It's one thing to give a non-heterosexual couple the same civil rights as a straight couple and call it something other than marriage (a.k.a. Civil Unions).. but should the land of the free be changing state and national constitutions to take away equal rights from couples who are same sex (not even allowing civil unions)?
2006-10-17 12:01:54 · 15 answers · asked by blackcatsoda 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Clarrification: Marriage is a religious contract, marriage is NOT under debate here.. it is the civil right to CHOOSE TO HAVE the same rights, tax breaks, visitation, dying will and betrothing rights (for homo, trans,etc) as any heterosexual american would.
About heterosexual couples who choose to not get married, ever heard of common law marriage? Or civil union? These couples have the right to CHOOSE what they want to do, currently non-hetero couples do NOT.
2006-10-17 13:16:25 · update #1
About homo and other non-heteros "not being normal human beings.." Please note that 99.9999999999999999% of all murders, acts of public defacement and other depravities have been performed by heterosexuals.
And a side note for you history buffs, it was Christians that burned the library of Alexandria and plundged the majority of the western world back in to DARK AGES. In fact, history shows they did this de-evolution twice to the human race.
2006-10-17 13:19:46 · update #2
Yes, one must put up with the opposite sex to reap the `benefits of marriage'. That's the way it must be. Marriage rights, tax deductions, reduced insurance costs are all truly earned.
2006-10-17 12:25:01 · answer #1 · answered by CJBig 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If equal rights really existed, they wouldnt make laws FOR selective groups of people. It's an imbalance, therefore, not equal- because one day, there may come a time when the selective group outnumbers the group perceived as being dominant...then what will you do? Make new laws? That isnt equal either- so let's call it what it is...a myth.
I am against homosexuality, however, if the state or government says they will allow Civil Unions, I see no issue with it. I do, however, have a problem with the state/government calling it a marriage.
Actually, I have a problem with the state/government calling anyone not wed in a church married. It's a religious institution. The government mimics a ceremony to make you feel better- the moment the papers are signed, you are joined- only in a church is the ceremony actually relevant.
They take away the rights of smokers- everyone is fair game.
2006-10-17 19:29:14 · answer #2 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the long run, this will prove to be the last throws of homophobic bigotry in this country. The polls show even though more of these measures are passing, they are passing by smaller majorities - even in states like Va, where you'd expect a huge majority, the vote looks like being around 60/40.
In a few years time, one or more states will have passed civil union and/or marriage laws by popular vote, and that will truly be the end for the religious right. If just ONE state by majority vote recognizes same-sex equality, then the rest will surely tumble down.
It may take another 20 years, but civil marriage rights will be given to same sex couples in America.
In the meantime, the number of countries with Federal marriage recognition is growing: Canada, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark - all have it now. Columbia (the Roman Catholic home of drug barrons) has just passed it in their Senate. The Italian government is committed to it, and Britain has a federal 'civil union' law that is equivalent in most respects to marriage.
The religious right will delay justice, but they won't prevent it.
2006-10-17 19:12:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Marriage has never been between two HOMOSEXUAL women or two HOMOSEXUAL men... at least not legally. Now, there are cases where a HOMOSEXUAL man or woman has married a HOMOSEXUAL man or woman for convenience and expediency, some HOMOSEXUAL men have married hetrosexual women in order to present a normal face to the public.... re: Foley... and many others.... and, in all of this homo/hetro debate of "marriage" or "non-marriage", all have left out hetrosexuals that want to live together without being married.... WHY? Why don't they get SPECIAL RIGHTS like homosexuals and so-called minorities..... I wonder....
But no way in hell or anywhere else for that matter, have homosexual people had their rights taken away... you can't take away something that wasn't there.... and there is NO NEED to give HOMOSEXUALS special rights or treatment... the BS political correctness crap has gone too far as it is.... want special rights for HOMOSEXUALS? France is the place to be... or IRAN.... each offers an extreme.... be glad the USA doesn't throw homosexuals in jail. It used to be kept out of children's view... IE: "in the closet".... should have remained there... the spectacles that take place in the "sad" parades is sick.... there would be no word against them if they behaved like normal human beings... but, maybe that is normal to them.... but to over 99% of the population, it is not.
And so has the piss poor race card playing been so overdone.... playing the weakest card in the deck is a fool's play.... it has no merit, it has exhausted its ability to sway anyone.
2006-10-17 20:03:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are definitely wrong that civil rights are being taken away. Any man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual has the SAME rights in this country. That is to say that any woman above has the RIGHT to marry any man above or the opposite. Civil unions are also applicable in this equation. What you are wanting is to give ADDITIONAL rights to the homosexuals and I, a heterosexual, resent you giving them rights that I can not use.
2006-10-17 19:39:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. History is any reason, homosexuality existed from time immemorial, but to a limited percentage. Because of this perverted people we can explain what is good for general world. So don't remove the civil liberties. If they get married apply all the divorce rules also in those cases.
2006-10-17 19:06:18 · answer #6 · answered by Rammohan 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think two people should be joined, and that be their God given right! I personally do no think it is right, but people are born the way they are. Its not like they choose to have a specific sexual orientation. i think the goverment shoudl allow civil unions, but not marriage. And anything else, should be left out of their hands! Government seems to get involved in matters that doesn't even concern them, or even need their input!
2006-10-17 19:06:11 · answer #7 · answered by vbeaver31 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it's happening that tell you who have been running this country the last 12 years or more the homosexuals republicans have help pass these laws they are every where up on capital hill I'm looking for a backlash on all gay Representative because of the Foley incident . this shouldn't be happening
2006-10-17 19:07:55 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Our civil rights have suffered at the hands of this war and the administration. We ALL should be concerned about anything that gives up on rights rather than protect them.
2006-10-17 19:05:09 · answer #9 · answered by Cub6265 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
non-heterosexual???
so basically you mean homosexual.
theres no problem with civil unions between gays, and I dont see any of your "rights" being taken away. The state has the right to do these things:
no where within the bill of rights does it give you the right to be married
B. This is a republic, sttes can do whatever they want.
2006-10-17 19:04:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