Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by francois, Jul 9, 2010.
It's the legal rights part of the legalized gay marriage and social acceptance.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
sorry for accidental double post.
What is gay marriage about?
Social acceptability and legal rights. But why only gay marriages? What about other alternative lifestyles and sexualities? There are bisexuals out there. What if two men want to marry each other and a woman? What if one woman wants to marry four men? Or one man four women? Shouldn't they have that right as well?
that Probably answers a few questions lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Emil: In answer to the following.
Medical coverage provided by an employer covers a spouse & dependent children. It does not cover parents, siblings, or adult children.
The above & being allowed to file a joint income tax return are two financial advantages of marriage.
It seems to me that such perks should either be denied to married folks or allowed for others committed to caring for each other.
As mentioned in a previous post, there was a period in my life when I was unmarried & supporting my widowed mother. Many decades later, there was a period when I supported my adult son.
It would have saved me a considerable amount of money if I had the financial benefits provided to married couples. Parent/child & sibling relationships can be as committed as spousal relationships.
Me too. I have siblings in the US and my parents visited and stayed for several months. The savings in insurance would have been handy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
those are good questions that any good insurance company wouldn't be jumping to answer.
No, marriage is the bringing together of a man and a women, in the eyes of God, for the perpetuation of the human race. How would they know if the women is baron until after the consummation of the marriage? The word Bigot is used most frequently by homosexuals to describe objectors to their lifestyle. Their views are completely set in thinking that what they are and what they do is normal just because the law states that it is. The moral law doesn't say it is normal though. It is reversed physiology. I wish I had a pound for every time I have witnessed it. Another word frequently used by homosexuals is Homophobia. It is use to frighten any of their objectors into shutting up.
Sorry, when someone mentions marriage you automatically think of a church and a bride when people talk about civil partnership you think of a registrar and the legal aspects of marriage. Touchy, very Touchy
According to you.
Ever heard of medical science? And the word (you may have read it in my post) is "barren". So what about couples who don't want children? What about couples who are too old to have children, for example widows/ widowers?
The word bigot is also used to describe people who don't actually think.
"Completely set in their thinking"? Have you looked in a mirror lately?
Edit: so how did they manage before it became legal? You seem to have problems with cause/ effect.
What "moral law"?
The problem with polygamy as a comparison
An interesting question, I'm sure. Maybe it's more viable outside the U.S. But here, gay marriage is a question of equal protection according to sex discrimination. The Equal Protection Clause does not address the idea of numbers, so polygamy will be a different argument entirely. Meanwhile, I would invite you, or anyone, actually, to fashion a divorce settlement that is both practical and equitable in consideration of a polygamous arrangement.
excuse me but, does anyone else here think these comments are off topic, or is it just me?
in order for us to discuss the topic of this thread, what gay marriage is about, we first have to agree on what gay marriage is. if you don't even think that gay marriage is attainable, per your definition of what marriage is, i fail to see how your comments are appropriate here.
if you would like to discuss what defines marriage according to your personal beliefs, i think that would be a great topic, but it doesn't belong here.
in this thread, am i correct to assume that we're discussing the gay marriage that does in fact exist, and is a legality?
6 replies answering a off topic subjects sound on topic
No, according to marriage that is performed in a church not according to me
I notice you fail to answer any of my other points.
Why would someone have a medical examination to ascertain whether they are baron or not before getting married.
No, Bigot means - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. You are talking about someone who is dead
I do look in the mirror but cannot remember if I do it frequently or every now and then. What has that got to do with anything.
The moral law is the natural law. i.e. if it does not comply with it's intended or designed use then it contravenes the natural law
That is because I am not understanding what you are saying because you seem to be using a different language to mine. It is the language of insult and I don't understand it that well
i don't think that's the criteria the mods use.
I'll try again, and maybe you should learn to read.
So does this mean that barren couples (as explained above) or people who don't intend to have children should not be allowed to get married?
Um, to see if they can have children. You've never heard of anyone being checked over before they got married?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...age" fertility tests&meta=&btnG=Google Search
You also stated:
So how did they think before the law was changed?
Exactly: do you ever notice that you fit this description:
What utter nonsense.
Firstly you're assuming there's an "intended or designed" "use", secondly you're assuming that we can actually contradict nature - how do you explain all the occurrences of of homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Do ducks pass laws in favour of gay relationships? Giraffes? Other animals? And thirdly you're assuming there's some sort of "moral law". Morality is not the same as legality, nor is morality handed down from some incontrovertible source.
Sorry for the late reply.
I'm confused...are you saying that you think it's dumb to be angry about being discriminated against? Have you ever had to face discrimination? If you haven't then I guess I understand the lack of empathy but otherwise it seems like a very odd thing to say.
It's only a matter of time before it's called a marriage and the word "Civil Union" becomes another stupid blunder in our history books. Again I ask you....why call it something other than what it is?
Separate names with a comma.