheating the IRS, nothing more.

 

[Seawytch]

Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it? Because they wont get Tax breaks. This is all about cheating the IRS, nothing more.

We will when you do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does anyone need validation from society?

I would think that gays could enter into any contract they think they need to with their partner.

But, in my opinion, that is not what they want. They want what they believe validated by the population in general. Kinda of sad when one thinks about it. There is nothing stopping anyone from loving anyone else. Marriage doesn't make someone love any one any more then they already do. The marriage contract was made to protect the woman, that is not required in Gay marriage, in my opinion.

Tell that to the woman who is suing in the Surpeme Court, because she paid $300,000.+ in inheritance taxes when her wife died. She wants it refunded, and most think she will indeed get it.

It's really kind of hysterical seeing "conservatives" defend the inheritance tax (at substantial taxpayer expense I might add). The Boehner is such a boner.

That and their propensity toward authoritarianism, disdain for dissent, and fear of diversity.

 

[Political Junky]

Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it? Because they wont get Tax breaks. This is all about cheating the IRS, nothing more.

We will when you do.

Apparently, tjvh thinks he is cheating the IRS.

 

[Noomi]

Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it? Because they wont get Tax breaks. This is all about cheating the IRS, nothing more.

That must be why straight people get married.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why does anyone need validation from society?

I would think that gays could enter into any contract they think they need to with their partner.

But, in my opinion, that is not what they want. They want what they believe validated by the population in general. Kinda of sad when one thinks about it. There is nothing stopping anyone from loving anyone else. Marriage doesn't make someone love any one any more then they already do. The marriage contract was made to protect the woman, that is not required in Gay marriage, in my opinion.

Tell that to the woman who is suing in the Surpeme Court, because she paid $300,000.+ in inheritance taxes when her wife died. She wants it refunded, and most think she will indeed get it.

It's really kind of hysterical seeing "conservatives" defend the inheritance tax (at substantial taxpayer expense I might add). The Boehner is such a boner.

Hey, it's what gays keep saying they want, equality under the law. Well, guess what, if she had inherited from a husband, she would have to pay the taxes. I can hardly wait until all these committed and devoted same gender couples start flooding the divorce courts.

 

[ecinicola]

i'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

its not just the gays wanting same sex marriage legal, its the politicians scheme for getting more votes and donations. These politicians prey on the weak of mind people, to hold their jobs and get more money. Its like giving out free cell phones to make the people think they are doing great things for them.

 

[JoeB131]

i'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

its not just the gays wanting same sex marriage legal, its the politicians scheme for getting more votes and donations. These politicians prey on the weak of mind people, to hold their jobs and get more money. Its like giving out free cell phones to make the people think they are doing great things for them.

So you'd rather just have politicians who take care of the rich and screw the rest of us?

Let get a reality check, here.

For years, the GOP has played to the Homophobic, religious idiot base, getting them to vote against their own economic interests by getting them upset about bullshit that doesn't concern them like abortion and gay marriage and prayer in school.

And then when they got into office, they proceeded to institute right to work and at will employement and free trade and obscene tax cuts to the rich.

And now the whole "Playing to the Homophobic goons" schtick ain't working. Maybe it's that young folks accept gays now. Maybe it's that stink-eye they are getting from their gay cousin across the table at Thanksgiving. But the Homophobes are getting thrown under the bus.

Couldn't happen to nicer folks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hey, it's what gays keep saying they want, equality under the law. Well, guess what, if she had inherited from a husband, she would have to pay the taxes.

You don't have to be inheriting money from a husband, the law is that you be inheriting an estate from a spouse. Edith Windsor was a legal spouse under New York law.

I can hardly wait until all these committed and devoted same gender couples start flooding the divorce courts.

I don't understand the relevance of this as there are divorces already for same- and different-sex couples. It is interesting to now though that MA which has had same-sex Civil Marriage since 2004 has the lowest incidence of divorce of any state in the union.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Tell that to the woman who is suing in the Surpeme Court, because she paid $300,000.+ in inheritance taxes when her wife died. She wants it refunded, and most think she will indeed get it.

It's really kind of hysterical seeing "conservatives" defend the inheritance tax (at substantial taxpayer expense I might add). The Boehner is such a boner.

Hey, it's what gays keep saying they want, equality under the law. Well, guess what, if she had inherited from a husband, she would have to pay the taxes. I can hardly wait until all these committed and devoted same gender couples start flooding the divorce courts.

You have no idea what is going on, do you? Edith Windsor, was legally married to her partner when she died, but because of DOMA, had to pay over $350,000 in taxes she would not have paid if she were legally married to a man. Is that really okay with you?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hey, it's what gays keep saying they want, equality under the law. Well, guess what, if she had inherited from a husband, she would have to pay the taxes.

You don't have to be inheriting money from a husband, the law is that you be inheriting an estate from a spouse. Edith Windsor was a legal spouse under New York law.

I can hardly wait until all these committed and devoted same gender couples start flooding the divorce courts.

I don't understand the relevance of this as there are divorces already for same- and different-sex couples. It is interesting to now though that MA which has had same-sex Civil Marriage since 2004 has the lowest incidence of divorce of any state in the union.


>>>>

My first observation was made because it was indicated this woman intended to sue to have her inheritance taxes refunded that were collected on the estate left to her by her wife, just like if she had a husband. Same gender equality in forming unions to take advantage of various government favors for couples also means equality when it comes to the less pleasant consequences...like paying inheritance taxes.

Your second statement implies that there are fewer divorces in MA.

Considering that in those states where same-gender unions are recognized as equal to normal marriage, same-gender unions are a recent phenomenon. Given time, your precious gays and lesbians will be crowding the courts to decide who gets the house, the big screen TV, the kids, etc. I wonder how spousal support will be divvied up?