Why do people want same sex marriage legalised?

1. 94

   incomeguruposted 12 years ago

   Is this normal at all?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      SimeyCposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Who am I to judge others?

      replyreport
   2. 56

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What do mean by "normal"?

      replyreport
   3. 83

      psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is normal for people it is normal for, I don't judge.

      replyreport
   4. 57

      autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I can't speak for all people but I want same sex marriage legalized because I strongly believe is equal rights. Why should I be able to get married to my loved one but my gay (insert gay relative/friend here) cannot? It's not right to me. Some people want to use the argument that it will ruin the sanctity of marriage. And affairs, abuse, divorce, publicity stunt weddings, etc. don't?

      replyreport
   5. 70

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      And, why did you put this under the category of religion and philosophy? When it's not either, but is more political and social issue.
      
      But to answer your question- because people want the freedom to live their life in any manner they choose to with regards to marriage, and regardless of what other people think.
      
      This is fine with me. Let them live however they choose to live. My problem is when the religious folk step in and say it's wrong or not normal, which means they are butting into someone's life without any true authority to do so, because it's not their life.
      
      You live your life and let other people do the same.

      replyreport
   6. 71

      AEvansposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It isn't my place to be judging what others feel or what they need to do. I believe all of us should worry about ourselves and not worry so much about tedious things. All that matters to me is that people (couples) are happy with each other. Treat each other with lots of TLC and respect each other for who they are.

      replyreport
   7. 89

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So that gay spouses can be assured of child custody rights, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, pension survivorship rights, and other things heterosexual couples take for granted.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Need you even ask?
      
      And in answer to the thread title question---
      So they can prove their power to make governments sanction the unsanctionable.

      replyreport
   9. 92

      rajan jollyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone has a free mind. I am no moral doctor.

      replyreport
2. 61

   emrldphxposted 12 years ago

   I think on one hand, you have people that want to be treated the same as everyone else.
   
   On the other hand, you have people who live in a society where 'marriage' has meant the joining of man and wife, for a very long time. They don't want people coming in and redefining something for them.
   
   I have my own opinion, but I"m not going to try and force it on anyone.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "They don't want people coming in and redefining something for them."
      
      And there was a case awhile back where a bunch of Indian men broke into the house of a social worker who had tried to prevent them from marrying off their seven year old daughters and cut off her hand. They didn't want their concept of marriage redefined either, but sometimes traditions need to be changed to create a more just society.
      
      Anyway, saying that marriage has meant the joining of man and wife for a very long time is only accurate in some cultures and some time periods. In Biblical times and in some societies even today, it was perfectly normal for a marriage to consist of man and wives. There are a few cultures where it means wife and husbands. And same sex marriages are regarded as one form of traditional marriage in some indigenous cultures around the world.
      
      Even the definition of marriage in Western culture has varied over the years. As others have pointed out, marriage used to be "man and wife of the same race." Among the upper classes for most of the last 3000 years (at least!), it was purely a political and/or financial alliance and spouses were not just expected but in many cases actively encouraged to seek extramarital love and companionship once the required "heir and the spare" were produced. Until quite recently, the traditional definition of marriage meant that the wife literally became her husband's property on their wedding day. Defining "traditional" marriage is much more complicated than just saying it's the joining of man and wife!

      replyreport
      1. 61

         emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Certainly, I mean the definition in the society we are talking about.
         
         I'm not saying anything for or against it, just what both sides think. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if someday marriage between man and beast were legalized... our society consists of so many fundamentally different backgrounds and ways of thinking, we will never please everybody and there will always be special interest groups pandering to political leaders.

         replyreport
3. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   Forty years ago the religious asked why would people of different races want to marry. They'd use the passage 'birds of a feather flock together' as justification to explain why the Lord Almighty, himself, was against interracial marriage.
   
   That's why it is dangerous to let the religious have a say in law. Any consenting adult should be allowed to enter a union with another consenting adult without others attempting to judge it.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      All law is defined by humans... we have rules on what a consenting adult is and isn't... but what is the difference between people wanting to marry interracially, people wanting to marry the same sex, and younger people wanting to marry?
      
