They are not going to throw you out of the Internet because you are lacking in ethics, integrity and honesty.
This is the problem with arguing with old men . It is their way or nothing . I showed you a website where the difficulties experienced by homosexuals were clearly explained . Your spin on it is there is no problem . You are using your own personal circumstances to justify in your mind a ridiculous proposition : that marriage (being a legal framework) is not needed . That the only reason we will give marriage to homosexuals is so you will feel good . Admit to being silly .
Quote:Duh...you're still here so obviously not ! Just admit you cant comprehend the difficulty that was explained in that article or are you going to continue to argue that difficulties do not justify a solution ? The current system has problems, and you are spinning that to say that technically marriage is not required . It is not working so how can it be a viable option because it is so in theory ?They are not going to throw you out of the Internet because you are lacking in ethics, integrity and honesty.
I find your whole attitude of homosexuals dont need marriage to be devoid of any understanding of the problem . Unnecessary suffering is taking place, and the legal umbrella of marriage will prevent others from these awful situations that have occurred . I simply maintain this legal umbrella does not have to be called marriage . That is the desire of a very few homosexuals who are overcompensating for their abnormality .
I find your refusal to acknowledge that a failed system is not working to "transfer property and to gain hospital access at deathbed times..." to be tantamount to lacking in self -respect, dishonourable, and totally lacking in ethics . It is the sort of bureaucratic response that makes problems worse .
Why not acknowledge that the system doesnt work and you were totally wrong and we can move on . It is what I would do...
overcompensating for their abnormality .
I have no dog in tis fight but it was true that gays were denied many of these fundamental benefits because of a lack of some kind of legally binding association under law.(it also excluded the first million and half of inheritence being tax-free, or shared property rights being recognized in many states)
Marriage seems to be but one method to right these wrongs but I suppose that some 'Association under law" would work also. I think it was more a mastter of choice by the gay community.
The Conservative Christian Minority of the US seemed to be the outfit that was most dead set against gay marriage (and to some degree, the Orthodox Jewish Rbbis, the Mullahs, and Catholic Church "professionals")
Franky, Franky, Franky...only a bloody minded bureaucrat would say a system that doesnt work is working . Clearly you have no comprehension or choose to pretend ignorance . Your insistence on having the last word is because you are a grumpy old man who missed a lifetime of opportunities to grow . I'll let the record stand as is .