Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/28/2009 12:44:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2009 1:16:00 PM EDT by Dragonfly228]
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?

It's all screwed up (no pun intended).
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 12:57:15 PM EDT
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?








Link Posted: 4/28/2009 12:58:28 PM EDT
Are you coming out of the closet?
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:00:28 PM EDT



Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:


Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexually active with each other?


Who's going to check to verify??




 
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:00:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?





I don't think he is a troll. Its a good question.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:08:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:12:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zeekh:
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?





I don't think he is a troll. Its a good question.


I disagree, I think the OP is trying to stir shit.  

Reread my first post.  How ridiculous does it sound when straight has been substituted for gay?  How is it a good question?
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:14:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?




Exactly.  It sounds rediculous if you switch the words "civil union" with Marriage.  Which highlights just how rediculous this whole "civil union" thing is.  Is it just a bunch of gays seeking government approval?  Liberal government is afterall a (fanatical) relegion/cult that liberals worship without reason.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:15:11 PM EDT
I heard that civil unions are pretty gay.....
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:20:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zeekh:
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?





I don't think he is a troll. Its a good question.


I don't agree...those are bad questions.
First, why would the government making laws about who I can/can't, or who I am supposed to have sex with?
Second, open relationships exist now (both gay & straight) were married couples have sex with people other than their spouse.
Third, what about people incapable of being sexually active?


Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:24:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2009 1:25:52 PM EDT by zeekh]
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Originally Posted By zeekh:
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?





I don't think he is a troll. Its a good question.


I disagree, I think the OP is trying to stir shit.  

Reread my first post.  How ridiculous does it sound when straight has been substituted for gay?  How is it a good question?


Its a good question because celebate (sp?) or asexual people could enter into a CU and receive benefits while not being intimate.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:26:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zeekh:
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?





I don't think he is a troll. Its a good question.


No, it isn't.

Do a man and a women going down to the courthouse have to fuck in front of the judge before they get a license?
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:35:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Badass03:
Are you coming out of the closet?


this....
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:36:41 PM EDT
That's one of the potential problems with legalizing farriage.



Let's say that two guys are roommates.  They're good friends, both hetero as the day is long and they both pay their half of the bills on time every time.  They're saving money on the bills and squirreling cash away for a house and for the day they meet Ms. Right.  Not an unusual situation at all in 21st century America.



One has a job with benefits like health insurance, 401K, etc.  The other does not.  Uninsured roomie sprains a knee or something and ends up spending a few thousand bucks on an emergency room visit with x-rays, etc.  Shortly after that, uninsured roomie has an idea:  why don't we tell the other roomie's boss that we're "life partners" or some such BS and get me some of that health insurance action!



Bada bing, bada boom!  Instant health insurance coverage for roommates everywhere.



Switch "guys" with "girls" and you get prescription coverage for birth control pills, ten times the number of office visits and probably even an abortion or full-fledged out-of-wedlock pregnancy.



Of course, socialized medicine will alleviate all of these concerns.  

Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:39:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
That's one of the potential problems with legalizing farriage.

Let's say that a guy and a girl are roommates.  They're good friends, both hetero as the day is long and they both pay their half of the bills on time every time.  They're saving money on the bills and squirreling cash away for a house and for the day they meet Mr. and Ms. Right, respectively.  Not an unusual situation at all in 21st century America.

One has a job with benefits like health insurance, 401K, etc.  The other does not.  Uninsured roomie sprains a knee or something and ends up spending a few thousand bucks on an emergency room visit with x-rays, etc.  Shortly after that, uninsured roomie has an idea:  why don't we go down to the courthouse and get 'married' and get me some of that health insurance action!

Bada bing, bada boom!  Instant health insurance coverage for roommates everywhere.

Switch "guys" with "girls" and you get prescription coverage for birth control pills, ten times the number of office visits and probably even an abortion or full-fledged out-of-wedlock pregnancy.


Somehow, it becomes ok when you just switch the genders around.

This is a fraud problem, not a gay marriage problem.

But logic has never stopped you folks before.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:42:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By johnsta:
Originally Posted By Badass03:
Are you coming out of the closet?


this....


