quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus We'll, if thats a genuine problem. Lets create loop-holes, or just up the anti to 10 years. He'll this way, if your not going to make children you can't get married. So by definition no gay marriage. And best part is your not discriminating against the gays, because hey, everybody is being discriminated against. I'm starting to like this idea more and more

I still would like to see your definition of "marriage" because none of the ones I've seen mention any about mandatory procreation to make the marriage valid.

quote:

Yea spot on! You got some great analogies there!

Actually I think it is a good analogy, because what you presented to St. Andrew as "individual choice" was basically that they have the "choice" to follow what you consider moral and tell them they can do or else they aren't allowed their union. Individual choice would be that they choose on their own what is morally appropriate for themselves.

quote:

What's wrong with power of attorney? You don't have to be married to do that.

Opus detailed all the aspects later on in this thread.

quote:

Its a cultural thing, gay culture has also been expected for years. I don't know if there is or isn't a direct correlation between divorce rates and gay liberalism. There might be. But gay liberalism is intertwined reflective of individual liberalism, which I think is much good for any stable society.

If there's no evidence that shows they cause marriages to fail or that gay couples raising children causes harm, what's the problem with granting them equal rights? There's other relevant resaons that have caused the divorce rate to climb, some of which are actually good, such as allowing women to work and have equal rights themselves. Many women are now financially stable to leave unhealthy relationships where they weren't in the 1950s.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Yeah, me too. The more I dig into it the more it interests me. In regards to your question, however, the answer is yes - states must honor public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of one another, in accordance to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the Constitution, and this includes marriage: http://www.answers.com/topic/full-f...d-credit-clause So in terms of a gay marriage in Mass., for example, another state like Kansas must honor the fact that they have been legally married in that other state. Therefore every other state, despite it’s own laws against gay marriage, must honor the marriage of a same sex couple if it was performed in a state where it is deemed legal, like Massachusetts. However, that does not entail that the same-sex couple receive those certain rights and benefits given to heterosexual marriages – because these rights and benefits are entailed on a Federal level, (and I believe some are entailed on a state level too, but I’m not sure). If the state of Mass. has certain rights and benefits given to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, then I don’t believe Kansas has to honor such benefits as they apply only to those state citizens. I’m not entirely certain on this but I believe this is more or less accurate. One other thing to note – the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Clinton in the late ‘90’s defines marriage to be between a man and a woman. I am uncertain as to whether or not DOMA defines heterosexual couples receiving these certain Federal rights and benefits given to those married, but I’d venture to guess that it doesn’t. I haven’t examined that particular law enough to know for sure.

Wait, so they still are recognized as being a married couple? I was told, honestly the day that I wrote that, that the marriage is no longer considered to be in place. I was told this by a former lawyer who now is the teacher of my class, and he is a very intelligent man...

Well, forget what I said than.

___________________
Died Tragically Rescuing His Family From The Wreckage Of A Destroyed Sinking Battleship

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I still would like to see your definition of "marriage" because none of the ones I've seen mention any about mandatory procreation to make the marriage valid.

man, women, sex - forever.

quote:

Actually I think it is a good analogy, because what you presented to St. Andrew as "individual choice" was basically that they have the "choice" to follow what you consider moral and tell them they can do or else they aren't allowed their union. Individual choice would be that they choose on their own what is morally appropriate for themselves.

uh huh.

No, a good analogy would be Southern shop keepers being able to segregate their establishments and people deceiding whether they would want to patron them or not...

anyway

quote:

Opus detailed all the aspects later on in this thread.

most none federal benifits (which again, if you look at why they exist it is to promote a family that raises children. A traditional family where one parent works and the other does not. this is is the origin of most the benifits), again none federal benifits can be given via power of attorney such as visitation rights, financial, estate, etc.

Basically yes I am against gays enjoying benifits that were designed for the traditional family.

quote:

If there's no evidence that shows they cause marriages to fail or that gay couples raising children causes harm, what's the problem with granting them equal rights?

There is still not enough evidence on this. One can not conclude one way or ther other of the effects of gay marriage on children, as there haven't been enough longterm peer-reviewed studies on the subject.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Ek0nomik Wait, so they still are recognized as being a married couple? I was told, honestly the day that I wrote that, that the marriage is no longer considered to be in place.

Well its all theortic to the best of my knowledge. I think most states are not honoring gay marriage (invoking the claim that the marriage of definition can not be between gays). Their argument is sort of like saying "If Kansas has a passanger driver licenses that allows you to conduct a 500 ton train in Kansas, Texas won't let you drive a train because driving a 500 ton train is by definition not a passanger driver licenses category".

Eh bad analogy, but closest I could come up with.

In theory according to the consitution however states have to honor marriages of other states.

The issue is in limbo right now (states are doing whatever they want) because this has been brought to the Supreme Court (Afterall, recall gay marriage is just recently allowed in the USA). Once say a guy who is married to a guy in Massachuttess moves with the guy to Texas, and Texas doesn't honor his marriage, he'll sue the state. It'll fail in the State court, and then the gay guy will have to bring an appeal in US Appellate courts, then if they don't like what the appellate court rules it'll go to the Supreme court.... so it'll take a while till it is decided really.

Right now, everybody is right.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus most none federal benifits (which again, if you look at why they exist it is to promote a family that raises children. A traditional family where one parent works and the other does not. this is is the origin of most the benifits), again none federal benifits can be given via power of attorney such as visitation rights, financial, estate, etc. Basically yes I am against gays enjoying benifits that were designed for the traditional family.

I agree to that... to a point. A gay couple may still raise a family, and may still need someone at home to stay with the child. However, if there are benefits which only partners of different sexes enjoy, it should only be for them. I can't think of any that exist only between different sexes however...

___________________
Died Tragically Rescuing His Family From The Wreckage Of A Destroyed Sinking Battleship

Connecticut has passed a bill which will allow same sex civil unions and grant hundreds of rights to gay couples....but they will not allow marraige.....interesting storey.....link below.....

...........................Link.........................