What are the specific reasons why gay people want to get married?

[Donald Polish]

I have nothing against gay people or their desire to be cemented into their relationship like everybody else. I'm just curious what the specific reasons are why gay people want to be "married."

Second question is: What if the government changed "marriage" to be a more general term, like Legal Union for an example, and then defined straight unions as "marriage", and gay unions as "something else". Both would carry the same legal and social benefits, as they are just specific terms under the "Legal Union" category, but are only used to specify if it is man/woman or manman/womanwoman. If it was exactly the same but with a different name, would that satisfy both sides of the argument?
Have you any good ideas to this?

 

[Teddy Pollins]

I think it is more cultural. They want their union to be recognized by their families and friends as being the same as a hetero married couple.
They want to look and feel like normal. But I am sure that it will never happen.

 

[Gracie]

They want their union to be recognized by their families and friends as being the same as a hetero married couple.

This ^

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Same reasons straights want to get/be married.

No difference at all. None.

"Legal Union"

And please, not another thread on civil vs church married.

ALL marriages are civil. Some people want to hold the ceremony in a church but, legally, it means nothing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I think it is more cultural. They want their union to be recognized by their families and friends as being the same as a hetero married couple.
They want to look and feel like normal. But I am sure that it will never happen.

"But I am sure that it will never happen."

Too late. It already is.

And, unless its you who is getting married, its none of your business.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

I think it is more cultural. They want their union to be recognized by their families and friends as being the same as a hetero married couple.
They want to look and feel like normal. But I am sure that it will never happen.

"But I am sure that it will never happen."

Too late. It already is.

And, unless its you who is getting married, its none of your business.

I hope you will have a son. He will marry a fat fag one day.
You will be very happy father I suppose.
It will be very YOUR business.

 

[sealybobo]

I have nothing against gay people or their desire to be cemented into their relationship like everybody else. I'm just curious what the specific reasons are why gay people want to be "married."

Second question is: What if the government changed "marriage" to be a more general term, like Legal Union for an example, and then defined straight unions as "marriage", and gay unions as "something else". Both would carry the same legal and social benefits, as they are just specific terms under the "Legal Union" category, but are only used to specify if it is man/woman or manman/womanwoman. If it was exactly the same but with a different name, would that satisfy both sides of the argument?
Have you any good ideas to this?

Imagine at the end of your partners life her brothers and sisters come throw you out of the hospital and your home because you were never actually married. You have to split the house IF you paid for half. If you didn't and its in her name you're fucked.

You dont get to make life decisions for each other.

Tax breaks social security pensions healthcare adoption.

All the same reasons straights want to get married.

 

[eots]

I have nothing against gay people or their desire to be cemented into their relationship like everybody else. I'm just curious what the specific reasons are why gay people want to be "married."

Second question is: What if the government changed "marriage" to be a more general term, like Legal Union for an example, and then defined straight unions as "marriage", and gay unions as "something else". Both would carry the same legal and social benefits, as they are just specific terms under the "Legal Union" category, but are only used to specify if it is man/woman or manman/womanwoman. If it was exactly the same but with a different name, would that satisfy both sides of the argument?
Have you any good ideas to this?

Spite mostly..

 

[Eaglewings]

For legal reasons is right~ When there is money involved people can be very nasty and being the spouse doesn't have any rights the next of kin can come in a take it all away.

 

[eots]

For legal reasons is right~ When there is money involved people can be very nasty and being the spouse doesn't have any rights the next of kin can come in a take it all away.

they could have that with a civil union but that would not offend christains, so its not good enough

 

[Ame®icano]

Worth watching it for 5 minutes.

 

[sealybobo]

For legal reasons is right~ When there is money involved people can be very nasty and being the spouse doesn't have any rights the next of kin can come in a take it all away.

they could have that with a civil union but that would not offend christains, so its not good enough

Bullshit. You won't make them a civil union cake either.

And who cares what offends christians or Muslims?

 

[eots]

For legal reasons is right~ When there is money involved people can be very nasty and being the spouse doesn't have any rights the next of kin can come in a take it all away.

they could have that with a civil union but that would not offend christains, so its not good enough

Bullshit. You won't make them a civil union cake either.

And who cares what offends christians or Muslims?

Certainly not gay activist

 

[eots]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For legal reasons is right~ When there is money involved people can be very nasty and being the spouse doesn't have any rights the next of kin can come in a take it all away.

they could have that with a civil union but that would not offend christains, so its not good enough

Bullshit. You won't make them a civil union cake either.

And who cares what offends christians or Muslims?

Apparently, he doesn't know that ALL marriages are civil unions.

ANd anyeay, bet the phony christians would object to calling marriage equality "civil unions". They just want any excuse to force others to their screwy beliefs.

 

[eots]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Syriusly]

I have nothing against gay people or their desire to be cemented into their relationship like everybody else. I'm just curious what the specific reasons are why gay people want to be "married."

I am not gay- but I have always assumed that gay people want to get married for the specific reasons that that my wife and I got married.

 

[Syriusly]

Second question is: What if the government changed "marriage" to be a more general term, like Legal Union for an example, and then defined straight unions as "marriage", and gay unions as "something else". Both would carry the same legal and social benefits, as they are just specific terms under the "Legal Union" category, but are only used to specify if it is man/woman or manman/womanwoman. If it was exactly the same but with a different name, would that satisfy both sides of the argument?
Have you any good ideas to this?

Separate but equal?

What if gay unions were labeled 'marriage' and straight unions were called 'you know- that other thing'?

Would that satisfy both sides of the argument?

I think that treating both gay couples and straight couples exactly the same- not some 'pretend' the same- is how to treat people equally.

 

[Syriusly]

I think it is more cultural. They want their union to be recognized by their families and friends as being the same as a hetero married couple.
They want to look and feel like normal. But I am sure that it will never happen.

"But I am sure that it will never happen."

Too late. It already is.

And, unless its you who is getting married, its none of your business.

I hope you will have a son. He will marry a fat fag one day.
You will be very happy father I suppose.
It will be very YOUR business.

Why would you care whether the person was fat or gay?