Your unabashed and overly passionate interest in having two people
disclose exactly what it is they do behind their closed doors, is near
amazing in this type of forum.
If "rights, status or privilege are to be granted based on behavior",
then in the instance of "marriage" the only "behavior" qualifier can
and should be the willingness to dedicate one's life to one other
individual and to do so with a bond that exceeds all others in law.
It is done with dignity, honor and respect for one another, and is a
life-long contract.
How many heterosexual couples live up to that pledge? The statistics
worsen each year. Divorce is easy, too easy. And the honor and respect
of being married, that once was cherished among those of us that married,
has dwindled to be simply a passing fancy; something attributed to
our older generation.
If the concept of marriage has gotten that bad among the heterosexual
community at large, how then can homosexuals wishing to make
the same pledge, be bad?
As I stated on other threads each time this topic has been debated,
we have many, many clients, associates, and friends that have been
living together for well over 20 years in homosexual relationships. Their
bonding without benefit of a marriage contract has outlasted that of
so many other heterosexuals that have garnered the marriage contract.
There is an all-encompassing debacle of "rights" associated with
the marriage contract. "Next of kin" rights, spousal rights, the right
to make life and death choices abound. And along with the "rights"
are the many other contracts whose provisions apply only to those
that are married, or the partner in marriage. Insurance contracts,
deeds, joint contracts.. All contracts in one way or another, including
the legal rights in court actions, have some exception or exemption for
an individual that's been bonded in marriage.
When that is the case; when there are so many legal issues that
surround the act of marriage, then that marriage decree can not
and should not, be limited to any select few, if based on prejudicial
issues. We do not [legally] judge a person's worth by ethnic, color,
heritage or sexuality. We afford the same legal rights to all.
Yes, that is part of our Constitution.
Marriage is not defined that way. There is a precise definition requiring the participants be of the opposite sex. A homosexual union cannot meet that definition.
It is done with dignity, honor and respect for one another, and is a life-long contract.
So draw up and execute the proper contracts; just don't call it marriage and don't seek protected status from the government. If you choose to claim protected status based on behavior then I want that status verified. By protected I mean minority status.
How many heterosexual couples live up to that pledge? ....
The inability of heterosexual couples to live up to their vows does not confer legitamacy to the concept of homosexual marriage.
If the concept of marriage has gotten that bad among the heterosexual community at large, how then can homosexuals wishing to make the same pledge, be bad?
Never said anything about good or bad. What I have said is that if you are claiming a status based on behavior then the behavior needs to be verified. Homosexuality is defined by behavior.
As I stated on other threads each time this topic has been debated, we have many, many clients, associates, and friends that have been living together for well over 20 years in homosexual relationships. Their bonding without benefit of a marriage contract has outlasted that of so many other heterosexuals that have garnered the marriage contract.
Nothing is stopping them from formalizing the relationship with the proper legal documents.
There is an all-encompassing debacle of "rights" associated with the marriage contract. "Next of kin" rights, spousal rights, the right to make life and death choices abound. And along with the "rights" are the many other contracts whose provisions apply only to those that are married, or the partner in marriage. Insurance contracts, deeds, joint contracts.. All contracts in one way or another, including the legal rights in court actions, have some exception or exemption for an individual that's been bonded in marriage.
Draw up the proper contracts and you will be protected from all of these issues without needing to be married; unless you engage in criminal activity and need the spousal protection afforded a married couple- persons of the opposite sex.
When that is the case; when there are so many legal issues that surround the act of marriage, then that marriage decree can not and should not, be limited to any select few, if based on prejudicial issues. We do not [legally] judge a person's worth by ethnic, color, heritage or sexuality. We afford the same legal rights to all.
Select few is a stretch. The population of the USA is pushing 300 million and is more or less divided equally between male and female.
Prejudicial issues? What prejudice? The requirements are defined as persons of the opposite sex; not persons engaging in a behavior. Claiming prejudice is one of those steps to claiming protected status.
Sexuality does not currently qualify as a minority or protected status. Race and gender do qualify for minority or protected status and are not behaviors. Sexuality or sexual orientaion are.
You have the same legal "right" to marry as anyone else. You need a person of the opposite sex to say yes to a proposal of marriage.
Yes, that is part of our Constitution.
As I said before, there is no right to marry enumerated in the constitution. Marriage is defined as between people of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is defined as behavior. If homosexuals are granted special status based on behavior then proof of the behavior is as reasonable as asking for proof of minority status(Black,Hispanic,Asian)when individuals apply for benefits granted due to that status such as affimative action or minority owned business contract set asides.
I don't care what consenting adults do with or to each other as long as I am not effected.
What I do care about is expansion of minority status because that effects all of us.
If homosexuality is granted minority status by the government, then claiming that status must be verified before receiving the benefits of that status from the government.
"Trust but verify" is a very conserative concept espoused by Ronald Reagan.