| Yes | 67% | 67% - 112 | ||||
| No | 27% | 27% - 45 | ||||
| I don't know | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Plead the fifth | 3% | 3% - 5 | ||||
| Other? (Please State) | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| Total: 165 | ||||||
this^ (provided those "civil unions" would have all the rights and responsibilities of traditional straight families extended to them).FEOS wrote:
My consistent position has been that civil unions should be the recognized thing for everyone.
If people want to get married, they can do so in their church. Would still count as a civil union, though.
Explain that to the gays plz.DrunkFace wrote:
I see no difference between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union', they are one and the same.
i always wandered the same. religion has been uber shitty towards gays since, like, forever.Mekstizzle wrote:
I can't see why gays would want to get married in a church.
Unfortunately religion has always tried to get involved with things that aren't any of their concern.Mekstizzle wrote:
Surely there is a difference. Marriage does not mean having a cheesy ceremony in a religious establishment, it doesn't have to have anything to do with religion at all. I don't see why religions are even getting involved, unless they are forced to get involved by having to allow their churches or whatever be used for gay marriages, but I can't see why gays would want to get married in a church.
Last edited by Jaekus (2012-02-08 06:33:58)
Isn't that basically "social engineering" by government?FEOS wrote:
Those tax policies are intended to promote certain behaviors deemed "favorable" to the overall health of the nation and its economy...just like any other tax policy. Subsidize desired behavior, tax undesired behavior.Turquoise wrote:
This is true, but I guess if we really wanted to be fair about things, we wouldn't subsidize marriage via tax benefits. The fact that we have a child tax credit seems odd as well, since it's not like we have a problem with sustaining population growth.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
First step would be to address the myriad tax and other intrinsic financial benefits tied to marriage. It's not as simple as just removing 'marriage' from government documents.
The problem is that not every state does.DrunkFace wrote:
I see no difference between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union', they are one and the same.
Not every state even allows homosexual unions. Some states limit civil unions to hetero couples.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why all the grizzling about civil unions not being enough?
Gays demanding the right to be married is like muslims demanding the right to have a bar-mitzvah - it defies logic.
You guys need to create interdependent relationships like Australia.Turquoise wrote:
The problem is that not every state does.DrunkFace wrote:
I see no difference between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union', they are one and the same.
Once again, this is one of those issues where a lack of federal standardization allows states to act on their prejudices.
How does that work?Cybargs wrote:
You guys need to create interdependent relationships like Australia.Turquoise wrote:
The problem is that not every state does.DrunkFace wrote:
I see no difference between a 'marriage' and a 'civil union', they are one and the same.
Once again, this is one of those issues where a lack of federal standardization allows states to act on their prejudices.
If I remember right (And I may not) it was very similar to our "common-law" marriage laws... Basically gets treated like a marriage without having to be officially recognized... Including property ownership, health care, etc... Except common-law still only applies to a man and woman, and does not come into effect for same-sex.Turquoise wrote:
How does that work?Cybargs wrote:
You guys need to create interdependent relationships like Australia.Turquoise wrote:
The problem is that not every state does.
Once again, this is one of those issues where a lack of federal standardization allows states to act on their prejudices.
Need to prove that you've been living together for 2 years (rental agreements, witness', etc etc) and its practically marriage until you call it off.HITNRUNXX wrote:
If I remember right (And I may not) it was very similar to our "common-law" marriage laws... Basically gets treated like a marriage without having to be officially recognized... Including property ownership, health care, etc... Except common-law still only applies to a man and woman, and does not come into effect for same-sex.Turquoise wrote:
How does that work?Cybargs wrote:
You guys need to create interdependent relationships like Australia.
No, you're wrong. Its nothing like muslims demanding a bar-mitzvah.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why all the grizzling about civil unions not being enough?
Gays demanding the right to be married is like muslims demanding the right to have a bar-mitzvah - it defies logic.
Actually the bar-mitzvah doesn't have any real religious meaning to it.Pubic wrote:
No, you're wrong. Its nothing like muslims demanding a bar-mitzvah.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why all the grizzling about civil unions not being enough?
Gays demanding the right to be married is like muslims demanding the right to have a bar-mitzvah - it defies logic.
A bar-mitzvah is strictly a religious rite, whereas marriage isn't.
But the kids get loads of money at Bar/Bat Mitzvahs. And money is the religion of the Jews.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Actually the bar-mitzvah doesn't have any real religious meaning to it.Pubic wrote:
No, you're wrong. Its nothing like muslims demanding a bar-mitzvah.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why all the grizzling about civil unions not being enough?
Gays demanding the right to be married is like muslims demanding the right to have a bar-mitzvah - it defies logic.
A bar-mitzvah is strictly a religious rite, whereas marriage isn't.
Right on.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I used to care about the entymological logic of it. That is, until we were in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economy went to shit while shitty health care legislation failed, and certain companies were too big to fail. Seattle wanted to tunnel through mud without a guarantee of continuing funds, and despite having money emptied on them, rich public school districts are still failing to educate kids just as much as poor public school districts.
Really, I couldn't give two shits if gays get married and smooch each other outside of Mormon churches or in shopping malls anymore. Adoption's fine with me, too. The kids could hardly be at more risk with them than they are with straight, potentially murderous parents.
News tells people every day that they're not safe breathing air, drinking water, eating food or even getting immunization shots. People are waiting to lie, cheat and rob you out of your money, family and life.
So yeah. Bigger f*#$&@% fish to fry.
That's exactly what it is. Another reason to have simplified tax code and tax as little as possible.Turquoise wrote:
Isn't that basically "social engineering" by government?FEOS wrote:
Those tax policies are intended to promote certain behaviors deemed "favorable" to the overall health of the nation and its economy...just like any other tax policy. Subsidize desired behavior, tax undesired behavior.Turquoise wrote:
This is true, but I guess if we really wanted to be fair about things, we wouldn't subsidize marriage via tax benefits. The fact that we have a child tax credit seems odd as well, since it's not like we have a problem with sustaining population growth.
