I found something I like about France!!

Unfortunately, i can't speak towards other countries in this regard all that much. The ties between church and state in European countries are much stronger than they are here, so for them it may be that the law was designed to support a religious matter.

However, note at the end of the article where it says that couples living together, whether they are opposite sex or same sex couples, enjoy the same benefits under law as do married couples. That point is what has been the big contention here in the US - same sex couples want those same benefits on their taxes, etc as married couples.

I'll state again, as i have in other threads, that marriage is religious thing. If the church doesn't want to marry same sex couples, it certainly has the right to do so. The government, however, should afford the same benefits to couples of all constitutions, provided they all file some sort of paperwork declaring them to legally be a couple (which i believe has to be done now for marriages anyways).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]405316[/snapback]</div>

Where the heck do you get that from?

Their law, as stated in this article (i have to admit i haven't actually read their law, and don't care to, ours is complicated enough), applies to couples only. It doesn't say anything about animals, and neither did I.

Your response is the typical, narrow minded philosophy that is normally seen amongst opponents to gay marriage. "OMG an adult male wants to marry another adult male? If we allow that, then we have to allow all these other depravities!"

Simply allowing gay marriages or unions, or at the minimum granting them the same rights under law as straight married couples does absolutely nothing to effect the other laws that govern underage individuals and non- Homo sapiens.

It seems to me that perhaps this isn't actually something you like about France.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]405316[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, Rick Santorum. Please go back to doing whatever it is you're doing now that you got voted OUT OF OFFICE LAST NOVEMBER!!!!

This is such an inane comment. I cannot believe you need someone to explain to you the difference between a long-term committed, adult, human-to-human relationship and anything else.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]405316[/snapback]</div>

I'll give you a serious answer even though, I suspect, you don't want one.

The reason is that the preponderance of society believes it to be right.

 

One law at a time, Daron... I'm sure if you push hard enough, you'll be able to get your state to acknowledge your short term relationships with the stray cats and their strap-ons.

Seriously, what are you thinking? I'll take each of your points in hand here:

When we say committed relationship, all that means is that you have enough commitment to file the paperwork. Look at these celebrity marriages. Some of them only last a month, a week, or even a day! And yet for that short time they do enjoy the legal benefits of that union.

The laws against minors being involved in what is considered to be an adult relationship are completely separate from the ones we're talking about. Allowing marriage between same sex couples in no way degrades our protection of children. It doesn't even imply that it should be degraded.

Legal benefits of marriage currently include items like joint filing for your taxes, medical coverage for your spouse, next-of-kin privilege/responsibility, and the like. Show me an inanimate object that files for taxes, needs medical care, and can make decisions, and by all means you can marry it.

Likewise, animals have been granted no legal rights. When dogs are granted the right to own property, pay taxes, and vote, then you can consider marrying one.

The thing is, a law has to fit in with all the other laws around it. Extending the right for a legal union and all of its benefits to same sex couples doesn't mean that all those other laws just go away.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]405341[/snapback]</div>

Because having sex with a minor or an animal is illegal?

To answer the obvious straw-man question I know you'll ask: Because minors and animals (and inanimate objects) can't give informed consent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]405316[/snapback]</div>

I am neutral to homosexual marriages. It really doesn't concern me if they can or cannot get married. If they can, good for them! There are other issues I would spend my time pondering about... like the woman who is getting raped at the moment you are reading my post or the few children who took their last breath because of hunger.

That said, this comment made me laugh out loud. I think it's funny.

 

The only reason i feel so strongly for it is because denying it is nothing more than hatred, bigotry, and oppression. Way back in the day, it was recognized that women couldn't own property, and that blacks were property. We went through a civil war to free the blacks and grant them the same rights as everyone else. We also went through a huge movement (mostly peaceful) to grant women the same rights as men.

Now you're talking about denying certain couples rights based on their personal choices. Talk about bigotry - "You aren't like me, so I'm not giving you these benefits!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 14 2007, 03:09 PM) [snapback]405349[/snapback]</div>

As far as I know 0 of the 50 states have put state constitutional amendments up for a vote passing protection of discrimination against gay couples.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 14 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]405313[/snapback]</div>

Civil partnerships are legal here, living as I do in the 51st State.

 

You sir are laughable. It's very, very clear that any sane, reasonable argument made against you will be met with ridicule and nonsensical arguments.

Happy hunting sir. I hope a new stray comes by your place today.

 

Seriously, daron, your comments are inane. Totally.

Eagle answered your inane points with validity.

And, you're wrong about the 1-man, 1-woman is the best place for a child. It can be, but it also doesn't always work out, either. (Remember the Menendez brothers?)

IMHO, love, guidance, and discipline are the ways to raise kids, be it from a single mom ( ) or a mom/dad or a mom/mom or a dad/dad or a single dad. Or hell, even a grandparent.

I know you don't agree with this, and that's it's OT, so you don't have to go off the deep end about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 14 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]405388[/snapback]</div>

Well said.

Daron, do you have any statistics to back up your claim that all situations other than 1-man, 1-woman married households are harmful to kids? What are the number of criminals that comes from such households? What are the number that come from a same-sex household? (i'll give you a hint - There are many, many more that come from 1-man, 1-woman households)

Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it will scar kids for life. My parents separated and got a divorce. It effected me a great deal, and it's something that i'm still dealing with. IMO, that is much, much worse than any effect on me should i have had same-sex parents growing up (through adoption or whatever).

So by all means, if we want to keep children out of same sex marriages, we should also outlaw divorce! And fighting! Gosh darn it, all these married couples made a vow, and it should be law that they uphold those vows to always love and cherish each other until death parts them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 14 2007, 10:03 AM) [snapback]405313[/snapback]</div>

Excellent reply! Although, I wish you would have stopped here, because the rest of your replies (and some others), were far less effective; not in their content, mind you, but due to the target audience.

Might I suggest in the future just banging your head against the wall? More painful, perhaps, but probably far less frustrating... :lol:

 

Perhaps Daron is a devoted follower of anti-abortion advocate Neal Horsley, who talked about having sex with a mule during an interview on Fox's Alan Colmes show.

Horsley: Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I . . .

Colmes: You had sex with animals?

Horsley: Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.

Colmes: I'm not so sure that that is so.

Horsley: You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?

Colmes: Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?

Horsley: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality. . . . Welcome to domestic life on the farm. You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that. . . . If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates, you might in fact have sex with it.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0520,mond...t1,64168,6.html

Perhaps animal sex is part of the rightwing agenda? Hence the worry that homosexual rights could be extended and... cur-tail this activity?

 

Oh, but it's extremely entertaining to read the replies we've gotten! It's like reading a nice fantasy story where the rabbits do nothing but multiply, and we've got cross-species breeds like centaurs and fauns. Not to mention objects that have a mind of their own!