What is your argument against gay marriage

i am straight

my wife and i are in a relationship for companionship, we like each other, we can stand to be around each other, we are not lonely together

we got married for one reason: a desire for a little bit of protective legal paperwork

we were married by a justice of the peace, we are not religious

and we have never had children or adopted them

why cannot two people enjoy these same exact civil rights just because they are of the same gender?

 

What rights do they not have being in a civil partnership as apposed to if they were married?

 

as long as a civil partnership legally carried the same rights as a marriage, that would be fine

i suppose insurance companies and hospitals [etc.] and federal, state, and local governments would have to re-write contracts and laws to replace the word 'marriage' with more inclusive language, though

that would cost money [some of it tax money] and might piss off the conservatives, right?

cheaper just to let people marry

and if i can get married and someone else can only get a 'civil partnership' isn't that just another tiny bit of discrimination?

 

Sorry, I'm presuming civil partners do have rights now.
They do here and they are comparable to married couples.
I was wondering what the legal differences were in the US...as you say you married for the "protective legal paperwork" so I presumed you looked into these things.

To me it is just a word. I would wonder if gay couples had the same rights, would they be so concerned with a word. If they do, why are they?

 

Civil partnerships like marriage vary from state to state in the US, some are basically marriage without being called marriage, others states don't go as far.


And yes, it's the word that's the issue. Nobody wants to get civil partnershiped, you don't want to inform your friends you and your wife are getting civil partnershiped. You want marriage like every other person. It's a matter of equality.

 

I hoped that was the case.

I guess it does not roll off the tongue so well.

What next then? Churches being forced to marry gay couples?

 

Churches are private religious institutions, they can marry whoever they want, and many of them do gay marriages. This isn't about church, this is about government.

 

If only that was true.

I know a few non alligned churches let gay couples have a service within their church...
I do appreciate it is more to do with government now, but wait and see if it becomes law everywhere.
Where it is recognised now can churches say: "No, we are not going to marry you"?

All I am saying is once this battle is won there will be othesr...hence "what next".

 

Here actually, CT has gay marriage, but churches are still allowed to perform whatever ceremonies they like. This is America, if the government forced churches to conduct gay marriages civil war would literally break out again.

 

What about equality. Don't gay people have the right...etc etc etc.
Imagine how much fun that will be.

 

Yea, whatever it is if straight people can do it, gay people should be allowed to do it too.

 

IM For Gay marriage i dont really have an argument who are we to judge who we can love

 

churches can deny marriage to anyone they want

try getting a catholic marriage if you're not catholic

churches aren't the issue, and i wish religious people would shut up about this

 

If marriage is strictly a religious thing, then churches can marry whoever they want. Catholic Church can decide to marry only Catholic male to Catholic female. Baptist Church can decide to only marry a male to a female. A Gay church could decide to marry male to female, female to female, or male to male. No problem, it's a religious ritual.

Ah, but if you say that it is also a legal status with specific legal benefits and specific legal obligations, then it is a legal government issued status and thus there should not be discrimination and religious issues should not be part of it. So if marriage is a legal status, then government should not be able to deny equality of rights and if government says they will recognize marriage between any single female of legal age and any single male of legal age, then they must also recognize marriage between any two single females of legal age or any two single males of legal age.

If you want to say that there are two things called "marriage" -- one legal and one religious, that is fine. Let churches deal with religious marriage -- but as long as the government recognizes a legal status of marriage, then they must allow male-male and female-female couples as well as male-female couples.

I'm sorry that there are people who are either so uncertain about their own sexual urges and feelings or else so bigoted that they want to deny same gender couples, but they are just flat out wrong.

 

My best argument against gay marriage is most guys don’t look good in a wedding dress, otherwise I say let them do whatever they want


Hotwater

 

Inheritance rights and medical decisions are the biggest problems for domestic partnerships. Then there are things like family health insurance coverage and custody of children. Most of our domestic laws are written around the word marriage. If that term is not in your relationship you have no legal standing.

.

 

i'll send you pics, you'll change your mind

 

Thanks. I will look them up. I thought it might be boring things like that.

 

its confusing for children..
i mean, i don't think that.. but some do. why would a kid be confused? they got nothing to say

 

why would a kid be confused?

if they grew up in a single-gender household, they wouldn't

they would think it perfectly normal, as it would be all they knew

and as long as they were not being told their situation was abnormal or sinful by others, everything would be hunky dory

and maybe they'd grow up not judging others, and eventually we'd have a less hateful world