‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’ Mitt Romney Told Group Of Gay Parents

[nehalem256]

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.

So we can allow gay people to be spirit brothers then.

the ability to have children shouldn't matter. IF you are going to make that a qualification of getting married then anyone has had a vasectomy or such is banned from it

I have no issue with banning someone who had a vasectomy from getting married.

 

[nageov3t]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson



A gay couple cannot procreate.

neither can an infertile couple, but in contemporary society, we don't mandate fertility tests prior to signing a marriage license.

 

[Smoblikat]

neither can an infertile couple, but in contemporary society, we don't mandate fertility tests prior to signing a marriage license.

Hes got you there.

 

[nehalem256]

neither can an infertile couple, but in contemporary society, we don't mandate fertility tests prior to signing a marriage license.

I did not realize there was a 100% accurate infertility test.

Basically liberals have created an arrangement that bares near 0 resemblance to marriage (not life long, nothing to do with procreation) and insist on calling it marriage.

 

[Ryan]

I did not realize there was a 100% accurate infertility test.

Basically liberals have created an arrangement that bares near 0 resemblance to marriage (not life long, nothing to do with procreation) and insist on calling it marriage.

Who are you to say gay marriages are not life long, especially considering the dismal record that Male/Female marriages have when it comes to divorce and longevity.

If a gay couple raises children, are they not aiding in furthering the human race?

 

[nehalem256]

Who are you to say gay marriages are not life long, especially considering the dismal record that Male/Female marriages have when it comes to divorce and longevity.

I did not say that gay marriages could be life long.

I said liberals have redefined marriage to not be a life long relationship.

If a gay couple raises children, are they not aiding in furthering the human race?

Are 2 straight men who raise a child together not furthering the human race?

I also seem to recall a number of years ago gay adoption being an issue. So you are saying that if gay couples had not been allowed to adopt they would have no claim on marriage :hmm:

 

[nageov3t]

the fact is, throughout history we've redefined marriage from being a relationship between a guy and whatever girl he could club over the head to essentially being not much more than a legal contract today.

I'd be fine with "separate but equal" civil unions, but studies have shown that civil unions end up being both separate and unequal (especially as long as DOMA is on the books).

my ideal solutions would be no marriages whatsoever. the government stamps out civil unions between any two legal, consenting adults who want them and that's the end of the story. if you want a marriage performed, it'd be between you and your church and have no legal standing on its own.

 

[jackstar7]

Basically liberals have created an arrangement that bares near 0 resemblance to marriage (not life long, nothing to do with procreation) and insist on calling it marriage.

Yeah, sorry. People are free to do as they please with their contracts.

You'll be thanking "liberals" for this when your first marriage goes to shit.

 

[jackstar7]

my ideal solutions would be no marriages whatsoever. the government stamps out civil unions between any two legal, consenting adults who want them and that's the end of the story. if you want a marriage performed, it'd be between you and your church and have no legal standing on its own.

I was with you for a while (past few years really), but then it just needles me that religion gets to take ownership of a word that the rest of society has taken and used for purposes have nothing to do with religion. I don't like surrendering to the mob that wants to take a word used in secular legal matters and remove it completely.

It should be easier for all the religions to invent, or "discover", some other word to use for their ceremonial rites. Marriage is for everyone now.

 

[chucky2]

the fact is, throughout history we've redefined marriage from being a relationship between a guy and whatever girl he could club over the head to essentially being not much more than a legal contract today.

I'd be fine with "separate but equal" civil unions, but studies have shown that civil unions end up being both separate and unequal (especially as long as DOMA is on the books).

my ideal solutions would be no marriages whatsoever. the government stamps out civil unions between any two legal, consenting adults who want them and that's the end of the story. if you want a marriage performed, it'd be between you and your church and have no legal standing on its own.

No, "We" haven't redefined that. Marriage at its most basic has always been between a man and a woman. Because that is inconvenient to gays being equal, and wanting to be joined together, now marriage is trying to be redefined by some as couples - straight or gay - being joined together.

I agree with you though on the civil union thing. Public business and Gov should only recognize a Gov civil union. If someone wants to get married/"married" after or before that fact, not a problem. It just won't have any legal bearing.

