• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Massachusetts Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Your statement also directly contradicts the theory of evolution. If homosexuality were a normal thing, those animals (and people) who were gay would not reproduce, and thus would die out. If it were a gene, it would not be passed on to future generations. So if you believe in evolution, you have some serious conflicts.
Click to expand...

uh no, there are no serious conflicts. gay people have reproduced in the past, because they were in the closet or whatever. the gene could be recessive. the gene could only make it more likely for an individual to be gay. there could be more biological factors than just one gene. you have not even begun to exhaust the possibilities here, it's extremely premature to say that homosexuality conflicts with evolution.

did you know that there are neuter ants? there aren't an anomaly or anything, they are always present in an ant society. i sure hope you don't think that is unnatural, or it was their choice...
 
Kind of like common law marriages. Those people were never 'married' in a church, so they only take advantage of the legal connotation of the word. Something along the lines of civil union or enjoinment would work much better.
Click to expand...

They may not take advantage of the spiritual union YOU approve of, but they have a spiritual union nonetheless.

I can't believe people are willing go to such lengths over a matter of semantics. Call it a "union" Call it a "doogawacka" or some other made-up word. Call it a "marriage."

Who cares? My upcoming heterosexual Christian marriage will be no less sacred just because non-christian homosexuals use the same word to describe their doogawackas.
 
Bush is either kidding himself or just trying to please his Bible thumpers. If he has half a brain, he should know that a constitutional amendment on gay marriages will never be passed.

I said if he has half a brain...

By the way, I believe there was a ruling by the Supreme Court long ago (I can't remember the name of the case) that states that states are allowed to provide their citizens with more freedoms and liberties than are guaranteed by the Constitution, they are just not allowed to limit the freedoms set down in the Constitution. Bush is basically trying to circumvent this ruling by getting an amendment passed.
 
That gay marriage is even an issue in GW's eyes shows how out of touch he is with the problems plauging this nation.

Forget jobs and the defecit, we must stop the GAYS!!!!
 
I agree with a few of the posts above, the problem really is that the term marriage is not only used for the religious union but also the legal union...really they should seperate the two and keep the legal aspects totally seperate from the religious....

They should invalidate all legal aspects of current marriages and mandate that everyone file appropriate paperwork so they can be classified as "unions" or simply paperwork dealing with benefits, taxes, transfer of property at death..etc

I think once this happens (and hopefully it does-not saying marriage is a bad thing, just I feel too many people get married for the wrong reasons and feel like they are trapped, if you seperate the religious from the legal then there will be no real push for one or the other, and there would be no benefit) you will see far less people bothering with getting married, instead they will be able to pick and choose what they want their significant other to have title to and what not, which would hopefully cut down on the number of divorces (for example if people wanted their SO to share benefits but not rights to property or money they could only fill out a shared benefits form, thus when you split you still keep your stuff)

Also I feel that they should mandate that all infertile couples must adopt instead of artificial insemination, as in the past marriage benefits were given to account for future children and dependants, with same sex couples and also infertile straight couples we see too many people going for artifical insemination instead of taking in a perfectly good child from social services...we have a population problem as it is and too many are not willing to take an adopted child because it is not *theirs* we must break this stigma.

Sorry just my rant.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!
Click to expand...


You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.
Click to expand...

No, *you* have the flawed logic.

Homosexuality exists not only in humans but in many other species, too. It's a naturally occurring aspect of life on this planet. It's not the fault of homosexuals that many people in this country are too narrow-minded to see past the Bible.
Click to expand...

Other animals also eat their own crap. Should we start doing that? Other animals kill the young of others, should we allow fathers to kill a woman's children so that he can mate with her? Your statement also directly contradicts the theory of evolution. If homosexuality were a normal thing, those animals (and people) who were gay would not reproduce, and thus would die out. If it were a gene, it would not be passed on to future generations. So if you believe in evolution, you have some serious conflicts.

