Should committed same-sex relationships be recognized by the government?

[true blood]

Aye, required offspring would be required to recieve the platinum marriage contract with full government rights and privilages. I support lesser contracts in dealing with health issues, inheritence, etc.. as well as civil contracts between lovers, and the government could insert other types of contracts for its citizens and provide alot more then what we have. I'm just suggesting that the most rights and privilages go to those who are producing and raising their own children.

 

[Pah]

Aye, required offspring would be required to recieve the platinum marriage contract with full government rights and privilages. I support lesser contracts in dealing with health issues, inheritence, etc.. as well as civil contracts between lovers, and the government could insert other types of contracts for its citizens and provide alot more then what we have. I'm just suggesting that the most rights and privilages go to those who are producing and raising their own children.

Marriage benefits are not given for the children but only to the partners of the marriage. What benefits children receive from the government are targeted by the law creating by the benefit and are irrespective of parents being married or not. Your child has never had nor will have the right to decide your medical treatment (if unable to do so yourself) until granted the privilage by a court - compared to your spouse who has the right solely by benefit of marriage with no court involved at all. Ignorance of the law usually makes for poor arguments.

It seems your scheme would change "traditional marriage" much more than what is claimed for inclusion of homosexuals in marriage. Some of the Christian Right would say "you out 'homosexual' homosexuals".

-pah-

 

[huajiro]

Wouldn't that be,"Happy Birthday Required Offspring."?

lol, yes, youre right

 

[huajiro]

Aye, required offspring would be required to recieve the platinum marriage contract

"Platinum marriage contract"?

Would it be given away on game shows, or with gym memberships? :sarcastic

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Aye, required offspring would be required to recieve the platinum marriage contract with full government rights and privilages. I support lesser contracts in dealing with health issues, inheritence, etc.. as well as civil contracts between lovers, and the government could insert other types of contracts for its citizens and provide alot more then what we have. I'm just suggesting that the most rights and privilages go to those who are producing and raising their own children.

True Blood: the plot just called,it's lost and it wants you to come get it.

 

[anders]

Any efforts to cheat the system by, for example, adoption will be revealed on the compulsory DNA test before the granting of a marriage license.

 

[huajiro]

I think you must remember that this Nation was founded on christian principles, and (unfortunatley) over the years has regressed into a secular government.

This Nation was founded on un-Christian principles (based on what my undertstanding
of what they should be). It was founded by mostly criminals and rejects (no one else would have come) who slaughtered, raped and pillaged for their own personal gain in the name of "God".

Now, studies have confirmed that children do better in a natural family setting. By natural, I mean one father, and one mother. We can see this is true even with animals. The thing is, children need both a mother, and a father to do well, and mature normally.

Children do better in any positive family setting. The more family, the better. Where children have problems is when they don't have family at all (such as my screwed up a-s). Please tell me the specifics on these studies that you have done on animals, where they have only one mother and father and do better. My understanding is that in most flocks, packs and herds, where all help bring up the offspring, they have a better chance of survival. As far as children needing a mother and a father, I agree that they need a mother and father "figure", but let me tell you that I have met some men that could be a better "mother" to you than the one youve got, and some women that can be more of a "man" than you are.

Lastly, the main reason that homosexuals want their unions to be recognized is for health benifits, etc. I truly believe it has very little to do with love, and is more like lust. I thought (before I got married) that I was in love many times, but the truth is that I was simply being satisfied sexually. Now, I'm trully in love. (with my wife) That's all for now.

How long have you been a homosexual? I would think that only a homosexual would know why they do anything and what they truly feel. I am truly in love with my wife as well, but I would never assume that any homosexual person could not feel the same love I feel. That would be very un-Christian-like behavior.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"Lastly, the main reason that homosexuals want their unions to be recognized is for health benifits, etc. I truly believe it has very little to do with love, and is more like lust. I thought (before I got married) that I was in love many times, but the truth is that I was simply being satisfied sexually. Now, I'm trully in love. (with my wife) That's all for now.
"

its a pity yours failed. but there are MANY spouses who love each other better than you did in your previous relationship. i dont know how you judge as all homosexual relationships are based on lust since sexuality extends beyond the body to a person's inner core, its part of who gays are. and they love. and they should recieve the same benefits as other concenting adult spouses are. i dont think you should be concerened what they do in thier bedroom or not. as long as they are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

 

[Bastet]

How long have you been a homosexual? I would think that only a homosexual would know why they do anything and what they truly feel. I am truly in love with my wife as well, but I would never assume that any homosexual person could not feel the same love I feel. That would be very un-Christian-like behavior.

Not to mention incredibly arrogant...

 

[Majikthise]

I know plenty of hetro couples who should never have gotten married or had children.Your sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with whether or not you can raise a child or if you can have a meaningful relationship with another human being.I was once a "homophobe" but I moved on from that way of thinking.All men and women are born equal.I guess some just think they are more equal than others.


My 2 cents

 

[Fat Old Sun]

If the fundamentalist christian activists are really so opposed to gay people having sex with each other, then it seems to me they would be at the front of the line to support gay marriage.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I have never heard a good argument for them not to, and I really can't think of one myself.

~%50 of heterosexual marriages fail- not only in the U.S., Europe and Canada is not that far behind.

