Settle Gay Marriage issue on this board?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date

What is the best way to settle the Gay Marriage issue?

  • No change. Gays don't get to have the benefits of marriage.

    Votes: 16 37.2%

  • Civil Unions for Gays and Marriage for Straights

    Votes: 3 7.0%

  • Civil Unions as the source of benefits. Marriage is strictly a religious matter.

    Votes: 12 27.9%

  • Make homosexuality and sodomy illegal again.

    Votes: 12 27.9%
  • Total voters
    43
W

WinterBorn

Guest
It has been suggested that a way to settle the gay marriage issue is to allow Civil Unions for gay couples to receive the gov't benefits.

Choose the option you think is the best.
 
let them share the misery of marriage, it's the closet homo's that are against it. Cue Southern Gaylord
 
The Southern Man has conclusively demonstrated how wrong queer behavior is time after time.

Now you both owe The Southern Man an apology, because unnatural acts are so disgusting.
 
The government should issue civil unions for benefits to any two consenting non-related adults.

Marriage should be left up to the religious organizations.
 
Superfreak said:
The government should issue civil unions for benefits to any two consenting non-related adults.

Marriage should be left up to the religious organizations.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. And if any religious groups want to marry gay couples, let them have at it.
 
Why isn't there an option for having gay and straight people have civil marriage equally available to them while letting religious institutions decide whom they want to marry on their own?

That's the best way to resolve it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Why isn't there an option for having gay and straight people have civil marriage equally available to them while letting religious institutions decide whom they want to marry on their own?

That's the best way to resolve it.
Click to expand...

how is that the 'best way to resolve it'??? That simply keeps the fight going... it doesn't resolve anything.
 
Superfreak said:
how is that the 'best way to resolve it'??? That simply keeps the fight going... it doesn't resolve anything.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I'm sooooooooo sure that the freakshow "cultural conservatives" will be just thrilled with your idea to turn their marriages into civil unions to placate the gays. That must be why in the real world exactly no one is proposing such a "solution."

The fact of the matter is that calling the civil institution "marriage" has zero impact on the religious institution of marriage and there's no reason whatsover to create some special new thing for everybody because "cultural conservatives" are irrational.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes, and I'm sooooooooo sure that the freakshow "cultural conservatives" will be just thrilled with your idea to turn their marriages into civil unions to placate the gays. That must be why in the real world exactly no one is proposing such a "solution."

The fact of the matter is that calling the civil institution "marriage" has zero impact on the religious institution of marriage and there's no reason whatsover to create some special new thing for everybody because "cultural conservatives" are irrational.
Click to expand...

It has NOTHING to do with placating the gay population you unbelievable douche bag. YOUR 'solution' is the one that would placate the gay population as it gives them exactly what they want. My solution on the other hand splits the difference between the two groups. It doesn't call the government union 'marriage' thus placating the religious right to a degree (not the gays).... while at the same time providing the gay community the rights and benefits they want. Neither side gets everything they want.

I could care less if any politician has backed a proposal like the one I mentioned. That just goes to show they care more about keeping a wedge issue in their back pocket than actually trying to resolve the issue in a logical manner.

Civil unions have been around for a couple decades now. They are hardly new. You simply wish to continue the fight based on YOUR beliefs. While I personally agree that a gay 'marriage' is not going to adversely impact any of the RR's marriages, that is beside the point. You wish to keep the wedge issue rather than find a way to resolve it. You wish to belittle others beliefs because you have a different opinion. While to you (and me) it seems they are grasping at straws, to THEM it is an important distinction.

So tell us douche bag... is the gay community about equal protection under the law? or are they trying to stick it to their RR opponents? If it is the former, then my suggestion provides just that. If it is the latter, then they will continue the battle to obtain your 'solution'.....

I wonder though.... you state that calling it a 'marriage' doesn't change anything... why are people like you so ADAMANT about calling it a 'marriage'????

If it is about the visitation/inheritance rights etc.... then why the fuck do you care what they call it so long as those rights are provided?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yes, and I'm sooooooooo sure that the freakshow "cultural conservatives" will be just thrilled with your idea to turn their marriages into civil unions to placate the gays. That must be why in the real world exactly no one is proposing such a "solution."

The fact of the matter is that calling the civil institution "marriage" has zero impact on the religious institution of marriage and there's no reason whatsover to create some special new thing for everybody because "cultural conservatives" are irrational.
Click to expand...

Also... I would not be turning their marriages into civil unions... their MARRIAGES would still stand as the 'freakshow cultural conservatives' (you are a complete douche bag) are MARRIED in CHURCHES. It would only be the government piece of paper that would change.
 
Superfreak said:
It has NOTHING to do with placating the gay population you unbelievable douche bag. YOUR 'solution' is the one that would placate the gay population as it gives them exactly what they want. My solution on the other hand splits the difference between the two groups. It doesn't call the government union 'marriage' thus placating the religious right to a degree (not the gays).... while at the same time providing the gay community the rights and benefits they want. Neither side gets everything they want.

I could care less if any politician has backed a proposal like the one I mentioned. That just goes to show they care more about keeping a wedge issue in their back pocket than actually trying to resolve the issue in a logical manner.

Civil unions have been around for a couple decades now. They are hardly new. You simply wish to continue the fight based on YOUR beliefs. While I personally agree that a gay 'marriage' is not going to adversely impact any of the RR's marriages, that is beside the point. You wish to keep the wedge issue rather than find a way to resolve it. You wish to belittle others beliefs because you have a different opinion. While to you (and me) it seems they are grasping at straws, to THEM it is an important distinction.

So tell us douche bag... is the gay community about equal protection under the law? or are they trying to stick it to their RR opponents? If it is the former, then my suggestion provides just that. If it is the latter, then they will continue the battle to obtain your 'solution'.....

I wonder though.... you state that calling it a 'marriage' doesn't change anything... why are people like you so ADAMANT about calling it a 'marriage'????

If it is about the visitation/inheritance rights etc.... then why the fuck do you care what they call it so long as those rights are provided?
Click to expand...


I'm just trying to get real about it. You, on the other hand, want to play make believe. I guess in the make believe world your "solution" would work.

But given that the religious right idiots cannot distinguish between the secular institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage, the idea that they would accept calling their civil marriage a civil union while calling their religious marriage a marriage is silliness. They treat the two institutions as one and the same. That's the only reason that this issue is actually and issue.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, google spiders "read" the pages and put up ads that fit the content. The ads are an indication we're talking about homosexuality again...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew that, but when the "Loving Gay Relationship" ad with two awesomely handsome men in a "loving pose" together popped up promoting loving gay relationships, it kind of brought out the sassy streak in me.

Go figure!
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm just trying to get real about it. You, on the other hand, want to play make believe. I guess in the make believe world your "solution" would work.

But given that the religious right idiots cannot distinguish between the secular institution of marriage and the religious institution of marriage, the idea that they would accept calling their civil marriage a civil union while calling their religious marriage a marriage is silliness. They treat the two institutions as one and the same. That's the only reason that this issue is actually and issue.
Click to expand...

LMAO... you are not trying to 'get real'... you are stubbornly sticking to your 'only my way is realistic and everyone else's opinions are just make believe' line of bullshit.

You simply wish to continue your childish ranting about how 'idiotic' the religious right is. You wish to continue mocking their beliefs because like them... you think in terms of 'my way is the only way'. You see no way to compromise. You see no middle ground (to you the middle ground is just make believe). You are a buffoon. No better than those from the RR who proclaim the 'gayz are evil and must never be allowed to couple'...

you are a douche bag. Plain and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top