Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Darkwind]

I am for equal, let 'em marry who they wish.
I eat what I want, and let others eat what they want. That may be a crude way of expressing it, but thats the simple way to say it.
As I posted in a previous post, those that wish to can set themselves apart by declaring they have a "covenant marriage".
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me that would please everyone while treating everyone equally.

Why?

I am curious about your entire notion.

It seems that the gays are opposed to their partnerships being called civil unions and insist that they be called marriage. One poster in this thread says if they are the same thing, why give them separate names? (I'll not bother with an individual who doesn't understand the role of language and the meaning and power of words).

So, your solution is to take those who have done naught but follow a practice that has been in exsitence for 10,000 years and have them rename what they are, and give the newcomers the label they seek to usurp?

Why would anyone do that?

For the record, I am opposed to government recognition of all marriages. The should all be a civil contract with all the legal ramifications that come with that.

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain with the church.

 

[slackjawed]

Think about it.

If the government had not intruded itself into marriage and taken it over, would we even be having this conversation?

Nope!

If people would have kept marriage as a sacrament for the religious and not degraded and distorted the shit as a free for all we would have this talk. Gays over here have civil unions and don't bitch and bicker about marriages, only in the good ol USA do they do that.

Nope, they bitched and whined in Canada too.

 

[Flaylo]

No, they are after equality.

Again, why do you care if two gay adults spend their life together, and the government waives things like the estate tax when the other dies? Can't you just get along with your own business?


.

I don't care if two gay adults spend their lives together and I think it's only fair that the government waives the estate tax when one partner dies.

However, I think that should be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage.

It can be but the gays don't want that and thats how they harm their argument.

 

[Flaylo]

I am for equal, let 'em marry who they wish.
I eat what I want, and let others eat what they want. That may be a crude way of expressing it, but thats the simple way to say it.
As I posted in a previous post, those that wish to can set themselves apart by declaring they have a "covenant marriage".
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me that would please everyone while treating everyone equally.

Why?

I am curious about your entire notion.

It seems that the gays are opposed to their partnerships being called civil unions and insist that they be called marriage. One poster in this thread says if they are the same thing, why give them separate names? (I'll not bother with an individual who doesn't understand the role of language and the meaning and power of words).

So, your solution is to take those who have done naught but follow a practice that has been in exsitence for 10,000 years and have them rename what they are, and give the newcomers the label they seek to usurp?

Why would anyone do that?

For the record, I am opposed to government recognition of all marriages. The should all be a civil contract with all the legal ramifications that come with that.

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain with the church.

the power of words is dumb, marriages in the US are for the most part civil unions, not TRUE marriages as defined religiously, I agree marriage ought to be stricken from the government and civil unions should be granted and leave marriages only to churches. They can divy up property and all that stuff via a church and file it officially with the govt as a civil union under religious conditions.

 

[slackjawed]

I am for equal, let 'em marry who they wish.
I eat what I want, and let others eat what they want. That may be a crude way of expressing it, but thats the simple way to say it.
As I posted in a previous post, those that wish to can set themselves apart by declaring they have a "covenant marriage".
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me that would please everyone while treating everyone equally.

Why?

I am curious about your entire notion.

It seems that the gays are opposed to their partnerships being called civil unions and insist that they be called marriage. One poster in this thread says if they are the same thing, why give them separate names? (I'll not bother with an individual who doesn't understand the role of language and the meaning and power of words).

So, your solution is to take those who have done naught but follow a practice that has been in exsitence for 10,000 years and have them rename what they are, and give the newcomers the label they seek to usurp?

Why would anyone do that?

For the record, I am opposed to government recognition of all marriages. The should all be a civil contract with all the legal ramifications that come with that.

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain with the church.

By your post I can tell you didn't read the link. I take that as disrespectful. However, I will grant you the courtesy of a reasonable response anyway.

The term "covenant marriage, and the movement related to it are based on marriage being a religious institution. Those that wish can chose it right now in Arizona and other states. In fact, the polygamist sects in the north part of the state don't even bother with legal marriage.

Let everyone marry. Those that wish the 'special' religious designation can choose to call theirs a covenant marriage. That's working right now in the state I live in.

The homosexual marriage lobby sure is making enemies from friends by the very attitude you have shown this morning......

 

[KevinWestern]

No, they are after equality.

Again, why do you care if two gay adults spend their life together, and the government waives things like the estate tax when the other dies? Can't you just get along with your own business?


.

