ADN

Your never gonna be able to stop this from happing at some point so why waste the time fighting it.You cant say one group can have benifits like tax breaks and visitation rights and another group cant.If you want to come up with a packige that gives them those rights but call it some thing other than marrige.... thats OK.I think that was the bush position durring the last election.As far as it being blessed by a church..Im sure there will always be a group willing to marry them.Thats freedom of religion...hard to fight that.
...Other topics that will dominate the news as the midterms approch...Flag burning..Prayer in school...terror threat levels very high.Funny how these issues seem to get lots of heat when elections roll around.

it won't be equal.

the legacy function of marriage is for the PRODUCTION OF OFFSPRING to strengthen a family to ensure their continuance.

it is a business arrangement

marriage became romantic around the 17th century, though the romantic undertones were often displayed beforehand. That is not nearly long enough to claim the whole import of marriage, but rather a condition of the arrangement, which is at best, ideal.

this issue is really about four kinds of people:

1. those who want the material and sentimental benefits of marriage to their same sex partner, and don't know how to get around the details.

2. those who seek to undermine the legacy value of a heterosexual relationship as a dominant factor in human society.

3. those who want to become Americans through marriage, but have no heterosexual bonds of intimacy or desire to live as a married couple (look how many people pretended to be gay to get out of the draft).

4. those unfortunate people who have a similar circumstance like that of my friend, Zie. (which is a rare case).

----------

but the real test of the whole subject is in operative sexuality.

A "man" who gets an operation to become a "woman" can marry a man after the operation.

A woman who is married to a man who has surgery to appear as a "woman" is still married after the operation.

so, the real test is the genitals, not the sexual gender overall... or Zie could easily legally marry.

----------

with those considerations, how could one actually prevent a relationship, just on the basis that it did not essentially include surgical manipulation of the genitals?


Like I said, this is not an easy subject. Which is why there should be some contingency, but one that carries the sentimental and material (i.e. modern societal) implications, and should not include rights of children, or national citizenship.

I'd say marriage has evolved since then. It's no longer just about producing offspring. Look at how many people choose not to have kids. Look at how many people with kids choose to raise them by sitting them in front of a TV. lol There are couples who can't even have kids, yet they're married. Marriage has evolved.

And the more things change, the more they stay the same...As its been mentioned, you can obtain the same benefits of a marriage witih any partner you choose, whether you marry them or not...Two people can buy a house together and not be married...You can have a will to whomever you want, you can open up all kinds of accounts with whomever you want, etc....

Now I am not so sure about gays adopting, but I'm pretty sure tha the marriage thing is superficial...

What about work benefits and pensions etc.

And why can't same-sex couples raise kids? I don't understand that...

As far as I know, or at least here in the U.S., you can claim who you want as long as they are in your household, you do not have to be married to them...

And the same sex raising kids thing...I just feel like its wrong, I can't really explain it...I know its possible, but it really just doesn't seem right to me...I guess part of the reason is that I feel homosexuality is just unnatural...If I were convinced that it wasn't really a lifestyle choice, then sure, why not...But to me it seems no different than someone who chooses to do any other unnatural thing and wants to raise a child...

Yes, it was for effect. The dog and cat comment was more about where will we stop, look at the Amsterdam problem that was mentioned above.


You need to chill, I have never given you hell for being Canadian or attacked you in any other way. Peace

You've never given me hell for being Canadian? What is that supposed to mean? :?

It doesn't matter for Canada since we already recognize same-sex marriage... I kind of figured you could claim someone when it comes to benefits, but what about the pension. If a person dies, would the surviving person get the pension even if the two were never married? Not sure if anyone has answered that yet... lol

Your smarter than a tree full of Owl's. You win, gay's get the benefits and the right to fuck up young children's mind's, not mention their reputation during their high school year's. Highschool kids can be very nasty when it comes to subject of being gay, does the word 'fag' come to mind? You need to look at the whole picture.

There there, no need to resort to name callin', werk it out in the flame threads...Please..? Otherwise...Stick to the script...

Anyways, Kramer, you can leave a pension, your coin collection, and anything else to anyone you want if you have a will...In fact, with a will, you can totally ignore yoru spouse, and give your shit away...Askin Anna Nicole, being married is not as surefire as it used to be...And pluse, I've explored this before, you can legally and without much effort give yourself all the thing affored to married couples, without being married...

When you adopt a child, so many things factor into that...Where you live, how old you are, how much money you make, etc...And this isn't the most unforgiving place in the world, people will still look at you funny as hell if you walk down the street holding hands with someone another color...Let alone of another color, of the same sex, and holding a kids hand..? Above all, you gotta consider what that does to the kid...Man, kids are the meanest people in the world...My little boy sees a man in the parking lot with a patch on his eye and goes, "Look Daddy, a pirate..!"

Man, that's some very unnecessary pressure to put on a youngster, let alone confusing...At least I'd think so...