      You could extend the argument to say we shouldn't stop 14 year-olds from marrying either.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's a bizarre argument, but I'm sure if we looked at a country where 14 year olds were considered adults; had full voting privileges, lived seperately from their parents, paid their own way etc., we'd be looking at a country where they were also deemed consenting adults and they'd be allowed to marry.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The point is, as a society, we define who can and can't get married. As with any group of people there will be disagreements. It's all about trying to make society work as best as we can, but we only govern ourselves based on the laws we make.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Oh my gosh. Is there anyone that didn't already know that?
               
               Anyone?
               
               Anyone?

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You got that talked-down too feeling too?  I thought it was just my hormones screaming.

                  replyreport
            2. 94

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "It's all about trying to make society work as best as we can"
               
               No it's not.  It's all about trying to force personal religious beliefs on everyone else.
               
               You may claim that will make society work better but that, too, is false.  You have only to look at Islamic countries to see the effect of that control.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm not talking about forcing religious issues. I'm not advocating any position. I'm saying, we consider what is 'right' and 'legal' by what we define right and legal as a society. Since we don't all agree on everything, we try to find the best compromises we can.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Gay people being denied the many tangible, emotional and spiritual benefits of marriage *is* a religious issue. They are denied this right because some people judge their relationship to be sinful according to some religion.  That is the only reason. As an atheist I cannot think of any other reason for this discrimination whatsoever. I think society suffers when families are denied full recognition of spousal and parental rights.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm not trying to force a religious issue. I said we have a society with different ideas and beliefs. Our laws are an attempt to allow us to live together as best as possible.
                        
                        As I said before, there are many types of arguments that could be made about what marriage should be. To think of one as discrimination and the other as not is unfair...
                        
                        I honestly don't care either way what happens.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Marriage in a pluralistic society should be secular. No one religion should be able to control who gets to do it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 57

                              autumn18posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I agree. I can't think of any other reason other than religious that would make people keep voting against it.

                              replyreport
                     2. 74

                        jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Actually, that is not the only reason.
                        True, the basics of all marriages are rooted in some form of theology.
                        and these principles have existed since the dawn of man.
                        They are not going to just 'go away' because a minority oft he global population 'feels' it should.
                        
                        But not one theology -not one- anywhere on the planet can override the law -even there own laws.
                        
                        In most -not all- civilized places on the planet, the civil union of equal genders is accepted. It is not promoted, nor prohibited by the law. It can't be, as the law cannot -nor should it- be swayed by 'feelings'.
                        
                        Laws of Liberty, Laws of social Development, Laws of Natural Health should all be enforced equally to all people. No individual is 'special' in the eyes of the law.
                        
                        Not one 'tangible' right is being denied any person of gender, 'gays' ( which is an discriminative/exclusionary/segregative term, btw) included. In fact, recently in Spain, Holland & the States, due to the increase of transgender individuals (nearly 8 million official worldwide), the laws have been enforced, to protect them and their rights, as individuals, among the global population. Oddly, the 'gay' community is concerned about the rise in transgender individuals, as it upsets the apple cart of there basis for marriage. an article mentioned: that since a person can now medically, naturally become an alternate gender, the concerns and phobias among traditional individuals, has been removed -or at least reduced to a socially tolerable level. And since these individuals have succeeded or are in process of completing the gender transformation process, they are equally entitled to all civil rights as individuals of society. although they may not (and this part made me laugh) claim rights to both genders. In essence, they must choose one gender or choice and accept the legal rights of that choice.
                        
                        and this makes sense. Why can't the equal gender community do the same? Especially if they want this marriage issue resolved.
                        
                        Marriage has nothing to do with a civil violation of rights and everything to due with a pissing contest between those pro/con the 'moral beliefs/ establishments' of any given theology within a or many forms of social circles. That *is* truly the issue.

                        replyreport
                  2. 94

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Semi correct.  Legal is indeed defined by society and is supposed to be an indication of what society needs.  There are good, right laws and there are bad, wrong laws.
                     
                     Right (as in the opposite of "wrong", not as in "privilege") is defined by individuals and there are approximately as many ideas of what is right as there are people.
                     
                     In this case an opinion of what is right is being used to decide what is legal.  What society needs is immaterial; the religious right is using their definition of right to write law and, as is usual when that happens, it produces a bad, wrong law.

                     replyreport
4. 59

   Disappearingheadposted 12 years ago

   Because they want to have the same recognition in society and legal rights in law that are applied to heterosexual married couples.

   replyreport
5. 83

   kerrygposted 12 years ago

   I support legalization of same sex marriages because I believe that committed homosexual couples deserve the same recognition in society and legal rights in law that are given to committed heterosexual couples. I have an aunt who's been with her wife for nearly 30 years. It's absurd that her relationship is considered less valid and less deserving of legal recognition by most states and the federal government than Kim Kardashians's ridiculous 72 day sham of a "marriage" or Britney Spears's even more ridiculous 72 hour sham of a "marriage."

   replyreport
6. 73

   Eaglekiwiposted 12 years ago

   Well it did make the news once ,that some guy wanted to marry his horse
   
   In respect to homosexuals marrying,they so in some countries,and its usually defined as a civil union ,therefore accepting their right and recognition within  civil laws etc.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It might have been to stop the horse from being kicked to death... He must have been visiting the forums a lot.  Horses are regularly kicked long after they are dead here.
      
      Seriously, how many threads are we going to have on this?  Same people spouting the same arguments.  Come on guys, a little creativity.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         how are ya MB?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I suck right now Thanks for asking.  I finally had the pain diagnosed, just for them to tell me that there is nothing that can be done about it and it will last the rest of my life.  Cool!  I get an official diagnosis so I can have it written down for the days that I am really really bitchy.

            replyreport
            1. 56

               A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Very sorry to hear that, Melissa.

               replyreport
7. 74

   jacharlessposted 12 years ago

   Legally it is really a mute issue.
   Legally two persons, who remain or occupy time, finances, affection, property, decisions -apart from those involving profit (business partnerships)- for a period of no less than 5-7 years, are still considered united, under the common law. The common law was designed because 'remarriage' was considered by early settlers/puritans, as 'unlawful', unless the former marriage partner died.
   
   Legally, civil unions are the same as common law.
   
   So, equal gender persons wanting to 'marry', makes little sense.
   It adds no additional civil rights, nor takes away any rights.
   Common Law falls under Civil Liberties, Civil Rights Act.
   (yes I am still a card carrying member of the ACLU).
   
   It does not increase, nor decrease tax levels/generation.
   It does, however, increase the risk of divorce, broken homes, adoption levels - which are already at staggering all time highs in the West.
   It would however lower the risk of fetal destructions and lower the population level, by a considerable percentage -over time.
   
   Marriage is a theological application.
   Civil Unions are a sociological application.
   Sexuality should not be included in either.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Common law marriage -
      
      Since 1996 Idaho has no longer recognized common law marriages.  Before that time the state did recognize such marriages, but only when a man and a woman.
      
      Is Idaho alone in this, then?  Or is the claim that gays are automatically married after 7 years cohabitation bogus?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I dunno. Never been to Idaho.
         Even still there are 49 more states.
         The law cannot forbid two men living together nor two woman.
         and if a certain length of time are, in some cases, entitled to domestic   benefits. But, the law cannot deny their civil rights. Ever. That's why the CRA was written. It was not only written to protect social minorities, but the general populous of society.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No the law cannot forbid two people living together, but neither does it grant the same rights that a contract of marriage does.
            
            No civil law will allow a gay partner to make final disposition of remains of their partner in opposition to the dead ones siblings; Only marriage does that.  Neither will any civil law allow a gay partner to set medical treatment for their partner at all.  Only marriage does that.  No civil law allows automatic inheritance from a partner lacking other notice; only marriage does that.
            
