posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:46 AM
Hello all, perhaps a new voice of reason?
First of all I may be a catholic and a married person. However I am for gay marriage.
I put forward that the use of the word "marriage" may be under complete control of the church and by such not be up for use to a group outside thier
standards. Now as such they do not control "union", "combining", "pairing"... the list goes on. PICK ONE! Now since mariage is no longer
threatened by the "gays" we have nothing to fear of thier union. If they chose to go through a union they then warrant all the same benifits of
anyone who is married. NO? Ok well lets look at this point.
First here in Canada we have common law "marriages" person one is a male named 1. person 2 is female named 2.
So 1 lives on his own for 5 years and pays taxes and the bills and everything. He is single. person 2 lives the same life for 5 years. Now person 1
looses his job and needs a roomate, he has 2 choices person 2 or person 3 who is also a male. If he choses person 3 he lives with them and pays his
bills and taxes as if he is still single. No mater how long they remain roomates. However he doesn't get to enjoy the benifits if person 3 dies (such
as insurance collection or death benificiary). Now if person 1 choses person 2, he can after 1 year(6 months in some places) chose to live under
common law "marriage". They get to share taxes and gain death benifits and everything. If person 2 has a baby with a boyfriend or some one night
stand. They get child support and the person 1 gets to have time off for the birth of the child even if not the father. These people do not need to be
living as a couple (as in comsumated), just under the same roof and chose this life style.
Now we look at the marriage lifestyle. You gain the benifit of well taxes, death benifits, baby time off.... Pretty much all the same as living
together .Except a piece of paper that costs married people money to recieve.
So now why couldn't these gay couples enjoy the same benifits if they stay with the same lover for 25 years. Why shouldn't they gain the death
benifit if thier loved one dies? Or be allowed to gain the insurance as a married couple?
Now lets look at this baby stuff (the part making them not allowed to be married since they cant reproduce) Now 1 side of the line say the can't
reproduce and they are bad and they should be crucified (bare with me tran-les-gay people) Now first off. if you allow them to get married they will
not have children. Point one for you bashers is that they will die off without passing on thier gay genes. Point two if they adopt a baby then that
child may grow up gay, or may not, but if it's passed on by genes then it is going to be gay anyway. So why not allow an unused baby to find a loving
home ( yes not all gay couples will have a good home, but we have bad apples in our group too) Point 3 those gay people wont be in your bars possibly
hitting on you anymore since they will be taken and be at home.
Now tran-les-gays. you get to have your marriage, what benifit does it give you? If you love someone enough a piece of paper doesn't matter. If it's
the wedding then just have one of your friends rent a judge costume and do a ceremony for you. Then rent a huge ball room and have a celebration that
will bring you into poverty for 20 years to pay it back. Then print up a mariage certificate and write your names on it. It isnt legal but it has all
the same thinsg that a regular marriage has.
Now you want it legal. Well instead of asking for your people to gain the "marriage" aim lower and say perhaps give me the word union OR Perhaps
just give me the benifits of insurance, time off if we addopt (which even non married people get if they addopt.) Also give us the benifits upon death
if we love each other and if the partner writes it in his or her will.
Now if you love each other and you failed this vote and people are laughing at you it shouldnt matter cause you still have each other.