Same-sex couples begin marrying

USFREEDOM911 said:
You are incorrect; because two people who love each other, who are violating no laws, should be allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

Marriage or lack or marriage is irrelevant isn't it....two people can love each other, have sex, live together, share everything they have, etc....without marriage....nothing'
is preventing any of that.
 
NOVA said:
Marriage or lack or marriage is irrelevant isn't it....two people can love each other, have sex, live together, share everything they have, etc....without marriage....nothing'
is preventing any of that.
Click to expand...

No, it is not irrelevant. It is relevant because the gov't gives 1,400+ benefits to one set and denies the other set access to those same benefits.
 
NOVA said:
They probably go baaaaaa and hee haw....idiot....:palm:

(man this thread is stupid)
Click to expand...

I have continued to talk about consenting adult humans. You interject the ridiculous bit about sheep & mules. If this thread is stupid it is because imbeciles like you have brought the stupidity to the discussion rather than any intelligent discourse.
 
NOVA said:
They probably go baaaaaa and hee haw....idiot....:palm:

(man this thread is stupid)
Click to expand...

You are the moron that introduced this idiotic line of reasoning.

A child can't legally consent and they can quite clearly communicate their desire.
 
NOVA said:
Marriage or lack or marriage is irrelevant isn't it....two people can love each other, have sex, live together, share everything they have, etc....without marriage....nothing'
is preventing any of that.
Click to expand...

They are not able to have the same benefits (which were pointed out in a different post) as a hetrosexual couple.
By your reasoning, all marriages should be terminated and no more should be done.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
They are not able to have the same benefits (which were pointed out in a different post) as a hetrosexual couple.
By your reasoning, all marriages should be terminated and no more should be done.
Click to expand...
From a governmental standpoint, I agree with this. Get marriage out of the public forum and leave it to various organizations who can do it for religious, personal, etc... reasons. Then, have a contract of domestic partnership that is valid between any two consenting and legally responsible adults. The sexual relationship or lack thereof should have nothing to do with the contract. It is none of the governments business.
 
Independent said:
From a governmental standpoint, I agree with this. Get marriage out of the public forum and leave it to various organizations who can do it for religious, personal, etc... reasons. Then, have a contract of domestic partnership that is valid between any two consenting and legally responsible adults. The sexual relationship or lack thereof should have nothing to do with the contract. It is none of the governments business.
Click to expand...

OH; but wait.
It's the Government who have all those pesky rules regarding surviorship, inheritance, medical procedures, etc.
Easier to just allow them the same benefits that come from marriage.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OH; but wait.
It's the Government who have all those pesky rules regarding surviorship, inheritance, medical procedures, etc.
Easier to just allow them the same benefits that come from marriage.
Click to expand...
Yes. That would be the effect but it would be done in a way that those who do not agree with "gay marriage" would not have to feel as if they are being forced to agree to something that is against their moral beliefs. The sexual relations of the domestic partners simply would not and should not be a factor in the domestic partnership agreement.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OH; but wait.
It's the Government who have all those pesky rules regarding surviorship, inheritance, medical procedures, etc.
Easier to just allow them the same benefits that come from marriage.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have had to point this out to a lot of libertarians. Unless we privatize the courts, the government will be involved in marriage.
 
Independent said:
Yes. That would be the effect but it would be done in a way that those who do not agree with "gay marriage" would not have to feel as if they are being forced to agree to something that is against their moral beliefs. The sexual relations of the domestic partners simply would not and should not be a factor in the domestic partnership agreement.
Click to expand...

They don't have to feel that way with gay marriage now. Do they agree with open marriages?
 
Independent said:
Yes. That would be the effect but it would be done in a way that those who do not agree with "gay marriage" would not have to feel as if they are being forced to agree to something that is against their moral beliefs. The sexual relations of the domestic partners simply would not and should not be a factor in the domestic partnership agreement.
Click to expand...

No one said that they HAD to agree with it. They can disagree all they want.
I never did like the guy that one of my daughters married and didn't agree with it; but it was, what it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top