The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#101
#101
82_VOL_83 said:
Legally it doesn't now. Remove the word marriage from the conversation and you solve everything. However, since you are winding yourself up for another hissy fit like last night, I don't expect you to even consider anything other than your own opinion however shortsighted it is.
Click to expand...

You've provided 0 actual reasons for not calling it marriage. Why don't you trying making a point....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#105
#105
82_VOL_83 said:
And granting every one of those rights via a legal instrument that isn't called marriage wouldn't be acceptable?
Click to expand...

I'm not tied to the word 'marriage', and would be perfectly satisified with a national civil union structure. Religious institutions could perform holy matrimony which would be ceremonial only. Folks would need to obtain civil unions from the government for everything else. I know not everyone sees it the same way, but I would be fine with that setup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#106
#106
gcbvol said:
I'm not tied to the word 'marriage', and would be perfectly satisified with a national civil union structure. Religious institutions could perform holy matrimony which would be ceremonial only. Folks would need to obtain civil unions from the government for everything else. I know not everyone sees it the same way, but I would be fine with that setup.
Click to expand...

But why should it not be called marriage?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#107
#107
gcbvol said:
Not really. Many of us want the privileges and benefits (1,100+) that marriage provides in this country. For us PNOK, estate tax and survivor benefits were the critical factors.

Just look at the plaintiffs in the SCOTUS case. A couple with 4 adopted children (2 adopted by each since they cannot adopt as a couple). If one of them were to pass two of the children could be removed from the home and placed elsewhere. Another plaintiff was denied being listed as spouse on the death certificate of his deceased husband. He wants to be buried together in a family plot that only allows spouses.

There is a lot more to this than a lot of people realize.
Click to expand...
All of the privileges and benefits could be taken care through legislation or contracts. The State has no compelling reason to subsidize the union of 2 men or women because the union is naturally sterile, and I don't see how the State could benefit from any sterile marriage.
 
#108
#108
gcbvol said:
Not really. Many of us want the privileges and benefits (1,100+) that marriage provides in this country. For us PNOK, estate tax and survivor benefits were the critical factors.

Just look at the plaintiffs in the SCOTUS case. A couple with 4 adopted children (2 adopted by each since they cannot adopt as a couple). If one of them were to pass two of the children could be removed from the home and placed elsewhere. Another plaintiff was denied being listed as spouse on the death certificate of his deceased husband. He wants to be buried together in a family plot that only allows spouses.

There is a lot more to this than a lot of people realize.
Click to expand...

There really isn't GCB. It very simple, take the word marriage out of this and call it a legal union and it's done. You remove every arguement that is religious in nature in one shot. The church does not grant the rights that are being discussed, the government does. "Grant" is a terrible word here I know, but it serves the purpose.
 
#109
#109
82_VOL_83 said:
There really isn't GCB. It very simple, take the word marriage out of this and call it a legal union and it's done. You remove every arguement that is religious in nature in one shot. The church does not grant the rights that are being discussed, the government does. "Grant" is a terrible word here I know, but it serves the purpose.
Click to expand...

The government already grants marriages. There's no reason to change the word.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#110
#110
1972 Grad said:
All of the privileges and benefits could be taken care through legislation or contracts. The State has no compelling reason to subsidize the union of 2 men or women because the union is naturally sterile, and I don't see how the State could benefit from any sterile marriage.
Click to expand...

That is a weak argument and actually wrong. The state benefits from a sterile union by not having to give tax exemptions for kids. However, when all rights are bestowed, all couples will be able to adopt so your point is once again moot.
 
#111
#111
Vol8188 said:
But why should it not be called marriage?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it shouldn't be called marriage for everyone; I'm good with that as well. I am merely saying that the label is not as important to me as the protections it affords my family. I never thought I'd have the ability in my lifetime to be legally married to my husband. I am very thankful for that opportunity. My preference would be for it to stay this way and everyone share in the privilege of marriage together, but retaining equal protections is most important.

Also, just to clarify, what I supported was no split. Everyone would have a civil union to be recognized by the government. Religious ceremonies would have no legal standing. Hell, people are still going to consider and refer to themselves as married anyway. It wouldn't be that big a deal.
 
#112
#112
gcbvol said:
I'm not saying it shouldn't be called marriage for everyone; I'm good with that as well. I am merely saying that the label is not as important to me as the protections it affords my family. I never thought I'd have the ability in my lifetime to be legally married to my husband. I am very thankful for that fact. My preference would be for it to stay this way and everyone share in the privilege of marriage together, but retaining equal protections is most important.

Also, just to clarify, what I supported was no split. Everyone would have a civil union to be recognized by the government. Religious ceremonies would have no legal standing. Hell, people are still going to consider and refer to themselves as married anyway. It wouldn't be that big a deal.
Click to expand...

My issue is that they only want to remove the name marriage so they can pretend that a homosexual Union is somehow less than a marriage.

