You're changing the terms of the argument. I said exact same rights, different name. You can't imply that I'm wrong by changing what I said to mean not exactly the same rights, different name...

Because again there is no protection against that changing and civil union is a hodgepodge of laws that change from state to state.

I once agreed that civil unions were by far the best way. However the fact is it is being abused to deny homo couples their rights.

Now I am willing to say that IF Civil Unions under a supreme court full recent ruling were giving the exact same status and rights it would be fine and I think the issue would end there. But I doubt that would happen.

There is no similar protection to the term "gay marriage".

The point is, life's not fair. But we have to start somewhere...

You're not allowed within 500 ft of the lamb. She got a restraining order.

But marriage is a hodgepodge of laws that change from state to state too.

No need to argue, I think we're mostly in agreement. Yep, there are societies like that, and some even exist today on remote islands in Polynesia. However, those societies are rare because they generally don't exist where there is any kind of competition.


And I completely agree. My only point is that we tend to end up with male-dominated societies because those were the ones that survived and their biolgical nature simply carried over into the society they developed.

This tendency is observable in many species of primate. Where competition is fierce, groups of primates raid other groups, kill the males, kill the infants, and then rape the females before taking them into captivity. People are no exception, as demonstrated by the conduct of armies for most of our recorded history. Those victorious armies went on to reproduce and build societies in their own image. In short, we're the descendants of the biggest jerks the human race managed to spawn.

Again, I agree, but you're putting the cart before the horse in a couple of respects. For one thing, it was about having children, even when they weren't legitimate progeny. Men have had mistresses, frequented brothels, avoided commitment, and done other unseemly stuff of that nature for like, our entire history. They still do it today, even in this society, because they are the descendants of men who did such things. Men who behaved in that way had more children, and those children went on to create social structures that reflected their own natures. This is how societies get to be patriarchal. It's biology and evolution that make societies and cultures they way they are.

That said, you're completely right about the controlling the mother bit. Like I said, we're the descendants of jerks, and boys, jerks or not, have the testosterone and the accompanying tendency to just drag women along with them, through force if need be.

Excellent observations, and yet again, I agree.

Um...yes and no. I'd say it's more about competition for resources than guarantee of paternity, but both ultimately amount to the same thing as the former necessitates the latter, so no argument from me.

The first problem is that "Marriage" isn't a federal issue. Its a civil issue between the people involved. It doesn't concern you or me or joe and jane smith down the street unless we are the ones getting married, and it only concerns federal entities because they want to have as much ability as they can to weasel their way into your wallet or pocketbook.

Personally - I think "gay marriage" is a crock - both on a moral level and as a legal issue. However, the reality of the fact is that its not my right or responsibility to impose my morals on anyone. What two (adult, consenting) people choose to do in the privacy of their own home is the business of no one else.

Yet the reality is that there is nothing stopping a gay couple from drawing up a civil contract that equates (in rights and responsibilities) to marriage. Yet they CHOOSE not to do this. Why? Because they want to change society - make society conform to their views. Which is just as bad as the majority seeking to require them to conform to the majority view.

This is not about "equal rights" and never has been. Its about changing the moral and societal structure of civilization.

Marriage is a religious term. Its origin are in religion. No "traditional", mainstream religion supports homosexuality. Thus, to try to state that something is a marriage when the foundations of the word say it cannot be - is nothing mroe than an attempt to seperate the action with its root. In essence - cutting down the tree that has been one of the pillars of society for eons.

There is no "good" answer on this question - but the best one out there is to leave it as a states rights issue - but that would require a change in the Full Faith and Credit laws as well.

Correct.

and also because it's a legal standing that's recognized under law.

You are absolutely correct.

Except for the fact that many states will not recognize the validity of that contract

When a citizen's rights are being abridged then yes society should change. The minority is taking no rights away from the majority if gay marriage is recognized, so this is irrelevant.

Yes it is. To give a group of citizens the same right to marry whom they're romantically attached to as everyone else enjoys. Yes, society should change. Also, your morals are irrelevant. We've been over this.

Completely irrelevant as government is secular. So annul the marriage of every atheist or agnostic because they don't buy into your "marriage is a religious thing" argument. Unless you're grasping at straws to find an argument against gay marriage.

14th Amendment very clearly says it's not a state's right issue: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Please define "Constitutional right".

On that I have to disagree. There is ample evidence that people were getting married long before any church got involved, and that marriage wasn't originally considered sacred but necessary.

SCOTUS disagrees:

Meaning that it's innate and doesn't need to be granted to us by the Constitution. What the states are trying to do is restrict and deprive humans of their innate rights - and why those laws will ultimately be struck down.

But they have a long history of perverting what the Constitution really means. :D

Yep Marriage was basicly a business contract.

With benefits. :yep::rotfl2:

For awhile at least. :nope:

so. now you rat :haha:rse barfstages mad me read this entire thread.
my moment to say sumpting.:timeout:

good on yall folks with an open mind on the subject. I am with ya. let them "marry" on a legal level:up:

good on ya folks with a more classic mindset on the subject. i am with ya. gays and lesbians --> maried??? give me hair standing up in my neck. it just seems weird to me. :down:

entertaining discussion, reading this :doh: me, but taught me a few new popints of View:|\\

Thank you, all involved.
:rock: