Political Crossfire Forums

[rainidame]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: rainidame wrote: I support homo marriage, but I wouldn't support much else of what you suggest for one simple reason. . .

The main reasons I hear for homo marriage are the rights, right to the hospital, right to inherit, right to child custody, things like this. In the case of animals, those rights would never be exercisable (remember here marriage and sex are two different things, apparently sex with animals is more common that imagined, see thread "OMG....." in News and Current Events), and in the case of family members those rights already exist without marriage, hence to complain about not having them would be foolish.
I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Without marriage recognition, gay couples are treated as legal strangers - they can't visit their partner in the hospital in areas restricted to 'family members', because they aren't recognized as one. They can't inhereit their spouse's property without an airtight will, whereas you would if your husband didn't have a will. Child custody is minefield for gay parents to navigate, marriage or not.

Whether you like it or not, a gay person and their same-sex partner living in a committed relationship with each other are a family unit, whether the law or society cares to recognize that or not.

Skeptic, that IS what I was saying, you have REAL issues with rights; an animal could never exercise those rights so animal marriage isn't comparable; and family would already have those rights, so again not comparable.

Please re-read the first sentence. . . which should now read,

UNTIL SKEPTIC decided to ATTACK ME on every thread, I support gay marriage.

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: rainidame wrote: I support homo marriage, but I wouldn't support much else of what you suggest for one simple reason. . .

The main reasons I hear for homo marriage are the rights, right to the hospital, right to inherit, right to child custody, things like this. In the case of animals, those rights would never be exercisable (remember here marriage and sex are two different things, apparently sex with animals is more common that imagined, see thread "OMG....." in News and Current Events), and in the case of family members those rights already exist without marriage, hence to complain about not having them would be foolish.
I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Without marriage recognition, gay couples are treated as legal strangers - they can't visit their partner in the hospital in areas restricted to 'family members', because they aren't recognized as one. They can't inhereit their spouse's property without an airtight will, whereas you would if your husband didn't have a will. Child custody is minefield for gay parents to navigate, marriage or not.

Whether you like it or not, a gay person and their same-sex partner living in a committed relationship with each other are a family unit, whether the law or society cares to recognize that or not.

Skeptic, that IS what I was saying, you have REAL issues with rights; an animal could never exercise those rights so animal marriage isn't comparable; and family would already have those rights, so again not comparable.

Please re-read the first sentence. . . which should now read,

UNTIL SKEPTIC decided to ATTACK ME on every thread, I support gay marriage.
It's a debate forum - if you don't want to debate, I suggest you find another hobby.

Your post was frankly worded rather poorly. It sounded to me like you were saying that gay partners were no more worthy of recognition than someone's relationship with an animal. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote.

[rainidame]

Going back and re-reading the original post I note that I didn't address the three women together, I would support the right of polygamists (so long as honesty with all partners) no matter sexual orientation.