It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MacMerdin
I guess no-one wants to reply to this? When it's smacked in your face that it is not equal to deny same-sex partners the same benefits that married people have, I guess you have no rebuttal?
Originally posted by MacMerdin
Also, they mentioned that when you are married, you automatically are considered related to that person. When you are in a contract, you are not considered related. So, that blows the seperate but equal defense down. Because it is NOT equal if one is related and the other is not.
I saw one privelege first hand. Recently, My sister and brother-in-law and myself rented a vehicle. It was rented in my brother-in-law's name. Well, my sister gets to drive the vehicle with no extra cost because they are married. If I were to rent a vehicle and wanted my partner to drive also....even if we have all the contracts, t's crossed and I's dotted, we would still have to pay the extra driver money. Equal....I don't think so.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Count your blessings.
[edit on 15-10-2004 by jsobecky]
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Homosexuality cannot contribute to this cause and therefore deserves no social subsidy. Sleep with whom you like, but don't ask me to subsidize your proclivities.
How would like it if the person you love and had spent the last 30 years with was dying in the hospital and when you went to see them and hold their hand in their final moments the hospital staff told you that you were not allowed to see them because their "real" family, you know the ones that disowned him and havent talked to him since you moved in togather, said you couldnt?
Originally posted by Jemison
I would think that an hour at an attorneys office would give you many of the 'rights' that you feel you are not getting without being married.
Jemison
And its not "MY" cause I am married to a woman for life with four beautiful children and 1 and a half grandchildren.
Originally posted by Jemison
[ If my assumption is correct, Congratulations!
Jemison
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The real question is, Why should society benefit relationships which do not benefit society?
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The real question is, Why should society benefit relationships which do not benefit society?
Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The marriage institution is for the purposes I described. There are other legal arrangement for those who associate themselve for other reasons. Marriage, in its intended state, formalizes the commitment of a man and woman to society, which society rewards. Homosexual couples, by definition, cannot fulfill this social function and therefore should not reap the benefits.
There is no logical argument to allow marriage between same-sex couples.