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

[WorldWatcher]

Those things don't normalized your sexual identity because they have no attachment to sexual identity, marriage does.

Really? Your identity is in question until you're married?

you have lost the argument on its merits, wytchy. continuing to repeat the same crap over an over just makes you look foolish. might be time to cut your losses and try to save what little credibility you have left.

Compare 2000/2004
Public Opinion on Marriage Equality = Majority Opposed
Court Decisions on Marriage Equality = None
Legislatures Passing Marriage Equality = None
Referendums/Initiatives passing on the ballot supporting Marriage Equality = None
Legal Entities with Marriage Equality Laws = None


Compare 2013
Public Opinion on Marriage Equality = Majority Support
Court Decisions on Marriage Equality = Passed
Legislatures Passing Marriage Equality = Passed
Referendums/Initiatives passing on the ballot supporting Marriage Equality = Passed
Legal Entities with Marriage Equality Laws = 11 (10 States + DC with a majority of passage being by legislatures and voter ballots)



Looks like Marriage Equality is winning on the merits.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Those things don't normalized your sexual identity because they have no attachment to sexual identity, marriage does.

Really? Your identity is in question until you're married?

you have lost the argument on its merits, wytchy. continuing to repeat the same crap over an over just makes you look foolish. might be time to cut your losses and try to save what little credibility you have left.

It's not me who lost, nasty one.

 

[Seawytch]

Those things don't normalize your sexual identity because they have no attachment to sexual identity, marriage does.

Really? Your identity is in question until you're married?

No, never said that. You have reading issues. I said sexual identity is tied to marriage, the rest of the those things are sexually androgynous. Stop trying to obfuscate the conversation.

So is a civil marriage license. Only two non familial consenting adults need apply.

 

[EricTheMan]

But growing up with parents that love them...this is a good thing.

Better when they are two different sexes though. Isn't diversity great?

 

[LittleNipper]

But growing up with parents that love them...this is a good thing.

Better when they are two different sexes though. Isn't diversity great?

Homosexuals want someone to emulate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, never said that. You have reading issues. I said sexual identity is tied to marriage, the rest of the those things are sexually androgynous. Stop trying to obfuscate the conversation.

So is a civil marriage license. Only two non familial consenting adults need apply.

Depends where you live now I guess. But that doesn't dispute the fact that marriage as an act independent of government has for thousands of years been attached to sexual identity. When it became civil initially it was used to promote heterosexual couples which are the foundation of the nuclear family, being conducive to procreation.

Incorrect.

That something is perceived to be ‘traditional’ or ‘historic’ is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and is not justification to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. See: Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Moreover, gender is irrelevant given the fact marriage is a union between two equal partners, not contingent upon the ability to procreate:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Depends where you live now I guess. But that doesn't dispute the fact that marriage as an act independent of government has for thousands of years been attached to sexual identity. When it became civil initially it was used to promote heterosexual couples which are the foundation of the nuclear family, being conducive to procreation.

Moreover, gender is irrelevant given the fact marriage is a union between two equal partners, not contingent upon the ability to procreate:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether they can procreate, a heterosexual couple is the basis of a nuclear family, and should be promoted. Because more often than not, they procreate, and procreation should be promoted by any non-suicidal government.

In your subjective, irrelevant opinion, not as a fact of law.

 

[Seawytch]

No, never said that. You have reading issues. I said sexual identity is tied to marriage, the rest of the those things are sexually androgynous. Stop trying to obfuscate the conversation.

So is a civil marriage license. Only two non familial consenting adults need apply.

Depends where you live now I guess. But that doesn't dispute the fact that marriage as an act independent of government has for thousands of years been attached to sexual identity. When it became civil initially it was used to promote heterosexual couples which are the foundation of the nuclear family, being conducive to procreation.

It has been used civilly to protect property. Religiously...you don't even want to get into the changes that have happened there.

Civil marriage as it exists today has nothing to do with procreation.

 

[Seawytch]

Depends where you live now I guess. But that doesn't dispute the fact that marriage as an act independent of government has for thousands of years been attached to sexual identity. When it became civil initially it was used to promote heterosexual couples which are the foundation of the nuclear family, being conducive to procreation.

Moreover, gender is irrelevant given the fact marriage is a union between two equal partners, not contingent upon the ability to procreate:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether they can procreate, a heterosexual couple is the basis of a nuclear family, and should be promoted. Because more often than not, they procreate, and procreation should be promoted by any non-suicidal government.

We procreate too, with or without the protections of legal marriage. Tell me again why our families are not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage? What compelling state reason can you provide to deny them?

We don't deny marriage to 80 year olds (as my 95 year old grandfather can attest). We don't deny civil marriage to couples unwilling or unable to have children (as my intentionally sterilized brother and sister in law can attest). Procreation as a reason not to grant marriage equality to gays and lesbians is, of course, ridiculous as a result.

Legally we can marry in 9 states with CA to soon make it 10 so, no, marriage is not only between a man and a woman.

 

[Redfish]

Moreover, gender is irrelevant given the fact marriage is a union between two equal partners, not contingent upon the ability to procreate:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether they can procreate, a heterosexual couple is the basis of a nuclear family, and should be promoted. Because more often than not, they procreate, and procreation should be promoted by any non-suicidal government.

We procreate too, with or without the protections of legal marriage. Tell me again why our families are not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage? What compelling state reason can you provide to deny them?

We don't deny marriage to 80 year olds (as my 95 year old grandfather can attest). We don't deny civil marriage to couples unwilling or unable to have children (as my intentionally sterilized brother and sister in law can attest). Procreation as a reason not to grant marriage equality to gays and lesbians is, of course, ridiculous as a result.

Legally we can marry in 9 states with CA to soon make it 10 so, no, marriage is not only between a man and a woman.

continuing to repeat a lie does not make it true. Marriage for all of human history has been the union of one man and one woman. you can call your gay hook up whatever you want, but it is not a marriage.

and as I said earlier, this debate is not about equal rights, its an attempt by the far left and the gay coalition to force the rest of us to change our definition of marriage.

It may eventually work, and society as a whole will be degraded when it does.

 

[Seawytch]

Depends where you live now I guess. But that doesn't dispute the fact that marriage as an act independent of government has for thousands of years been attached to sexual identity. When it became civil initially it was used to promote heterosexual couples which are the foundation of the nuclear family, being conducive to procreation.

It has been used civilly to protect property. Religiously...you don't even want to get into the changes that have happened there.

Civil marriage as it exists today has nothing to do with procreation.

Very astute observation, it was initiated to protect property, that was also at a time where homosexual couldn't be married and churches or be recognized by law.

Yea, nothing to do with procreation, that is why they have given tax breaks for children and married couple, sure thing buddy.

I say again, civil marriage as it exist today, has nothing to do with procreation. I get the tax breaks for our kids whether we're married or not. Married folks get the tax breaks whether they procreate or not. (Except the gay ones)

 

[Redfish]

It has been used civilly to protect property. Religiously...you don't even want to get into the changes that have happened there.

Civil marriage as it exists today has nothing to do with procreation.

Very astute observation, it was initiated to protect property, that was also at a time where homosexual couldn't be married and churches or be recognized by law.

Yea, nothing to do with procreation, that is why they have given tax breaks for children and married couple, sure thing buddy.

I say again, civil marriage as it exist today, has nothing to do with procreation. I get the tax breaks for our kids whether we're married or not. Married folks get the tax breaks whether they procreate or not. (Except the gay ones)

you and your partner should be able to file a joint tax return. I have no issue with that. your mutual committment should be recognized as long as you both have legally agreed to it-----------but its not a marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether they can procreate, a heterosexual couple is the basis of a nuclear family, and should be promoted. Because more often than not, they procreate, and procreation should be promoted by any non-suicidal government.

