Marriage equality argument

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-20-2013
Marriage equality argument
213
Tue, 03-26-2013 - 8:21pm

So the sole argument against marriage equality is that marriage is for procreation? Where exactly does that leave menopausal women? Or men with ED? Or the infertile? 

I can not believe we are STILL having this discussion in 2013. I have noticed that it is generational though--many of boomers I know are against it. Gen Xers like myself and younger are generally in favor...

On Wednesdays we wear pink.

Pages

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 5:12am

pumpkinangel wrote:
<p><blockquote class="quote-msg quote-nest-1 odd"><div class="quote-author"><em class="placeholder">jamblessedthree</em> wrote:</div>&lt;p&gt;What issues do you have bringing family into debate?  I have no shame taking MIL to debate here, Amazingly her ways are sometimes applicable here, Lol.  Why do some family snitches get a pass but others don't?  The posts must be convenientally missed I guess, I really don't know but it's often why I don't debate some here b/c you're not impartial debaters.  Having said that, I'm sorry if you don't like that some old debates haven't been forgotten either, Mothers and all.  If you don't want to drag that in again then don't, Just don't shoot the one sided reminders then too.   Thanks, Ta ta. &lt;/p&gt;</blockquote></p><p>The only issus about family members that I'm bringing up is the double standard of being called out for talking about family members in a debate while supporting others for doing the same and of course doing the same yourself, again. If you don't want the double standards to be called out, then stop.  It's the one sided reminders and the lack impartial debating double standard that I'm calling out here, fyi...in case that point was missed, again.  </p><p>I have no issues with old debates being remembered, if they are remembered in reality and facts and not through some magical telescope where one sees only fairy tales and where being different is bad.  But you might want to note, I didn't drag it in...yet another double standard. </p>

This post is nonsense, Laughing out loud!  The only double standard is on you. 

 

 

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 5:10am
These subsidies weren't even around in my grandparent's generation and before her, She didn't die a poor woman. Right of survivorship and asset allocation should be as equal to me as it is to anybody else, gay or single person alike! Nice try tho, Are you only banking on ss and pension or are you more diversified than that chestnut?

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 7:20pm

<How could you or anyone be a sahp without the benefits of the working spouse?>

Wow - Good point. Jams - Care to comment on your ss or pension benefits if your husband, God forbid, dies berfore you do?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 6:45pm

jamblessedthree wrote:
<p><em>There are many people who are civilly married who are not considered married in the eyes of the Church. Why can't gay marriages be like that -- recognized by the state, but not by the church?</em></p><p>I have nowhere said that gay marriage should NOT be recognzied by the state, but another alternative is removing the rights you and I so freely get altogether b/c we're married to men too.  There's no place in the constitution that says b/c I'm married I'm entitled to these and those rights.  Why shouldn't next of kin be up to an individual to decide?  Treat applying for marriage like applying for a drivers license, Meet the state age requirements, prove citizenship, Pass a test then go on your marry way and do your thing.  If you want this significant other to be your next of kin in the event of an emergency then check it off like you would organ donation.  Love is not a legal contract and that's the distinction here. </p>

How could you or anyone be a sahp without the benefits of the working spouse?  

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 6:43pm

jamblessedthree wrote:
<p>What issues do you have bringing family into debate?  I have no shame taking MIL to debate here, Amazingly her ways are sometimes applicable here, Lol.  Why do some family snitches get a pass but others don't?  The posts must be convenientally missed I guess, I really don't know but it's often why I don't debate some here b/c you're not impartial debaters.  Having said that, I'm sorry if you don't like that some old debates haven't been forgotten either, Mothers and all.  If you don't want to drag that in again then don't, Just don't shoot the one sided reminders then too.   Thanks, Ta ta. </p>

The only issus about family members that I'm bringing up is the double standard of being called out for talking about family members in a debate while supporting others for doing the same and of course doing the same yourself, again. If you don't want the double standards to be called out, then stop.  It's the one sided reminders and the lack impartial debating double standard that I'm calling out here, fyi...in case that point was missed, again.  

I have no issues with old debates being remembered, if they are remembered in reality and facts and not through some magical telescope where one sees only fairy tales and where being different is bad.  But you might want to note, I didn't drag it in...yet another double standard. 

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 2:43pm
What would the point of getting married in a civil ceremony be if there were no legal or economic benefits involved?
Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 12:58pm
"Come to think of it we should have enacted equal marriage way back when roe v wade got passed, The freedom to chose is what this is all about." ------------ Freedom to choose? How do you mean?
Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 12:57pm
"Meet the state age requirements, prove citizenship, Pass a test then go on your marry way and do your thing." ------------------- With no rights or special treatment for now being married, correct? No joint tax returns, no shared property, no special privileges. Would you extend this new marriage deal also to homosexuals, or do you think this should still be reserved for heteros?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 11:44am

jamblessedthree wrote:
Oh nevermind mops, The state is already too much involved in personal lives. Come to think of it we should have enacted equal marriage way back when roe v wade got passed, The freedom to chose is what this is all about.

Jams, what the heck are you trying to convey here? Roe vs Wade did not get "passed", it was s USSC decision that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. What does that have to do with marriage equality? It also seems, IMO personal morality aside, that the Roe v Wade decision keeps the state out of our lives. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Sat, 03-30-2013 - 8:55am
Now you're just being ugly, Jambles.

Pages