Changing attitudes towards gay marriage

[slingshot]

I really don't care.  Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc.  But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".

[makattak]

Ehh... gotta nuke somethin'.

[LadySmith]

(what's the word for "man haters?")

Misandrist.
I reserve that sentiment for guys who nuke gay whales.

[makattak]

Misandrist.
I reserve that sentiment for guys who nuke gay whales.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUxK_0WLbg

Don't be hating Nelson.

[Doggy Daddy]

I'ma go make the popcorn.

Everyone good with butter and salt?

Some may find the butter useful.  I'm afraid the salt will chafe.

[Strings]

>But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage". <

I've suggested something similar in other threads that discussed this. And outlined why it will never be accepted...

[Perd Hapley]

In most of our threads on gay marriage, an argument offered against it is that allowing it the same legal status as heterosexual marriage does not reflect the majority view in the USA.  A recent poll suggests that this has now changed: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/05/poll-from-gay-marriage-to-adoption-attitudes-changing-fast/1748873/

Meh. Not all that surprising. We already know the country has gone full retard.

Wait . . .

We don't have an "ist" term for sexual preferences.

We have "racist' for people who are racially prejudiced (and, arguably, race baiters).  We have "sexist" for people who are prejudiced regarding the maleness/femaleness of people.  We have "misogynist" for women haters, and we have "misanthropist" for people who hate, uh, people (what's the word for "man haters?"), but we don't seem to have a word for "gay haters."

I mean, we have "homophobe" for someone who fears gays, but what about the hatred of gays?  Mishomoist?  Nah. There's got to be a "mis____ist" for gays.

Who knows what that is?

"Heterosexist" is a term that some have used. I am OK with being called that.

[Jamisjockey]

I really don't care.  Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc.  But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".

How does it being labeled "marriage" hurt you directly?

[slingshot]

It doesn't hurt me directly.  I just feel that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Pretty simple and I suspect you already knew what I would say.

Again, I don't really care about giving legal status to homosexual "unions" with a contract.  Dissolving the contract will have the same ramifications as with a  conventional marriage.  Hence, there are consequences to the choices you make in life.

[Fitz]

I really don't care.  Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc.  But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".

- don't care

- don't want it called marriage


Pick one

[Ron]

I want apples called oranges.

[Jamisjockey]

It doesn't hurt me directly. 

All I wanted to know.  My point has been made.

[Perd Hapley]

I really don't care.  Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc.  But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".

Fixed. If we're going to create these "unions," they should be open to any two people who want to enter into them, regardless what they do in the bedroom.

[Perd Hapley]

All I wanted to know.  My point has been made.

Nope. One doesn't argue that government should do something on the basis that it won't harm someone. At least not in any libertarian and/or small government mode of thinking. If you want government to start doing something, you should posit some reason why government NOT doing it WILL harm someone.

[slingshot]

Funny.  Unions are just fine with me.  When my future wife was in the hospital and we were co-habitating with no family in the immediate area, the doctors wouldn't even tell me what was going on..... A same sex couple would probably experience the same thing.  Hence am comfortable with "unions" for legal reasons and feel it is fair.  This is about as far as I am willing to go with this kind of discussion.  I have religious beliefs and that is just the way it is.  I am not going to vote for "civil unions", but if the majority votes for it, fine with me.  I just want no part of it.  Live and let live.

[MillCreek]

Meh. Not all that surprising. We already know the country has gone full retard.

How interesting.  And just recently on the other thread, and if I recall correctly, you were stating that since the majority of the country agreed with your position, that is one of the reasons why gay marriage should be opposed.  So if the majority now support it, do you?

[Perd Hapley]

How interesting.  And just recently on the other thread, and if I recall correctly, you were stating that since the majority of the country agreed with your position, that is one of the reasons why gay marriage should be opposed.  So if the majority now support it, do you?

I don't recall saying that. Can you dig up the quotation?

