Gay marriage

[Guest JMA]

This seems to be a topic of debate in Current Events. Vote for your position and explain why you feel that way. This is about what YOU personally feel is right. Therefore, I have put no State rights option. I've already explained my position in another thread.

[NoCalMike 0]

It seems like a pretty clear cut case to me. You cannot be discriminated based on race/sex/sexual orientation.......so what it applies to getting a job, going to school, but magically NOT marriage!?!

[BX 0]

But I'm straight! How can I possibly care?

[Justice 0]

Civil Unions with the same benefits. Fighting simply for the word marriage, though, is something that would be utterly inane for all those involved and would likely ruin any positive momentum you have.

[NoCalMike 0]

Civil Unions with the same benefits. Fighting simply for the word marriage, though, is something that would be utterly inane for all those involved and would likely ruin any positive momentum you have.

I am sure gays can careless about the name "marriage" if civil unions were put on equal footing as marriage in terms of benefits and recognition, then I doubt people would have a problem with it.

[Justice 0]

Civil Unions with the same benefits. Fighting simply for the word marriage, though, is something that would be utterly inane for all those involved and would likely ruin any positive momentum you have.

I am sure gays can careless about the name "marriage" if civil unions were put on equal footing as marriage in terms of benefits and recognition, then I doubt people would have a problem with it.

... I'm confused by the wording of that statement, but you are agreeing with me, right? And I voted for the Civil Unions thing up there, which is what I was supposed to vote for, correct?

[NoCalMike 0]

Civil Unions with the same benefits. Fighting simply for the word marriage, though, is something that would be utterly inane for all those involved and would likely ruin any positive momentum you have.

I am sure gays can careless about the name "marriage" if civil unions were put on equal footing as marriage in terms of benefits and recognition, then I doubt people would have a problem with it.

... I'm confused by the wording of that statement, but you are agreeing with me, right? And I voted for the Civil Unions thing up there, which is what I was supposed to vote for, correct?

Yes I agree with you, sort of(haha). Personally I feel that gays should be invited to the show.(Marriage)but I think Civil Unions would be a HUGE step in the right direction and probably "good enough" for awhile.

[Dr. Tom 0]

To me, marriage is a social institution, not a religious one, and the only reason to keep same-sex couples from marrying is religious bias. If calling them "civil unions" is what works, then so much the better, but since I couldn't care less who people boink at night, just let them marry and be done with it.

[MrRant 0]

Why is there no "I don't care either way" option?

[Guest JMA]

Why is there no "I don't care either way" option?

If you don't care, don't vote. This thread is for people who do care.

[EricMM 0]

It's called a Null Vote rant.

 

And it's UNAMERICAN!

 

I said I support Gay Marriages because I do. I believe that marriage is a sacred and beautiful thing that all people should be able to enjoy. Any two people should be allowed to marry each other.

[MrRant 0]

Well it's becoming kindof a moot point IMO since most companies DO offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners now. You can name anyone beneficiaries to life insurance etc.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

To me, marriage is a social institution, not a religious one, and the only reason to keep same-sex couples from marrying is religious bias. If calling them "civil unions" is what works, then so much the better, but since I couldn't care less who people boink at night, just let them marry and be done with it.

Basically my point of view as well.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I support civil unions in our current situation. However, I'm also against banning gay marriage, as it may be a more desirable and plausible concept in future decades.

 

Banning things that have no intention of happening anytime soon kind of scares me.

[Guest JMA]

Hm. I wonder which two people voted for the third option.

[Styles 0]

I don't really give a damn! Civil unions are a fine compromise. Gives them something, without pissing off the people who consider "marriage" "sacred".

[C Dubya 04 0]

Eh, I'm all for gay marriages. It's none of my business anyways I figure and if it makes some people's lives happier then what the hell, go for it.

 

I've never really understood why there's such a backlash against homosexuals anyways. I don't see how they cause any harm to anyone, and everyone should really just mind their own business and move on with their lives.

[Youth N Asia 0]

I don't have a problem with it. You're not going to convert homosexuals, so let them live together and do as the please, as long as they're not bothering you what's the problem.

 

And of course by "you" I don't actually mean you...you know what I mean.

[MooreMark 0]

There is no straight answer.

[Guest Jimbo]

Yes, let them have some sort of union, let them call it marriage in private, just don't publish it as a 'marriage' in the papers so everyone gets all whiney about it.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

If they wanna call themselves a married couple, so be it. Who the fuck is anybody else to not allow a guy to do something just because he likes dick, or a chick to do something just because she likes to munch rug now and then?

[2GOLD 0]

I think the states need to clear off the laws against same sex relations before they work on the civil unions.

 

You gotta remember, some states still disallow gay people to even engage in sex.

 

Until that is handled, this really is a moot point. I'm for people being who they want to be with. I'm straight myself and I honestly don't care if people of the same sex want to be together.

[Jingus 0]

All right, fess up, who are the 7 people who so far have voted against any gay unions?

[Firestarter 0]

I'm one of them. Ultimately, I don't think the state should recognise any marriages or unions of any kind between any number of persons of any gender.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I voted for #2.

 

"Marriage" is a term that has religious roots and they should be respected. However, there should be no benefits associated with it. Civil unions should have the benefits and they should be open to both homo- and heterosexual couples.

[Jingus 0]

Uh... that was unexpected.

 

On your plan: if marriages were eradicated, how would you go about solving divorce-related disputes over shared property, child custody, etc?

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I always chuckle when people say that same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed since they tarnish the image of marriage, as if marrying a stranger on national television, shotgun weddings in Vegas, and short-term marriages hadn't already done that.

[Guest stardust]

I always chuckle when people say that same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed since they tarnish the image of marriage, as if marrying a stranger on national television, shotgun weddings in Vegas, and short-term marriages hadn't already done that.

Exactly. Those against gay marriage always say it's such a sacred institution that should be valued, but reality TV and the high divorce rate has pretty much shown that marriage isn't as valued as some people make it out to be. If a couple does, however, value the institution of marriage it shouldn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

[Guest JMA]

All right, fess up, who are the 7 people who so far have voted against any gay unions?

I doubt most of them would be willing to defend their position. I created option three for those who (for whatever reason) don't like homosexuals. Even though I don't like these people I feel it was the fair thing to do.

[Firestarter 0]

Uh... that was unexpected. 

 

On your plan: if marriages were eradicated, how would you go about solving divorce-related disputes over shared property, child custody, etc?

It's not my "plan." I simply don't see the need for government to get involved in private life. Obviously property wouldn't automatically become "shared" if states didn't sanction marriages, so your request for a solution is silly because the problem would cease to exist. Child custody could be settled simply on the basis of the welfare of the child. DNA testing can establish parentage. End of story.