Two more states allow same-sex civil unions

[Danno 1,228]

Reading comprehension issues, Danno? Again? Read "the questions" that were answered with two simple words, no less, rather than making up questions that I did clearly not respond to. Are you really that incompetent when it comes to following a simple conversation? Or are you simply overwhelmed by this indisputably true observation?

Yeah, yeah yeah..... ok we got all that now please address my question.....see, I am even asking nice.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Q: By what logic can we deny a Muslim man from marrying 2 women, by what right do you impose the Christian standard of a marriage consisting of just two people?

Marriage as a union between two people is not necessarily a "Christian standard". Nor is the marriage to more than one partner necessarily a "Muslim standard". Unless you're suggesting that Iowa Republicans just made a Muslim the winner of their caucuses last night. That said, we can deny a Muslim man from marrying two women by the same logic that we deny a Muslim woman from marrying two men. Or any other individual to be married to more than one person at any given time. I don't see where religion comes in here nor do I see any connection to the issue of marriage equality for same sex couples.

Yeah, yeah yeah..... ok we got all that now please address my question.....see, I am even asking nice.

See? Ask nicely and you shall receive an answer.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

. I need this laughs. I really do. Made my day!

Please stop encouraging the 10-year old comic routine.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

i think "smoking" when I hear "**" but that's just me.

Words don't "evolve" they get stolen/bastardized.

as far as "division of property" goes, you don't need government to recognize a union of two individuals for that. You can file as joint owners, etc. You can have two names on a mortgage, a car loan, etc.. Equal ownership is understood and it's the smart way to go about things when making such a large purpose. Signing and notarizing personal contracts works as well. There are plenty of options available. Non of these requires government to recognize your relationship.

If you don't consider your relationship meaningful until the governmnet recognizes it, then you truly don't belong in the relationship that you are in.

and yes I get the whole "medical care" argument as well, but there again that's irrelevant as well as it should be up to the individual who they want to care for them. I should be able to say that I want my best friend's sister to make my medical decisions, and that should be the end of the story.

Health insurance, Paul, health insurance. It's still only legal spouses who can co on a health insurance policy.

And estate law gets a little complex for those not in legally recognized unions.

So as usual you are full of #######.

Because some of us find that life style sick, revolting, disgusting and totally demented and don't want to see it brought into the mainstream is if it's accepted normal behavior between two normal adults. That and some of us including myself still believe in the sanctity of marriage.

The lib nuts can get off on same sex marriages all they want and try to pass them off as normal couples, but it's anything but normal.

And some of us find your lifestyle disgusting as well.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Health insurance, Paul, health insurance. It's still only legal spouses who can co on a health insurance policy.

And estate law gets a little complex for those not in legally recognized unions.

So as usual you are full of #######.

What does health insurance have to do with anything?

A health insurance company is a private firm and they can set their rules as they seem fit to provide their service. What they consider a "family" is up to that individual company. That's not a government problem.

Even if same sex unions were legal in all states, still doesn't mean insurance would have to oblige that as a family unit.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What does health insurance have to do with anything?

A health insurance company is a private firm and they can set their rules as they seem fit to provide their service. What they consider a "family" is up to that individual company. That's not a government problem.

Even if same sex unions were legal in all states, still doesn't mean insurance would have to oblige that as a family unit.

Insurance is set up that way because marriage is the "social criteria".

People just hate societal change.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

And some of us find your lifestyle disgusting as well.

Angry some because Papa Kip hasn't rocked your world?

[Danno 1,228]

........ That said, we can deny a Muslim man from marrying two women by the same logic that we deny a Muslim woman from marrying two men. Or any other individual to be married to more than one person at any given time. I don't see where religion comes in here nor do I see any connection to the issue of marriage equality for same sex couples.

See? Ask nicely and you shall receive an answer.

You said we deny a man a marriage to two wives for the same logic we deny a women the right to marry two men....

but you never told us what that logic is?

If we remove religion from the equation ..... on what grounds does the law mandate a marriage must consist of only two people?

Where does Gov't get the authority to decide this most intimate question?

If two men are free to wed, why not three?

You called this a slippery slope but once you discard tradition and the religion our culture was founded on.... by what right do you then define what a marriage is?

Edited January 5, 2012 by Danno

[TBoneTX 43,540]

Where does Gov't get the authority to decide this most intimate question?

If two men are free to wed, why not three?

And, we return to the wish of someone (older than 10 years of age) who is interested in marriage between one man and one goat. See above, man.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[TBoneTX 43,540]

That's a SHEEP, not a goat, no man. We should bleat you about the head and shoulders.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You said we deny a man a marriage to two wives for the same logic we deny a women the right to marry two men....

but you never told us what that logic is?

If we remove religion from the equation ..... on what grounds does the law mandate a marriage must consist of only two people?

Where does Gov't get the authority to decide this most intimate question?

If two men are free to wed, why not three?

You called this a slippery slope but once you discard tradition and the religion our culture was founded on.... by what right do you then define what a marriage is?

The "logic" is called monogamy and it's not a religious concept. You gotta get that fallacy out of your head. And no matter how much the homophobes insist, there simply is no slippery slope from extending the right to marry to same sex couples to polygamy, bestiality or whatever the imagined end-game would be in their little minds. What makes me so sure? Well, because not a single country or state that has extended marriage rights to same sex couples has given up on the concept of marriage being a monogamous relationship between two people. Not a single country has extended the right to marry to animals or children or close family members. Not one. It's a fantasy of the opponents of marriage equality and nothing but a cheap attempt to put same sex relationships on the same level with something that they are in reality very distinct from.

[Danno 1,228]

The "logic" is called monogamy and it's not a religious concept. You gotta get that fallacy out of your head. And no matter how much the homophobes insist, there simply is no slippery slope from extending the right to marry to same sex couples to polygamy, bestiality or whatever the imagined end-game would be in their little minds. What makes me so sure? Well, because not a single country or state that has extended marriage rights to same sex couples has given up on the concept of marriage being a monogamous relationship between two people. Not a single country has extended the right to marry to animals or children or close family members. Not one. It's a fantasy of the opponents of marriage equality and nothing but a cheap attempt to put same sex relationships on the same level with something that they are in reality very distinct from.

Your tacit is to cloud the issue with the bestiality stuff, I have not suggested that was around the corner or even down the road not have I suggested marriage to six year old either (Though incidentally some Gay groups are working to lower the age of consent).

Okay so you rest your case on the Religious concept of Monogamy..... in changing times I'd say thats a flimsy foundation to place much confidence.

And the truth is, laws against adultery are long gone in many parts of the country and "open marriages" are everywhere.... so evidently monogamy is not the NOT the basis for which we limit marriage to two people.

In fact many would suggest the Gov;'t has no business in peoples bedrooms concerning it's self to peoples sexual proclivities.

Oh and your other point of confidence is that, other countries.. all of which embraced of gay marriage but a decade or two ago and they have not "gone there yet."

Thats weak my friend.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

OMG! The gheys are going to make us all have fashion sense! Fat hairy European tourists can't wear speedos to the beach anymore!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay so you rest your case on the Religious concept of Monogamy.

Monogamy is NOT a religious concept. I've stated as much before. So, no, I am not resting my case on a religious concept. That would be silly.