I've never based my position on majority opinion. I oppose gay marriage don't want government to recognize non-marriages because I don't want to live in a nation where kook-fringe left-wing non sequiturs are so easily foisted on the gullible. And then on our legal codes.

[slingshot]

If we're going to create these "unions," they should be open to any two people who want to enter into them, regardless what they do in the bedroom.

Okay.  Is a "union" between a brother and sister okay with you?  How about a union of two men and a woman or two women and a man?

My view in essence is to "pass" for the most part as I feel that people in a legal committed union should be able to get things like insurance benefits, social securty, food stamps, welfare, etc. same a man and a woman who are married.  Just because they are two different sexes should not make it exclusively legal for them.  But it has to be a legal union with all the same legal ramifications as if a man and woman are married.  "We don't get along, so I'll see someone else."  Fine.  But that joint property you both own needs to be dealt with legally before anothe "union" can be made.

[makattak]

Okay.  Is a "union" between a brother and sister okay with you?  How about a union of two men and a woman or two women and a man?

My view in essence is to "pass" for the most part as I feel that people in a legal committed union should be able to get things like insurance benefits, social securty, food stamps, welfare, etc. same a man and a woman who are married.  Just because they are two different sexes should not make it exclusively legal for them.  But it has to be a legal union with all the same legal ramifications as if a man and woman are married.  "We don't get along, so I'll see someone else."  Fine.  But that joint property you both own needs to be dealt with legally before anothe "union" can be made.

Why does it matter if they are sleeping together? A pair of sisters, or a father and daughter, or a mother and son could all be in a legal, committed union. They could use insurance benefits, social security, food stamps, welfare, etc... Why is the sleeping together part the reason for calling something a "marriage"? (Or, union, as you choose to term it.)

[Scout26]

The ones really pushing this are the divorce lawyers.

[slingshot]

Didn't say anything about sex between the parties involved in the union.  Equality has all kinds of ramifications to the country.

As I have said before, I'm convinced this country is doomed as we know it today or the recent yesterday.

[Strings]

I should really start keeping track of how many times I've posted this...

Remove the term "marriage" (and it's linguistic derivitives) from legal terminology. Replace with "civil union". Want to be "married"? That's where your church comes in, and it is their decision whether or not they'll marry you and your partner.

"Civil union": a legal cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, granting all the same privledges and responsibilities as are currently granted by the marriage license.

Makes everybody truly equal

[Scout26]

I should really start keeping track of how many times I've posted this...

Remove the term "marriage" (and it's linguistic derivitives) from legal terminology. Replace with "civil union". Want to be "married"? That's where your church comes in, and it is their decision whether or not they'll marry you and your partner.

"Civil union": a legal cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, granting all the same privledges and responsibilities as are currently granted by the marriage license.

Makes everybody truly equal

That's what they do in Germany.  You go first to the Town Hall and fill out the paperwork and you are "married".  Then if you want you can head to the religious building/person of your choosing and get "married" under the rules of that religion.

[Jamisjockey]

I should really start keeping track of how many times I've posted this...

Remove the term "marriage" (and it's linguistic derivitives) from legal terminology. Replace with "civil union". Want to be "married"? That's where your church comes in, and it is their decision whether or not they'll marry you and your partner.

"Civil union": a legal cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, granting all the same privledges and responsibilities as are currently granted by the marriage license.

Makes everybody truly equal

But then certain groups can't wield moral superiority over other groups!

[Strings]

Gonna pick on Fistful here for a sec. Not trying to be mean, but he has the best "example attitude" for this, as NOTHING will convince him that allowing this in any way, shape, or form is acceptable*

So there's those on the Right covered.

The Left would fight against this plan, probably saying something along the lines of "but it isn't the same!"... never mind that, in legal fact, it IS. But then the Left wouldn't have such a great wedge issue to use, keeping gays voting as a block for the Democratic Party


*Not trying to argue whether or not your views are right, moral, just, or anything else. Just using them as an example, no judgement implied