Are you against gay marriages, civil unions or both? Why?

I'm just curious about the conservative viewpoint on this issue and the motivations for this viewpoint.

I fully support civil unions and the financial benifits which go along with that. I do not support gay marriage as you need to draw the line somewhere. Let that go and the next thing you will see people demanding to marry their sister, their cousin, their goat. .........or who knows what else. I think we need to decide what kind of society in which we want to live. I draw the line on GM myself.

OK, good reply, but now I am alittle confused. What is your definition of a civil union?

I don't have the time to go into a lengthy detailed explanation, but part of my reasoning revolves around the tax breaks/financial benefits to a married couple. It is expensive to raise a family. A family should be able to pass money around to each other. If you don't have some guidelines to distinguish between who is a legitamate married couple and who is afer it for the financial benefits, you might as well just give everyone the breaks or no one the breaks.

If marriage isn't defined as between a man and a woman then any two people can claim the benefits. Most of the legal/financial advantages of marriage that are complained about can be achieved by proper legal documents. A few cannot - tax returns - SS survivor benefits etc...

rickheel Wrote:I fully support civil unions and the financial benifits which go along with that. I do not support gay marriage as you need to draw the line somewhere. Let that go and the next thing you will see people demanding to marry their sister, their cousin, their goat. .........or who knows what else. I think we need to decide what kind of society in which we want to live. I draw the line on GM myself.

Damnit if I want to marry my dog...

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:blue'>I SHOULD HAVE THAT FREAKING RIGHT!!!</span></span>

:roflol:

Civil unions----For
Gay Marriage-Against

<a href='http://lesbianlife.about.com//cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm' target='_blank'>http://lesbianlife.about.com//cs/wedding/a...onvmarriage.htm</a>

For instance, this is a description of Vermont's civil union statute:

Who may be joined in civil union?
To be joined in civil union a couple must satisfy all of the following criteria:


1. Not be a party to another civil union or a marriage or a party in a legal reciprocal beneficiary relationship.

2. Be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this state.

3. Not be close family members: A woman may not enter into a civil union with her mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister or mother's sister. A man may not enter into a civil union with his father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother or mother's brother.

4. Not be under 18 years of age;

5. Not be non compos mentis (of unsound mind);

6. Not be under guardianship, unless the guardian consents in writing. 18 V.S.A. §§ 1203, 5163.

PLEASE NOTE: The law permits non-residents to obtain a Vermont civil union.
If you are a US citizen residing in Vermont and are looking to obtain a Civil Union with a non US citizen please call the St. Albans Sub Office of INS for any specific citizenship questions: 802-527-3255 (note this office can assist VT residents ONLY - see below)
If you are a US citizen residing in another state and planning a Civil Union with a non US citizen you will need to contact the INS office in your state. Please refer to the INS website for assistance: http://www.ins.usdoj.gov

Would you agree or disagree with this staute?

I grew up in a small rural town in Alabama, and my parents are both very conservative (my father is a licensed Baptist minister). It seems that most people oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, but I don't understand why those people have a problem with civil unions. Because to me, marriage is about your religious beliefs, I didn't get married because of the tax consequences.

So, I guess my question is: Do you have a problem with gay couples being given the same legal rights, or do you just have a problem labeling it a "marriage?"

Let me ask all Bush supporters something, what is it that you like so much about him? I've looked at all 3 candidates, and both Nader and Kerry I believe are more qualified?

So, I guess my question is: Do you have a problem with gay couples being given the same legal rights, or do you just have a problem labeling it a "marriage?"

I don't think many distinguish between your 2 points. If you give legal rights then you are condoning the union whatever you want to call it.

GeForce2 Wrote:Let me ask all Bush supporters something, what is it that you like so much about him? I've looked at all 3 candidates, and both Nader and Kerry I believe are more qualified?

Why?

To me its simply a definition of the word marriage.

It's definition is

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife

Thats all it can be. Period.

You cant go changing the meanings of words just because you want to. If that were the case, laws would be lawless.

I have no problem with an ammendment protecting civil unions in which all states are required to honor this union and these couples receive comparable benifits to married couples. But I never want same sex unions to be called marriage. And I would want this ammendment only if the States could not come to the same conclusion and only by due process...not because of the media.

But I dont even feel there is a majority of Americans that feel this way. And if thats the case, then obviously its a moot point.

As well, for those that feel same sex unions should be called marriage and protected by law, I would also want polygomy and everything thing else allowed. Fair is fair... laughing.gif

I cant understand why the media does not report, or analyze the true argument here which is the definition of a word, its origins etc.
But then again, our media is very rarely that these days ...more sensationalists...huh?

GeForce2 Wrote:Let me ask all Bush supporters something, what is it that you like so much about him? I've looked at all 3 candidates, and both Nader and Kerry I believe are more qualified?

You've been overruled.

Hencat Wrote:I don't think many distinguish between your 2 points. If you give legal rights then you are condoning the union whatever you want to call it.

See, that is what I don't understand. My beliefs regarding marriage are based solely on my religious and moral beliefs, and up until now I thought most people were the same. I don't understand why the legal ramifications are important.

I thought, although apparently I was wrong, that the religious institution of marriage is what everyone wanted to protect.

Tigerjoe, I understand your position, and honestly, thats how I expected most people to feel.

However, I'm not sure the legal definition of "marriage" matters, because legal definitions change all the time. Like I said, I think it goes back to the moral and religious meaning of the word.

wpblazer Wrote:

Hencat Wrote:I don't think many distinguish between your 2 points. If you give legal rights then you are condoning the union whatever you want to call it.

See, that is what I don't understand. My beliefs regarding marriage are based solely on my religious and moral beliefs, and up until now I thought most people were the same. I don't understand why the legal ramifications are important.

I thought, although apparently I was wrong, that the religious institution of marriage is what everyone wanted to protect.

Let's look at it from another angle.

Why do we give a married couple legal/tax/financial benefits?

Hencat Wrote:Let's look at it from another angle.

Why do we give a married couple legal/tax/financial benefits?

From your other posts, I can see where your going with this, and honestly I've never even considered it. I can see your point, but I just don't see this being abused all that much. Maybe I'm naive.

Hencat Wrote:

wpblazer Wrote:

Hencat Wrote:I don't think many distinguish between your 2 points. If you give legal rights then you are condoning the union whatever you want to call it.

See, that is what I don't understand. My beliefs regarding marriage are based solely on my religious and moral beliefs, and up until now I thought most people were the same. I don't understand why the legal ramifications are important.

I thought, although apparently I was wrong, that the religious institution of marriage is what everyone wanted to protect.

Let's look at it from another angle.

Why do we give a married couple legal/tax/financial benefits?

What's w/ the tax "benefits" rhetoric?

It's a marriage "penalty", meaning you don't get the same deductions in some cases.

However, the tax rates for married people are better.

wpblazer Wrote:However, the tax rates for married people are better.

Do the math, and it's better not to file married.