More gay marriage discussion!

[Flystripper]

I understand this argument but why can't the federal civil union law be changed to grant these benefits? That would seem less polarizing than trying to clarify the definition of marriage.

If civil unions are granted the same benefits as marriages under federal law then you truly are reaching the point where marriage becomes more of a religious rite instead of a discriminatory right.

FWIW, I'm ignorant on this issue so I'm sure this has been hashed over but it seems like a simple fix, but maybe it's too simplistic in my mind.

Actually I would say it would be less polarizing to accept gay marriage. It is no secret that gay people want acceptance in society and that striving for marriage rights is one way that they seek that acceptance. By accepting their unions as marriages the world, in time, would become a bit less polarizing. At least that is the hope.

[mUUser]

I agree with the Baptist. From an legal amateur's POV (namely, me) it seems like pretty good legislation.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I understand this argument but why can't the federal civil union law be changed to grant these benefits? That would seem less polarizing than trying to clarify the definition of marriage.

If civil unions are granted the same benefits as marriages under federal law then you truly are reaching the point where marriage becomes more of a religious rite instead of a discriminatory right.

FWIW, I'm ignorant on this issue so I'm sure this has been hashed over but it seems like a simple fix, but maybe it's too simplistic in my mind.

Once gay civil unions are given all of these rights, what's to distinguish a civil union from a marriage? This is what I don't get about the debate from the side of those who are against gay marriage but support civil unions with full rights. But if you call the civil union a marriage...well...then they've crossed over the line. It then seems to be a question of semantics at that point.

The reality is that most of those who are against gay marriage are against civil unions with full rights of married couples. I just find it hard to believe that everyone is engaging in this fight simply to keep the definition of marriage as something between a man and a woman.

[byu71]

Once gay civil unions are given all of these rights, what's to distinguish a civil union from a marriage? This is what I don't get about the debate from the side of those who are against gay marriage but support civil unions with full rights. But if you call the civil union a marriage...well...then they've crossed over the line. It then seems to be a question of semantics at that point.

The reality is that most of those who are against gay marriage are against civil unions with full rights of married couples. I just find it hard to believe that everyone is engaging in this fight simply to keep the definition of marriage as something between a man and a woman.

Let me ask the reverse. If civil unions give all the rights a marriage does, why still the need to have it called marriage?

[TripletDaddy]

Let me ask the reverse. If civil unions give all the rights a marriage does, why still the need to have it called marriage?

Separate but equal. Historically, Americans have not been satisfied with separate but equal. It is about social acceptance in the eyes of the law (not necessarily in the eyes of fellow citizens.....integration was also not met with overwhelming acceptance, either). This isn't that difficult to understand, I would think.

[byu71]

Separate but equal. Historically, Americans have not been satisfied with separate but equal. It is about social acceptance in the eyes of the law (not necessarily in the eyes of fellow citizens.....integration was also not met with overwhelming acceptance, either). This isn't that difficult to understand, I would think.

Some of us don't have your IQ, so be a little considerate. We don't catch on and understand things as quickly as you.

Aren't people of various faiths seperate, but equal. How about men and women. Aren't they seperate, but equal. If we were equal, I would walk into a woman's rest room, take a leak and not fear getting arrested.

[TripletDaddy]

Some of us don't have your IQ, so be a little considerate that we don't catch on and understand thinks as quickly as you.

Aren't people of various faiths seperate, but equal. How about men and women. Aren't they seperate, but equal. If we were equal, I would walk into a woman's rest room, take a leak and not fear getting arrested.

Since according to you were are at disparate (not the same) IQ levels, could you please help me understand the nexus between bathrooms and the definition of marriage vs civil unions? Also, what do you mean that men and women are "separate but equal?" And how does that relate to your original question?

[byu71]

Since according to you were are at disparate (not the same) IQ levels, could you please help me understand the nexus between bathrooms and the definition of marriage vs civil unions? Also, what do you mean that men and women are "separate but equal?" And how does that relate to your original question?

I am not going to be led down this bullshit question and answer gig. You win.

[woot]

If civil union's were granted all of those rights, do you think gays would still insist on marriage? Me thinks they would.

I can support them getting all those rights you mentioned as a part of a civil union. Maybe I am just too, too old and set in my ways. I just don't want anyone calling me a bigot and other names just because I can't accept a guy taking in the rear from another guy as normal.

I suggest you picture lesbians instead of gays when discussing this issue. That way the standard conservative fixation on sodomy won't cloud your judgment.

[byu71]

I suggest you picture lesbians instead of gays when discussing this issue. That way the standard conservative fixation on sodomy won't cloud your judgment.

Fair enough and you focus on the guys. That way your standard liberal fixation on being PC won't get in your way.

[DU Ute]

I suggest you picture lesbians instead of gays when discussing this issue. That way the standard conservative fixation on sodomy won't cloud your judgment.

[TripletDaddy]

I am not going to be led down this bullshit question and answer gig. You win.

Slow down, you move too fast, you have to make the moments last.......I'm not trying to win anything. You aren't being led anywhere. You were the one that asked the questions, didn't you.

Your hypothetical wasn't on point. That is the problem. Perhaps you thought you were asking a tricky question by introducing public toilets and men and women being separate but equal (I still don't understand what you mean there). It may be a clever path, but I just don't see the comparison between being able to use a woman's bathroom and gays wanting the right to be married in lieu of a civil union.

This seems to upset you.

[RobinFinderson]

If civil union's were granted all of those rights, do you think gays would still insist on marriage? Me thinks they would.

I can support them getting all those rights you mentioned as a part of a civil union. Maybe I am just too, too old and set in my ways. I just don't want anyone calling me a bigot and other names just because I can't accept a guy taking in the rear from another guy as normal.

I'm sure you don't imagine every married couple that you meet in the throws of vaginal intercourse, so I would suggest you stop doing the equivalent with gay dudes. Besides, there are sexless marriages among hets, so I would imagine there would also be sexless marriages among gays. If it helps, just assume that any gay married couple you might meet is in a sexless marriage.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm sure you don't imagine every married couple that you meet in the throws of vaginal intercourse, so I would suggest you stop doing the equivalent with gay dudes. Besides, there are sexless marriages among hets, so I would imagine there would also be sexless marriages among gays. If it helps, just assume that any gay married couple you might meet is in a sexless marriage.

Another strategy when deciding whether a certain group of people should receive a specific set of rights is to envision them as human beings and not worry about what sort of sexual practices they pursue while having sexual intercourse.

This should be a measure of last resort, of course.

In the normal course of affairs, I always endorse the "Graphic Sexual Imagery" approach to problem solving and decision-making.

[woot]

Fair enough and you focus on the guys. That way your standard liberal fixation on being PC won't get in your way.

Really? Where did that come from? That's another conservative fixation that I just don't understand. Find any right-winger and it's guaranteed that they'll throw that out without any explanation or context.