I don't care if two gay adults spend their lives together and I think it's only fair that the government waives the estate tax when one partner dies.

However, I think that should be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage.

It can be but the gays don't want that and thats how they harm their argument.

Has separate but equal worked in the past?

Is it worth having the added costs and administrative bureaucracy of two completely separate institutions that afford the EXACT same benefits? All for just a different name at the top of the page? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a waste of money in a time when we do not need to waste money.

I'm young so maybe it's a generational thing (I'm assuming you're not in your twenties, so correct me if I'm wrong). Also, I'm married (1.5 years) so I do have some personal experience on the subject.


.

 

[Darkwind]

I am for equal, let 'em marry who they wish.
I eat what I want, and let others eat what they want. That may be a crude way of expressing it, but thats the simple way to say it.
As I posted in a previous post, those that wish to can set themselves apart by declaring they have a "covenant marriage".
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me that would please everyone while treating everyone equally.

Why?

I am curious about your entire notion.

It seems that the gays are opposed to their partnerships being called civil unions and insist that they be called marriage. One poster in this thread says if they are the same thing, why give them separate names? (I'll not bother with an individual who doesn't understand the role of language and the meaning and power of words).

So, your solution is to take those who have done naught but follow a practice that has been in exsitence for 10,000 years and have them rename what they are, and give the newcomers the label they seek to usurp?

Why would anyone do that?

For the record, I am opposed to government recognition of all marriages. The should all be a civil contract with all the legal ramifications that come with that.

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain with the church.

By your post I can tell you didn't read the link. I take that as disrespectful. However, I will grant you the courtesy of a reasonable response anyway.

The term "covenant marriage, and the movement related to it are based on marriage being a religious institution. Those that wish can chose it right now in Arizona and other states. In fact, the polygamist sects in the north part of the state don't even bother with legal marriage.

Let everyone marry. Those that wish the 'special' religious designation can choose to call theirs a covenant marriage. That's working right now in the state I live in.

The homosexual marriage lobby sure is making enemies from friends by the very attitude you have shown this morning......

Your link, like all such links, is worthless. I am not here to debate people who are not here to interact. I am asking YOU specifically. I am not asking the link or the website at the link. I could link to the bible and say that the entire argument is encapsulated right there. But I don't do that, because that would be an insult. A real one, not your imagined one. This place has far to many links giving other peoples opinions on subjects and never the opinion of the the person who made the link.

If you cannot articulate your position based upon your own moral compass, then it is not worth my time to interact with you.

So, your answer to My question is, you think that those who have made use of, and have accepted marriage as normal social behavior, should step aside and redefine themselves for a minority of people who wish to usurp their institution for no other reason than they 'want it'?

 

[Darkwind]

I don't care if two gay adults spend their lives together and I think it's only fair that the government waives the estate tax when one partner dies.

However, I think that should be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage.

It can be but the gays don't want that and thats how they harm their argument.

Has separate but equal worked in the past?

Is it worth having the added costs and administrative bureaucracy of two completely separate institutions that afford the EXACT same benefits? All for just a different name at the top of the page? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a waste of money in a time when we do not need to waste money.

I'm young so maybe it's a generational thing (I'm assuming you're not in your twenties, so correct me if I'm wrong). Also, I'm married (1.5 years) so I do have some personal experience on the subject.


.

I don't follow your argument at all. You are complaining over the government having to change the design of a few forms to administrate the same thing....in an age where we waste untold billions making sure every document in our government is written in every conceivable language on the planet?

 

[slackjawed]

Why?

I am curious about your entire notion.

It seems that the gays are opposed to their partnerships being called civil unions and insist that they be called marriage. One poster in this thread says if they are the same thing, why give them separate names? (I'll not bother with an individual who doesn't understand the role of language and the meaning and power of words).

So, your solution is to take those who have done naught but follow a practice that has been in exsitence for 10,000 years and have them rename what they are, and give the newcomers the label they seek to usurp?

Why would anyone do that?

For the record, I am opposed to government recognition of all marriages. The should all be a civil contract with all the legal ramifications that come with that.

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain with the church.

By your post I can tell you didn't read the link. I take that as disrespectful. However, I will grant you the courtesy of a reasonable response anyway.

The term "covenant marriage, and the movement related to it are based on marriage being a religious institution. Those that wish can chose it right now in Arizona and other states. In fact, the polygamist sects in the north part of the state don't even bother with legal marriage.

Let everyone marry. Those that wish the 'special' religious designation can choose to call theirs a covenant marriage. That's working right now in the state I live in.

The homosexual marriage lobby sure is making enemies from friends by the very attitude you have shown this morning......

Your link, like all such links, is worthless. I am not here to debate people who are not here to interact. I am asking YOU specifically. I am not asking the link or the website at the link. I could link to the bible and say that the entire argument is encapsulated right there. But I don't do that, because that would be an insult. A real one, not your imagined one. This place has far to many links giving other peoples opinions on subjects and never the opinion of the the person who made the link.

If you cannot articulate your position based upon your own moral compass, then it is not worth my time to interact with you.

So, your answer to My question is, you think that those who have made use of, and have accepted marriage as normal social behavior, should step aside and redefine themselves for a minority of people who wish to usurp their institution for no other reason than they 'want it'?

no dumbass!
I am for FINANCIAL EQUALITY. No group should have favor over another in the financial reaction with our government.
The link defines what the religious call marriage. That's all it does.
Since our government chose o become involved in marriage, and there will never be any turning back, the best course for FREEDOM is to do our best to provide financial equality.

You are not worth any more time, and are going onto my iggy list as you are nothing more than a bigoted troll....

 

[KevinWestern]

I am for equal, let 'em marry who they wish.
I eat what I want, and let others eat what they want. That may be a crude way of expressing it, but thats the simple way to say it.
As I posted in a previous post, those that wish to can set themselves apart by declaring they have a "covenant marriage".
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seems to me that would please everyone while treating everyone equally.

Why?

I am curious about your entire notion.

It seems that the gays are opposed to their partnerships being called civil unions and insist that they be called marriage. One poster in this thread says if they are the same thing, why give them separate names? (I'll not bother with an individual who doesn't understand the role of language and the meaning and power of words).

So, your solution is to take those who have done naught but follow a practice that has been in exsitence for 10,000 years and have them rename what they are, and give the newcomers the label they seek to usurp?

Why would anyone do that?

For the record, I am opposed to government recognition of all marriages. The should all be a civil contract with all the legal ramifications that come with that.

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain with the church.

the power of words is dumb, marriages in the US are for the most part civil unions, not TRUE marriages as defined religiously, I agree marriage ought to be stricken from the government and civil unions should be granted and leave marriages only to churches. They can divy up property and all that stuff via a church and file it officially with the govt as a civil union under religious conditions.

I'm fine with the gov't only dealing in the civil union business, and leaving it up to the private institutions to define the partnership how they choose.

If your church doesn't want to recognize your marriage because your gay, too bad; it will up to the individual to find a private community where they will be accepted. No gov't involved.


.

 

[bodecea]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Well, the DOMA kind of prevents that. I agree that the answer to the problem is to let straights keep the "marriage" name and give "Civil Unions" every right and privilege legally, that married couples have.

If we go to "civil unions" for civil marriages...that will be for gays AND straights who go to the court house. Plus changing all the laws and statues, federal, state, and local that use the term marriage in them.

 

[Caroljo]

The federal government injected itself into the institution of marriage. It's funny how conservatives don't mind the government taking over marriage and instituting collectivism and social behavior modification when it suits them.

Married people did not get tax breaks from the federal government for 170 years after the Constitution was ratified. It was not until the 1950s when the government began taking over marriage.

WTF is government suddenly doing in our marriages? WTF is the government doing with DOMA, defining what marriage is? THAT IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF MARRIAGE!!!

It now hands out a thousand prizes and cash to married people, unless they are gay.

Gay people are taxed extra, just for being gay. That is a simple fact. Could you imagine the outrage if blacks were taxed extra just for being black?

So only single straight people should pay taxes at that rate? What a moron you are.

DOMA was set into place to prevent gay activists inficting gay marriage on the country via the 14th Amendment. They don't give two shits about the will of the people, they just want to be treated like they're married when they are not.

I am glad that you pointed out that the real reason for the gay marriage movement is to get tax breaks, though.

Since those tax breaks were put into place to benefit children, and children most assuredly cannot be the issue of a gay marriage, it follows that those tax benefits are not due them, no?

Do single parents get tax deductions for their children? I believe they do.

So don't go whining about turkey basters, artificial insmenation and adoption. Gays are treated the same under the law as anyone else.

You don't get tax benefits for children if you don't have children. The benefits of filing a joint return are not predicated upon having children. Your argument is nonsense.

