Rick Santorum?

Post Reply New Topic

As far as I'm concerned, a marriage is first and foremost about love between two people who want to share their lives together; and I think that's how most people today see it. So yes, a same sex couple can have the same kind of relationship.

And did I understand you properly - that infertile couples needn't get married as they can't have children?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well in order for them to have those rights when they make their relationship official it kinda has to be treated as a marrige legally otherwise they would not get those rights mentioned.

I believe, although I could be wrong, that those rights are pretty much covered under civil unions or in some states, common law.

Can the same sex couples' love result in the creation of new life? Obviously not, so therefore it is different. The fact that the possibility isn't even there makes it different.

I keep hearing people say that they think marrige is about love between two people. What about blood relatives? If a brother and sister want to get married should they be able to? What about a father and daughter?

It seems to me like whenever the homosexual couples get close to being legally treated like a married couple.....even if the word marrige is not used everyone throws a f*cking fit and the rights get removed again.

I think inbreeding and homoexuality are different things entirely, but I could be wrong....

I agree with you here. This should not happen.

Again, I agree. They are two very different things. However, the same argument for marriage can be made for both.

What about people who get XXY, XYY, XXX, or just X? What about people with XX or XY chromosomes that have hormonal circumstances that make them look the opposite sex and grow genitals of the opposite sex?

But many sterile couples still want to and it is legal for them to.

However, you lie. A lot of sterile couples need to marry. Because many adoption agencies wouldn't accept an unmarried couple.


So, what if interracial marriages were illegal? Everyone would still have the "right" to marry an unmarried, non blood relative of the opposite gender and same race.



Easy to say this, as I guess that you plan to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. To think so many people in the world are adults and are unable to marry the fellow adult person they truly love... Well, it does not add up to me that someone would say it is not a rights issue.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 21 Feb 2012, 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

On another note I just caught Santorum's Satan speech. I hope this puts Romney back out front.

But people get married out of love most of the time, and very rarely with the intent of having children - though that is a by product of heterosexual marriage. So actually, getting married for love applies to both hetero and homosexual marriage. Thus, it is a marriage in my humble opinion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I was also quite frankly thinking of the Dungeons and Dragons monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troglodyte ... 26_Dragons)
It is of below average intelligence, attacks anything that is different, and secretes a foul odor

Ah, a right wing Republican!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Bataar, love your avatar, but you are wrong about Santorum, Simply based on this objections to Loving vs Virginia, he is definately a hypocrite to Catholism, and I dare say being an American and is either

A. Racist or
B. So stupid that if he ever farts his head would cave in
Or possibly both.

That's what marriage is in practice throughout the entire Western World. A state or government recognized domestic contract between two persons.



There is no unchangeable reality to marriage. It is a social custom and a legal institution that has changed a lot over the centuries. In biblical times, marriage used to be between a man and his disenfranchised harem of wives and concubines. Some cultures practiced polyandry, others had polygamous marriages between two sisters and two brothers (such as the Maori of New Zealand), and the ancient Romans allowed gay marriage until 342 CE.

This shows that marriage is whatever we want it to be. The only constant throughout all ages and cultures is that marriage was a domestic partnership between several people. If we wanted it to remain traditional, we would have to reinstitute arranged marriages with dowries and disenfranchised underage brides. Luckily we've progressed beyond that. It makes no sense to stop this ongoing progress towards greater equality now.



In most states, civil unions / domestic partnerships don't grant couples all of the state-recognized rights, protections and benefits that are given to married same-sex couples. There are also legal requirements in some states, such as cohabitation and access to long-term care insurance, that don't apply to married people. And if "unionized" or "domestically partnershipped" couples move to a different state, their union might not be recognized at their new place of residence. That's not equality.

Besides, as you can see in the above paragraph, the wording is also an issue. Nobody gets down on their knees and asks their partner "do you want to unionize me". Imagine we came up with a new term for interracial marriage. "You can't get married, you can only have an interracial union" is utterly unthinkable. Even if the rights and benefits were exactly the same, the different term would still constitute discrimination.

My wife and I just got a laugh from your post.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer