"I Don't Have A Problem With Gay People..."

No matter what their issue is. Gays making them uncomfortable does not give them the authority to dictate their rights. Them having a problem with gay marriage does not give them to right to decide gays should not marry.

 

If it's legal equality you're after aren't civil unions enough? (and what I mean by that is marriage in all but name). Wouldn't that solve it? You get the rights you want, and the potential definition of a word isn't altered. Good points about definition though.

 

No. (And you SHOULD know why by now, considering the length of this thread and others on this site.)

Truly, it is STUPID to ask what you have above.

 

seperate but equal was ruled unconstitutional.

 

You are stupid. And a 'post dislike' spammer

[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by rahl
seperate but equal was ruled unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

Civil unions with the exact same rights was ruled unconstitutional? what's the rationale for that?

 

no, seperate but equal was ruled unconstitutional.

 

Not impressed.

 

Civil unions vs. marriage is where theory fails in real-world application.

It hasn't, and I'll get to the reasons why below.

It's actually too late to 'save' the definition of marriage. The usage of marriage in application to same-sex couples' unions already enjoys recognition in some dictionaries. The word marriage is already being applied to same-sex unions in several countries and in a handful of states in the U.S.; that ship has sailed. The genie isn't going back into the bottle.

Thank you.

Here are the problems with civil unions. As currently implemented,

• Civil unions only exist in a few states in the USA
• Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government
• Civil unions are not portable from state to state the way legal marriages are.
• Civil unions are effectively banned by the wording of some states' constitutions, mine included

The only way to truly make civil unions equal to legal marriage is for the government to stop using the term 'marriage' completely and replace it with civil unions for all eligible couples. Some additional issues:

• It is inefficient to run parallel institutions that provide identical benefits & responsibilities
• Forcing same-sex couples to call their marraiges "civil unions" marks them as targets for discrimination
• The moment you treat two things differently, they are no longer equals, regardless of the law's attempts to make them so. It is inevitable that one group will end up being treated as inferior to the other.

I can think of no legitimate reason to force same-sex couples into civil unions while reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples. It seems the only reason for doing so is to let some people feel good about themselves for being so tolerant, while preserving a separation in the law that allows them to still feel superior.

In my experience, those who bring civil unions to the conversation NEVER want to deal with the specifics of implementation. Such as:

• Will civil unions be licensed at the state level, similar to marriage?
• What happens to state amendments that already ban any recognition of a same-sex couples' union by any name, for any purpose?
• Will federal recognition be predicated on state licensing, similar to marriage?
• What's to stop the states that don't already ban civil unions from implementing such bans?

If civil unions are going to rely on state licensing, I'm not better off because my state already bans them.

I have seen no serious effort being made to repeal the state amendments that effectively ban civil unions for same-sex couples where they exist. Why then should I treat arguments in favor of civil unions with any seriousness?

If civil unions will be treated the same as marriages by government, then why is it necessary to use different terminology? I do not find that it is necessary.

I suppose we could try getting government to replace its use of the word 'marriage' with 'civil unions' for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike. But I don't see any of the "civil unions for all" crowd making any serious effort to do so. It seems like nothing more than a rhetorical prop. But I'm willing to let them try, so I can sit back and laugh when they encounter the ridiculous complaints about government trying to "take away marriage", likely coming from much of the same crowd presently trying to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

Like I said - it's theory running smack into a reality check. Civil unions might sound good, but I need something more than theories that sound good, which no one is working toward implementing, and especially when they won't even address relevant logistical questions.

 

Husband of the wife is presumed in the law to be obligated with the "responsibilities" of the father of a child. The child "benefits" by being born into a home with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them in the home, because the alternative is to be born into a home with only one or none of those parents present in the home. Society "benefits" because fewer children are born to single mothers, because children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal convictions. NONE of these "benefits & responsibilities". are present in any same sex union or marriage. So not sure where you get this idea they are "identical".

 

You are reported.

 

Of course.

 

What you describe above, is NOT the only proper or ideal situation in which a child could/should be nurtured.

 

And if I could report people for writing spam post devoid of any meaning or substance I'd report you too.

 

Firstly, good post Perriquine.

It would appear that legal issues really compolicates it for you americans, me being a Swede don't know too much about it. But I guess I have to say that I agree with most of your points and the one about the genie out of the bottle was probably the death knell to my 'against gay marriage' stance. It is probably all too true, the ship has indeed sailed. I mean it's way to late for it in Sweden even. Congrats, you've helped me to change my stance. huzzah!

 

Please, stay on topic.

 

I wasnt trying to impress you. I was refuting your assertion.

 

They are similarly situated to heterosexual couples with children, and IDENTICALLY situated to heterosexual couples which don't.

 

I don't know, I don't have a problem with gays, but I think they should be forbidden to present themselves in public as gays and pratice in privacy.

 

No, you simply inserted yourself into an ongoing discussion to post something that wasn't factual, but an opinion.

 

Should "straights" be forbidden to present themsevles in public as "straights" and practice in private? If not, what's the justification for the double standard? Do you even realize the full extent of the restriction you're proposing?

Meanwhile, the First Amendment seems to be at odds with your opinion on this.

 

Strawman. I didn't say that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples were identical. I was talking about the proposal of civil unions and the benefits the government provides in association with them being identical to those it provides to legally recognized marriages.

If you think you're going to suck me in to debating something different from what was under discussion, you're quite mistaken.

 

I made no comparison of couples and instead was comparing the benefits and responsibilities that YOU claimed were identical

 

I didn't claim that any benefits and responsibilities were identical. I questioned the reasoning behind having civil unions just for same-sex couples as a separate institution from legal recognition of marriages IF the benefits provided by government and responsibilities imposed by government were to be made identical. Didn't say a thing about the benefits to society from same-sex marriages.

Which you would know if you had read the entire conversation, paid attention to the context, and not pulled one bullet point out of that context in an effort to refute a claim that was never made.

I'm not going to get suckered into debating your attempted diversion.

 

Did DEEP for some shred of integrity.