You're right, they don't. That means neither straights or gays get that benefit if there's no children. If a gay has adopted a child, they will get it, just like a straight single person will. So what's your point? Sounds like all they are looking for are the tax write-off that married people get. I wouldn't care if they got that break being in a Civil Union either, but that's up to your government to decide. I don't care WHAT they get, just don't call it a "marriage".

But ya know what? I believe they will NEVER accept just a civil union because of their so called "pride". And that they would love to throw it in our faces later.

 

[Darkwind]

By your post I can tell you didn't read the link. I take that as disrespectful. However, I will grant you the courtesy of a reasonable response anyway.

The term "covenant marriage, and the movement related to it are based on marriage being a religious institution. Those that wish can chose it right now in Arizona and other states. In fact, the polygamist sects in the north part of the state don't even bother with legal marriage.

Let everyone marry. Those that wish the 'special' religious designation can choose to call theirs a covenant marriage. That's working right now in the state I live in.

The homosexual marriage lobby sure is making enemies from friends by the very attitude you have shown this morning......

Your link, like all such links, is worthless. I am not here to debate people who are not here to interact. I am asking YOU specifically. I am not asking the link or the website at the link. I could link to the bible and say that the entire argument is encapsulated right there. But I don't do that, because that would be an insult. A real one, not your imagined one. This place has far to many links giving other peoples opinions on subjects and never the opinion of the the person who made the link.

If you cannot articulate your position based upon your own moral compass, then it is not worth my time to interact with you.

So, your answer to My question is, you think that those who have made use of, and have accepted marriage as normal social behavior, should step aside and redefine themselves for a minority of people who wish to usurp their institution for no other reason than they 'want it'?

no dumbass!
I am for FINANCIAL EQUALITY. No group should have favor over another in the financial reaction with our government.
The link defines what the religious call marriage. That's all it does.
Since our government chose o become involved in marriage, and there will never be any turning back, the best course for FREEDOM is to do our best to provide financial equality.

You are not worth any more time, and are going onto my iggy list as you are nothing more than a bigoted troll....

Here let me help you since you seem to have dropped any and all pretense of being....'civil'.

Look up the definition of "Contract Law" and what can be accomplished using this tool provided by societies that value law above emotional anarchy.

 

[Michelle420]

Why?

I am curious about your entire notion.

It seems that the gays are opposed to their partnerships being called civil unions and insist that they be called marriage. One poster in this thread says if they are the same thing, why give them separate names? (I'll not bother with an individual who doesn't understand the role of language and the meaning and power of words).

So, your solution is to take those who have done naught but follow a practice that has been in exsitence for 10,000 years and have them rename what they are, and give the newcomers the label they seek to usurp?

Why would anyone do that?

For the record, I am opposed to government recognition of all marriages. The should all be a civil contract with all the legal ramifications that come with that.

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain with the church.

By your post I can tell you didn't read the link. I take that as disrespectful. However, I will grant you the courtesy of a reasonable response anyway.

The term "covenant marriage, and the movement related to it are based on marriage being a religious institution. Those that wish can chose it right now in Arizona and other states. In fact, the polygamist sects in the north part of the state don't even bother with legal marriage.

Let everyone marry. Those that wish the 'special' religious designation can choose to call theirs a covenant marriage. That's working right now in the state I live in.

The homosexual marriage lobby sure is making enemies from friends by the very attitude you have shown this morning......

Your link, like all such links, is worthless. I am not here to debate people who are not here to interact. I am asking YOU specifically. I am not asking the link or the website at the link. I could link to the bible and say that the entire argument is encapsulated right there. But I don't do that, because that would be an insult. A real one, not your imagined one. This place has far to many links giving other peoples opinions on subjects and never the opinion of the the person who made the link.

If you cannot articulate your position based upon your own moral compass, then it is not worth my time to interact with you.

So, your answer to My question is, you think that those who have made use of, and have accepted marriage as normal social behavior, should step aside and redefine themselves for a minority of people who wish to usurp their institution for no other reason than they 'want it'?

Our Country is setup to protect the minority rights.

Yes, if society wants to redefine marriage as they did for instance in the 1950's when interracial marriage was against the law, then this is exactly what will be done.

In order for any social change to be made the attitude and a collective group will back it up.

If the majority does not back it then the court will hear the case to decide if a minority right is being violated in accordance with how the law defines it.

If marriage is only a religious formality then why hasn't religious people protested courthouse marriages done for non religious heterosexuals?

 

[rightwinger]

Lets put the issue on the national ballot let both sides make there case and have the people vote on it.

