DOMA, The defense of marriage act. Is that not a law that has everything to do with defending marriages? How are we definitely the word marriage here: a traditional religious ceremony wedding a man and woman. What does this mean? There is a LAW defending religious marriages. The law states
"Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."
Now how can anyone here read the above and say "Just get a civil union!" The LAW clearly states gay people WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE! If civil unions are the same we wouldn't be having this debate. I don't give a rats fart about a religious ceremony quite honestly, I just what the same benefits everyone else gets to share!
For your first point please see the above. Next, obviously no one will be able to force any private religious institution to marry anyone. Period. If you think that this is the reason behind this whole gay marriage thing your SADLY mistaken.
Not exactly sure where you got gays think religion is evil from....? My girlfriend was raised with religion, my best friend was raised with religion and I know several couples with children who also follow faith. I in no way shape or form think religion is evil. I for one was never raised with religion, not for or not against. As a younger adult I find myself gravitating towards religion. It leaves a bad taste that they nit pick over stupid things, but that's just my opinion. I do like to believe there is a God. A person who will judge me biased on my moral character, not on who I love.
And yes, it does come down to financial/medical/etc type things. I (will be) working **** hard as an RN to provide for my family. I have no interest in physically having kids and having kids is one of my girlfriends biggest dreams. Guess who's going to be brining in the benefits? Me. Why SHOULDN'T she be covered? Bottom line is love is already there!
Also, what does IRAN of all places have to do with ANYTHING here. They are still working on equal rights for women... Which happened about 100 years ago here. Instead of me looking at Iran why don't you look at Argentina (2010), Belgium (2004), Brazil, Canada, Denmark (happiest people in the world, seriously), Iceland, Mexico, Netherlands (one of the first), Norway, Portugal, south Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Now most of these countries are on OUR level! Not backwards Iran, really??
Posted via Mobile Device
OMG, so if someone is married by the justice of the peace - no state recognizes their marriage?? Marriage laws do not require a religious ceremony, nor is any
religious affiliation of any
sort required to get married. If you think that is not the case, you
are sadly mistaking.
I didn't say all gays think religion is evil. But, if that is how you would like to read it, have at it
. However, if you trouble yourself to read the thread you might notice that some seem to think that religion dictates the laws.
Since you didn't get the comparison w Iran, I will expand. Iran's laws concerning gays are 100% religious based. The US's are not
. If someone wants to make the argument that marriage laws shouldn't be based on religious teachings in the US - they have NO argument b/c the church does not pass laws, and no religious affiliation of any kind is required to get married! However
, if one feels they have no reason to live unless they can argue that the church shouldn't dictate marraige laws, they are IN LUCK...b/c, again...Iran's laws concerning gays are 100% religious based and are in fact dictated by "the church". In that country, it would be ill advised for gays to openly demand laws be changed and to be treated differently. That is what gay marriage is - demanding to be treated differently. Like I said before, no couple of the same sex can get married, regardless
of sexual preference..it is
equal treatment and equal treatment is the law.
I never implied or stated I thought that gays wanted gay marriage so they could be married in the church of their choice, and if you think I did you
are sadly mistaken. There is little point in making straw man arguments.
I said it boiled down to benefits, and you seem to have gotten that in addition to your straw man argument. If your friend had a child, why wouldn't the father be responsible for medical? That is the law. By whatever method, it isn't as if there is no married couple that can't afford children and choose not to have them, or do and struggle b/c they have no benefits.
I find it rather interesting that the culture of every country you named as "on our level" is either a direct result of western civilization, or was heavily influenced by it. And, the place you call "backward" is not (not now). Not to mention it is terribly prejudice of you to call them backward.