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
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

My wife and I weren't married in a Church; but we're married.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
My wife and I weren't married in a Church; but we're married.
Click to expand...

ok.... do you...

1) have a problem with civil unions being issued by the government vs. a marriage license?

2) do you have a problem with gay couples being allowed to have the same benefits and rights as straight couples?
 
Superfreak said:
ok.... do you...

1) have a problem with civil unions being issued by the government vs. a marriage license?

2) do you have a problem with gay couples being allowed to have the same benefits and rights as straight couples?
Click to expand...

1. Either make it one or the other, for everyone. No waffeing between them.
2. No problem.

Would this mean that instead of divorces, we would have breaches of contract being settled in the courts??
 
WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...



No offense bro, I respect you, but all this “let’s just have civil unions” stuff is just an exercise in theoretical mental masturbation. Its message board stuff. Nobody of any consequence, and in a position of real responsibility in the real world, is proposing this.

Civil unions don’t impart the same benefits as marriage, and the issue of gay equality isn’t simply in the context of “government benefits”. There are a whole host of benefits associated with the contractual institution of marriage that go beyond the tax code. There’s what, like ten billion companies and institutions in the U.S. with a vast patchwork of benefits policies that are, for the most part, predicated on the institutional contract of marriage.

Civil unions, and their legal parameters, vary widely from state to state. I don’t think the federal government is legally or constitutionally in a position to mandate a uniform civil unions code.

The entire nations tax system, and private benefits system in predicated on the institutional contract of marriage. It would be an administrative, procedural, and legal nightmare of epic proportions to change the laws and tax codes of 50 states, and the private policies of ten billion private institutions and employers to somehow make civil unions exactly on a par with the well established, and legally-ensconsed civil contract of marriage. That’s one reason there is no groundswell of popular opinion to change all marriages into civil unions. It’s strictly relegated to the realm of message board theorizing.

The only place I’ve ever heard this stuff advocated is on message boards. By people like Dixie. And I really think Dixie does it because he’s terrified of the fact that gay marriage is going to be a fact in our lifetimes – this sh*t is going to get resolved in the courts, and ultimately equality under the law is going to be upheld. And DOMA is ultimately going to be shot down in flames. It’s only a matter of time. Dixie knows this, and I’m pretty sure he uses this “let’s everyone have civil unions” as a roadblock or speed bump. Dixie sees the writing on the wall. The “everyone just have civil unions” crap is never going to happen, nobody of an consequence is proposing it, and it’s just a distraction from reality. I can’t speak for gays, but I suspect most of them laugh at the concept of negotiating around an ill conceived and thinly veiled “negotiating” ploy by social conservatives. Gay marriage is going to happen, whether social conservatives like it or not. That’s the bottom line.

That said, I think Representative David Drier, and Senator Lindsay Graham – noted and noteworthy congressional GOP closet gays – would make a fab couple.
 
Cypress said:
No offense bro, I respect you, but all this “let’s just have civil unions” stuff is just an exercise in theoretical mental masturbation. Its message board stuff. Nobody of any consequence, and in a position of real responsibility in the real world, is proposing this.

Civil unions don’t impart the same benefits as marriage, and the issue of gay equality isn’t simply in the context of “government benefits”. There are a whole host of benefits associated with the contractual institution of marriage that go beyond the tax code. There’s what, like ten billion companies and institutions in the U.S. with a vast patchwork of benefits policies that are, for the most part, predicated on the institutional contract of marriage.

Civil unions, and their legal parameters, vary widely from state to state. I don’t think the federal government is legally or constitutionally in a position to mandate a uniform civil unions code.

The entire nations tax system, and private benefits system in predicated on the institutional contract of marriage. It would be an administrative, procedural, and legal nightmare of epic proportions to change the laws and tax codes of 50 states, and the private policies of ten billion private institutions and employers to somehow make civil unions exactly on a par with the well established, and legally-ensconsed civil contract of marriage. That’s one reason there is no groundswell of popular opinion to change all marriages into civil unions. It’s strictly relegated to the realm of message board theorizing.

The only place I’ve ever heard this stuff advocated is on message boards. By people like Dixie. And I really think Dixie does it because he’s terrified of the fact that gay marriage is going to be a fact in our lifetimes – this sh*t is going to get resolved in the courts, and ultimately equality under the law is going to be upheld. And DOMA is ultimately going to be shot down in flames. It’s only a matter of time. Dixie knows this, and I’m pretty sure he uses this “let’s everyone have civil unions” as a roadblock or speed bump. Dixie sees the writing on the wall. The “everyone just have civil unions” crap is never going to happen, nobody of an consequence is proposing it, and it’s just a distraction from reality. I can’t speak for gays, but I suspect most of them laugh at the concept of negotiating around an ill conceived and thinly veiled “negotiating” ploy by social conservatives. Gay marriage is going to happen, whether social conservatives like it or not. That’s the bottom line.

That said, I think Representative David Drier, and Senator Lindsay Graham – noted and noteworthy congressional GOP closet gays – would make a fab couple.
Click to expand...

Of course its mental masturbation. This is what these forums are made for.

But I do think there is another purpose here, and is one of the reasons I argue so adamantly.

All these boards have people who surf thru, lurk, or just check things out. If just one of them reads what we post in favor of gay marriage, and has his eyes opened just a bit, there is progress.

No one is going to convince Dixie or SM. But by presenting the truth in debates with them, I just might influence a few newbies or lurkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top