            Obviously the CRA doesn't even come close to providing the same rights to a gay couple living together that a marriage contract does. 
            
            There are indeed 49 other states; do they all still provide for common law marriage between couples of the same sex?  Somehow I doubt it.

            replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "It does, however, increase the risk of divorce, broken homes, adoption levels"
      
      I was not aware the the divorce rate for gay marriages was higher, nor that there were more broken homes resulting from them.  Where can I find these statistics?
      
      Likewise, I did not know that gay marriages were producing a higher percentage of children given up for adoption - I would be very interested in seeing those statistics as well.
      
      "It would however lower the risk of fetal destructions and lower the population level"
      
      I don't quite follow how a lower abortion rate (fetal destruction) rate from gay marriages will result in a lower population level.  Can you show me your calculations here?
      
      Or did you mean that they will have a lower abortion rate than the general population (probably true for obvious reasons) but also that the lower reproductive rate from gays as opposed to gays that are not married will result in decreased population levels?  Again, I would be interested in your reasoning and calculations.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I didn't say it was 'higher risk' I said increase the risk.
         And yes, the more marriages, families, the higher the risk of these things and then some.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I see.  More people will also increase that kind of risk - shall we then sterilize everyone to decrease it?
            
            Can we reasonably expect that gay marriages, that have had to work so hard to achieve that status, will likely have a lower divorce rate?  Probably, but no statistics are available yet and won't be for years.  And by then they will likely be back up to the general population and be about the same risk of divorce
            
            A child having one parent is, by definition, from a broken home.  How does a marriage of that parent increase the risk that the child is from a broken home?
            
            Personally I find your statements to be a paper tiger only.  They are transparent excuses to deny rights to people, nothing more.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Personally, you are looking more for a squabble, than fully reading what people say, as usual.
               I am actually very pro-rights human and very anti humanism.
               And your religious or anti-religious || equation/scientific venom/mentality is irrelevant as well as useless, to me at least.
               
               We can "reasonably expect" divorce to increase, taxes to pretty much stay the same or constantly go up. Government doesn't care who pays, as long as everyone pays.  We can "reasonably expect" Procreation and population to decrease with the increase of equal gender couples. We could also "reasonably expect" disease to decrease/become more locally concentrated with such social shift.
               
               It isn't all that far fetched.
               If 1 billion people accept their lifestyle of equal gender, yes, every child would have a home. And we can "Reasonably expect" those children, by lifestyle influence, would follow suit. And can  "Reasonably expect" the same amount of domestic issues/divorces as those of heterosexual couples. So divorce and broken families continue to rise. But no one gives a shite about the kids, or the effects, so long as both a getting their jollies and benefits -'gay' or 'straight', right?
               
               PS, the reproductive reduction of potentially 1 billion new humans, in a single generational cycle (40 years)  -unless of course all the natural female equal gender persons opt to become surrogates by male equal gender persons or frozen chosen/lab built embryo's. It is "Reasonable" to "expect" a global population reduction of 3 billion people in a single human life cycle. and science isn't quite 'there yet'' with human cloning to produce enough humanoids to cover the difference.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  1 billion gays getting married.  That's the total population of:
                  United States
                  Germany
                  France
                  Great Britain
                  Italy
                  Canada
                  Australia
                  Netherlands
                  Greece
                  Sweden
                  Austria
                  Switzerland
                  Denmark
                  Finland
                  Brazil
                  Mexico
                  all combined.
                  
                  Why don't you just say the whole world?  It can't be any sillier and will make the argument of decreasing population look even better!  And then to claim that loss of reproduction from those 1 billion will result in a loss of 3 billion in a single generation!  You do realize that means the average heterosexual couple has 6 children??!!

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Demmit,does that mean I have to pop out 2 more?  Cause I'm getting a little old for this...

                     replyreport
                  2. 74

                     jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     There are 7.4 billion on the planet, and growing. Hardly the whole world, as you suggested. And in a generational cycle ( a span of 40 x 3 ) would equal 3 billion from a singular 1 billion. It doesn't mean 3 children per 'family'.
                     
                     But that really isn't the point, it is just "reasonably expected" mathematics.
                     The point is, the issues facing families of heterosexual couples would not be decreased by equal gender couples. Statistically it is "reasonably expected" that the numbers would increase, to all time highs. Increased: Divorce, Broken Families, Governmental Dependancy, Tax, etc.
                     
                     So, as for the marriage issue, and equal gender couples, it is mute.
                     They are better off in civil unions -at least then, they are protected and would not contribute to an already dysfunctional system of humanism.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You're probably right - call their marriage something else.  It goes well with calling them a nice variety of names, too.  Besides, you can better limit their rights that way - make 'em fight for every single one of them.
                        
                        Anything to separate them from the "right" thinking people.

                        replyreport
   3. 83

      kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it's my understanding that common law marriages of any sort are only permitted in 10 or 12 states and that same sex common law marriages are recognized only in Iowa.

      replyreport
8. 94

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   Does the "normal" person want to allow same sex marriages?
   
   Apparently not - over half the people in the US are fighting it in nearly every state.  If you define the majority as being "normal" then the answer is no.  The human race has a propensity for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and demanding that others live the same lifestyle they do. Sad and disgusting, but all too true.

   replyreport
9. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Try to make society "work better" by having gay people pay all the taxes and not get all the benefits. So... work better for who?

   replyreport
10. 58

    MelissaBarrettposted 12 years ago

    "Oddly, the 'gay' community is concerned about the rise in transgender individuals."
    
    I haven't heard concern about any rise in the number of transgender individuals.  What gay community are you talking about in specific?

    replyreport
    1. 74

       jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Europe mostly, Melissa.
       But the states are getting impacted too.
       South America is having problems with it -especially Venezuela.
       And from the info, Asia is just turning a blind eye.
       Explains why many transgender persons are exodus to Europe from Asia and S.A.
       
       But it is an interesting thing they are proposing.
       That because of technological advances, the person of one gender who feels or thinks or acts as another gender, has the means to complete the process. And in completing the process, chooses a single gender to exist in.
       
       That statement is what is causing concern. It basically is saying all 'gays', at some point, should be made to choose a final gender. It is stating that 'gays' are people who have an inherit/intrinsic/natural desire or necessity to be the opposite gender, as if nature is telling them this, as seem by their outward expression, mentality/thinking or sexual preference.
       
       That would completely change the game.

       replyreport
       1. 58

          MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Being gay doesn't mean you are a female trapped in a man's body or vice versa.  Sexual preference isn't an indication of gender association.  I can't see any civilized country even beginning to purpose such a law and I don't see any country without group intelligence enough to be aware of the distinction acquiring the medical resources to enact such laws.

          replyreport
          1. 74

             jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Actually, it is. Sexuality is directly a result of hormones, chemicals, etc within an individual -as well as their mentality/mode of thinking -which is effected by several hormones.
             It is through the use/treatment of gender related hormones, that these individuals are able to change genders naturally. Science has confirmed that.
             
             a MTF is technically/genetically person attracted to males as a male (until they medically become a female.)
             a FTM is technically/genetically female attracted to females (until they become a male.)
             
             A 'gay' male is technically a male attracted to males.
             A 'gay' female is technically a female attracted to females.
             
             The only difference is the end result of gender preference is the argument that seems to be establishing the idea. And you know there are people out there who would say it, "If this transgender person can do it, why can't the 'gay' person."
             
             
             The irony?! The religious community is all for gender transformation.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Link please... otherwise, I call BS.
                
                I am a member of the LGBT community and I assure you that the gay men and women that I know are quite happy with their gender.
                
                I am also curious under that scheme whether I would end up as a man or a woman.

                replyreport
                1. 74

                   jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   am hunting for it...please wait.

                   replyreport
       2. 61

          Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I live in the UK, and I haven't heard anything about this.

          replyreport
          1. 74

             jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Actually, there was a huge mandate passed in the UK a few months back, regarding transgender and 'gay' 'refugees' to the UK from India, Honduras, etc regarding special protection and rights under 'asylum' rules.
             
             { link }

             replyreport
             1. 61

                Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Hi Jacharles, thanks for that link. I've just taken a quick look, it's serious reading, and I am way too tired to concentrate. So, I'll check back tomorrow when I'm more alert and have had the opportunity to read it properly.

                replyreport
11. 83

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    Um, gays are happy with the gender they are unless they are trans and gay (e.g. born male, becomes female, is attracted to females).
    Transgender people have a brain gender different to their genital shape.  I doubt there are any more or less of them, they just aren't all scared silent anymore.

    replyreport
12. 79

    skyfireposted 12 years ago

    So that religious nutcases don't go on spree to attack them on every random website on the interwebs.
    
    If you're a straight person then you should be wasting your time watching "straight porn" and not "gay or lesbian porn" and then moan about it on Sunday church meeting with questions like this. If you care for marriage system, just stop the likes of kim kardashian rather than taking a religious cheap shot on homosexuals. Simple.

    replyreport
13. 74

    jacharlessposted 12 years ago

    interpersonal relationship = common law;
    
    interpersonal relationship can be formed in:
    
    social, cultural and other influences.
    The context can vary from family or kinship relations, friendship, marriage, relations with associates, work, clubs, neighborhoods, and places of worship.
    
    Interpersonal relationships usually involve some level of interdependence. People in a relationship tend to:
    influence each other
    share their thoughts and feelings
    engage in activities together. (that would include sex).
    
    Because of this interdependence, most things that change or impact one member of the relationship will have some level of impact on the other member.
    
    The 'original' interdependence was 'weak female' 'strong male' aka a union for protection and in return procreation.
    
    
    All US States recognize interpersonal relationship as common law unions.
    marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is a form of interpersonal status that is legally recognized in limited jurisdictions as a marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry.
    
    A common-law marriage is legally binding in some common law jurisdictions but has no legal consequence in others.
    
    It is the perfect situation for equal gender persons.
    Why the need for the ceremony, pomp & circumstance?
    
    ... "common-law marriage" is used as a synonym for non-marital relationships such as domestic partnership or reciprocal beneficiaries relationship...
    
    So, ANY gender can legally be bound to the other without issue, as a recognized common law 'marriage'. The permission is for the ceremony of matrimony which technically falls under religious right. This is what the issue comes down to. It is the civil right of any citizen to seek life, prosperity, security, in whatever form they choose, so long as it does not break the law or infringe upon the rights of another. And legally, no religious ceremony can be performed inside any legal office, government building, etc.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "So, ANY gender can legally be bound to the other without issue, as a recognized common law 'marriage'."
       
       No, from a legal perspective that's completely false, as your own post admits just a few sentences earlier:
       
       "A common-law marriage is legally binding in some common law jurisdictions but has no legal consequence in others."
       
       From a social perspective it's true, but who cares about a social perspective? Gays and lesbians are not seeking the right to be in long-term relationships with the partner of their choice - they already have that right. They are seeking the right to be in legally recognized long term relationships with the partner of their choice. The legal recognition is key because otherwise their relationship is not necessarily recognized in situations such as hospital next-of-kin decisions, custody of children, etc.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I do not see how it is not legally recognizable, as a domestic partnership or interdependence is legally recognized.
          Even if the 'local yokel' common law does not recognize it, the State government does. and there a thousands of common law/ domestic partnership cases as proof -from collection of assets to domestic violence and child custody.
          
          An issue with custody is one of 'biological'. Can a biological child be produced by an equal gender couple?
          Not that I know of.
          So, either adoption or surrogate measures must be included. Both are perfectly legal.
          I personally know of a couple who adopted a child. When they 'split up/divorced' the court awarded custody and visitation rights. And that was in Pennsylvania, nearly 15 years ago.
          
