Jingus 0 Report post Posted December 16, 2003 I meant problems along the lines of: a couple gets together, buys a house and a car, has kids, then years later splits up; who gets the house and/or car? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) "A couple" wouldn't buy the house or the car in the first place. Every piece of property would belong to whomever had his or her name on the papers. Y'know, like for normal, single people. A side benefit of this would be that marrying for money would no longer be so easy. You could demand that your lovey put your name on everything she buys for you with her money, but if you're not planning on leaving her, why would you ask? I find it funny that gay people want this marriage thing so badly and so many ever so enlightened straight people are shouting that they must be given it. Why? If you love someone, why do you need a piece of paper from the government to prove it? I "support" civil unions in the sense that I don't see a difference between gay people and straight people (although "marriage" does traditionally refer to the union of a man and a woman, so I oppose gay "marriages" purely on linguistic grounds), and if a bunch of gay people are stupid enough to ask for something so pointless then they probably deserve it. Edited December 16, 2003 by Cancer Marney Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted December 16, 2003 I find it funny that gay people want this marriage thing so badly and so many ever so enlightened straight people are shouting that they must be given it. Why? If you love someone, why do you need a piece of paper from the government to prove it? I "support" civil unions in the sense that I don't see a difference between gay people and straight people (although "marriage" does traditionally refer to the union of a man and a woman, so I oppose gay "marriages" purely on linguistic grounds), and if a bunch of gay people are stupid enough to ask for something so pointless then they probably deserve it. Well, you're right. A legal marriage is just a piece of paper (I myself have said this before). I think it's more people wanting to have the option to do things, not necessarily doing them. I remember talking about this same thing a while ago under a different name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted December 16, 2003 Marriage itself is a union between two people. Technically, you can be married without being "legally married." The concept itself is intangible. The marriage license doesn't make a marriage more legitimate, IMO. But like I said above, it's mostly (again, IMO) about same-sex couples wanting the same rights as straight couples. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted December 16, 2003 I voted for gay marriage, although realistically, civil unions is the best option in this day and age. 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!?! Actually, it depends. You CAN be discriminated against because of sexual orientation, at least in terms of employment, as gays are not afforded the same rights as the rest of us in that regard, and things don't look to be changing anytime soon. I doubt most of them would be willing to defend their position. Nor should they necessarily have to, any more than those of us who do support gay marriage be forced to defend ours. 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. Than wouldn't it also be fair to say that those who perhaps don't support gay marriage may in fact NOT be people who dislike homosexuals? Disliking gays and disliking same sex relationships aren't mutually exclusive. Well, you're right. A legal marriage is just a piece of paper (I myself have said this before). I think it's more people wanting to have the option to do things, not necessarily doing them. I remember talking about this same thing a while ago under a different name. Part of the rationale - a big part, actually - behind the recent Goodridge v. Dept. of Health decision was that the MA court felt that marriage offered a whole bunch of benefits to individuals that gays are effectively excluded from by being denied marriage rights. The problem I have with the Goodridge case is that it's based so damn much on Lawrence v. Texas - which is an awful, AWFUL decision, even though the result was correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted December 16, 2003 Than wouldn't it also be fair to say that those who perhaps don't support gay marriage may in fact NOT be people who dislike homosexuals? Disliking gays and disliking same sex relationships aren't mutually exclusive. I can understand where people who don't agree with gay marriage are coming from (even though I don't agree). But I don't see why some of these people wouldn't support civil unions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted December 16, 2003 Disliking gays and disliking same sex relationships aren't mutually exclusive. I hope you mean "Disliking gays and disliking government-aided same sex relationships aren't mutually exclusive." Because if you mean it in the other way, the stupid apologetic "Oh, I don't hate gay people, I just hate the fact that they're aroused by the same sex" shit that the likes of Falwell use when cornered with the arguement that their opinion excludes and divides, well, I just like to think you don't fall for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted December 16, 2003 I voted for the second option. I dunno...I've always been told that marriage is a man and a woman. That union. If a man and a man want to be in some sort of union, that doesn't bother me...I just wouldn't call it a marriage. I think that they should have the same rights and all - it's just that I don't think it should be called the same thing, because really, it's not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 Disliking gays and disliking same sex relationships aren't mutually exclusive. I hope you mean "Disliking gays and disliking government-aided same sex relationships aren't mutually exclusive." Because if you mean it in the other way, the stupid apologetic "Oh, I don't hate gay people, I just hate the fact that they're aroused by the same sex" shit that the likes of Falwell use when cornered with the arguement that their opinion excludes and divides, well, I just like to think you don't fall for that. I mean that if someone doesn't approve of gay marriage or civil unions between homosexuals, that doesn't mean that they necessarily disapprove of or dislike gay people in general. JMA, unfortunately, seemed to imply that if you weren't for gay marriage / civil union, than you must hate gays - I don't think that's the case. MANY people in this country dislike gay marriage, many still aren't even crazy about civil unions, but I would doubt that most of them dislike gays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) JMA, unfortunately, seemed to imply that if you weren't for gay marriage / civil union, than you must hate gays - I don't think that's the case. MANY people in this country dislike gay marriage, many still aren't even crazy about civil unions, but I would doubt that most of them dislike gays. Actually, I said I don't understand why someone wouldn't support gay marriage or unions (with the exception of not supporting ANY goverment marriage). Edited December 17, 2003 by JMA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted December 17, 2003 (edited) I agree that marraige is just a piece of paper and in a "perfect world" they wouldn't exist. However, until something changes we do have to deal with marriage. Civil Unions sound exactly like marriages. Is there any real difference other than the "not supported by god" rubbish? They should be happy with Civil Unions, but nothing should stand in their way If they want to be a married couple.. There's no reason at all to not allow them to be married. Edited December 17, 2003 by El Satanico Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 Jesus there is no difference between a "Civil Union" and a "Marriage". Gay people want to be together and get the benefits then I have NO issue with that whatsoever. The fact that they fight for it to be called marriage bugs me though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted December 17, 2003 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. For once I completely agree with you, and you too Powerplay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