We procreate too, with or without the protections of legal marriage. Tell me again why our families are not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage? What compelling state reason can you provide to deny them?

We don't deny marriage to 80 year olds (as my 95 year old grandfather can attest). We don't deny civil marriage to couples unwilling or unable to have children (as my intentionally sterilized brother and sister in law can attest). Procreation as a reason not to grant marriage equality to gays and lesbians is, of course, ridiculous as a result.

Legally we can marry in 9 states with CA to soon make it 10 so, no, marriage is not only between a man and a woman.

How do you procreate?
Has there been a new scientific breakthrough I am not aware of?

Apparently. Artificial insemination has been around for decades and IVF pretty long too. Adoption? Surely you've heard of adoption?

Because you don't have families.

We do. Over 40,000 kids are being raised by same sex couples in CA alone.

Homosexual couples do not constitute the foundation of the nuclear family. Families are created upon this foundation, and nothing else. Marriages primary purpose throughout history was to unite a man and woman to create a family, that is just a fact.

Families have a lot broader definition than you allow for and no, marriage has not been, historically, about creating families, but alliances. Why do you think the Catholic Church forbade their priests to marry? Property.

Those are extreme exceptions to the rule, it doesn't mean the general rule doesn't apply. Those that can't have children generally adopt, and can create the traditional nuclear family.

No, those are very real examples on why you cannot base legal marriage on an ability to procreate.

 

[Seawytch]

Very astute observation, it was initiated to protect property, that was also at a time where homosexual couldn't be married and churches or be recognized by law.

Yea, nothing to do with procreation, that is why they have given tax breaks for children and married couple, sure thing buddy.

I say again, civil marriage as it exist today, has nothing to do with procreation. I get the tax breaks for our kids whether we're married or not. Married folks get the tax breaks whether they procreate or not. (Except the gay ones)

you and your partner should be able to file a joint tax return. I have no issue with that. your mutual committment should be recognized as long as you both have legally agreed to it-----------but its not a marriage.

You've lost the semantics battle, but you will always be able to belong to a religion or church that discriminates. The government cannot be allowed to.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether they can procreate, a heterosexual couple is the basis of a nuclear family, and should be promoted. Because more often than not, they procreate, and procreation should be promoted by any non-suicidal government.

We procreate too, with or without the protections of legal marriage. Tell me again why our families are not deserving of the rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage? What compelling state reason can you provide to deny them?

We don't deny marriage to 80 year olds (as my 95 year old grandfather can attest). We don't deny civil marriage to couples unwilling or unable to have children (as my intentionally sterilized brother and sister in law can attest). Procreation as a reason not to grant marriage equality to gays and lesbians is, of course, ridiculous as a result.

Legally we can marry in 9 states with CA to soon make it 10 so, no, marriage is not only between a man and a woman.

continuing to repeat a lie does not make it true. Marriage for all of human history has been the union of one man and one woman. you can call your gay hook up whatever you want, but it is not a marriage.

and as I said earlier, this debate is not about equal rights, its an attempt by the far left and the gay coalition to force the rest of us to change our definition of marriage.

It may eventually work, and society as a whole will be degraded when it does.

Wrong.

History of Same Sex Marriages

Taking a 'Husband'-A History of Gay Marriage

No, it's about equal rights. Go ahead and change marriage to civil unions for all and everything will be fine.

 

[bodecea]

Very astute observation, it was initiated to protect property, that was also at a time where homosexual couldn't be married and churches or be recognized by law.

Yea, nothing to do with procreation, that is why they have given tax breaks for children and married couple, sure thing buddy.

I say again, civil marriage as it exist today, has nothing to do with procreation. I get the tax breaks for our kids whether we're married or not. Married folks get the tax breaks whether they procreate or not. (Except the gay ones)

you and your partner should be able to file a joint tax return. I have no issue with that. your mutual committment should be recognized as long as you both have legally agreed to it-----------but its not a marriage.

Sure it is...just like mine is a marriage.

