"Gay marriage" vs. Civil Unions

What do you think?

  • Total voters
    15
Watermark said:
Well technically the government doesn't decide. You can get married if you want, it's just that the government won't recongnize it legally if it doesn't want to.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are correct for a change! Precisely why we do not need to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. The license issued by government, has nothing to do with love or commitment.

I voted for Civil Unions because I believe that is a solution to the issue. From my perspective, the issue is legal rights for spouses, which Civil Unions would cover. "Gay Marriage" is a liberal initiative designed by the same Atheists who succeeded in killing school prayer. It is a direct attack on religion and the church, and I think it infringes on the rights of the religious to practice their religion by making a mockery of its traditions.

Removing "marriage licenses" and replacing them with "civil union licenses" will eliminate the religious element and allow the government to recognize homosexual unions on equal grounds with straight couples. If you redefine "marriage" to include homosexuality, you are bound by the Constitution to allow this "right" to anyone based on a sexual lifestyle choice, which leaves the door open for some pretty disgusting things. I had personally rather not have to deal with that, because the correct stance would have to be one of equality under the law. If gays can marry, why not the nutbags in Texas who want to marry off their 12-year-old virgin daughters to their 'messiah'? Who are WE to allow one group a pass, while we deny the other? According to our Constitution, we simply can't, and wouldn't have an argument.
 
" If you redefine "marriage" to include homosexuality, you are bound by the Constitution to allow this "right" to anyone based on a sexual lifestyle choice, which leaves the door open for some pretty disgusting things."

Same logic follows for civil unions.
 
" If gays can marry, why not the nutbags in Texas who want to marry off their 12-year-old virgin daughters to their 'messiah'? Who are WE to allow one group a pass, while we deny the other?"

Um...because we have laws protecting children?

At least you didn't compare it to bestiality this time. I guess that's progress.
 
Onceler said:
" If gays can marry, why not the nutbags in Texas who want to marry off their 12-year-old virgin daughters to their 'messiah'? Who are WE to allow one group a pass, while we deny the other?"

Um...because we have laws protecting children?

At least you didn't compare it to bestiality this time. I guess that's progress.
Click to expand...

Uhm, we have laws protecting traditional marriage too, idiot!
 
Grind said:
" If you redefine "marriage" to include homosexuality, you are bound by the Constitution to allow this "right" to anyone based on a sexual lifestyle choice, which leaves the door open for some pretty disgusting things."

Same logic follows for civil unions.
Click to expand...

Nope, because Civil Unions would not define the parameters based on sexual behavior or lifestyle choice. It would simply be a legal way of combining assets and forming a union between any two adult parties. It makes no differentiation between people based on their sexuality or choices of lifestyle. Redefining marriage to include homosexuals, on the other hand, does exactly that. Once this precedent is established, you have no way of denying any other sexual lifestyle choice the same rights.
 
There's a difference Dixie.

There's sound logic that says that a child can't consent to screwing me. Nor can a gerbil. It would be like me going out, randomly declaring that I'm in marriage with the first hot girl I see, raping her, and using the marriage as a cover. Basically.

Well, to put it another way, you're a dumbass.
 
dixie is right:

Woman with objects fetish marries Eiffel Tower

By Aislinn Simpson

Erika La Tour Eiffel, 37, a former soldier who lives in San Francisco, has been in love with objects before. Her first infatuation was with Lance, a bow that helped her to become a world-class archer, she is fond of the Berlin Wall and she claims to have a physical relationship with a piece of fence she keeps in her bedroom.
But it is the Eiffel Tower she has pledged to love, honour and obey in an intimate ceremony attended by a handful of friends.
She has changed her name legally to reflect the bond.



She revisits the massive structure as part of a documentary on Five on Objectum-Sexual women. There are around 40 people in the world who have declared themselves OS, all of them women and many of them also Asperger's Syndrome sufferers.
The OS term was first coined by Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer, a 54-year-old woman who has been "married" to the Berlin Wall for 29 years.
Before returning to Paris for her first wedding anniversary, Mrs La Tour Eiffel visits the Berlin Wall, where her affection for what many Germans see as a symbol of repression leads to an uncomfortable encounter with a member of the staff at the Checkpoint Charlie museum.
"I just don't understand how some people can bring someone into the world like a child - an object - and then not love them," she said.
She explained that she feels an affinity with the wall: "I am the Berlin Wall. Hate me, try to break me apart, but I will still be here, standing."
She blames her upbringing for her condition. She claims to have been molested by her half-brother and abandoned by her parents to various foster homes.
"If I am the way I am today because of everything that happened to me, then I'm alright with it," she said. "I wouldn't change who I am now."
Jerry Brooker, from New York State, one of the psychotherapists interviewed for the documentary, said that OS women were motivated by a need for control.
"Someone who falls in love with objects can control that relationship on their own terms," he said. "Their objects will not let them down. That is extremely attractive for a person who is otherwise often desperately lonely."
The Woman Who Married the Eiffel Tower is on Five at 10pm on June 4.
 
Watermark said:
There's a difference Dixie.

There's sound logic that says that a child can't consent to screwing me. Nor can a gerbil. It would be like me going out, randomly declaring that I'm in marriage with the first hot girl I see, raping her, and using the marriage as a cover. Basically.

Well, to put it another way, you're a dumbass.
Click to expand...

There has been "sound logic" for only allowing marriage between men and women for nearly 8000 years. When you re-define "marriage" and base it on parameters of "sexual preference" you essentially allow anything to be married to anything, there is no exception that can Constitutionally be made, regardless of your personal "sound logic" to the contrary. It is no longer up to your judgment of "sound logic" because you have given that away to allow the "sound logic" of traditional marriage to be re-defined.

Civil Unions solve the problem of gay couples being treated as equals with straight married couples, there is absolutely no reason or need to re-define marriage, and if you do re-define it, you will ultimately have to deal with the consequences of that. I had rather avoid the problem all together, adopt Civil Union legislation with respect for the sanctity of marriage, and leave the issue resolved. Yes... again, Dixie "The Radical" is offering a two-sided solution to the problem, one that addresses both sides of the issue, but I am extreme right? Seems to me, I am about the only "moderate" in the debate.
 
Dixie said:
There has been "sound logic" for only allowing marriage between men and women for nearly 8000 years. When you re-define "marriage" and base it on parameters of "sexual preference" you essentially allow anything to be married to anything, there is no exception that can Constitutionally be made, regardless of your personal "sound logic" to the contrary. It is no longer up to your judgment of "sound logic" because you have given that away to allow the "sound logic" of traditional marriage to be re-defined.
Click to expand...

WTF?

I said that there was sound logic that a child can't consent to a goddamn marriage. Allowing a marriage between a man and a child would be like allowing a man to force another woman into a non-consensual marriage.
 
Watermark said:
WTF?

I said that there was sound logic that a child can't consent to a goddamn marriage. Allowing a marriage between a man and a child would be like allowing a man to force another woman into a non-consensual marriage.
Click to expand...


No, it wouldn't be like that at all. Your argument for "sound logic" is basically the same argument against homosexual marriage, we have "sound logic" regarding the destruction of family, just as you have "sound logic" regarding exploiting the innocent. The term you are using, "sound logic" is the same as saying "moral judgement". Our society has made the collective moral judgement that children shouldn't marry adults. However, if we change the definition of marriage to accommodate a sexual behavior or lifestyle choice, then we will have to live with the beast we create. In the Texas case, the children were part of a religious cult, they were raised to believe this is mandated from their God, and perfectly okay with them and their parents, from their moral perspective. Who are you to decide what is moral for them? How can you discriminate against their odd sexual lifestyle choice? If you have re-defined marriage, you can't! You don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on, because THEY deserve the SAME rights you gave to the gays!

My position on this issue is not that of a bigot or homophobic, as much as you might like to picture it that way. It has nothing to do with "denying" gay people a "right" or being a stick in the mud. I want gay couples to enjoy every 'advantage' of a traditional marriage, if that is what they want. But redefining marriage, from the government standpoint, is not necessary, and will cause a Pandora's Box of other problems. Civil Unions will effectively serve two purposes, it will finally sever state connection with the religious sanctimony and ceremony of traditional marriage, and it will allow homosexual couples, or any other two individuals, to join in union together. The residual effects of "Gay Marriage", all the freaks coming out of the wood-works to claim equal protection under the law, will not be realized, because Civil Unions would not be defined by sexuality or lifestyle. In fact, there is an additional benefit, non-sexual parties could enter into Civil Union... you and your mother, for example... you share the same home and operate it as a couple, why can't you two share the same 'advantage' of other couples?
 
Grind said:
everyone should be able to get married. The government shouldn't have to get to say who can and can't get married. Eff the government.
Click to expand...

Everyone can get married. Being married is defined as "one man to one woman". It has worked in every society since the beginning of civilization.
 
Watermark said:
Well technically the government doesn't decide. You can get married if you want, it's just that the government won't recongnize it legally if it doesn't want to.
Click to expand...

This is a concept liberals don't seem to recognize. They think something is legal only if the government specifically endorses it. That's because they worship the almighty State. Well, and because they're morons. :)
 
Grind said:
dixie is right:

Woman with objects fetish marries Eiffel Tower

By Aislinn Simpson

Erika La Tour Eiffel, 37, a former soldier who lives in San Francisco, has been in love with objects before. Her first infatuation was with Lance, a bow that helped her to become a world-class archer, she is fond of the Berlin Wall and she claims to have a physical relationship with a piece of fence she keeps in her bedroom.
But it is the Eiffel Tower she has pledged to love, honour and obey in an intimate ceremony attended by a handful of friends.
She has changed her name legally to reflect the bond.
Click to expand...

Only in San Francisco.

What a loony bin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top