Problem solved. (gays can call themselves married, and straights can laugh and so no, then they can scream at each other until one party calls it quits...sounds fair to me...)

Chuck

 

[nehalem256]

Yeah, sorry. People are free to do as they please with their contracts.

Because people are commonly allowed to unilaterally break contracts and receive benefits from the other party for doing so :hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

the fact is, throughout history we've redefined marriage from being a relationship between a guy and whatever girl he could club over the head to essentially being not much more than a legal contract today.

I'd be fine with "separate but equal" civil unions, but studies have shown that civil unions end up being both separate and unequal (especially as long as DOMA is on the books).

my ideal solutions would be no marriages whatsoever. the government stamps out civil unions between any two legal, consenting adults who want them and that's the end of the story. if you want a marriage performed, it'd be between you and your church and have no legal standing on its own.

But why should civil unions exist at all. Why should the government grant special benefits to people based on their relationship status?

 

[jackstar7]

Because people are commonly allowed to unilaterally break contracts and receive benefits from the other party for doing so :hmm:

Yes.

You'll talk to your lawyer and find out all about it.

 

[jackstar7]

But why should civil unions exist at all. Why should the government grant special benefits to people based on their relationship status?

Societal structure for easier distribution of resources.

 

[nageov3t]

one way or the other, laws need to get passed.

if civil unions are supposed to be equal to marriages, an insurance company shouldn't be able to deny a gay woman's wife coverage because they're civil union'd and not married (this happens in NJ currently)... likewise, even if you're in a state where gay marriage is legal, federal marriage benefits don't apply thanks to DOMA (I couldn't, for example, marry the Korean guy I'm dating and get him a green card, but a straight guy is free to get a green card for any girl he buys from Russia)

 

[nehalem256]

Societal structure for easier distribution of resources.

Of course if you can leave the relationship at anytime you want, for any reason, it is hardly easier.

Harder really, since you have to involve divorce lawyers.

one way or the other, laws need to get passed.

if civil unions are supposed to be equal to marriages, an insurance company shouldn't be able to deny a gay woman's wife coverage because they're civil union'd and not married (this happens in NJ currently)... likewise, even if you're in a state where gay marriage is legal, federal marriage benefits don't apply thanks to DOMA (I couldn't, for example, marry the Korean guy I'm dating and get him a green card, but a straight guy is free to get a green card for any girl he buys from Russia)

Why should one get special health insurance benefits based on being someone's sex partner?

 

[nehalem256]

Yes.

You'll talk to your lawyer and find out all about it.

Oh so I am suppose to be thankful to liberals for making it so a woman can assrape me in divorce court and take my children from me because she is "unhappy". :hmm:

 

[nageov3t]

Why should one get special health insurance benefits based on being someone's sex partner?

I'd be fine with no marriage benefits whatsoever... but I don't see how it's not discriminatory to provide them for straight couples and not gays.

(I'd also be fine with providing them for polygamous couples, for the record)

 

[BudAshes]

Oh so I am suppose to be thankful to liberals for making it so a woman can assrape me in divorce court and take my children from me because she is "unhappy". :hmm:

Yep liberals are your problem, not your own shitty decisions.

 

[jackstar7]

Of course if you can leave the relationship at anytime you want, for any reason, it is hardly easier.

Harder really, since you have to involve divorce lawyers.

 

[jackstar7]

Oh so I am suppose to be thankful to liberals for making it so a woman can assrape me in divorce court and take my children from me because she is "unhappy". :hmm:

Pretty sure that sounds like a failure on your part.

 

[nehalem256]

I'd be fine with no marriage benefits whatsoever... but I don't see how it's not discriminatory to provide them for straight couples and not gays.

(I'd also be fine with providing them for polygamous couples, for the record)

It is also discriminatory to provide special benefits to couples and not singles.

 

[nageov3t]

It is also discriminatory to provide special benefits to couples and not singles.

again, I'd be fine with no marriage benefits whatsoever.

but given politics, it's more likely that we'll see benefits expanded before taking away benefits from 51% of the population.