Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
The Religious Reich position is that gays can certainly marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender...Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Gays are people too. Isn't marriage also deemed a Universal Human Right?
-- Asuka
I guess there's some closet homophobes and religious nutjobs on the board. Here's a torch, I'll go get the pitchforks.Imperial Overlord wrote:I'm surprised we have seven people who will vote against it. If even Axis Kast isn't against it . . . . .
LOL. You're just saying that cause you'd love to pounce and rip 'em to shreds, aren't ya? Defending the opposition of gay marriage is like trying to argue that Hitler was a good guy.Cpl Kendall wrote:Seriously though, even on a board such as this there are bound to be a few throwbacks. I'm just disappointed that they aren't trying to justify their views.
eh, everyone has their little quirks.Pint0 Xtreme wrote:LOL. You're just saying that cause you'd love to pounce and rip 'em to shreds, aren't ya? Defending the opposition of gay marriage is like trying to argue that Hitler was a good guy.Cpl Kendall wrote:Seriously though, even on a board such as this there are bound to be a few throwbacks. I'm just disappointed that they aren't trying to justify their views.
You weren't seriously thinking that one of them would come up with a genuinely new approach to the subject, were you? If one of them did try to justify his views, I guarantee it would be exactly the same stale, warmed-over appeals to tradition and "separate but equal" bullshit that we've been hearing all year.Cpl Kendall wrote:Seriously though, even on a board such as this there are bound to be a few throwbacks. I'm just disappointed that they aren't trying to justify their views.
Well, there's always the possibility that they might have a genuinely new argument...or that if they're just referring to the old stuff we've heard before, that they'd be able to realize the logical fallacies in their viewpoints.Darth Wong wrote:You weren't seriously thinking that one of them would come up with a genuinely new approach to the subject, were you? If one of them did try to justify his views, I guarantee it would be exactly the same stale, warmed-over appeals to tradition and "separate but equal" bullshit that we've been hearing all year.Cpl Kendall wrote:Seriously though, even on a board such as this there are bound to be a few throwbacks. I'm just disappointed that they aren't trying to justify their views.
Damn forgot about this thread:Darth Wong wrote: You weren't seriously thinking that one of them would come up with a genuinely new approach to the subject, were you? If one of them did try to justify his views, I guarantee it would be exactly the same stale, warmed-over appeals to tradition and "separate but equal" bullshit that we've been hearing all year.
The problem is, there is a big difference. If you live in a state with civil unions and enter into one with your partner, you don't get any of the federal benefits that come with marriage - and there are a hell of a lot of 'em.unbeataBULL wrote:just as an aside, what is the difference between "Civil Unions" and actual marriages? i've heard that there really isn't one, but then why the fuck would you give 'em different names? just 'cause it feels better?
1049 of them according some sources.Molyneux wrote:The problem is, there is a big difference. If you live in a state with civil unions and enter into one with your partner, you don't get any of the federal benefits that come with marriage - and there are a hell of a lot of 'em.unbeataBULL wrote:just as an aside, what is the difference between "Civil Unions" and actual marriages? i've heard that there really isn't one, but then why the fuck would you give 'em different names? just 'cause it feels better?
Considering Civil Unions are only good in the states in which you got them, to 49 other states, they're not even valid as civil unions!Frank Hipper wrote:Civil Unions resemble marriage practically not at all.
Not only that, but civil unions are inherently unequal, since they're always offered as a "something almost as good as marriage, because you can't have the full thing" compromise. So there's a prestige factor that the title "marriage" has, but civil unions don't.Molyneux wrote:The problem is, there is a big difference. If you live in a state with civil unions and enter into one with your partner, you don't get any of the federal benefits that come with marriage - and there are a hell of a lot of 'em.unbeataBULL wrote:just as an aside, what is the difference between "Civil Unions" and actual marriages? i've heard that there really isn't one, but then why the fuck would you give 'em different names? just 'cause it feels better?
No there isn't. Traditions are the shackles in which society binds itself.spikenigma wrote:whilst there is something to be said for tradition
This statement contradicts itself; the whole point of civil unions for the traditionalists is to NOT let gays and lesbians call it marriage.I would advocate "civil unions" with ALL of the legal benefits and factors of marriage. If people want to call it a marriage, so be it because it is.
well that's what it would be, get a sympathetic minster or religious person to bless/ordain the "marriage" then get your civil unions licence as you would a marriage licenceI disagree that traditions (generally in society) are a bind in the restrictive sense. They normally promote cohesion and togetherness within groups...Darth Wong wrote:No there isn't. Traditions are the shackles in which society binds itself.spikenigma wrote:whilst there is something to be said for tradition
This statement contradicts itself; the whole point of civil unions for the traditionalists is to NOT let gays and lesbians call it marriage.I would advocate "civil unions" with ALL of the legal benefits and factors of marriage. If people want to call it a marriage, so be it because it is.
(yeah this is something I've heard)) I see no reason to prevent them marrying, how are they going to affect me?speaking of slippery slope, what about incestuous (non child-producing) marriages? - should they be legal too?
Actually, I would advocate a "civil union" as a contract between two people that gives them certain legal rights and responsibilities (ability to share insurance policies and tax breaks, child custody, joint property, etc.). This contract would be the only government involvement in the entire question of marriage.spikenigma wrote:whilst there is something to be said for tradition
I would advocate "civil unions" with ALL of the legal benefits and factors of marriage. If people want to call it a marriage, so be it because it is. I can't see what's wrong with "civil unions" - is it just an argument over semantics?, a fight against religious non-acceptance?
who is against it and why?
hmm..i heard on NPR that they did have all the benefits of marriage. In fact, one gay marriage advocate was making a case against civil unions by saying that they were the same thing as marriages.Molyneux wrote:The problem is, there is a big difference. If you live in a state with civil unions and enter into one with your partner, you don't get any of the federal benefits that come with marriage - and there are a hell of a lot of 'em.unbeataBULL wrote:just as an aside, what is the difference between "Civil Unions" and actual marriages? i've heard that there really isn't one, but then why the fuck would you give 'em different names? just 'cause it feels better?
I believe most states define "Incest" legally as parent-child and sibling relations. Some states extend this to 1st cousins as well (Children of your parents siblings). I don't think any extend it to 2nd or furhter cousins. Using that definition I don't think any state allows incestuous marriage, but that means it's fine in many states to marry your first cousin legally.spikenigma wrote:speaking of slippery slope, what about incestuous (non child-producing) marriages? - should they be legal too?
(I ask because I have brought up this point before - but got no answer...)
pdf file. right-click, save as. biggest notable difference is that civil unions are not necessarily recognized from state to state. there's plenty of others, but the pdf covers if fairly well.unbeataBULL wrote:hmm..i heard on NPR that they did have all the benefits of marriage. In fact, one gay marriage advocate was making a case against civil unions by saying that they were the same thing as marriages.Molyneux wrote:The problem is, there is a big difference. If you live in a state with civil unions and enter into one with your partner, you don't get any of the federal benefits that come with marriage - and there are a hell of a lot of 'em.unbeataBULL wrote:just as an aside, what is the difference between "Civil Unions" and actual marriages? i've heard that there really isn't one, but then why the fuck would you give 'em different names? just 'cause it feels better?
It might depend on the state though. Is the definition of "Civil Union" the same throughout the country?
