Same sex weddings could be economic boon?

[DREDIOCK]

How is agreeing to be monogamous with one person for the rest of your life (marriage)

You can do that without getting married or calling it marriage.

[Ack-Ack]

Maybe it's really upsetting for those who were born and raised in 2nd half or 3/4ths of the 20th century.

Or maybe they should mind their own business *shrug*


ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Well, so am I (your last line), however this is a political issue, the gays just wanted to disrespect the religious sect. They already have civil unions, etc. (shrugs)

Next on Oprah, obese civil rights and Man/Sheep marriages, brought to you by a Progressive America.

Since when is marriage exclusively a right for the religious?  Why does it get the churches all upset at a civil marriage between two people of the same sex?  If your church is against it fine but there is no reason to deny someone a civil right to marry the one they love, regardless of sexual orientation.  No one is forcing any church to marry people of the same sex, it's just giving these people a right to a civil marriage, something we heterosexuals enjoy.  So the question is, why discriminate?

I also find it funny how people equate same sex marriages to somehow opening the door for human/animal marriages, condoning pedophilia and other crap like that.  Truly the argument for the weak and simple minded.


ack-ack

[Jackal1]

Sad times in the U.S. when "marriage" is thrown in the trash for back seat boogy boyz.

[lazs2]

I have nothing against gays getting married..  they always could.. they just needed to follow the rules and marry someone of the opposite gender.

What they are trying to do is horn in on something that is already established with it's own rules.

I really don't understand why they didn't work to make their own form of marriage.. just lazy leeches I guess.

It will be a boon for lawyers and skip chasers but it will clog the courts... the burden of increased benifiets for this new "marriage" will of course.. come down to us.   

So.. what are the rules now?   Isn't multiple partner marriages discrimination?   Don't they love each other and.. at least they can provide a family with both genders.    Why not sexless marriage?  marriage between close relatives to get the tax and other bennies?

They, the gays,  are just lazy leeches and whiners to me.  they don't want the wedding gown.. they want the money.

lazs

[lazs2]

The lamest arguement is ack acks that somehow..  marriage to one other person regardless of gender is now the norm and everything else is off the table.

If you can't discriminate based on gender.. if "love" is the only qualification.. why should number or relationship have anything to do with it?  Why not marry your daughter or son that you are raising in a sexless marriage in order to get the benifiets?

Those who tout gay marriage as something special to be given special rights are hypocrites.  They are just lazy leeches who want special privilidges.. and exception to the rules just for them.

lazs

[Carrel]

They are just lazy leeches who want special privilidges.. and exception to the rules just for them.

lazs

Special privledges Lazs? Or equal rights?

[midnight Target]

Re: Civil Unions, the SC ruled long ago that separate but equal is NOT equal. Funny how the exact same arguments were used to fight against mixed race marriages as recently as 1968.

[Elfie]

Since when is marriage exclusively a right for the religious?  Why does it get the churches all upset at a civil marriage between two people of the same sex?  If your church is against it fine but there is no reason to deny someone a civil right to marry the one they love, regardless of sexual orientation.  No one is forcing any church to marry people of the same sex, it's just giving these people a right to a civil marriage, something we heterosexuals enjoy.  So the question is, why discriminate?

I also find it funny how people equate same sex marriages to somehow opening the door for human/animal marriages, condoning pedophilia and other crap like that.  Truly the argument for the weak and simple minded.


ack-ack

That will happen. Sooner or later some gay or lesbian couple will sue a church because they feel they have the right to a church wedding and some liberal judge will side with them and set a precedent.

[Elfie]

Re: Civil Unions, the SC ruled long ago that separate but equal is NOT equal. Funny how the exact same arguments were used to fight against mixed race marriages as recently as 1968.

Strawman there. Homosexuals have always had the option to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The definition of marriage according to Websters dictionary.

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

That has been the definition of marriage for literally thousands of years. Now a few homosexuals want to change that definition.

[midnight Target]

Strawman there. Homosexuals have always had the option to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The definition of marriage according to Websters dictionary.

That has been the definition of marriage for literally thousands of years. Now a few homosexuals want to change that definition.

In 1967 you would have written that black people have every right in the world to marry as long as they are other black people.

[slipknot]

In 1967 you would have written that black people have every right in the world to marry as long as they are other black people.

1967?

You mean that rule doesn't apply today?

Crazy.

[Carrel]

I went to a lesbian wedding yesterday- they didn't serve alcohol because they couldn't get a liquor license.

[Torque]

well... i think they have a legitimate gripe... why should gays be forced to subsidize heterosexual marriages.

[lazs2]

torque.. the reason any of us are "forced" to subsidize hetrosexual marriage is because the union of a man and a woman is the best and most stable form for raising future generations.   You are subsidizing the future..

lazs