go marina! lol

we had a debate about all this junk last semester heh.

Personally, I dont care who you are. If you love someone you should be allowed to marry them and if you are spending the rest of your life with someone I think you should be fully entitled to all the same priviledges a straight married couple gets. No two freggin ways about it. What you do in your own home is -your- business and nobody elses. If you are perfectly good citizens in society and your gay I dont think you should be punished just because youre attracted to someone of the same sex. If spending your life with someone who has then same body parts blows yer skirt up, hey, good on ya.

Its odd because I took my girlfriend to the hospital for surgey, and all she had to do was put my name on a list and I was able to go with her the whole time, even during "family only" hours.

So I'm not really quite sure what being married has to do with hospital visits...

That's hardly the crux of the issue Daganev .

2 of the 4 points listed there had to do with hospital and medical issues. the first one had to do with property wich I'm sure you can sign a piece of paper and get that done also.

Are those 4 points the issues at hand or not?


point 4 is also not currently true. It is illegal to fire someone on any ground other than fuffilling the duties of the job.

Not in Australia soon; business under 100 employees will not be subject to unfair dismissal laws. But that is not the point either.

The crux is that homosexuals are discriminated against when it comes to legal marriage. We all know it to be true.

There are Christian denominations that are not opposed to gay marriage.

The problem is with the definition of marriage. Marriage to me, is a union in a religious sense. For Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and whatever other established religions, this is between a man and a woman.

Note: I am not talking about 'Christian denominations' etc. You're always going to get people who talk crap. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, that isn't open for intrepretation for me or the vast majority of Churches, the same could be said of the other religions. I'm talking about in a general accepted sense.

Civil unions are great, they show the world is modernising, and should really be seperate from marriage. Law shouldn't discriminate against anyone on grounds of their preferences or sexuality.

Do you really want a group of fratboys getting civil unions and roomates in colleges getting a new civil union each year? Does that really accomplish anything?

It certainly gives the government a lot of money for divorce fees and liscenses.

Hrm.

Gay people should be allowed to get married. The Bible is not the Constitution. Sorry.

In Canada, homosexuals are allowed to have civil unions, and they can be married religiously, although religious figures (priests, rabbis, and so on) are not obligated to perform this ceremony. This way:

a) Gay people can benefit financially and legally from their union.
If gay marriage is aganist your religion, don't wed them. There isn't any reason to run around the government in circles screaming that gays being married is illegal or immoral or unethical or illegal because God forbids it. We aren't going to come bang down your church doors and preach homosexuality to you.

In any case, I'd be curious to know why people think gay unions or gay marriage is bad. You can post here or PM me or IM me at Etanru on AIM.

Well Etanru, what's your problem with renaming the official marriage a 'civil union' to appease religious people, and allowing homosexuals to have them, thus appeasing homosexuals?

Saying one is wrong is as bad as saying the other is wrong. What you're saying is as bad as saying gays shouldn't be able to marry.

I...don't have a problem with changing the names of things, if I understood your post...which I probably didn't.

Well then, why say 'gays should be able to get married'? If religions don't include that, that's their choice. Religions aren't like states, they can be as tolerant or intolerant as they like, really. Marriage is a religious thing, civil unions are the lawful 'alternative', basically the exact same thing without the religious aspect.

Does the word we use really matter that much? I can go to a justice of the peace and get married right now, without involving any religion at all. Why argue semantics?

So what's wrong with a civil union? Using the word marriage for gay couples clearly offends a huge amount of people.

I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not the one who names things. I'd be perfectly fine, as I said, splitting religious marriage and legal civil unions. I'm just saying that I don't get why the word is so important to people. I don't care one way or the other, I just don't understand why they do.

How about if your partner can't put your name on a list, and was seriously ill to the point of terminal. It has happened before, and homosexual, and hetrosexual partners to add, have been denied access to farewell their loved one.

I refuse to admitt that marriage is religious because it is not. Marriage may be an important ideal for a religion, but marriages are in no way religious, unless they are performed in a church or whatever.

If your a serious couple, you can make these types of plans just like most responcible married people do. There is no law that forbids a singlesex couple from declaring eachother next of kin.

Making a law like this opens up a big can of worms that will probabbly really mess things up.

And by that can of worms I'm refering to non gay people getting civil unions, and people having multiple civil unions. There is no reason to limit a civil union to only 1 other person.

If non-gay people get them, so what? All it amounts to is a "marriage" that isn't certified by a church. And you can't have more than one spouse, which is what a civil union would give you, so I'm not sure how that's a problem.

And I'm surprised civil unions are even an option. Seperate but equal has already been shot down once. Either we need to make you have a civil union to have legal rights, regardless of your religious marriage, or we need to just let them marry like anyone else can.

A marriage under my religion would be allowed and not offensive to the vast majority of people who practice my religion. Why should I have to call it a civil union to make Christians feel better?