And again
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:51:20 PM EDT



Originally Posted By badfish274:



Originally Posted By TerribleTom:

That's one of the potential problems with legalizing farriage.



Let's say that a guy and a girl are roommates.  They're good friends, both hetero as the day is long and they both pay their half of the bills on time every time.  They're saving money on the bills and squirreling cash away for a house and for the day they meet Mr. and Ms. Right, respectively.  Not an unusual situation at all in 21st century America.



One has a job with benefits like health insurance, 401K, etc.  The other does not.  Uninsured roomie sprains a knee or something and ends up spending a few thousand bucks on an emergency room visit with x-rays, etc.  Shortly after that, uninsured roomie has an idea:  why don't we go down to the courthouse and get 'married' and get me some of that health insurance action!



Bada bing, bada boom!  Instant health insurance coverage for roommates everywhere.



Switch "guys" with "girls" and you get prescription coverage for birth control pills, ten times the number of office visits and probably even an abortion or full-fledged out-of-wedlock pregnancy.





Somehow, it becomes ok when you just switch the genders around.




This is a fraud problem, not a gay marriage problem.



But logic has never stopped you folks before.


Farriage <> Civil Union



 
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 1:51:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
Farriage <> Civil Union
 


And the difference is.... Semantics!
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:08:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.


I think you're mistaken.


 Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?


Because my relationship with my girlfriend is just as valid as your relationship with yours and deserves the same legal recognition.


Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:11:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?




Exactly.  It sounds rediculous if you switch the words "civil union" with Marriage.  Which highlights just how rediculous this whole "civil union" thing is.  Is it just a bunch of gays seeking government approval?  Liberal government is afterall a (fanatical) relegion/cult that liberals worship without reason.


I could change a few words in that post too and it would represent the opinion of a whole lot of people.  I don't feel like getting ban hammered today so I'll leave it at that.

Gay marriage isn't about government approval, It's about committing yourself to one person through sickness and in health.  At least that's what my gay friends tell me.  Unless you have some personal experience you'd like to share I'm going to take their word for it.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:15:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zeekh:

Its a good question because celebate (sp?) or asexual people could enter into a CU and receive benefits while not being intimate.


It's a terrible question.  There are millions of instances of straight couples doing exactly that, my aunt and uncle did it for over a decade.  Where's the outrage?
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:17:12 PM EDT
My support for this crap is gone courtesy of Perez Hilton.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:22:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
That's one of the potential problems with legalizing farriage.

Let's say that a guy and a girl are roommates.  They're good friends, both hetero as the day is long and they both pay their half of the bills on time every time.  They're saving money on the bills and squirreling cash away for a house and for the day they meet Mr. and Ms. Right, respectively.  Not an unusual situation at all in 21st century America.

One has a job with benefits like health insurance, 401K, etc.  The other does not.  Uninsured roomie sprains a knee or something and ends up spending a few thousand bucks on an emergency room visit with x-rays, etc.  Shortly after that, uninsured roomie has an idea:  why don't we go down to the courthouse and get 'married' and get me some of that health insurance action!

Bada bing, bada boom!  Instant health insurance coverage for roommates everywhere.

Switch "guys" with "girls" and you get prescription coverage for birth control pills, ten times the number of office visits and probably even an abortion or full-fledged out-of-wedlock pregnancy.


Somehow, it becomes ok when you just switch the genders around.

This is a fraud problem, not a gay marriage problem.

But logic has never stopped you folks before.


Marriages of convenience and fraud are nothing new.

Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:25:32 PM EDT



Originally Posted By AnnaTrocity:



Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.




I think you're mistaken.






 Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?





Because my relationship with my girlfriend is just as valid as your relationship with yours and deserves the same legal recognition.







Girlfriend = no legal recognition.



 
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:36:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:

Originally Posted By AnnaTrocity:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.


I think you're mistaken.


 Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?


Because my relationship with my girlfriend is just as valid as your relationship with yours and deserves the same legal recognition.



Girlfriend = no legal recognition.
 