Most incest, rape, and molestation, occurs among family members

Homosexuals are not going to do anything different than they already are, they just have a piece of paper, does it pick your pocket or break your leg?

Me and my wife were married (as "satanists") before we got the paper, we then went to the courthouse and got the paper. To us, that was nothing but a formality to satisfy the legalities, but we considered ourselves married whether we had a piece of paper or not.
The only thing I feel I can fault Gays for is the idiots in the forefront (that get the most media attention) that try to cast the gay community as "victims" or worthy of special treatment outside normal considerations, but I feel that probably, some gays feel the same way - my opinion anyway.

 

[retrorich]

I personally am opposed to homosexual unions, and unlike some people, see recognizing homosexual unions as regressive, not progressive. I am a christian, and I believe 100% in the word of God. The Bible is very clear in stating homosexuality as a sin.
Some might say that I'm "homophobic", but the truth is, I'm pro-family.

I consider Christianity regressive, but totally SUPPORT your right to practice it.
I consider homophobia repulsive, and totally OPPOSE the government's right to practice it.

And what exactly is "pro-family"? The only "anti-family" group I am aware of were Shakers, and they became extinct as a result of their beliefs.

 

[Pah]

Some might say that I'm "homophobic", but the truth is, I'm pro-family.

They are not incompatible.

 

[Master Vigil]

Love transcends all things phyical. Marriage is love, gender is physical. Therefore, Marriage transcends gender!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[chris9178]

Deut 32.8 said:

the question was not about what you or I might embrace or oppose, but about whether a secular government has any right to discriminate against such marriages based on your personal religious considerations, and the answer is clearly "No".

Clearly "No"? Is that a joke? What makes a person married? Is it the "I do"? No. Is it the ceremony? No. Is it the religious attendant on duty? No. Is it the govenmental laws? Yes. How do we get governmental laws? Either by elected officials (a republic), or by public vote (a democracy). Well, several states have already had votes and nearly all (if not all)of them voted down legalizing gay marriage. Most were even a landslide decision. So, to answer your question:,

....but about whether a secular government has any right to discriminate against such marriages based on your personal religious considerations...

The answer is unargueably YES. It's called popular vote AKA Democracy. If that upsets you, then tough. But to say otherwise would be ignorant, and now since you've been enlightened, disillusioned.

Now, if you want to argue for a marriage that doesn't involve the govt, then yes. Anybody is free to say they're married. You could go marry your dog for all the govt cares. But will you be recognized by the govt, with all of the "bonuses" involved? No. Will you still be married? Techincally, yes.

This is really simple high school civics stuff.

Now if you want to turn it around and say that PEOPLE shouldn't vote against gay marriage, then that's another story. But then you're telling people to vote the way you want them too, and not allowing them to have their own opinions. And that's wrong. In fact.... that woul be more like a dictatorship, wouldn't it?

 

[Bastet]

The majority should not be able to vote on the civil rights of the minority. It's called oppression. This really is simple high school civics stuff. And let me point out, that even though gays and lesbians are in the minority, we are still talking about millions of people these "democratic" votes directly affect. Nobody is asking for special treatment; just equal treatment. Who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me that I don't love my partner, just as much as a heterosexual couple loves? Who the hell are you to tell me that I don't deserve those "bonuses" involved in a legally recognised marriage? You know what one of those "bonuses" would be for me? Being able to live in the same country as my partner. Currently we're on opposite sides of the world. How do you call that fair?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now if you want to turn it around and say that PEOPLE shouldn't vote against gay marriage, then that's another story. But then you're telling people to vote the way you want them too, and not allowing them to have their own opinions. And that's wrong. In fact.... that woul be more like a dictatorship, wouldn't it?

Um, no. Telling you that gay marriage should be legal is me expressing my opinion, and people are allowed to express their opinions in this country. To find out what a dictatorship is really like, try visiting North Korea.

chris does, however, bring up a good point. Democratic government does not gaurantee freedom from oppression. A 70% majority can be just as oppressive as a single dictator.

 

[Druidus]

Excuse me, Mr. Bigot, but why should other people get to dictate what some people do, if what they do harms no one?

A few quotes that I think apply:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression."

-Thomas Paine

Now, homosexuals are not my enemies, but still the quote holds true. I must guard them from oppresion, if I am to secure myself against it.

"An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating..."

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Again, this looks like it's unjust to force homosexuals not to marry...

 

[anders]

Children do better in any positive family setting. The more family, the better. Where children have problems is when they don't have family at all

Confirmed by any number of scientific studies.

. As far as children needing a mother and a father, I agree that they need a mother and father "figure", but let me tell you that I have met some men that could be a better "mother" to you than the one youve got, and some women that can be more of a "man" than you are.

I'm not even sure that both figures are needed. My father was a merchant navy captain, and was at home very seldom, say, a couple of days every three months. I was lucky, having a wise and loving mother, and the things she rather single-handedly taught me, practically and emotionally, probably has made me at least as "good" a person as if I had had two parents (of any mixture of sexes).

How long have you been a homosexual? I would think that only a homosexual would know why they do anything and what they truly feel. I am truly in love with my wife as well, but I would never assume that any homosexual person could not feel the same love I feel. That would be very un-Christian-like behavior.

Extremely frubalizable.