Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Thorn]

There are other threads to discuss this, but how about a poll?

[SlowwHand]

I live in USA: Homosexual Civil Unions Only

Foreigners. And I'm the one that gets called a redneck.

[yavoon]

I'd keep marriage between man and a women. and hand out civil union rights to any loving committed and consenting adults.

as far I haven't seen an intellectually valid redefining of marriage that lets gay ppl in but no1 else.

[chequita guevara]

I haven't seen any intellectually valid reason we should let 5,000 year old sheep hearders tell us what to do.

[Q Classic]

thus far i haven't seen a reason not to allow full gay marriage rights.

[rah]

I see BK voted.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I haven't seen any intellectually valid reason we should let 5,000 year old sheep hearders tell us what to do.

we could have an argument, or a war of quips. obviously u much prefer the latter. but I recommend the former every once in a while.

[JohnT]

Actually, he hasn't. Doesn't he live in Canada?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon


we could have an argument, or a war of quips. obviously u much prefer the latter. but I recommend the former every once in a while.

I definately prefer a war of quips. I did the argument thing in another thread. I refuse to be serious all or even most of the time. Life's too short.

[JohnT]

Given that marriage is supposed to be kept for hetero's only "'cause of the kids", I would support a ban on gay marriage if we can pass a law forcing the dissolution of any marriage under the following conditions:

1. The woman hits menopause.
2. The kids move out of the house.
3. One of the spouses is determined to be infertile.
4. There are no children within a reasonable time frame... say, 2 years?

And I'll be nice and say "whichever comes later."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Gay marriage and Polygamy is ok to me.

[SpencerH]

The fourth option. Once you've done away with it for one group, I see no reason to allow Judeo-Christian bias to enter into the argument.

[Dauphin]

All legal rights and benefits associated with marriage should be electable to whomever you choose. In a legal sense isn't marriage just a contract between two consenting participants?

As far as ceremonies and weddings if you want a public display of commitment then by all means do it, and do it as many times and with as many people as you want.

[Aeson]

I would prefer the government not involve itself in recognizing marriages at all.

As examples:

If an issue like giving birth and/or raising children is deemed benefitial to society, then parents should be given the tax breaks based directly on whether or not they are raising children instead of being tied to something that is a seperate issue. If relationship stability is deemed beneficial to society, then maybe tax breaks based on how long you've been together.

Just awarding tax breaks to married couples who may or may not accomplish the things the tax breaks are meant to reward (whatever they are), while other couples who don't get married may or may not accomplish those same things seems nonsensical to me.

Of the options present, "I live in USA: #3 + Further Extend Rights to Polygamy" would be my view. I live in rural Utah, and know first hand that not having state recognition of Polygamist marriages doesn't stop them from living together, marrying themselves in their own religious ways. All it really does is allow the 'wives' to collect welfare as if they were single mothers, ignoring the fact that all this money is going to one man building his compound. At least if the state recognized those marriages, then it could also recognize that the 'family' isn't a no-income or one-income family.

[Chemical Ollie]

As long as they don't marry me, let them.