Well we're not married because we're not as equal as others otherwise I would have used a different word :)  We're currently kicking around the idea of moving to vermont.   Especially if global warming makes it more hospitable for southern belles.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:37:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2009 2:38:53 PM EDT by TerribleTom]

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:




Farriage <> Civil Union




 

And the difference is.... Semantics!





The difference could be significant from a legal standpoint, IMO.  Division of property upon separation would probably be the big one.
What's the difference between two hetero roommates (regardless of gender) and a a civil union?  Must I be homosexual to enjoy the benefits of a civil union?
What if I want my hetero partner to benefit from my health insurance but don't want to marry because I'm concerned about alimony/division of property/child support?  Can I get just the good benefits and none of the responsibility, 'cause that'd be awesome.
Why can a same-gender couple get civil union benefits and a mixed-gender couple cannot?  Is that not the very definition of discrimination?
Why must a same-gender couple be romantically/sexually active to get civil union benefits?  What's wrong with my roomie?
Look, this is a complicated issue and some aspects are fucked up.  If a homosexual couple spends their entire lives together in a loving monogamous relationship, there's no reason not to let them visit each other in the hospital because they're "not family".  On the other hand, giving spousal benefits to every two people that live under the same roof without any of the spousal obligations and responsibilities is just plain stupid.
 
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:40:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2009 2:41:29 PM EDT by runcible]
Originally Posted By AnnaTrocity:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.


I think you're mistaken.


 Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?


Because my relationship with my girlfriend is just as valid as your relationship with yours and deserves the same legal recognition.




Well, what you have to understand is that, according to religious folks... it's not. It's an abomination... and it's icky.

(Okay maybe not your relationship... but two guys? Yeah, icky.)

Of course, what I'm always left wondering is why some folks believe that a religious sacrament like marriage needs the approval of a secular entity like the government?

As long as God has given you the thumbs up, at least according to your belief system, who cares what the government thinks?

This is why I support the "civil unions from the government, marriages from the church" POV.

Everyone would then have the opportunity to have their relationships recognized by the state, and then sanctified by the church of their choice, in accordance with their beliefs.

I can't help but believe that many of the anti-gay marriage crowd want the religious component of their relationships recognized by the state, as well as the social or legal.





Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:41:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By zeekh:
Originally Posted By sd_norske:
Do the people entering into a "marriage" have to be sexually active with each other?  If not, then can two people just decide to get a "marriage" for whatever benefits?  If so, then would it be illegal for a man and a woman to enter into a marriage together and have relationships with other people?





I don't think he is a troll. Its a good question.


No, it isn't.

Do a man and a women going down to the courthouse have to fuck in front of the judge before they get a license?



 That would be interesting!

Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:41:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2009 2:43:43 PM EDT by badfish274]
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
Look, this is a complicated issue  


Nope, its really simple. Fraud is fraud, and theres nothing stopping me from taking my female friend down to the courthouse, 'marrying' her, and getting her on my nonexistent health insurance plan.

And division of assets doesn't exist in a civil union? Thats news to me. Civil unions are marriage without using the word marriage.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:41:49 PM EDT
so from what i have been reading if a man a woman get married then no more sex? and if a man  and woman  enter a civil union its the same thing exept she puts out?

i might have to try it after the third year of marriage sex is like winning the lotto
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:42:58 PM EDT
I think it's a valid question.  Making the legal benefits of marriage available to all "consenting adults" opens up a whole new pandora's box of fraud.  While not new, it certainly makes defrauding insurance companies, and the IRS much easier.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:43:29 PM EDT
[/quote]

Marriages of convenience and fraud are nothing new.

[/quote]


+1

Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:48:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PeteyPete:
I think it's a valid question.  Making the legal benefits of marriage available to all "consenting adults" opens up a whole new pandora's box of fraud.  While not new, it certainly makes defrauding insurance companies, and the IRS much easier.


Oh please... how many people are going to go through the trouble of establishing a civil union, which would (from a legal standpoint) be just as difficult to get out of as a marriage, just to chisel some bennies?

I have a lot of female friends. I wouldn't marry any of them just so they could get a tax break or health insurance.

And, rest assured, the folks that would... are already jobbing the system just fine already, without all the hassle.

Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:54:52 PM EDT



Originally Posted By badfish274:



Originally Posted By TerribleTom:

Look, this is a complicated issue  




Nope, its really simple. Fraud is fraud, and theres nothing stopping me from taking my female friend down to the courthouse, 'marrying' her, and getting her on my nonexistent health insurance plan.



And division of assets doesn't exist in a civil union? Thats news to me. Civil unions are marriage without using the word marriage.


Where's the fraud?  If one guy can request and get spousal benefits for another guy, who says that they have to be romantically involved?  As stated elsewhere, marriages of convenience are certainly nothing new.  How many married guys under 50 haven't been laid in five years––thousands?  Millions?



I'm all for farriage when it comes to things like hospital visitation rights and funeral plans.  What I'm against is "married filing jointly" for any two people that cohabitate.



What is the test for legitimacy?



 
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:58:12 PM EDT




Originally Posted By EGI_Tactical:

Don't most people stop being sexually active after they get married anyway?




This
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:58:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?

It's all screwed up (no pun intended).


I think calling the gay marriage issue a ploy for acceptance and government approval a bit of an extrapolation.  When I get married, I don't think acceptance and government approval is even within striking distance of my top ten reasons.

There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.  There are alot of things I don't accept as being good but I can certainly find it within myself to tolerate other people even if I disagree with the things that they do.  Gays getting married and the resulting ghey buttsecks is a pretty abnormal concept to me but I don't have to accept it in order to tolerate other people choosing to go that route.  That's their perogative.  It affects me not if they are permitted to get a legal marriage.

I also think it is silly to break down homosexual relationships into being strictly about their "acts" anymore so than it would be for straight marriage.  If I was simply interested in pie and nothing else, I don't see how much good marriage is going to do me.  Gays want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do.  To have a life with somebody else, file jointly, and be able to sign for each other.  What's the big friggen deal?

Too much insecurity in this thread.  You guys are fighting the wrong battle trying to make a big deal out of this.  Not only this, but as the moderators have pointed out in the past, you are alienating potential allies in the greater fight against socialism, gun control, and the trashing of the Bill of Rights.  You've pretty much handed the liberal socialists 5% of the vote over something that affects your life not even one tiny bit in any practical sense.  

*Flamesuit ENGAGED!*



















Link Posted: 4/28/2009 2:59:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AnnaTrocity:
[Because my relationship with my girlfriend is just as valid as your relationship with yours and deserves the same legal recognition.




Pics?
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 3:00:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
What is the test for legitimacy?
 


Whats the test for legitimacy for civil marriage?
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 3:01:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By woodsie:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?

It's all screwed up (no pun intended).


I think calling the gay marriage issue a ploy for acceptance and government approval a bit of an extrapolation.  When I get married, I don't think acceptance and government approval is even within striking distance of my top ten reasons.

There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.  There are alot of things I don't accept as being good but I can certainly find it within myself to tolerate other people even if I disagree with the things that they do.  Gays getting married and the resulting ghey buttsecks is a pretty abnormal concept to me but I don't have to accept it in order to tolerate other people choosing to go that route.  That's their perogative.  It affects me not if they are permitted to get a legal marriage.

I also think it is silly to break down homosexual relationships into being strictly about their "acts" anymore so than it would be for straight marriage.  If I was simply interested in pie and nothing else, I don't see how much good marriage is going to do me.  Gays want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do.  To have a life with somebody else, file jointly, and be able to sign for each other.  What's the big friggen deal?

Too much insecurity in this thread.  You guys are fighting the wrong battle trying to make a big deal out of this.  Not only this, but as the moderators have pointed out in the past, you are alienating potential allies in the greater fight against socialism, gun control, and the trashing of the Bill of Rights.  You've pretty much handed the liberal socialists 5% of the vote over something that affects your life not even one tiny bit in any practical sense.  

*Flamesuit ENGAGED!*



Flamesuit? Shit, I think you deserve an Internet Cookie.

In fact...




