The Black Vault

Evil genius.

I am confused.
I thought "gay" meant "happy"?
Shouldn't we all strive to be happy?

greeney2 wrote:The government has to be involved with Marriage, because it is a contract that has provisions an laws that involve the government, such as children born with the marriage, and other issues of public record.

Awesome, so marriage is a contract. Great, we're making progress!

On what legal basis can there be a ban on having a contract between two people based on their gender or sexual orientation?

The legal basis would be the basic requirements, that must be met that were adopted by legal process, before entering into that contract. Those were adopted by a legal process, of elected or appointed officials, people given that authority under our system of laws. One set of circumstances for marriage may consider, or not consider, the set of circumstances of another. That is why you have marriage, and why you have civil unions. The basic guidelines were adopted to fit the different circumstances. In this case, the requirements for marriage and civil unions differs, but both are afforded the same end results. You have yet to answer my question concerning the exact opposite senerio exists in civil unions, where age limitations are set on heterosexuals. I contend their are sound reasons why each has its own set of circumstances.

You can not have several spouses, isn't that discrimination? Should consenting adults be permitted to marry siblings or first cousins? Is every law about morality unconstitutional?

greeney2 wrote:The legal basis would be the basic requirements, that must be met that were adopted by legal process, before entering into that contract. Those were adopted by a legal process, of elected or appointed officials, people given that authority under our system of laws. One set of circumstances for marriage may consider, or not consider, the set of circumstances of another. That is why you have marriage, and why you have civil unions. The basic guidelines were adopted to fit the different circumstances. In this case, the requirements for marriage and civil unions differs, but both are afforded the same end results. You have yet to answer my question concerning the exact opposite senerio exists in civil unions, where age limitations are set on heterosexuals. I contend their are sound reasons why each has its own set of circumstances.

Do you think gays should be not allowed to get into civil unions? What is the legal basis for a ban on gay civil union? Obviously, I am against discrimination that may occur in civil unions.

You can not have several spouses, isn't that discrimination? Should consenting adults be permitted to marry siblings or first cousins? Is every law about morality unconstitutional?

Irrelevant to the gay marriage discussion.

Did I say that?

greeney2 wrote:Did I say that?

Here's what you said:

greeney2 wrote:the requirements for marriage and civil unions differs, but both are afforded the same end results.

Since both civil union and marriage are (according to you) afforded the same end results, then that makes it much more sensical that gays should be allowed to do civil union AND marriage and heterosexuals should be allowed to do marriage AND civil union.

It's simple logic:

marriage = civil union, in terms of the end results (according to you)
gays should not be banned from civil union (right?)
Therefore, gays should not be banned from marriage.

Not what I said at all.