Given the fact that along with marriage comes many benefits and legal protections provided by the government, such as tax breaks, insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance and estate rights, child adoption and guardianship rights, spousal privilege and survivors benefits, just to name a few, it makes complete sense that it requires the government to recognize and allow same sex marriage.
"The bill had the support of Prime Minister David Cameron" ...wait. A conservative thought this was okay? FAITH IN HUMANITY RESTORED.
So another forum I frequent (which I actually dislike but visit for threads like this) I took this news post and made a thread there just to see what kind of responses I would get, simply because I know the type of people tere are there. Check it out, shake your heads. http://www.rubbins-racin.com/forums/showthread.php/41977-Gay-Marriage-Becomes-Legal-in-Britain
It's a shame most states in the U.S. and various other countries won't look to Britain as an example of equality.
That is a great point that was overlooked. Yes, the benefits provided are from the government, and it is their decision in the end, but the point is that it's unfair discrimination. There isn't a reason the government has to deny gay marriage.
I don't know where to start with this. It's pointless to express annoyance that multiple governments across the globe still outlaw same-sex marriage, when it's a "God" given right for anyone to marry whoever they please. We can, and will, and should, be annoyed at the past, and we're very much free to express concern and discuss the past history and policies of such governments. There's nothing to be glad about in the future, because the whole point we're all trying to make is this shouldn't be a concern in the first place. I guess if your dog died tomorrow, you can't be annoyed or upset, because hey, fuck it, you can just buy a new one in the future, right? Your entire "argument" doesn't hold much ground, despite the fact that you claim you agreed with Trav. And for the record, if someone was charged with a crime that held the death penalty as the punishment, and they were acquitted because new evidence comes to light, that person SHOULD say exactly what you said. You're basically advocating not complaining about current policies and laws, because it might get better in the future. We need to remember the past. And dissect the wrong doings, and discuss how things could have been done better and why certain things didn't work. We do not live in a world where we're free to ignore past wrongdoings and just go on with our happy little lives. It doesn't work like that, and I don't know why you're suggesting anyone do such. EDIT: I'm not even going to touch Todd's post, because 1) he's quite obviously playing devil's advocate in this discussion, and 2) I've learned to not even argue or respond to administrator's arguments here because it goes unheard and ventures into flame baiting at times.
Of course it shouldn't, but what happens when you make that point? There isn't really anything that could be done about it, other than agreeing with it, because past cannot be changed.
They actually make some laws in Britain and Australia based on scriptures from the bible so i hardly see hardly how that's religious nonsense (this was typed in a playful tone not a serious tone)
Well, here was a glimpse into our first day - 75 Unforgettable Moments From Minnesota’s First Day Of Marriage Equality
Progress is Progress but it can be undone... This doesn't mean I'm not for Gay marrage... (I have a gay friend)
^Undone? Weird idea. What would happen to the couples that married during the period when it was allowed, then? I doubt that'll happen.