Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless
Anyone can find a religion to marry them. The problem is our LAWS recognize 'some marriages' as legal and others as 'non legal.' A legal marriage means your spouse is protected from testifying against you by marital privilege, can get access to your family health coverage, has rights if you die without a will, can visit you in the hospital if you are in an accident... a non-legal marriage doesn't give a person any of those same rights.
Before you suggest we make a 'civil union' law that gives the same rights but is not a marriage... keep in mind we already tried 'separate but equal' with black people and it failed miserably back in the 1960s.
If you want to take away all legal rights given to married people under our Laws, great. If you want to give the SAME legal rights to anyone married to anyone else under our laws, great. What you can not do is give some married people legal rights and not give other married people the same legal rights. That much should be very clear to anyone born after the 1700s  |
I'm not suggesting 'civil unions'. I'm suggesting the government gets out of the marriage business and calls it what they really see it as. Partnerships. That's it.
BTW, skin color and sexual preference are two completely different things. I can choose to be homosexual if I desire (don't go all flame on me, I already admitted I know plenty of "born gay" people. I also know plenty of ones that chose to be that way as well. Also, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a "born gay" person could lead a life as a heterosexual, just as it's perfectly reasonable to assume that I could lead a gay lifestyle if I chose to). I however cannot choose to be a black man. It's just not possible. The argument has to be seen differently due to that fact alone. A black man being discriminated for skin color is a terrible thing. Being told you cannot marry someone due to sexual preference and receive benefits??? As I said before, I agree that they should be able to get the same treatment having it seen as a partnership. The definition of "marriage" at that point becomes immaterial. Two people joined together in a partnership in order to achieve specific goals that they could not achieve singularly. That's an equal definition of a partnership and a marriage. Why not just get away from the hot topic and make everyone happy? Give marriage back to the people in the marriage business.
Arguing equality???? Hah.. fix my tax rates and then lets talk about equality for everyone. When I stop getting fucked up the ass because I make decent money and someone else doesn't I'll be happy to help them convince other people that "marriage" should be an equal right for everyone. "Progressive tax" rates are just legalized theft, nothing more. If you want equality, try full equality, not just selective.
As I said, marriage isn't a game the gov't should be playing. It's a political hot topic so it helps people get elected or not. Stop the shell game is what I suggest. Get out of the game and just deal with the contractual side of things. Make that equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCrayon
well if you want to be like that all sex and all sex acts except penis in vagina for the purpose of reproduction is unnatural.
|
From that standpoint, yes, you are absolutely correct. You won't convince the majority of Americans otherwise.