Lesbian Marriages

[Topflight]

So I was at a bar a couple nights ago, and gay marriage comes up. I was the only one in favor of it, which is fine. But the arguments I had to face were on the level of "if we let THEM get married, what's the next step? People will be marrying their sisters, then their pets."

How do 2+2ers feel about gay marriage?

[nicky g]

I'm trending towards the view that the legal concept of marriage is ridiculous and it should be an entirely religious/personal ceremony with no government involvement. I haven't given it a lot of thought though. In the current circumstances, I don't see why gay people shouldn't be allowed to do it. There's a big difference between marrying another person and an animal. Although my wife has accused me of wanting to marry our cat (all lies, we're just very good friends).

[nicky g]

Ugh I said I'm trending.

[Topflight]

I agree. It should definitely be a religious/personal endeavor. But since there are legal benefits to being married, I believe that any two people who are in love and want to share the rest of their lives together should be able to have these benefits.

The people that argue that it isn't right based on their religion seem to be missing the point, and are somewhat closed minded. No one is asking if they can be married in their church. They just want the world to know they are in love and have the same benefits as any other married couple.

I have been accused of wanting to marry the dog. I spend more time cuddling with the cat, but we are much better at hiding it.

[daryn]

i have already solved this problem. it was easy.


step 1: take the idea of marriage completely out of government and make it a 100% religious thing. if you want to get married, go to a church, a temple, a grass hut, whatever your religion recommends.

step 2: create something called a civil union, or CU.

step 3: make the law such that any benefits a couple previously had because they were married, they now have with a CU.


DONE.


note that even heterosexual married (in a church) couples would then have to go and apply for their CU.

[astroglide]

i think it's fine and anybody that worries about it needs to read/watch the news

[nicky g]

"make the law such that any benefits a couple previously had because they were married, they now have with a CU.


DONE.


note that even heterosexual married (in a church) couples would then have to go and apply for their CU. "

That is how it works in Belgium, although gay couples aren't eleigible for the CU.

[scotnt73]

[ QUOTE ]
i have already solved this problem. it was easy.


step 1: take the idea of marriage completely out of government and make it a 100% religious thing. if you want to get married, go to a church, a temple, a grass hut, whatever your religion recommends.

step 2: create something called a civil union, or CU.

step 3: make the law such that any benefits a couple previously had because they were married, they now have with a CU.


DONE.


note that even heterosexual married (in a church) couples would then have to go and apply for their CU.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is exactly correct. well put d.

civil unions are the answer. they could give the same rights as a marriage.

in the civil rights movement blacks were not fighting for the right to be white. they were fighting for the same rights as whites.

[daryn]

exactly, and the thing is, like i said even hetero couples would need to get the CU, if they wanted the govt. benefits.

EQUALITY BABY!

[MMMMMM]

Why do you suggest that previously married couples should have to go apply for a CU? Why create all that inconvenience and paperwork instead of simply having previously married couples automatically considered as legally having all the benefits of CU?