I a strong supporter of Gay Marriges, lately theres been a lot of arguing about wether being Gay is choice or if your born with it. And I definitely believe that it's not choice, being Gay just means loving different people and our laws shouldn't have anything against love.

quote:

Anything civil unions would do can already be one in a will. That is not denying anything to anyone.

Maybe it's just societal influence, but civil unions are more appealing and offer more evidence of a tangible commitment than anything will could. Yes, ultimately the relationship isn't changed; but, again, it is nice to have some sort of true validation of commitment while both partners are actually alive.

quote:

Why would you deliberatly deny someones pursuit of happiness when you can not prove any long term ill-effects on society?

That is not an answer to my question. Anything civil unions would do can already be one in a will. That is not denying anything to anyone.

It's the principle of the thing. Why would you deliberatly deny someones pursuit of happiness when you can not prove any long term ill-effects on society?

To be honest, I believe that a gay man (Bob) who has lived with his partner (Fred) for thirty years has made the choice to make him his partner. And that when Bob gets sick or is in a car accident and on life support that he did choose Fred to be his medical power of attorney. And that when Bob dies, Fred should be the one that takes over Bob's estate. And that when Bob was alive, Fred was like a wife/husband to him. Keep in mind that I am not against getting rid of marriage all together. But why can't Bob (and Fred for that matter) put all of his wishes in a will (living or otherwise). I mean, I can give power of attorney and all other privleges of marriage to my next door neighbor, or Justin Timberlake if I want. What is wrong with that? Why can't Bob just do that?

Disregard my previous post.

quote:

If thats what it takes to calm the radical christian right, then yes that is whats going to have to happen

Alright. I was just wondering if there was some aspect I was missing.

To be honest, I believe that a gay man (Bob) who has lived with his partner (Fred) for thirty years has made the choice to make him his partner. And that when Bob gets sick or is in a car accident and on life support that he did not choose Fred to be his medical power of attorney. And that when Bob dies, Fred should be the one that takes over Bob's estate. And that when Bob was alive, Fred was like a wife/husband to him. Keep in mind that I am not against getting rid of marriage all together. But why can't Bob (and Fred for that matter) put all of his wishes in a will (living or otherwise). I mean, I can give power of attorney and all other privleges of marriage to my next door neighbor, or Justin Timberlake if I want. What is wrong with that? Why can't Bob just do that?

quote:

Originally posted by Kate127:
But how are these civil unions any different from marriages? I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, they would have the same benifits as marriage, and it would basicly be marriage, but allowing homosexuals to be joined.

So its the equivelent of allowing gay marriage, just putting a different name on it.

If thats what it takes to calm the radical christian right, then yes that is whats going to have to happen

But how are these civil unions any different from marriages? I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, they would have the same benifits as marriage, and it would basicly be marriage, but allowing homosexuals to be joined.

So its the equivelent of allowing gay marriage, just putting a different name on it.

Yeah, it's not as if we're suddenly going to let people who are in love with their refrigerators get married to them. The basic idea is that it would be the same as it is today, but with civil unions extending to everyone who can currently get married in addition to homosexual couples.

quote:

Freedom said that he would not be opposed to those things completely.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I said, so I'll be nice.

I said I would morally be against it. I would not be politically against it.

If you haven't caught on by now, I would rather a state be very liberal in its involvement in social systems or not have one at all.

Yeah, I understand. As long as we can agree that it be extended to hetero- and homosexual couples ONLY, I am not sure that I would be opposed to it.

quote:

This proposal would eliminate the word "marriage" from statutes and replace it with "civil unions"? It would also make it a "civil union license" instead of "marriage license"? And this civil unioin would be extended to heterosexual couples, gay couples, incestual couples, and polygamists?

You got the first part right, but the last part horribly wrong. Incest and polygamy are illegal. Now, you could argue that homosexuality is too (and I wouldn't be surprised because there are laws to that effect), but I would argue that it's illegal in name only, with little or no enforcement taking place. Heck, some states even list premarital sex as being illegal. But you don't see people getting arrested on that charge, do you? Besides, these laws are often outdated, and most states don't even have them.

Now, I want to make it clear that this would not eliminate marriage altogether. Marriage through a religious institution would merely become an optional addition to the civil union, for those who wish for their union to be religiously sanctioned. But this would carry with it no extra rights, and those who don't wish to be married in a church don't have to, just as it is today, where you can effectively get "married" in a courthouse.

quote:

You're doing it again Bushsupporter, lumping very different things under the same banner as to discredit your opponants... Again it MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FUCKING RETARD!!!

Freedom said that he would not be opposed to those things completely. I am asking, in the middle of a civil debate (that was until you showed up) what the proposal would be because I said that I am not completely opposed to getting rid of marriage and making all unions civil unions.

You need to calm down and read down a few posts to find out what we are discussing. Take a deep breath and calm down.

You're doing it again Bushsupporter, lumping very different things under the same banner as to discredit your opponants... Again it MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FUCKING RETARD!!!

quote:

So, since that eliminates the religious issue, are there any objections to homosexual civil unions alongside heterosexual civil unions? They would both carry with them they same privileges and rights, and is completely secular, so I don't see why that would be a problem to either side.

amen.

So let me get this straight (and I am simply clarifying, not being mean). This proposal would eliminate the word "marriage" from statutes and replace it with "civil unions"? It would also make it a "civil union license" instead of "marriage license"? And this civil unioin would be extended to heterosexual couples, gay couples, incestual couples, and polygamists?

quote:

(...that and the bush administration)

President Bush supports civil unions.

quote:

I agree, I am going to San Fran with my hamster and sister. We all love eachother you know. I can't wait to get them on my health insurance. It is all about love.

you are ignorant. The government has no right to outlaw the civil union of a gay couple. That is clear mixing of Church and state. Because it is its own little entity, we can't stop the church from sanctioning whatever it wants, but it is horrible that the state should be so strongly influenced by the Church, esp. on this issue. Mixing of church and state results in the taliban (...that and the bush administration)

I've actually heard that proposition in a few places, freedom, even from more conservative sources. I think it's the best idea. So long as everyone has the same rights, and no one's infringing on morals (as would happen through religious marriage), it seems to work out perfectly.

quote:

do you think it should be allowed?

Clearly California still doesn't think so.

http://orangecounty.cox.net/cci/newsnational/national?_...tion=validatearticle