Wedding bells for same-sex couples; bye-bye domestic partnerships

[durango46]

Normally No is not an answer to what I asked you. It's a yes or no question. Try again

ah, yes it is....

do you need a course on sex education Ken and how children are conceived ?

[durango46]

it takes a man and a woman in some way to have children

sure there's alternatives like adoption, in vitro ....and others

but in the end it still takes a man and a woman to have a baby

without that formula extinction would occur at some point


so flip it around all you like...these are the facts

signed
the dense guy

[bmore_ken]

ah, yes it is....

do you need a course on sex education Ken and how children are conceived ?

Sure do and know what that tells me? Women who who can't conceive can have a family that includes children. However by your logic, women who are incapable of conceiving shouldn't be allowed to be married. The wonderful thing about living in Maryland is that people like you and Smoke Dog over there are in the minority on this issue. Thank goodness for democracy

[demopublican]

it takes a man and a woman in some way to have children

sure there's alternatives like adoption, in vitro ....and others

but in the end it still takes a man and a woman to have a baby

without that formula extinction would occur at some point


so flip it around all you like...these are the facts

signed
the dense guy

No need to flip it around. It makes no difference. There is no evidence that straight sex is going away. The old hormone system works pretty damn well. Anyone with teenagers can tell you that.
But some people are not attracted to the opposite sex and there is no reason to deny them marriage.

[songfourone]

read it



So with hetero marriage it's common and typical for them to get married and divorced, not so common or typical to stay married for life. Glad we cleared that up with your definition

I live in Rehoboth, I see same sex couples everywhere, the only thing abnormal here is that they cannot marry

[Eastside Terp]

another problem created by the government that the government has to create more laws and regulations to fix ........

marriage should be a religious ceremony and no special rights, tax breaks, etc. should be based on anyone's marital status......

it's ridiculous that married folks, straight or gay, would have different tax rates, inheritance rules, etc. .....

[Smokey 1]

Smokey considers woman who want equal pay for equal work "special privileges", just so ya know.

An outright lie. Please cite a post where I said that.

[demopublican]

An outright lie. Please cite a post where I said that.

They don't need facts when they have accusations.

Also it should be noted that opposing a govt law or regulation does not always equal opposing the stated intent of the law or regulation.
I think women should be paid the same for equal work and equal value. But some regulations with that stated intent may look more like affirmative action or quotas which I would oppose.

[Baltimatt]

another problem created by the government that the government has to create more laws and regulations to fix ........

marriage should be a religious ceremony and no special rights, tax breaks, etc. should be based on anyone's marital status......

it's ridiculous that married folks, straight or gay, would have different tax rates, inheritance rules, etc. .....

So, do you think if you die without a will, your spouse should get nothing? Marriage covers a lot of paperwork that would have to be filled out for various things.

Marriage law is already here. The law voted on last Tuesday allows same-sex couples to marry, expands the list of people you can't marry, and states that religious bodies cannot face legal liability for refusing to perform a marriage. Actually, I believe the law actually simplifies the list of people you can't marry, as instead of separate lists for men and women, there is now one list.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/chapt..._2_hb0438T.pdf

[octoburn]

another problem created by the government that the government has to create more laws and regulations to fix ........

marriage should be a religious ceremony and no special rights, tax breaks, etc. should be based on anyone's marital status......

it's ridiculous that married folks, straight or gay, would have different tax rates, inheritance rules, etc. .....

It's beneficial to society at large and not unusual to use tax structuring to encourage societal contracts like marriage that strengthen ~ rather than weaken ~ the family unit. The destruction of the family unit is a major cause of so many of our social problems today. Children learn from example whether that lesson is intentional or not.

I just do not see any societal problems that legalizing same~sex marriage causes. Rather, I suspect it will actually strengthen the family unit in general.

I wonder what the divorce rate among gay couples will be in 25 years? Will it mirror the failure rate of heterosexual marriages, be worse, or be much better?

[octoburn]

Where was I pontificating to others? I gave my opinion, that is not pontificating. I am entitled to that opinion and if you don't like it tough crap. That is what is wrong with you lefties, you want to control what everyone thinks and heaven forbid someone doesn't think the way you do.

And I am not offended by you, I am creeped out.

BOO!! Now go away and take your drama with you. You just want attention and I now realize I have become an enabler.

[Eastside Terp]

It's beneficial to society at large and not unusual to use tax structuring to encourage societal contracts like marriage that strengthen ~ rather than weaken ~ the family unit. The destruction of the family unit is a major cause of so many of our social problems today. Children learn from example whether that lesson is intentional or not.

I just do not see any societal problems that legalizing same~sex marriage causes. Rather, I suspect it will actually strengthen the family unit in general.

I wonder what the divorce rate among gay couples will be in 25 years? Will it mirror the failure rate of heterosexual marriages, be worse, or be much better?

taxes are to raise revenues, not social engineer .......

the use of the tax code by incumbents to take care of their interest and to impart their vision of what the world should look like is the primary source of their power and one of the biggest problems with this country today .......

the Fairtax is the way to go, a revenue neutral tax plan that leaves the social engineering to the churches ......