 

[Redfish]

I say again, civil marriage as it exist today, has nothing to do with procreation. I get the tax breaks for our kids whether we're married or not. Married folks get the tax breaks whether they procreate or not. (Except the gay ones)

you and your partner should be able to file a joint tax return. I have no issue with that. your mutual committment should be recognized as long as you both have legally agreed to it-----------but its not a marriage.

You've lost the semantics battle, but you will always be able to belong to a religion or church that discriminates. The government cannot be allowed to.

You are not discriminated against today. you have the same civil rights as anyone else. marriage is NOT a civil right.

no matter how you spin it, gay marriage is not a protected right under the constitution.

Just sign your civil union or mutual support contract and be done with it. That will get you what you want in term of survivors rights, insurance, inheritence etc.

But thats not your real goal now is it? Please tell the truth for just once and answer that question honestly.

 

[Redfish]

I say again, civil marriage as it exist today, has nothing to do with procreation. I get the tax breaks for our kids whether we're married or not. Married folks get the tax breaks whether they procreate or not. (Except the gay ones)

you and your partner should be able to file a joint tax return. I have no issue with that. your mutual committment should be recognized as long as you both have legally agreed to it-----------but its not a marriage.

Sure it is...just like mine is a marriage.

here's an idea, you and your male partner hook up with wytch and her female partner. You could have a 4 way "marriage" think of the possible sexual positions and variations.

 

[Seawytch]

How do you procreate?
Has there been a new scientific breakthrough I am not aware of?

Apparently. Artificial insemination has been around for decades and IVF pretty long too. Adoption? Surely you've heard of adoption?



We do. Over 40,000 kids are being raised by same sex couples in CA alone.



Families have a lot broader definition than you allow for and no, marriage has not been, historically, about creating families, but alliances. Why do you think the Catholic Church forbade their priests to marry? Property.

Those are extreme exceptions to the rule, it doesn't mean the general rule doesn't apply. Those that can't have children generally adopt, and can create the traditional nuclear family.

No, those are very real examples on why you cannot base legal marriage on an ability to procreate.

Artificial insemination isn't procreation, the gays on their own cannot create a child, that is actually procreate. Sorry, you need someone of the opposite sex for that, always will.

Adoption isn't procreation, but I strongly support heterosexual couples who cant conceive adopting children thus forming a nuclear family. Gays can certainly adopt, but it isn't a family, because there isn't a mother and father. One being fem and one being butch does not equal different genders.

No one said those examples aren't real. But they are outliers, and irrelevant to he main purpose of marriage, which is to procreate.

I'm sorry, you don't get to define family. We are a family, my partner, children and I...legally and emotionally.

They aren't outliers.

Married without children: More couples opting to be ‘childless by choice’

 

[Redfish]

Apparently. Artificial insemination has been around for decades and IVF pretty long too. Adoption? Surely you've heard of adoption?



We do. Over 40,000 kids are being raised by same sex couples in CA alone.



Families have a lot broader definition than you allow for and no, marriage has not been, historically, about creating families, but alliances. Why do you think the Catholic Church forbade their priests to marry? Property.



No, those are very real examples on why you cannot base legal marriage on an ability to procreate.

Artificial insemination isn't procreation, the gays on their own cannot create a child, that is actually procreate. Sorry, you need someone of the opposite sex for that, always will.

Adoption isn't procreation, but I strongly support heterosexual couples who cant conceive adopting children thus forming a nuclear family. Gays can certainly adopt, but it isn't a family, because there isn't a mother and father. One being fem and one being butch does not equal different genders.

No one said those examples aren't real. But they are outliers, and irrelevant to he main purpose of marriage, which is to procreate.

I'm sorry, you don't get to define family. We are a family, my partner, children and I...legally and emotionally.

They aren't outliers.

Married without children: More couples opting to be ‘childless by choice’

good for you. are you teaching your kids that being gay is as normal as being straight? Or are you teaching the normal roles of males and females ?

I am really sorry that your genes got scrambled, but please don't pass it along to any kids.