You should not be able to vote on what rights others are allowed to have


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper

 

[Flaylo]

I don't care if two gay adults spend their lives together and I think it's only fair that the government waives the estate tax when one partner dies.

However, I think that should be accomplished without changing the definition of marriage.

It can be but the gays don't want that and thats how they harm their argument.

Has separate but equal worked in the past?

Is it worth having the added costs and administrative bureaucracy of two completely separate institutions that afford the EXACT same benefits? All for just a different name at the top of the page? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a waste of money in a time when we do not need to waste money.

I'm young so maybe it's a generational thing (I'm assuming you're not in your twenties, so correct me if I'm wrong). Also, I'm married (1.5 years) so I do have some personal experience on the subject.


.

Jim Crow didmn't work because there was NO equality, blacks were given substandard pools and bathrooms and whites were higher class, higher quality pools and bathrooms, Jim Crow laws stated as long as both had bathrooms its equal, which was bullshit. If gays have the exact same rights under a civil union I don't see where there is any fucking inequality.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Well, the DOMA kind of prevents that. I agree that the answer to the problem is to let straights keep the "marriage" name and give "Civil Unions" every right and privilege legally, that married couples have.

If we go to "civil unions" for civil marriages...that will be for gays AND straights who go to the court house. Plus changing all the laws and statues, federal, state, and local that use the term marriage in them.

Again, what is the problem? We currently pay for every government document to be printed in every language on the planet. Codification of marriage into civil union is simply a matter of redesigning the forms. After all, they aren't really any different, are they.

 

[g5000]

It can be but the gays don't want that and thats how they harm their argument.

Has separate but equal worked in the past?

Is it worth having the added costs and administrative bureaucracy of two completely separate institutions that afford the EXACT same benefits? All for just a different name at the top of the page? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a waste of money in a time when we do not need to waste money.

I'm young so maybe it's a generational thing (I'm assuming you're not in your twenties, so correct me if I'm wrong). Also, I'm married (1.5 years) so I do have some personal experience on the subject.


.

Jim Crow didmn't work because there was NO equality, blacks were given substandard pools and bathrooms and whites were higher class, higher quality pools and bathrooms, Jim Crow laws stated as long as both had bathrooms its equal, which was bullshit. If gays have the exact same rights under a civil union I don't see where there is any fucking inequality.

Then you agree DOMA must be repealed.

 

[KevinWestern]

It can be but the gays don't want that and thats how they harm their argument.

Has separate but equal worked in the past?

Is it worth having the added costs and administrative bureaucracy of two completely separate institutions that afford the EXACT same benefits? All for just a different name at the top of the page? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a waste of money in a time when we do not need to waste money.

I'm young so maybe it's a generational thing (I'm assuming you're not in your twenties, so correct me if I'm wrong). Also, I'm married (1.5 years) so I do have some personal experience on the subject.


.

I don't follow your argument at all. You are complaining over the government having to change the design of a few forms to administrate the same thing....in an age where we waste untold billions making sure every document in our government is written in every conceivable language on the planet?

Don't follow? It's called efficiency. There's no reason for us to have two 'marriage' institutions that are exactly the same in every single way except for the name on the top of the form; let's just streamline that into one.

It's not going to be a heavy hitter when it comes to the budget, but if you have waste it makes sense to get rid of it no matter how small (just like in business).

.

 

[KevinWestern]

It can be but the gays don't want that and thats how they harm their argument.

Has separate but equal worked in the past?

Is it worth having the added costs and administrative bureaucracy of two completely separate institutions that afford the EXACT same benefits? All for just a different name at the top of the page? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems like a waste of money in a time when we do not need to waste money.

I'm young so maybe it's a generational thing (I'm assuming you're not in your twenties, so correct me if I'm wrong). Also, I'm married (1.5 years) so I do have some personal experience on the subject.


.

Jim Crow didmn't work because there was NO equality, blacks were given substandard pools and bathrooms and whites were higher class, higher quality pools and bathrooms, Jim Crow laws stated as long as both had bathrooms its equal, which was bullshit. If gays have the exact same rights under a civil union I don't see where there is any fucking inequality.

That's the thing... will Civil Union = Marriage?

I think that's much easier said then done. Not to mention, will insurance companies, employers, and all of the private institutions recognize the two as the same? I realize it's not the gov't's problem if they don't, but can you see why gay people might be a bit concerned? It's not as simple as lets make these two things equal and everyone's good to go.



.

.