Marriage Equity Act

[migrendel]

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

[TeePee4Prez]

I vote yea.

[migrendel]

I figured I might as well get the major social issues out of the way before I introduce my omnibus economic plan.

[True Federalist]

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

What exactly is this bill supposed to do?  While some radical social theorists recognize additional sexes that aren't deteremined solely on the basis of the hardware, US law )and hece Atlasia which uses US law except where we've directly chosen how to change it) recognizes only two sexes, male and female.  As far as I know both allowed to marry; in fact, in most places it takes one of each.

[Gabu]

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

What exactly is this bill supposed to do?  While some radical social theorists recognize additional sexes that aren't deteremined solely on the basis of the hardware, US law )and hece Atlasia which uses US law except where we've directly chosen how to change it) recognizes only two sexes, male and female.  As far as I know both allowed to marry; in fact, in most places it takes one of each.

As far as I can tell this is a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

[Fritz]

We do already have the Civil Unions Act, passed by a previous Senate and signed by a previous President.

[True Federalist]

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

What exactly is this bill supposed to do?  While some radical social theorists recognize additional sexes that aren't deteremined solely on the basis of the hardware, US law )and hece Atlasia which uses US law except where we've directly chosen how to change it) recognizes only two sexes, male and female.  As far as I know both allowed to marry; in fact, in most places it takes one of each.

As far as I can tell this is a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

That may be the intent, but it certainly isn't the wording.

[Nation]

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

You already have civil unions and the benefits, which is what the argument is about anyway.

[JohnFKennedy]

For my second piece of legislation, an idea whose time has come:

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that no citizen shall be denied the ability to enter into the marriage contract or enjoy any of the benefits thereof on account of sex.

Ummm, we effectively already have this with the Civil Unions Acted that the Senate passed months ago. The only difference this would make is to change the name from "civil union" to "marriage". Is there really any point in changing it?

[migrendel]

Yes there is. Some might be chuffed that we are now separate but equal, but I am unwilling to accept that we have been treated as second-class citizens by civil unions, the Plessy v. Ferguson of sexual orientation. I dare you to veto this, John. If you do, we know whose side you're on.

[JohnFKennedy]

Yes there is. Some might be chuffed that we are now separate but equal, but I am unwilling to accept that we have been treated as second-class citizens by civil unions, the Plessy v. Ferguson of sexual orientation. I dare you to veto this, John. If you do, we know whose side you're on.

Migrendel, don't make assumptions, they make an ass out of u (you). I have never once stated I oppose homosexual marriages, in fact, as far as I can recall I have only ever made statements in SUPPORT of them. If you had spent more time around the fantasy boards you would know that I was the original proposer of the civil unions act, it is called sensible steps, rather than giant leaps.

You seem to see things as clear cut, us and them, black and white. You seem to fail to understand, however, the different shades of grey.

Also, note that Supreme Court decisions in the United States of America have no relevance in the United States of ATLASIA. So, explain to me what the point of changing the name from "civil unions" to "marriage" is, because so far you haven't given me a reason, you have just said that a different name makes you second-class citizens. Explain exactly why.

[migrendel]

If civil unions and marriages are the same, then why do they have different names? The reason why is that marriage is treated as a bulwark of traditionalism, and something we are not allowed to participate in. Because they are on a technical level not marriage, civil unions can never acquire the same respect from society that marriage has. Symbolic, yes, but a crucial distinction. As a citizen who fulfills all the responsibilites of citizenship, I expect to enjoy all of its privileges.

I would now like you to provide me a legitimate reason for only allowing civil unions, other than mollifying social conservatives.

[texasgurl]

If civil unions and marriages are the same, then why do they have different names? The reason why is that marriage is treated as a bulwark of traditionalism, and something we are not allowed to participate in. Because they are on a technical level not marriage, civil unions can never acquire the same respect from society that marriage has. Symbolic, yes, but a crucial distinction. As a citizen who fulfills all the responsibilites of citizenship, I expect to enjoy all of its privileges.

I would now like you to provide me a legitimate reason for only allowing civil unions, other than mollifying social conservatives.

These are the same arguments i made when it came up originally.

[Hermit]

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

Incredibly false. Same-Sex marriages have been recognized in many cultures. Go go migrendel!

[2,868,691]

I support this bill.

[King]

I oppose this act.

[texasgurl]

I fully support this bill.

[The Duke]

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

Incredibly false. Same-Sex marriages have been recognized in many cultures. Go go migrendel!

What cultures would those be?

Even Greece never institutionalized homosexual love.

[StevenNick]

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

Incredibly false. Same-Sex marriages have been recognized in many cultures. Go go migrendel!

What cultures would those be?

Even Greece never institutionalized homosexual love.

I, for one, cannot think of one society that legitimized homosexual relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships.  There is certainly no great civilization in history that ever viewed homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.  Not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and certainly not the Muslims.

[Hermit]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/qid=1095144461/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/104-0020664-2653502?v=glance&s=books
Is a good one for Europe. I can't name them off the top of my head, but several Native American groups as well., as well as aboriginal Africans. The status of Greek homosexual relationships isn't 100% decided on either way. In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies.

History is something that shouldn't have blanket statements applied to it. Statements like "Something has always been this way" or "No culture does this" are usually false.

[MasterJedi]

It's funny when people say that homosexuality is normal. It just cracks me up because if it was normal we could reproduce that way, which means guys could have babies coming out of their asses.

[Hermit]

It's funny when people say that homosexuality is normal. It just cracks me up because if it was normal we could reproduce that way, which means guys could have babies coming out of their asses.

I guess it depends on your definition of normal. Something that happens in nature and has been documentedly occuring in humans for thousands of years would seem so.

[migrendel]

Regardless of how civilization has viewed this in the past, I see no reason why we need to repeat their mistakes. The time for a new concept of marriage is at hand. Our Senate can deny this, and live in the past, but the world will change without us.

[Gustaf]

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

Incredibly false. Same-Sex marriages have been recognized in many cultures. Go go migrendel!

What cultures would those be?

Even Greece never institutionalized homosexual love.

I, for one, cannot think of one society that legitimized homosexual relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships.  There is certainly no great civilization in history that ever viewed homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.  Not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and certainly not the Muslims.

That's true, the Greek did not view homosexual relationships as equal.

They viewed them as superior.

[ilikeverin]

No thanks, I'll be voting to keep marriage exactly as it has been since it was started.

Incredibly false. Same-Sex marriages have been recognized in many cultures. Go go migrendel!

What cultures would those be?

Even Greece never institutionalized homosexual love.

I, for one, cannot think of one society that legitimized homosexual relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships.  There is certainly no great civilization in history that ever viewed homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.  Not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and certainly not the Muslims.

That's true, the Greek did not view homosexual relationships as equal.

They viewed them as superior.

Well, I'll be.

*double take*