Marriage is a civil right in the US

I don't know exactly how it is different but for me, I'd marry a guy for benefits and I wouldn't a girl. Why?, I haven't really put my finger on it yet but prolly something to do with it being easier to get a long with guys and the lack of the possibility of a sexual relationship.I think its more likely because I wouldn't do it with a girl but I'd do it with a guy. Wow, that sounded really gay. I hope I don't get miss quoted on that one!

so one wrong word and the whole rest of the post isn't worth replying too?

quote:

---

I don't know exactly how it is different but for me, I'd marry a guy for benefits and I wouldn't a girl. Why?, I haven't really put my finger on it yet but prolly something to do with it being easier to get a long with guys and the lack of the possibility of a sexual relationship.

---

Well, at any rate, how can you justify denying marriage to homosexuals because our healtcare system is so crappy?

Why line up for all that hatred and intolerance that gets directed at gays just for small financial gain? Easier to marry a like minded woman and get a few free shags into the bargain . Anyway as has been pointed out there have been scam marriages since time immemorial, purely in the hetero realm, so this is not a strong argument against same sex unions.

Well, like I typed, I find it plausible. Mr. Jack said he's seen it happen. Simply dismissing the whole argument by calling one line a fallacy seems like a waste of time to me. I'm not interested in discussing whether or not its a fallacy so if thats all you have to say then whatever.

quote:

---

so one wrong word and the whole rest of the post isn't worth replying too?

---

Well, since half of your point (iirc) depended upon the idea that they meant "male" when they actually meant "human", it's not really one wrong word, is it?

I think it's utterly no reason at all. It does, however, happen so dimissing it as fantasy is false.

Because I think its gonna make things worse.

We shouldn't let straight people get married because it might encourage men and women to engage in false marriages to get medical benefits.

Ok, as Faith is decidedly not interested in aswering this, anyone on the "No To Gay Marriage" team care to have a crack?

---

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

---

If it was worth it. I think it'd be easier with a male friend. I don't really care about a few free shags. Sure it happens in hetero marriages. I know a guy from England who was proposing to all kinds of girls 'cause his visa was unning out, or something. I just think that including gay marriages as marriages is gonna make it a lot more frequent and for exploitng different benefits. I don't think they should have nothing, as in no unions at all, I just don't think we should lump them into the already defined marriages that are affected by laws-n-stuff that did't have gay marriages in mind when they were written. Thats why I think we should call them something other than marriages.

You remember incorrectly.

Are you just being a smartass?You're just wasting thread space.

I'm sorry CS, but your whole argument is bogus. For multiple reasons:1) People can get married for whatever damn reason they please. Till this day, marriges are performed for financial, social, and political reasons all the time. A few people doing the same thing with gay marriage is not gonna be anythig new, nor will it signal the end of the world.2) A marriage contract comes with responsibilities, liabilities, involved. Severing a buissiness partnership can be messy enough, but imagine divorce in such a sittuation? Marriage is not a free ride.3) This is actually based on real events, a male couple did get married for financial and medical benifits! They were 70+ years old and had no family left. They were bothe very poor and wanted to make sure there was someone around to look after them. They were friends, but the marriage was purely out of convenience. After all, the NEED healthcare and next of kin as a matter of survival.So essentially, your argument is moot. Who cares what peoples reasons are for entering a contract, the real question is what's the reason for keeping the contract sex exclusive?

So equal in all but name? Isn’t that like when the European Union tried to force UK chocolate makers to change the name of their product to ”Vegelate’ as it wasn’t really ”chocolate’ at all ( No, Really!)