What basic civil rights do they not have?

 

The ability to marry the person that they love. The right to have that person stand as a spouse in legal matters.

 

I agree fairly closely with RTS. To me, marriage is a religious institution and should only be performed by religious institutions. I feel that the government should grant civil unions (not marriage) for any couple.

The ability to marry the person that they love. The right to have that person stand as a spouse in legal matters.

 

I agree fairly closely with RTS. To me, marriage is a religious institution and should only be performed by religious institutions. I feel that the government should grant civil unions (not marriage) for any couple.

 

I see your point, but doesn't a civil union come with certain government benefits? As it is defined now, most states feel like marriage, or a civil union, should be between a man and a woman. Opening it up further could see weirdos wanting a civil union with a goat they own, and wanting the benefits that follow. I know that would be an extreme case, but there are reasons that the institute of marriage comes with some tax benefits that many states don't feel should come with a same sex marriage.

I see your point, but doesn't a civil union come with certain government benefits? As it is defined now, most states feel like marriage, or a civil union, should be between a man and a woman. Opening it up further could see weirdos wanting a civil union with a goat they own, and wanting the benefits that follow. I know that would be an extreme case, but there are reasons that the institute of marriage comes with some tax benefits that many states don't feel should come with a same sex marriage.

 

I'm going to assume I read that wrong. Did you just equate homosexuality with marrying a goat?

Marvel's next move is to publish the Ambiguously Gay Duo.

I'm going to assume I read that wrong. Did you just equate homosexuality with marrying a goat?

 

Not at all. I am simply saying that there are a whole other group of people in the world that claim their love is real and should be accepted by government standards. I already stated that it is a much more extreme case, but many states choose to draw the line between a man and a woman. Until there is an amendment changing that they have the right to do so. It is also a gay person's right to boycott someone who has an opinion that doesn't support their cause. However, I don't see it being very effective.

I see your point, but doesn't a civil union come with certain government benefits? As it is defined now, most states feel like marriage, or a civil union, should be between a man and a woman. Opening it up further could see weirdos wanting a civil union with a goat they own, and wanting the benefits that follow. I know that would be an extreme case, but there are reasons that the institute of marriage comes with some tax benefits that many states don't feel should come with a same sex marriage.

 

Why should same sex couples that love each other every bit as much as hetro couples not be given those same benefits?

Why should same sex couples that love each other every bit as much as hetro couples not be given those same benefits?

 

That is where many states set the limit. I have heard people say it has to do with the ability to produce children and a family, but we all know that is available. I think is still comes down to societal acceptance. The point is that it is a state's decision without an Amendment. I will remind you again, however, that some who I consider to be total freaks will argue that other types of relationships should be open to the same benefits. Where should the line be drawn?

Marvel's next move is to publish the Ambiguously Gay Duo.

 

They already have Green Lantern.

Marriage.

 

Did I miss something, I thought they were allowed to be married in some states. Didnt Gomer Pyle just get married to a guy.

That is where many states set the limit. I have heard people say it has to do with the ability to produce children and a family, but we all know that is available. I think is still comes down to societal acceptance. The point is that it is a state's decision without an Amendment. I will remind you again, however, that some who I consider to be total freaks will argue that other types of relationships should be open to the same benefits. Where should the line be drawn?

I think we can draw the line on civil unions that afford the same rights as marriage where it's not extreme. Same sex unions are not extreme in my opinion. Bestiality is extreme.

I think we can draw the line on civil unions that afford the same rights as marriage where it's not extreme. Same sex unions are not extreme in my opinion. Bestiality is extreme.

 

I agree, but I am sure you can also agree that someone will eventually make some ridiculous argument that the line needs to be moved to fit their preferances once it is moved to fit someone else's preferenaces.

Did I miss something, I thought they were allowed to be married in some states. Didnt Gomer Pyle just get married to a guy.

 

Goober?

I agree, but I am sure you can also agree that someone will eventually make some ridiculous argument that the line needs to be moved to fit their preferances once it is moved to fit someone else's preferenaces.

 

I'm sorry, but that is a very poor argument. Essentially, let's not concede here (even though it may be a rational option) because someone else may want something crazy?

DC Comics as a publisher has been very supportive of gays. Without thinking hard I can come up with 4 characters that are gay in their current books. I believe that anyone can boycot anything they want to but it certainly seems that if this hurts DC badly then it will hurt their cause overall.

That is an interesting choice of adjectives.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: