Gay Civil Union Discussion

[Auralia]

Because people are ignorant, and will not fill out this paperwork.

Marriage involves a great deal of paperwork, and most married couples still write wills.

I don't see a case for marriage here.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because people are ignorant, and will not fill out this paperwork.

Marriage involves a great deal of paperwork, and most married couples still write wills.

I don't see a case for marriage here.

Are you familiar with "quote sniping"? Don't engage in it. It's bad form.

[Othelos]

Because people are ignorant, and will not fill out this paperwork.

Marriage involves a great deal of paperwork, and most married couples still write wills.

I don't see a case for marriage here.

So why do straight people deserve marriage? You know, because they can just create wills.

[Auralia]

It's suppose to at least be a sign of love.

Is it? Haven't you heard of marriages of convenience?

[Auralia]

Marriage involves a great deal of paperwork, and most married couples still write wills.

I don't see a case for marriage here.

So why do straight people deserve marriage? You know, because they can just create wills.

Are you conceding that marriage is pointless and should not exist?

[The Emerald Dawn]

It's suppose to at least be a sign of love.

Is it? Haven't you heard of marriages of convenience?

To be married in the United States you have to fill out one piece of paper. This ONE piece of paper is what makes it so easy.

You're not even consistent between posts. You really should just go find some place else to troll for your attention. It's just pathetic now.

[Pandeeria]

It's suppose to at least be a sign of love.

Is it? Haven't you heard of marriages of convenience?

That two. Oh well, if someone wants to marry them self, or another person(s) and they consent, then so be it.

[Jormengand]

So why do straight people deserve marriage? You know, because they can just create wills.

Are you conceding that marriage is pointless and should not exist?

The point is that you seemed to think that straight marriage was acceptable but gay marriage wasn't.

[Auralia]

Marriage involves a great deal of paperwork, and most married couples still write wills.

I don't see a case for marriage here.

Are you familiar with "quote sniping"? Don't engage in it. It's bad form.

How did I misrepresent your post? I admit I didn't quote your personal attack, which coincidentally is also bad form.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Are you familiar with "quote sniping"? Don't engage in it. It's bad form.

How did I misrepresent your post? I admit I didn't quote your personal attack, which coincidentally is also bad form.

We already have living wills. Why is marriage necessary?

Because people are ignorant, and will not fill out this paperwork.

So the government takes a proactive stance, allowing for a common framework establishing a specific set of laws for a new class of people.

We call it "marriage" because "contractual partners" sounds a little too exclusive.

I'm sorry to hear you don't understand how humans work. That must be rough in personal interactions.

By not quoting the amplifying data. You know, the stuff that makes what you quoted make sense?

You are not good at this.

[Othelos]

So why do straight people deserve marriage? You know, because they can just create wills.

Are you conceding that marriage is pointless and should not exist?

No, I'm confused. You're using arguments against same sex marriage, when they could easily be used against heterosexual marriage. So why are you still in favor of heterosexual marriage?

[Auralia]

Are you conceding that marriage is pointless and should not exist?

The point is that you seemed to think that straight marriage was acceptable but gay marriage wasn't.

Let's assume for the moment that I'm perfectly OK with gay marriage. You don't seem to be able to come up with a good reason why marriage should exist.

[Ifreann]

True... and yet, that's just one of the benefits of marriage.

Which are?

Numerous.

And marrying someone is a hell of a lot quicker than writing your will.

"I'm too lazy to write my will" is a really bad argument for marriage. Wouldn't it make more sense to streamline the laws surrounding wills and estates rather than create a whole new legal institution called marriage?

No, it would not make more sense to completely undo the legal institution of marriage and then re-create a new one from the ground up to please you than to just ignore you and carry on with the campaign to secure equality before the law for gay people.

[Jormengand]

The point is that you seemed to think that straight marriage was acceptable but gay marriage wasn't.

Let's assume for the moment that I'm perfectly OK with gay marriage. You don't seem to be able to come up with a good reason why marriage should exist.

It's basically a condensation of numerous benefits. It's like buying a full computer rather than buying the motherboard, wiring and so forth and sticking it together - it's a lot easier, and doesn't require expert knowledge.

[Auralia]

By not quoting the amplifying data. You know, the stuff that makes what you quoted make sense?

You are not good at this.

My argument would be equally valid if I had quoted everything you had written. Would you mind addressing it now?

[Auralia]

Let's assume for the moment that I'm perfectly OK with gay marriage. You don't seem to be able to come up with a good reason why marriage should exist.

It's basically a condensation of numerous benefits. It's like buying a full computer rather than buying the motherboard, wiring and so forth and sticking it together - it's a lot easier, and doesn't require expert knowledge.

No, that's not accurate. IIRC, there are some benefits to marriage that are only available to married couples and that cannot be obtained by any other method. Why should single people be deprived of these benefits?

[The Emerald Dawn]

By not quoting the amplifying data. You know, the stuff that makes what you quoted make sense?

You are not good at this.

My argument would be equally valid if I had quoted everything you had written. Would you mind addressing it now?

Your argument is not valid at all, because it is neither consistent, nor addressing what I have stated.

The government saves money by creating, and maintaining, a common framework.

The fact that you can't seem to grasp the nuance of basic legal frameworks is not my problem.

Use google. Or wikipedia.

[Jormengand]

Why should single people be deprived of these benefits?

Because they are only relevant with respect to your partner, so are meaningless outside of marriage.

[Auralia]

No, it would not make more sense to completely undo the legal institution of marriage and then re-create a new one from the ground up to please you than to just ignore you and carry on with the campaign to secure equality before the law for gay people.

What do you mean, "re-create a new one"? Why should married couples (or groups, if you believe marriage should not be limited to two people) receive rights that single people don't?

[Jormengand]

No, it would not make more sense to completely undo the legal institution of marriage and then re-create a new one from the ground up to please you than to just ignore you and carry on with the campaign to secure equality before the law for gay people.

What do you mean, "re-create a new one"? Why should married couples (or groups, if you believe marriage should not be limited to two people) receive rights that single people don't?

Look up.

[Ifreann]

It's basically a condensation of numerous benefits. It's like buying a full computer rather than buying the motherboard, wiring and so forth and sticking it together - it's a lot easier, and doesn't require expert knowledge.

No, that's not accurate. IIRC, there are some benefits to marriage that are only available to married couples and that cannot be obtained by any other method. Why should single people be deprived of these benefits?

What benefits are these?

[Auralia]

Why should single people be deprived of these benefits?

Because they are only relevant with respect to your partner, so are meaningless outside of marriage.

Not all of them. Many are income tax deductions and the like, which would be equally useful to married and unmarried people.

[Auralia]

No, that's not accurate. IIRC, there are some benefits to marriage that are only available to married couples and that cannot be obtained by any other method. Why should single people be deprived of these benefits?

What benefits are these?

Special tax deductions, exemptions and credits, I believe.

[Ifreann]

No, it would not make more sense to completely undo the legal institution of marriage and then re-create a new one from the ground up to please you than to just ignore you and carry on with the campaign to secure equality before the law for gay people.

What do you mean, "re-create a new one"?

Exactly that. Re-create marriage as a new institution that fits with what you think marriage should be, which is what you've been advocating.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because they are only relevant with respect to your partner, so are meaningless outside of marriage.

Not all of them. Many are income tax deductions and the like, which would be equally useful to married and unmarried people.

And unmarried people are welcome to get married to take advantage of those benefits.

Your stance only refuses people getting married simply because they share plumbing.