Seamaiden
Well-Known Member
LMAO! A sense of humor DOES exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I've actually been discussing this issue with some of the locals. And I have come to a conclusion: If we cannot, legally, afford homosexuals the same rights, liberties, and enjoyments as those who are married as "husband and wife", then we must change the laws pertaining to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Because a LOT of people are really stuck on this "yeah, but marriage is a man + woman = children thing, that's just how it's always been." And I understand and accept that marriage has always been a religiously based covenant between a man and a woman. But, tradition gives no one the right to remove rights from people who've committed no crimes.
Thusly, the sticking point seems to be upon one word -- marriage. Change the word and a lot more people seem to accept the idea of homosexuals bonding and naming next of kin (not all, but a lot). However, the word has a legal definition and meaning that is more and beyond that of civil union or domestic partnership (and has nothing to do with power of attorney). This is the only other way I see to resolve this issue. Don't want to change the definition of marriage? Fine, then change what CUs and PDs encompass.
How's that?
Yay!!!!No on 8!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am able to make the distinction between that which is chosen and that which is not. Quite a few pages back I put up supporting scientific evidence that homosexuality is not only NOT chosen, but that there are very real observable differences in brain structure between homosexuals and heterosexuals.Are you attempting to patronize me? I wouldn't hold anything against cops if they didn't fuck with me and my friends and typically make a mockery of all that the job is supposed to do in a way that affects my life. race, sexuality and all the other personal things mean nothing to me. Noody has yet mentioned any way that their own life has been emptied of friends or in any way been affected because of gay people. Untill someone has real evidence to use that has to do with personal freedom or something that really affects their own world then there is no way you can compare my hate for cops with someone elses hate for gay people. Also, gay people are just gay because of whatever and can't really help it.. same with race. The cops choose their own path.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I've actually been discussing this issue with some of the locals. And I have come to a conclusion: If we cannot, legally, afford homosexuals the same rights, liberties, and enjoyments as those who are married as "husband and wife", then we must change the laws pertaining to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Because a LOT of people are really stuck on this "yeah, but marriage is a man + woman = children thing, that's just how it's always been." And I understand and accept that marriage has always been a religiously based covenant between a man and a woman. But, tradition gives no one the right to remove rights from people who've committed no crimes.
Thusly, the sticking point seems to be upon one word -- marriage. Change the word and a lot more people seem to accept the idea of homosexuals bonding and naming next of kin (not all, but a lot). However, the word has a legal definition and meaning that is more and beyond that of civil union or domestic partnership (and has nothing to do with power of attorney). This is the only other way I see to resolve this issue. Don't want to change the definition of marriage? Fine, then change what CUs and PDs encompass.
How's that?