There's nothing religious about marriage. Agnostics get married. Atheists get married. People of all religions get married. It's not a religious thing, it's an everyone thing.

So I don't like seeing people try to make homosexual unions less meaningful then their own by creating a supposedly seperate but equal label for homosexual marriages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#113
#113
gcbvol said:
I'm not saying it shouldn't be called marriage for everyone; I'm good with that as well. I am merely saying that the label is not as important to me as the protections it affords my family. I never thought I'd have the ability in my lifetime to be legally married to my husband. I am very thankful for that opportunity. My preference would be for it to stay this way and everyone share in the privilege of marriage together, but retaining equal protections is most important.

Also, just to clarify, what I supported was no split. Everyone would have a civil union to be recognized by the government. Religious ceremonies would have no legal standing. Hell, people are still going to consider and refer to themselves as married anyway. It wouldn't be that big a deal.
Click to expand...

Ergo, removing the term marriage from the conversation literally solves the issue assuming a legal instrument that allows all couples the same rights and privileges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#115
#115
Vol8188 said:
My issue is that they only want to remove the name marriage so they can pretend that a homosexual Union is somehow less than a marriage.

There's nothing religious about marriage. Agnostics get married. Atheists get married. People of all religions get married. It's not a religious thing, it's an everyone thing.

So I don't like seeing people try to make homosexual unions less meaningful then their own by creating a supposedly seperate but equal label for homosexual marriages.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct and I appreciate very much your position. I guess I'm just accustomed to being viewed differently in society. Some of it I understand, some of it not so much. We're making progress, though, and that's where I try to focus. It has taken time but I really don't let how others see or think of me define who I am. People have a tendency to see the world in their own image; it's a default setting for most humans. I don't think many even realize they're doing it. That's why I work to exercise empathy and move on with my very happy life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#117
#117
82_VOL_83 said:
That is a weak argument and actually wrong. The state benefits from a sterile union by not having to give tax exemptions for kids. However, when all rights are bestowed, all couples will be able to adopt so your point is once again moot.
Click to expand...
If you think that the State benefits more from not giving deductions for children than they gain from a future worker and taxpayer, then you must think that every new person is a drain on the system.

The State benefits from procreation by having future workers, taxpayers, etc. to feed its hunger and need for money. Adopting a living person already here doesn't add any new people to the mix. Same sex couples are naturally sterile, so they are a known quantity.
 
#118
#118
1972 Grad said:
If you think that the State benefits more from not giving deductions for children than they gain from a future worker and taxpayer, then you must think that every new person is a drain on the system.

The State benefits from procreation by having future workers, taxpayers, etc. to feed its hunger and need for money. Adopting a living person already here doesn't add any new people to the mix. Same sex couples are naturally sterile, so they are a known quantity.
Click to expand...

I don't know who does more to damage this issue, these types of opinions or the unfounded meddling by those like 88 whose ONLY reason to be involved in this is to turn it into an anti-Christian argument. Both stances are unfounded. Create a fair tax code and remove the word marriage from the argument and both of you have no standing. My bet is that they both happen eventually.
 
#119
#119
Grand Vol said:
As well you should!

Anyone that loves Cher has to be viewed in a different light...
Click to expand...

LOL, I really have no choice in the matter. You know they hate on how good we look and how effortlessly we sling attitude.
 
#120
#120
82_VOL_83 said:
I don't know who does more to damage this issue, these types of opinions or the unfounded meddling by those like 88 whose ONLY reason to be involved in this is to turn it into an anti-Christian argument. Both stances are unfounded. Create a fair tax code and remove the word marriage from the argument and both of you have no standing. My bet is that they both happen eventually.
Click to expand...
Why does my opinion, which I think is logical considering current tax law, damaging the issue? I have only given reasons as to why I think the State encourages traditional marriage.
 
#122
#122
gcbvol said:
You're absolutely correct and I appreciate very much your position. I guess I'm just accustomed to being viewed differently in society. Some of it I understand, some of it not so much. We're making progress, though, and that's where I try to focus. It has taken time but I really don't let how others see or think of me define who I am. People have a tendency to see the world in their own image; it's a default setting for most humans. I don't think many even realize they're doing it. That's why I work to exercise empathy and move on with my very happy life.
Click to expand...

Until you are capable of being treated equally while allowing others to have their own opinions you will never find what you want.
 
#123
#123
1972 Grad said:
Why does my opinion, which I think is logical considering current tax law, damaging the issue? I have only given reasons as to why I think the State encourages traditional marriage.
Click to expand...

Please show me a factual link where tax laws are created to encourage procreation.
 
#125
#125
1972 Grad said:
It's called common sense. On the contrary, can you give me one reason why the State has a compelling interest in having zero procreation?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that? Wasn't it you that said 3% of marriages were same sex?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top