Ditto?? This is seriously your reply to my charge that you only provide vague and non-committal replies to direct and specific questions?Ditto
You've claimed that civil unions are necessary for gay couples because marriages won't work. I've asked for a list of the specific ways that marriage won't work for gay couples. I've gotten nothing.
I've asked for a list of which specific marriage rights won't function for same-sex couples, or which civil union rights won't function for opposite-sex couples. I've asked what troubles you think will arise in states where same-sex marriages are recognized. Nothing.
I've asked whether you think Lawrence v. Texas should be repealed. I've asked if you thought that repealing DADT was a mistake. I've even asked whether you actually support polygamy, or if you're just arguing hypothetically. I have no idea where you stand on any of those issues.
You've claimed that same-sex marriage will "weaken" opposite-sex marriages, or that it will have negative consequences on society. I still have no suggestions from you on what those consequences might be (not "will" be, but only "might" be).
This is how ALL arguments against marriage equality go. No specifics. No ennumerations. Wild, deadly, society-threatening CLAIMS about all the horrible things down the road, but with zero concrete examples of what those things could be. All this vague, eely dissembling adds up to one thing: fearmongering.
Then you understand why the government will always be involved in enforcing it.Yes it is.
Try this, if you have a PDF reader:Where is this number from? Are they all "federal and state benefits (and responsibilities)"? This number is put forth like its gospel, but with no clear explanation.
From the US General Accounting Office, to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, January 23rd, 2004:
"Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."
I'd like to hear your list of which of these 1,138 rights are not present in civil unions, or which of them are present but function differently.
Couple = two.Or not even a couple, any two people.
At no point have I said it's impossible. Over and over again, I've said that it IS possible, it's VERY possible, it would just take a concerted effort by many well-trained individuals, working with the advocates THEMSELVES.Not impossible.
Yes, they ARE "endless", making this restructuring all the MORE drastic, unwieldy, an unrelated to the issues before the court last week.It could be a matter of distribution, or assigning certain ones that are applicable to certain wives,.....or husbands. Maybe even a seniority system. The possibilities are endless.
I hope one day they do.It's gotta be exciting, marriage equality for all. And to think, the poly people have their lesbian sisters, and gay brothers to thank for blazing the trail.:)
But there's no reason to pretend that a person's desire for unlimited partner after partner after partner is at ALL comparable to a person's orientation, which actually limits their choices rather than expanding them.