we can get married, have children, take care of ours spouses in life and in death (now I believe you are married and do all these things currently) but gay couples in most states do not have these rights as their union is not recognized
If sexuality is genetic, then we'll still discriminate against people with aberrant sexualities based on whatever reasons we conjure up including constructs such as "consent" or "decency" or "humaneness".
The slope is slippery both ways.
the point I'm trying to make with you is the same discrimination bullshit that we've been doing as a country for over 225+ years is still going on today...first it was blacks having rights, then the right to vote, then the right for women to vote and on to discrimination of gay people and the denial of their rights
no one asks why someone is black or why someone is handicapped in the manner you are discussing
Adopting is a long process for anyone. And I can understand being more critical of same sex parents simply because it's not natural
I'm pretty sure you can always designate a beneficiary. Last time I checked they don't ask for sexuality on forms
1) Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.
2) If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a state that respects the civil union.
3) According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.
4) Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.
5) Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.
6) Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
That's the main points of difference that I've read about
"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.  Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.
The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status."
Like my friends' dad always says "I don't care if gay people get married, they should be as miserable as I if that's what they want to do"
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
It will pass as I move on to the next topic for reading.
and I don't have a problem with them
This thread is comical because it shows the cognitive dissonance amongst the pro gay marriage crowd oh so well.
If you all would simply abandon the reasoning that discrimination against LGBTs is bad "because they were born that way" and admit that discrimination ought to be applied arbitrarily in a way that makes the most sense for "society", then you'd have a case. The only problem is that when you realize that the discrimination *is* arbitrary based on constructs built on empty-signifiers (and laws that have been fashioned henceforth), you realize that the anti gay marriage crowd actually has a case.
You need not abandon your position. Just get rid of the shitty rationale you use to buttress your belief system, replace it with something a little more well thought out, and you might actually be able to sway some people who are on the fence or lightly hold to their opposing stance.
And Newt defiles conservatism--not just marriage.