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServ...owFairTaxWorks

[pepper]

Who is being manipulated? The anti-6 crowd told plenty of lies, not the pro-6 crowd. I don't give a rat's behind if you think my relationship is normal, nor do other gay couples. If we want your opinion on the matter, we'll ask for it.

By participating in this forum, you are asking for his opinion, or at the least, soliciting a response to your own. Not all responses will share your view, and I can't imagine you'd really want it that way.

Diversity of thought is as critical as diversity in sexual, ethnic, racial and cultural aspects, right?

And of course, you do give a rats arse about what others think concerning gay marriage, because without that, your position would be irrelevant. It's certainly not gay people that got this passed, as your numbers are too low. For you, on this matter, it's the larger straight population that decided.

[Bmoreteacher]

By participating in this forum, you are asking for his opinion, or at the least, soliciting a response to your own. Not all responses will share your view, and I can't imagine you'd really want it that way.

Diversity of thought is as critical as diversity in sexual, ethnic, racial and cultural aspects, right?

And of course, you do give a rats arse about what others think concerning gay marriage, because without that, your position would be irrelevant. It's certainly not gay people that got this passed, as your numbers are too low. For you, on this matter, it's the larger straight population that decided.

My point is that Smokey can think I'm not normal and it doesn't bug me. I didn't fight for the right to marry my partner so people like him could think I am normal, as he seems to think. As for the votes, I'll talk to people who are legitimately interested in having a conversation about why marriage equality is important. If someone shows themselves to be nothing but full of poorly thought out excuses for denying gays equality, then no, I dot care about their opinion or views.

[durango46]

Sure do and know what that tells me? Women who who can't conceive can have a family that includes children. However by your logic, women who are incapable of conceiving shouldn't be allowed to be married. The wonderful thing about living in Maryland is that people like you and Smoke Dog over there are in the minority on this issue. Thank goodness for democracy

and the only reason a woman who can't conceive can have a family is because another man and woman provided the child for them.. As for the highlighted statement above....nothing can be further from the truth.

but hey,
like to put words in other peoples mouths do ya...I knew sooner or later you would do it. It's who you are....


one more time
a man and woman have a child (THE NORM).....without this equation extinction would occur....it's undeniable.

[durango46]

By participating in this forum, you are asking for his opinion, or at the least, soliciting a response to your own. Not all responses will share your view, and I can't imagine you'd really want it that way.

Diversity of thought is as critical as diversity in sexual, ethnic, racial and cultural aspects, right?

And of course, you do give a rats arse about what others think concerning gay marriage, because without that, your position would be irrelevant. It's certainly not gay people that got this passed, as your numbers are too low. For you, on this matter, it's the larger straight population that decided.

just had to say....excellent post

[Smokey 1]

This is one last post from me on this thread to finalize what I tried to say. First of all I was attacked relentlessly on this thread by people who had a "knee jerk" reaction to what they thought I was saying. If they actually read and understood what I was saying they would have seen that I did not say one negative thing about homosexuals. What I opposed was the creep of "Newspeak" into our culture that is intended to change the way people think. I oppose any kind of insidious coercion on principle. I didn't oppose gays having all the rights of everyone else and support the concept of "civil unions". I do believe that a man and woman is different than a man and a man or a woman and a woman and that is why I believe there should be two different terms for the institution. But being different is not necessarily a negative thing. Most of you who took me to task on this thread never took the time to actually listen to what I was saying. I know my point was probably lost on most of you because you don't understand people who are as defiant as I am. Anyway I am done with this thread and in hindsight I probably should have left it alone and used another thread or started one of my own to make the points I was trying to make.

So yes, congratulations to bmoreteacher, Baltimatt and all the others who supported SSM. I would have preferred it be called a "civil union" but the people have spoken and that is the way it should be.

[demopublican]

Good post.

This is one last post from me on this thread to finalize what I tried to say. First of all I was attacked relentlessly on this thread by people who had a "knee jerk" reaction to what they thought I was saying. If they actually read and understood what I was saying they would have seen that I did not say one negative thing about homosexuals. What I opposed was the creep of "Newspeak" into our culture that is intended to change the way people think. I oppose any kind of insidious coercion on principle. I didn't oppose gays having all the rights of everyone else and support the concept of "civil unions". I do believe that a man and woman is different than a man and a man or a woman and a woman and that is why I believe there should be two different terms for the institution. But being different is not necessarily a negative thing. Most of you who took me to task on this thread never took the time to actually listen to what I was saying. I know my point was probably lost on most of you because you don't understand people who as defiant as I am. Anyway I am done with this thread and in hindsight I probably should have left it alone and used another thread or started one of my own to make the points I was trying to make.

So yes, congratulations to bmoreteacher, Baltimatt and all the others who supported SSM. I would have preferred it be called a "civil union" but the people have spoken and that is the way it should be.

[songfourone]

An outright lie. Please cite a post where I said that.

This says it all.

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showpos...&postcount=111

[bmore_ken]

and the only reason a woman who can't conceive can have a family is because another man and woman provided the child for them..

Exactly like a gay couple, correct?