a union between a man and a woman can't compare in terms of responsibilities to a traditionally married couple of a man and his multiple slave wives.Romney forces people to be gay so they cant get "???" . Whatever they want it is not marriage, because that is the union between a man and a woman. The same responsibility that a man and a woman have in marriage, does not exist between a same sex couple. By calling the relationship in a same sex relationship a marriage, you are demeaning the releationship that all married people have. This just can not be allowed.
agreed.No, but believing that your specific definition of marriage is the exclusive "traditional" definition certainly makes you very close minded and possible a nutjob.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2012/09/romney_a_wimp_not_so_much_acco.htmlSpeaking with those locally who had experience knowing, meeting with, or working with Romney, a few commonly held perceptions emerge. Perhaps the most common is that Romney seems generally disinterested in others, and has trouble connecting with anyone unlike him — whether in terms of lifestyle, economic class, or sexuality.
POW."Can you imagine all the laws we would have to change if we let white people marry black people?"
Yeah. Because their is a "traditional" definition of marriage in which you could marry someone of the same genderNo, but believing that your specific definition of marriage is the exclusive "traditional" definition certainly makes you very close minded and possible a nutjob.
You mean except for the fact that a man and a woman of different races are completely capable of having children together?POW.
Some people forget that there was once a time in this country when interracial marriages were illegal by law in many states. It took a while before people got their head on straight and allowed it.
And.. surprisingly, some of the very reasons people use to outlaw Gay marriage were used to keep mixed marriages illegal.
No doubt, it has been brought up to you thousands of times, that the ability to have children does not define the ability to wed. Nor does the presence of two opposite sex parents preclude people from properly raising children and having a family.You mean except for the fact that a man and a woman of different races are completely capable of having children together?
To them he is the anguished victim of divided inheritance. Mathematically they work it out that his intellectual strivings and self-control come from his white blood, and his emotional urgings, indolence and potential savagery come from his Negro blood.
You mean except for the fact that a man and a woman of different races are completely capable of having children together?
That's a bad analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be that you held up a Granny Smith apple and said this is an apple. I held up a Golden Delicious and a Fuji apple and said that these too are apples. And then you started attacking that they're different and can't also be apples and that only Granny Smith apples can be apples. It seems you are too close minded to even realize how poor your analogy is.If I call an apple an orange, it does not make an apple an orange. I guess that is close minded also.
Someone posted in another thread a response, which I believe was to you, that showed that native Americans had a partnership that was basically marriage that involved same sex couples. It was called spirit partner or something like that. But it is older than this nation and took place on this land. So, yes there is a "traditional" even to this land definition of marriage in which you could marry someone of the same gender.Yeah. Because their is a "traditional" definition of marriage in which you could marry someone of the same gender
Oh that is awesome.I looked him in the eye as we were leaving, recalls Goodridge. And I said, Governor Romney, tell me what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma cant get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?
His response, according to Goodridge: I dont really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why dont you just tell her the same thing youve been telling her the last eight years.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._NelsonNehalem, I implore you to reasearch anti-miscegenation laws. This is not about having kids. I am just drawing obvious parallels between the two issues.
Yes, we KNOW that two people from opposite races can have children. Thats a no brainer, but during the time of anti-miscegenation laws, the government was saying that children produced from these relationships would be non-functioning members of society who would most likely have deformities, etc. Pretty much anything negative that could be said about the relationship was used as a valid argument against making it legal.
It actually wasnt until until the Loves went against the state of Virginia to win their freedom as a mixed race couple. They were banned from the State of Virginia and if they ever came back, they were not allowed to be together. They actually went to jail over it before being banished. They were peaceful people and had a wonderful life together. It took them several years to have the right to be together by law.
Mr. Love was a white man and Mrs. Love was black.
I don't understand why you are concerned about pro-creation in the first place. Of course, gays cannot reproduce. However, they can adopt and there are THOUSANDS of children out there who would love a permanent home. They will probably be better for it. One of my family members in a foster parent and sometimes she gets these kids after they are out of infancy and have been in the system for years. These kids are often fucked up beyond repair and Its my belief that life would have turned out better for them if somebody actually cared about them.
A gay couple cannot procreate.This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.
The Court was not persuaded that an equal-protection violation was present either. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's reliance on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (striking down an anti-miscegenation law) also failed: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."