          But, as said, entities -like medical, educational or scientific- have policy options under contract.
          The State nor The Fed can legally force them to change their policies unless those policies directly violate the natural rights of the individual...

          replyreport
          1. 58

             MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             My state doesn't recognize common law... any common law...  Not all states do.  It isn't local yokel law, it is a state wide thing.  Common law isn't a federal law.  You are being kinda provincial there.
             
             Secondly, federal and state law can most certainly force corporations of any sort to change their policies.  Otherwise, labor law wouldn't exist.

             replyreport
          2. 94

             wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Where are you getting these ideas that common law marriages are legal and binding in every location?  Are you making them up?
             
             You have been told over and over that it isn't so - do you wish that it were true so badly that you refuse to investigate?  It took me less than 5 minutes to find that information and give it to you - I'm sure you can do the same and put a stop to this nonsense.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think he is trying to make things up, I just don't think he has a firm grip on how law works.  Firstly, he assumes that "local" family law can differ from state family law.  It can't.  Secondly, I think he believes that domestic law is governed by federal law.  With very few exceptions, it isn't.  Family law is almost exclusively governed by state.  Thirdly, he assumes that the federal government has no power to interfere with businesses/corporations/educational organizations... In which case organizations like the FDA, EPA, and OSHA wouldn't exist.

                replyreport
                1. 94

                   wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   While that may or may not be true, I think the primary thrust is to deny gay marriage rights.
                   
                   This is the poster that insists divorces will rise, broken homes will rise and orphaned children will rise.  That we will see a decrease in the increase of the human population of 3 billion over a lifespan (as if that would be bad!) if the US makes gay marriage legal.  Next will likely be that it will destroy the sanctity of marriage and end his own marriage. 
                   
                   It's all an effort to justify denying the rights he has to other people.  Those justifications don't make any sense but he will cling to them until death because that's all he has.

                   replyreport
                   1. 58

                      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      You are likely right.  Honestly, I like "I don't agree with Gay marriage because that is my personal opinion" much better than those who try to justify with bad information.  There are those out there that are uneducated enough to form opinions based on that bad information.  Then you get ignorant hate rooted in misinformation.  I can deal with "I don't like it because I think it is disgusting" because it expresses a personal opinion (which everyone is entitled to have) when you start recruiting for your personal opinion, then it is wrong.

                      replyreport
                      1. 83

                         kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         "Honestly, I like "I don't agree with Gay marriage because that is my personal opinion" much better than those who try to justify with bad information.  There are those out there that are uneducated enough to form opinions based on that bad information.  Then you get ignorant hate rooted in misinformation."
                         
                         And worse, once misinformation gets stuck in somebody's head as fact, it's nearly impossible to shake it loose!
                         
                         http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas … ?page=full

                         replyreport
          3. 83

             kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             You don't see how it's not legally recognizable? Dude, wilderness, Melissa, and I have pointed out several times each that common law marriages are not legally recognized in every state. They're not even legally recognized in the majority of states: just 11, plus the District of Columbia. Moreover, same sex common law marriages are legally recognized in only ONE state: Iowa.
             
             You appear to be so determined to believe that gay and lesbian couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples that you're making up "facts" out of thin air to support your case. Unfortunately for that plan, repeating nonsense does not make it true, and a 30 second Google search suffices to figure out that what you're spouting is nonsense.

             replyreport
             1. 58

                MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                LOL, I have a piece of paper that says I know stuff about law... The piece of paper cost me a lot of money.  I'm trying to figure out how to link to it

                replyreport
                1. 94

                   wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Don't bother.  It's tough to see through closed eyes.

                   replyreport
14. 74

    jacharlessposted 12 years ago

    And precisely --and I do mean precisely- what civil rights do equal gender couples not have, that heterosexual couples do, apart from a religious ceremony? And do be exact. I will certainly look up the information to correct my legal misunderstanding.
    