Link Posted: 4/28/2009 3:03:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PeteyPete:
I think it's a valid question.  Making the legal benefits of marriage available to all "consenting adults" opens up a whole new pandora's box of fraud.  While not new, it certainly makes defrauding insurance companies, and the IRS much easier.


If this is such a potential pandora's box, why don't you see the courts over run with these kinds of cases between a man and a woman?  I know this is going to get me into flame war but what you said sounds an awful lot like those who said letting the AWB expire was going to open up a pandora's box of people going around shooting each other.

I don't think it is ever a good idea to have laws that negatively affect millions just because you have a few bad apples running around that might abuse the item in question.  What you are talking about is cutting off your nose to spite your face.




Link Posted: 4/28/2009 3:05:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2009 3:08:35 PM EDT by sd_norske]
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
Look, this is a complicated issue  


Nope, its really simple. Fraud is fraud, and theres nothing stopping me from taking my female friend down to the courthouse, 'marrying' her, and getting her on my nonexistent health insurance plan.

And division of assets doesn't exist in a civil union? Thats news to me. Civil unions are marriage without using the word marriage.

Where's the fraud?  If one guy can request and get spousal benefits for another guy, who says that they have to be romantically involved?  As stated elsewhere, marriages of convenience are certainly nothing new.  How many married guys under 50 haven't been laid in five years––thousands?  Millions?

I'm all for farriage when it comes to things like hospital visitation rights and funeral plans.  What I'm against is "married filing jointly" for any two people that cohabitate.

What is the test for legitimacy?
 


So, you're worried about millions of straight roommates all across the country getting hitched for insurance benefits.    I can see it now, gay couples suddenly make up 90% of college students.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think claiming to be gay and taking all the stigmas that come with it is worth a better deductible.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 3:06:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By runcible:
Originally Posted By woodsie:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?

It's all screwed up (no pun intended).


I think calling the gay marriage issue a ploy for acceptance and government approval a bit of an extrapolation.  When I get married, I don't think acceptance and government approval is even within striking distance of my top ten reasons.

There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.  There are alot of things I don't accept as being good but I can certainly find it within myself to tolerate other people even if I disagree with the things that they do.  Gays getting married and the resulting ghey buttsecks is a pretty abnormal concept to me but I don't have to accept it in order to tolerate other people choosing to go that route.  That's their perogative.  It affects me not if they are permitted to get a legal marriage.

I also think it is silly to break down homosexual relationships into being strictly about their "acts" anymore so than it would be for straight marriage.  If I was simply interested in pie and nothing else, I don't see how much good marriage is going to do me.  Gays want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do.  To have a life with somebody else, file jointly, and be able to sign for each other.  What's the big friggen deal?

Too much insecurity in this thread.  You guys are fighting the wrong battle trying to make a big deal out of this.  Not only this, but as the moderators have pointed out in the past, you are alienating potential allies in the greater fight against socialism, gun control, and the trashing of the Bill of Rights.  You've pretty much handed the liberal socialists 5% of the vote over something that affects your life not even one tiny bit in any practical sense.  

*Flamesuit ENGAGED!*



Flamesuit? Shit, I think you deserve an Internet Cookie.

In fact...

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z316/runcible22/InternetCookie.jpg



Damn, I need to go to the store and get some cookies.




Link Posted: 4/28/2009 3:07:43 PM EDT
Funny, I thought the 'gay movement' was about being gay...and treated as equal. Didn't know it was just to give a big FU to the government and society.


Guess you learn something new everyday.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 3:13:46 PM EDT
Why in the hell would anyone do this anyway.

It's similar to someone marrying an illegal in order for them to gain citizenship.  It still doesn't make it right nor legal.  Yes it happens, but if you get popped your screwed.  Hell, wasn't there a movie based on this???  Yes there was.  It was stupid.

For pete's sake, if you want to get married, man w/ woman, marriage.  If you want to legalize gay, civil union.  The argument that it makes them less than a "citizen" is stupid.  As though I can't see that when you introduce your same sex partner as your husband/wife will avoid the fact that I see they are the SAME FUCKING SEX AS YOU.

Link Posted: 4/28/2009 4:49:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AnnaTrocity:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.


I think you're mistaken.


 Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?


