Let the downfall begin

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The debate has heated up, again, about gay marriage, since the Supreme Court ruling. The gays are ecstatic. The left is dancing in the street. The right is worried & the far right are having heart attacks. The middle just wishes they'd shut up & quit talking about it.

Marriage is an eons old institution that is one of the main stabilizers of our species. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, in a traditional sense, but there does need to be some sort of legally binding equivalent. Not for heterosexuals "shack-ups" because they have the marriage option. Marriage is generallly a religious ceremony that has worked it's way into civil life. In thousands of years, it has been a unifier for the traditional family. It needs to stay that way.

The right has some very valid concerns, besides those described above. For one, in the not too distant future, Adam & Steve can pretend to be Adam & Eve. Think that's stretching it? Read this & weep.

Scientists claim that the first human baby could be born from a transplanted womb within three years.

The Swedish expert behind the research says that one of the best candidates to be an organ donor would be the patient's own mother - raising the prospect of carrying your children in the same womb that carried you.

He says that it may even be technically possible one day to transplant a womb into a man, and use hormone injections to allow a pregnancy to succeed.
Click to expand...

BBC
 
the uk government has proposed a form of civil partnership for same sex relationships. most gay groups are really pleased but there are several people out there saying that similar ideas would also be usefully extended to heterosexual partnerships.
 
ris said:
there are several people out there saying that similar ideas would also be usefully extended to heterosexual partnerships.
Click to expand...


There is a well established one already. Marriage. If you don't want the committment, fine, just don't expect the benefits. Or is that too harsh? *piss2*
 
well, they were talking in terms of allowing significant others in people's lives that are not necessarily partners to recieve some of the financial benefits. a carer for an elderly relative over a great number of years who would still be hit with taxes on inheritance through wills, or who would wish to be nominated but currently could not recieve pensions/life insurance payouts.
 
Life Insurance is paid to whomever is named beneficialry. About the inheritance & taxes, those are the breaks. Cut death taxes & it won't matter :D
 
but there is little likeihood of that occuring so there is perhaps room for such maneouvre. it should be noted that the proposed uk legislation is termed a civil partnership and deliberately avoids terms such as marriage.

as modern society and its relationship structures has changed so much over the last 50 years i think i can see a place for similar legislation within a heterosexual partnerships.

it cannot be denied that the concept of marriage, even within a civil marriage framework, is uncomfortable and alien to some. personally i would not want relationships turning to marriage simply to afford them legal and financial rewards - it dilates the importance and relevance of those who believe in the sacred bonds of marriage.
 
Gonz said:
I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, in a traditional sense, but there does need to be some sort of legally binding equivalent.
Click to expand...

The equivalent like a courthouse marraige but just use a different word?
 
Squiggy said:
flav, fix your av...Please :D
Click to expand...


Personally I preffer this one ,but I can't resize it small enough :crying4:

dodgebikini.gif
 
flavio said:
The equivalent like a courthouse marraige but just use a different word?
Click to expand...

Since most churches are biased against homosexuality, by dogma, and marriage is a covenent between a heterosexual couple & their particular God, then, well, basically, yes :D

Some governmental idiocy like "Committment Ceremony" for a same sex couple who are now to be referred to as "Bound by Entity". :shrug:

I still working on how many ways one can split a frogs hair.
 
downfall

getting back to the original statement.......the reason the far right is having heart attacks is because they have more gays in their closets then the left do and the left just doesnt give a shit!
 
Re: downfall

We're not talking about people who are living together without any formal legal recognition of that fact.... we're talking about people in a committed long term relationship to the exclusion of all others who have gone through a legal ceremony that equals marriage. Just because they happen to be the same sex they should not be excluded from receiving the same benefits as a hetrosexual married couple. Hetrosexual couples have the choice of marrying or not, so should homosexual couples. After all we are all supposed to be equal are we not?...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top