Put your crappy argument away. It was discredited years and years ago.
Click to expand...

Crappy argument? Hunh? It's a scientific fact. 😕


rolleye.gif



Educate yourself
Click to expand...

Linking to a website with someone's obviously biased opinion does not make something a "scientific fact".
 
What's to prevent 2 straight guys from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such. That's where I have a problem with it is. By doing that, it cheapens the whole marriage idea.

KK
 
Originally posted by: KK
What's to prevent 2 straight guys from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such. That's where I have a problem with it is. By doing that, it cheapens the whole marriage idea.

KK
Click to expand...

What currently prevents 2 homosexual people of different genders from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such?
The whole marriage idea has already been adequately cheapened by heterosexuals over the past 1000+ years. I don't think this is going to make the situation significantly worse.
 
Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd
I see no real legal reason to call it marriage. Rewrite all the laws so it's called civil union for EVERYONE, and rule that the same benefits extend to EVERYONE. Marriage is a sacred union, but I see no reason for the law to view it as such. Sanctity preserved, gays get what they really want (joint health insurance and taxes :roll😉, and religion is further removed from government. And no, I'm not being sarcastic, I really think this is the best answer (although I'd like to remove all benefits/penalties from union).
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Any couple should be able to get a civil union. 'Marriage' is a religious term. Religious people should take their civil union and have it 'blessed' (or whatever) by their house of faith.
Everyone would then be equal under the eyes of the law.
If gays want it to be called 'marriage' then they need to find a religion that will accept them. If they can't, OH WELL.
 
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: KK
What's to prevent 2 straight guys from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such. That's where I have a problem with it is. By doing that, it cheapens the whole marriage idea.

KK
Click to expand...
What currently prevents 2 homosexual people of different genders from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such?
Click to expand...
AND

What prevents 2 heterosexual people from getting hitched just so they can share health benefits and such?
 
Originally posted by: KK
What's to prevent 2 straight guys from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such. That's where I have a problem with it is. By doing that, it cheapens the whole marriage idea.

KK
Click to expand...

What prevents a man and a woman from getting hitched so they can share health care benefits and such?
 
Originally posted by: KK
What's to prevent 2 straight guys from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such. That's where I have a problem with it is. By doing that, it cheapens the whole marriage idea.

KK
Click to expand...

Oh, straight men/women have NEVER had sham marriages for benefits? To avoid deportation of one or the other? For tax purposes?
 
Originally posted by: AmericasTeam
Originally posted by: GoodRevrnd
I see no real legal reason to call it marriage. Rewrite all the laws so it's called civil union for EVERYONE, and rule that the same benefits extend to EVERYONE. Marriage is a sacred union, but I see no reason for the law to view it as such. Sanctity preserved, gays get what they really want (joint health insurance and taxes :roll😉, and religion is further removed from government. And no, I'm not being sarcastic, I really think this is the best answer (although I'd like to remove all benefits/penalties from union).
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Any couple should be able to get a civil union. 'Marriage' is a religious term. Religious people should take their civil union and have it 'blessed' (or whatever) by their house of faith.
Everyone would then be equal under the eyes of the law.
If gays want it to be called 'marriage' then they need to find a religion that will accept them. If they can't, OH WELL.
Click to expand...

Marriage is NOT a categorically religious term! An alloy is the marriage of two elements. It's just a word. You are actually proposing legislation of a word game. The end result will be the exact same, but thousands of taxpayer dollars will be wasted making sure that everyone starts calling apples by the new PC name, "flingbats."

And those Massholes already bitch about high taxes....
 
Originally posted by: Raiden256
Originally posted by: Jzero<brCall it a "union" Call it a "doogawacka" or some other made-up word.
Click to expand...

ROTFL 😀

doogawacka doogawacka doogawacka doogawacka doogawacka doogawacka
Click to expand...

I have the sudden uncontrolable urge to sing "Hooked On A Feeling...."
 
Originally posted by: KK
What's to prevent 2 straight guys from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such. That's where I have a problem with it is. By doing that, it cheapens the whole marriage idea.

KK
Click to expand...

You're right. Because that never happens with a man and a woman.
 
Originally posted by: DanJ
That gay marriage is even an issue in GW's eyes shows how out of touch he is with the problems plauging this nation.

Forget jobs and the defecit, we must stop the GAYS!!!!
Click to expand...

But the reason we have troubles with jobs and wars is the lax morals in america. If it werent for 'tolerance' of homosexuals and their ilk then we would have dealt with saddam a lot sooner when it wouldnt have been as much of a problem. If it werent for their civil unions and special rights we would be able to focus our budget better and increase jobs and production and a host of other problems. Instead we have to spend our time trying to keep their evil out of our schools, workplaces and now even our churches. The whole thing makes me sick and how any of you can defend what they have done to our great nation is beyond me.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!
Click to expand...


You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.
Click to expand...

No, *you* have the flawed logic.

Homosexuality exists not only in humans but in many other species, too. It's a naturally occurring aspect of life on this planet. It's not the fault of homosexuals that many people in this country are too narrow-minded to see past the Bible.
Click to expand...

Animals eat there own crap so should humans do it? Animals kill other animals so I guess its ok for people to do so. It's not only the Bible, its common sense and human decency. It's not a natural occuring aspect of life, that's an ignorant statement.
 
Originally posted by: snidy1
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!
Click to expand...


You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.
Click to expand...

No, *you* have the flawed logic.

Homosexuality exists not only in humans but in many other species, too. It's a naturally occurring aspect of life on this planet. It's not the fault of homosexuals that many people in this country are too narrow-minded to see past the Bible.
Click to expand...

Animals eat there own crap so should humans do it? Animals kill other animals so I guess its ok for people to do so. It's not only the Bible, its common sense and human decency. It's not a natural occuring aspect of life, that's an ignorant statement.
Click to expand...

XZeroII already made that point, dont hurt our cause with your stupidity, read the thread
 
Animals eat there own crap so should humans do it? Animals kill other animals so I guess its ok for people to do so. It's not only the Bible, its common sense and human decency. It's not a natural occuring aspect of life, that's an ignorant statement.
Click to expand...

Definition of Natural

Just because you or anyone else considers something repulsive, disgusting or indecent, does not mean it's not natural.
 
Originally posted by: DougK62
Originally posted by: KK
What's to prevent 2 straight guys from getting hitched just so they can share health care benefits and such. That's where I have a problem with it is. By doing that, it cheapens the whole marriage idea.

KK
Click to expand...

You're right. Because that never happens with a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

hahaha i love the p0wnage
 
Originally posted by: Turin39789

But the reason we have troubles with jobs and wars is the lax morals in america. If it werent for 'tolerance' of homosexuals and their ilk then we would have dealt with saddam a lot sooner when it wouldnt have been as much of a problem. If it werent for their civil unions and special rights we would be able to focus our budget better and increase jobs and production and a host of other problems. Instead we have to spend our time trying to keep their evil out of our schools, workplaces and now even our churches. The whole thing makes me sick and how any of you can defend what they have done to our great nation is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Whoa...dude...stop the hate!

wow!
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Turin39789

But the reason we have troubles with jobs and wars is the lax morals in america. If it werent for 'tolerance' of homosexuals and their ilk then we would have dealt with saddam a lot sooner when it wouldnt have been as much of a problem. If it werent for their civil unions and special rights we would be able to focus our budget better and increase jobs and production and a host of other problems. Instead we have to spend our time trying to keep their evil out of our schools, workplaces and now even our churches. The whole thing makes me sick and how any of you can defend what they have done to our great nation is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Whoa...dude...stop the hate!

wow!
Click to expand...

Damnit, i was hoping to get more flames for that post, but it looks like this thread has died.
I was being sarcastic.

I have walked door to door for the fairness campaign locallly if you know what that is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top