If our only view point was based on LOVE IS LOVE and the inability to hold down the shift key for the duration of an exclamation point stream, we would not have same-sex marriage legalized in several states. The fact of the matter is that those comparisons are not fair ones.
It’s most of your arsenal.
Read the provided link.
After 164 posts, did anyone actually answer the question?
False. It’s the arsenal of the foolish, most easily visible people whom I fear you associate with all gay-friendly people.
They are fair and logical. What is your definition of marriage?
It’s what all the homosexualists’ mottoes boil down to; really weak rhetoric.
My definition of marriage, in terms of legality (which is what the whole debate is about) is when a couple comes together to commit to each other, create a unified household, and likely raise children. All of these things are things the state has deemed beneficial and productive toward society, which is why they took a stake in marriage in the first place. Such is not the case for the other cases which people try and claim to be the slippery slope dangers of allowing same sex marriage.
We are not debating marriage in terms of legality. We are asking for your definition of marriage.
Is this your definition of marriage?
Didn’t you read what I just said? You proved my point, in fact, that many people like yourself seem to think that all pro-gay people rely on such silly arguments. Meanwhile, many many more people are working to promote our cause with stalwart, legal arguments involving rights and benefits to society. But by what you’ve said it seems that if you don’t see those people in the media, you don’t seem to know they exist.
I mean the general debate over the issue. But yes, I’ll say that’s my working definition though I may have more to add if someone makes a specific point against it.
Why limit it to just two people? Legal precedent? Societal benefit?
So you exclude polygamy. Where do the children come from?
Because many rights afforded to married couples by definition involve two people and have no counterpart possible for involving more people. A contract binding more than two people would be a completely different set of rights because of the intrinsically different set of people involved. Whereas, with two people, none of the legal rights involved inherently depend on one being a man and one being a woman. The exact same contract can be applied to two men or two women.
Please see my above post about polygamy.
Like which ones? Tax benefits are extended to more than two people for most corporate returns. More than one person can be added as a beneficiary to a will, hospital visitation, survivorship of SSI and pensions, etc.
Legal contracts don’t exist with more than two people?
Like, for example, deciding who makes the decision to take someone off life support. If it were up to two people instead of one, that would make a huge difference. Or filing jointly for taxes.
Sorry, but you’re wrong in the first case. Making a decision to handle life support issues can be handled by a power of attorney, which can defninately have more than one “attorney-in-fact”. If you’re stating there could be conflict with more than one person making the decision, powers of attorney can also be amended (like a trust) to have successor attorney. The beneficiary would elect a primary attorney, and have the other partners as a successory attorney, should the first be unable to fulfill that obligation (death, etc).
I understand, but again, that difference doesn’t equate to separate rights, or even the need for “marriage” for those rights.
leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Why only a couple? Why not three or four?
I am talking about in cases where no such power of attorney has ever been designated. Normally the decision would be up to the next of kin, normally the spouse. But if there’s more than one and no power of attorney arrangements has ever been made, you have a huge problem.