Because my relationship with my girlfriend is just as valid as your relationship with yours and deserves the same legal recognition.




But you don't have a CIVIL UNION with your GF

Link Posted: 4/28/2009 4:58:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By woodsie:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?

It's all screwed up (no pun intended).


I think calling the gay marriage issue a ploy for acceptance and government approval a bit of an extrapolation.  When I get married, I don't think acceptance and government approval is even within striking distance of my top ten reasons.

There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.  There are alot of things I don't accept as being good but I can certainly find it within myself to tolerate other people even if I disagree with the things that they do.  Gays getting married and the resulting ghey buttsecks is a pretty abnormal concept to me but I don't have to accept it in order to tolerate other people choosing to go that route.  That's their perogative.  It affects me not if they are permitted to get a legal marriage.

I also think it is silly to break down homosexual relationships into being strictly about their "acts" anymore so than it would be for straight marriage.  If I was simply interested in pie and nothing else, I don't see how much good marriage is going to do me.  Gays want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do.  To have a life with somebody else, file jointly, and be able to sign for each other.  What's the big friggen deal?

Too much insecurity in this thread.  You guys are fighting the wrong battle trying to make a big deal out of this.  Not only this, but as the moderators have pointed out in the past, you are alienating potential allies in the greater fight against socialism, gun control, and the trashing of the Bill of Rights.  You've pretty much handed the liberal socialists 5% of the vote over something that affects your life not even one tiny bit in any practical sense.  

*Flamesuit ENGAGED!*





















I'm nominating you for president.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 4:59:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?


You are kidding, right?
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 5:20:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2009 5:21:54 PM EDT by zeekh]
Originally Posted By Star_Scream:
Originally Posted By woodsie:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their act...
[snip]


I'm nominating you for president.


I am pretty sure that the Gay Marriage law that Vermont just passed ORIGINALLY had a clause that said refusal by a Pastor/Priest etc would result in that church losing its "church" status. They removed this clause but in the you can't help but think they are reasons they tried to add this clause.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 5:36:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:

Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By TerribleTom:
Farriage <> Civil Union
 


And the difference is.... Semantics!

The difference could be significant from a legal standpoint, IMO.  Division of property upon separation would probably be the big one.

What's the difference between two hetero roommates (regardless of gender) and a a civil union?  Must I be homosexual to enjoy the benefits of a civil union?

What if I want my hetero partner to benefit from my health insurance but don't want to marry because I'm concerned about alimony/division of property/child support?  Can I get just the good benefits and none of the responsibility, 'cause that'd be awesome.

Why can a same-gender couple get civil union benefits and a mixed-gender couple cannot?  Is that not the very definition of discrimination?

Why must a same-gender couple be romantically/sexually active to get civil union benefits?  What's wrong with my roomie?

Look, this is a complicated issue and some aspects are fucked up.  If a homosexual couple spends their entire lives together in a loving monogamous relationship, there's no reason not to let them visit each other in the hospital because they're "not family".  On the other hand, giving spousal benefits to every two people that live under the same roof without any of the spousal obligations and responsibilities is just plain stupid.
 


In my opinion, most of what you mention can be handled through contracts.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 5:37:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their acts?

It's all screwed up (no pun intended).


it's called an open marriage and people do it all the time.
Link Posted: 4/28/2009 5:37:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zeekh:
Originally Posted By Star_Scream:
Originally Posted By woodsie:
Originally Posted By Dragonfly228:
Do the people entering into a "civil union" have to have to be sexualy active with each other?  If not, then can any two people just decide to get a "union" for whatever benifits?  If so, then would it be illegal for two men (or women) to enter into a civil union together and have heterosexual relationships with other people?

Also, I recall the "gay movement" was all about defying the government and independence from society.  Why do they now demand exceptance from society and government approval for their act...
[snip]


I'm nominating you for president.


I am pretty sure that the Gay Marriage law that Vermont just passed ORIGINALLY had a clause that said refusal by a Pastor/Priest etc would result in that church losing its "church" status. They removed this clause but in the you can't help but think they are reasons they tried to add this clause.


I could care less how a business handles it's business.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top