    Can both vote? yes.
    Can both work and pay taxes? yes.
    Can both dwell wherever they choose, own property, receive medical care, education? yes.
    Can both apply for government benefits or securities paid by the common people? yes.
    Can both apply and be selected to parent a child by adoption or surrogate means? yes.
    Can both exercise their right to free speech? yes.
    Can both engage in whatever activities, public and private they choose? yes.
    Can they belong to any public organization, club or institution? yes.
    Can they travel with legal documents? yes.
    Are they entitled to equal pay, equal representation, under the law? yes.
    Can they sue another person or the government? yes.
    
    --I am missing a few, but I am tired.
    
    As I said before, the issue is mute.
    A religious ceremony aka a marriage cannot legally be performed for equal genders couples, just as it cannot legally be performed for heterosexual couples, in any government institution, building, place of business.
    A boat is fine; a church is fine --even 10,000 feet in the air, skydiving naked, as a friend recently did.
    
    I stand corrected, but you appear to be making racial claims, forming prejudices, causing conflicts, like religious folk who oppose your ideas, yes? Makes you as useless, to me anyway.

    replyreport
    1. 94

       wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If a husband dies intestate the wife will inherit it.  It may have to go through probate, but she will inherit.  Half of a gay couple will never receive that inheritance - it will go to relatives or the state.
       
       A husband may make medical decisions for a wife that is incapable of making them herself.  Half a gay couple cannot, and may not even be allowed in the hospital room!
       
       That's two - do you need more?
       
       I will add that there are currently 9 states that recognize common law marriages; of those at least 4 require it be between man and woman.  Utah waffles on that issue, and New Hampshire only recognizes it after death for probate purposes.  That leaves just 3 states that MAY recognize it between gay couples for purposes prior to death.  Not a lot of help to people want the rights you enjoy.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The issue of death and money seems to be the root then. Pathetic, really. No difference with heterosexual couples, now is there? LMAO!
          Ah, equality!
          
          
          
          Why? The 'husband' in an equal gender relationship, may legally appoint their 'wife' or any 'dependent' (or offspring, natural or adopted) as benefactor/beneficiary of all assets/debts, public or private.
          If you mean life insurance, that is based on the preference of the Life Insurance Policy and not Civil Law. If their contract/policies state so, then it is the policy that needs to be disputed, not the State of California -or wherever. FYI, under civil union, benefactors may claim social security or disability rights of a domestic partner, if they can prove 'dependency'.
          
          The laws concerning immediate family should apply to anyone. But that one I will have to check.
          
          
          Yes, more. lot's more. Civil Rights, please. Thanks.

          replyreport
          1. 83

             kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Heterosexual couples get next of kin rights, etc. automatically nationwide the moment they sign the marriage contract. Gay and lesbian couples have to file lots of paperwork to extend the same rights to their partner, and those rights will not necessarily be recognized by other states, organizations, or businesses even if they do manage to get them established in with one state, organization or business.

             replyreport
          2. 94

             wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Tell you what - how about if we take away all the special privileges and rights for married couples?  There will then be no reason for gays to marry.  Would that be all right?
             
             You will lose the ability to claim "married" on your W4 or 1040 thereby raising your taxes.  You will lose any rights to be ensured on your spouse's employers insurance.  You will lose any right to community property - there won't be any.  You will have to hire a lawyer and file papers to give your estate to your spouse.  You will lose any next of kin rights in medical matters.  Your car insurance rates will go up because you aren't married.  It will be much more difficult to combine incomes to get a mortgage loan.  If one is not dependent (difficult to prove) on the other you will not get SS benefits from your spouse.  If you live together for 20 years and split, you can't sue for alimony to help support yourself as you learn a new skill instead of keeping the household running.  Likewise if your life partner builds a million dollar business you will have no right to any of it if you split up.  Law requires that if married a spouse must sign off on any declaration that saved retirement funds would go to anyone but that spouse and that safety net would be lost.
             
             This list just goes on and on and on.  Isn't it strange that I've never heard a heterosexual offer to give it all up to make the matter, as you refer to it, moot?

             replyreport
             1. 83

                kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                +1

                replyreport
                1. 76

                   Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   LOVE it!
                   No marriage for anyone!
                   Then we will all be "living in sin," as the quaint old saying goes!

                   replyreport