Silly Mrs. Clinton

[martha]

Originally posted by Bluer White
Madelyn Iris, let the folks in this thread label you as hateful and a "dodger" of the issue. They will be running to the ballot box to cast a vote for Clinton or Obama, who have an opinion that is basically equivalent to yours.

Nice assumption.

I like Kucinich because he's the only one for actual marriage.

[MadelynIris]

Originally posted by Bluer White
Madelyn Iris, let the folks in this thread label you as hateful and a "dodger" of the issue. They will be running to the ballot box to cast a vote for Clinton or Obama, who have an opinion that is basically equivalent to yours.

Ah, nicely brought back on topic. Thanks!

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Because it would be cheaper (in most cases) than him getting health insurance on his own, if he were unemployed. A benefit of marriage.

So I'm going to get "married" because my brother is temporarily unemployed?

See, I still don't see why?

[MadelynIris]

Seriously Martha, why should romantic involvment or sexual orientation have to come into play. Why shouldn't it be about a human partnership?

[martha]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Seriously Martha, why should romantic involvment or sexual orientation have to come into play. Why shouldn't it be about a human partnership?

Because the issue is romantic involvement. Two people want to be married. Let them.

[MadelynIris]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So I'm going to get "married" because my brother is temporarily unemployed?

See, I still don't see why?

They gain the rights and benefits bestowed upon married couples.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Bluer White
Madelyn Iris, let the folks in this thread label you as hateful and a "dodger" of the issue. They will be running to the ballot box to cast a vote for Clinton or Obama, who have an opinion that is basically equivalent to yours.

Poor assumption.

[MadelynIris]

Originally posted by martha


Because the issue is romantic involvement. Two people want to be married. Let them.

I thought the issue is rights?

And what is the Jesus excuse?

[martha]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


I thought the issue is rights?

The right to get married.

Originally posted by MadelynIris


And what is the Jesus excuse?

It's what some frightened people use. You haven't used it yet.

[MadelynIris]

I'm ok with calling it 'marriage' instead of a union or partnership too. As long as it's not limited to romantic involvement about sexual orientation.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


They gain the rights and benefits bestowed upon married couples.

So? You still haven't shown one instance where it would be nothing more than a temporary fix. I mean honestly who cares, there are other ways to fix these problems.

Show me a group that actually wants this.

[MadelynIris]

Originally posted by martha
The right to get married.

Sounds more like a symantic/religious thing with you, not a legal rights issue. Fair enough. Go and fight the church. I'd like to neurtralize the religious aspect of it, and take it out of the argument. Let churches do whatever they want.

[MadelynIris]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So? You still haven't shown one instance where it would be nothing more than a temporary fix. I mean honestly who cares, there are other ways to fix these problems.

Show me a group that actually wants this.

BVS, what do 'they' want?

I'd say just about every gay couple that I know would want this if it were offered tomorrow. They want those rights.

[martha]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Sounds more like a symantic/religious thing with you, not a legal rights issue.

You've never heard of a wedding at the courthouse!

[martha]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
As long as it's not limited to romantic involvement about sexual orientation.

And now you fear and bias comes out.

Why?

[MadelynIris]

Originally posted by martha


You've never heard of a wedding at the courthouse!

and...? You've never heard of two farming brothers not having sex together who live together?

[MadelynIris]

Originally posted by martha


And now you fear and bias comes out.

Why?

Exactly the opposite. I'm saying be 'inclusive' of all life partnerships, not limiting.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris


BVS, what do 'they' want?

I'd say just about every gay couple that I know would want this if it were offered tomorrow. They want those rights.

Not sure who 'they' is, there wasn't a single 'they' in that post.

No, I mean show me a group of brothers or sisters that want this? You know what we were talking about, don't talk around the subject.

And no, I'm pretty sure most gay couples wouldn't want this, just like you and your wife wouldn't really want this. Many actually want the right to marry, not JUST the rights that come with it.

[MadelynIris]

I really like this explanation on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_i...hip_in_Alberta

According to the Alberta Ministry of Justice, "The act covers a range of personal relationships that fall outside of marriage, including committed platonic relationships where two people agree to share emotional and economic responsibilities."[2] Under the terms of the law, couples in a mutually dependent relationship, conjugal or not, are deemed to be adult interdependent partners after three years of living together, even without signing a partnership agreement, as is the case with common-law marriage.

[MadelynIris]

And no, I'm pretty sure most gay couples wouldn't want this, just like you and you wife wouldn't really want this. Many actually want the right to marry, not JUST the rights that come with it.

Ok, if you say so. This is exactly what my wife and I have. I don't care what you call it. Seems odd that you would think that gay couples wouldn't want this.

What about it don't you think they would like, the name? I'm not worried about the name.