Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I don't really know how to respond to this. But when I say privatise, I mean that it should be done as a religious/personal decision that should be completely separate from government meddling.

You do know that marriage carries alot of benefits, do you?

Civil unions. 'Nuff said.

[Aequalitia]

My lord, do you can image how marriage would be then?

He only believes marriages exist where they a solemnized by a creepy guy who wears robes and funny hats.

Those stereotypical ideas...

[Homosexual Love]

No.

Gay people. Wantin' to marry and shit. Makes me sick. Sick, I tell you!

It says your bisexual...is this sarcasm? I can't read sarcasm online haha x

[Lzherusskia]

Yes.

That was easy.

[Neutraligon]

You do know that marriage carries alot of benefits, do you?

Civil unions. 'Nuff said.

...Civil unions are also state run...kinda why the are called civil unions.

[Tekania]

You do know that marriage carries alot of benefits, do you?

Civil unions. 'Nuff said.

A civil marriage is a civil union.... there's no difference.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Probably another one of the anarcho-libertarians who want to "free" us all to live in a world where only rich people have the time, money, and connections to individually obtain the various legal rights and protections of marriage, while poor people are entirely unable to do so.

Hmmm, sounds like what marriage was under Feudalism. But that is no surprise... Anarcho-capitalists are realy all just feudalists who lack the cajones to admit it.

To say such a thing indicates a fatal misunderstanding of history and politics. Feudalism was enforced by the state and its appointed tyrants over local areas.

It was a primitive bureaucracy if nothing else.

[Divair]

You do know that marriage carries alot of benefits, do you?

Civil unions. 'Nuff said.

Which is different from civil marriage.. how? I mean, besides civil unions being worse.

[Rocopurr]

You do know that marriage carries alot of benefits, do you?

Civil unions. 'Nuff said.

Same as marriage. Why not just call it marriage?

[Ag Ragok]

Oh gad, not this same question again. My stance, as always, is derived from the same source as my signature.

Seriously, if you are meaning that you think gay marriage should be illegal because some dude wrote it in a book then you are odd. Granted its the Bible, i know that but seriously why would you follow the teachings of a god that condemns his OWN CREATIONS to Hell because, they were born differently then the majority? Im not kidding around here, if you want to base your ideas off a book that also condones Slavery then you are living in the past. Jesus taught people to, "Love thy neighbor" and why shouldn't you? If your neighbor was gay you wouldn't "love him".....? One small difference and now you go from liking them to disliking them and denying their rights.....? Does this not seem odd?

[Oneracon]

Civil unions. 'Nuff said.

Same as marriage. Why not just call it marriage?

You forget that most of the times "civil unions" are created explicitly to be less than marriage.

[Tundland]

No. A marriage is only valid when it's between one man and one woman. State recognition of any marriage including straight ones is completely unnecessary anyway.

Well, at least you don't use that clapped out "sanctity of marriage" crap.
And if marriages shouldn't officially be recognised by the state wouldn't that mean that a ban on gay weddings wouldn't be enforced?

Give it 50 years and people will see gay marriage like the Civil Rights Act. If anyone is still getting married then.

[Nervium]

You do know that marriage carries alot of benefits, do you?

Civil unions. 'Nuff said.

I'm not following you. Civil union as in marriage contract, or civil union as in "two guys/gals calling their state of consentual cohabitation with benefits marriage offends me and they should use a lesser term."?

[San]

No.

Gay people. Wantin' to marry and shit. Makes me sick. Sick, I tell you!

It says your bisexual...is this sarcasm? I can't read sarcasm online haha :P x

It is.

[Tekania]

Hmmm, sounds like what marriage was under Feudalism. But that is no surprise... Anarcho-capitalists are realy all just feudalists who lack the cajones to admit it.

To say such a thing indicates a fatal misunderstanding of history and politics. Feudalism was enforced by the state and its appointed tyrants over local areas.

It was a primitive bureaucracy if nothing else.

Not really, rights and powers were only attainable via wealth and power, wealth and power had control over the decisions; those without it were left to the whims of the property owners. It's pretty much the same.

[Molsonian Republics]

No. A marriage is only valid when it's between one man and one woman. State recognition of any marriage including straight ones is completely unnecessary anyway.

So you're against all kind of state marriage regulations?

Yes and no.

[Aequalitia]

No. A marriage is only valid when it's between one man and one woman. State recognition of any marriage including straight ones is completely unnecessary anyway.

Well, at least you don't use that clapped out "sanctity of marriage" crap.
And if marriages shouldn't officially be recognised by the state wouldn't that mean that a ban on gay weddings wouldn't be enforced?

Give it 50 years and people will see gay marriage like the Civil Rights Act. If anyone is still getting married then.

Well, I don't believe there would be no bigots existing in about 50 years. There would exist, and not just a few. If we not learn our future generations that feelings for the same sex is not wrong, sick or weird, then we would have in about 50 years almost no bigots.

Same sex marriage is not a wonder tool what cause there don't would be bigots anymore.

Look already how much bigots still exist in my country. And then some of you call it 'the most liberal and free country in the world'.

In my dreams it is, but not in real.

[Polski Swiety Imperium]

No.

Czemu?

[Rocopurr]

Same as marriage. Why not just call it marriage?

You forget that most of the times "civil unions" are created explicitly to be less than marriage.

I did forget, sorry.

So you're against all kind of state marriage regulations?

Yes and no.

... Explain. How can that be yes and no? And what's wrong with civil marriages?

[Tekania]

Same as marriage. Why not just call it marriage?

You forget that most of the times "civil unions" are created explicitly to be less than marriage.

Yep, there is no logicall reason to have a seperate term except to make sure it's not legally the same. And with that in mind, amending large chunks of the code to replace marriage with civil unions across the board is far more difficult that a simply modification or addition to the basic legal definition which then automatically incorporates into all those other parts of the code. As such, the easiest and most logical course of action is simply to amend the exising legal definition of marriage to be applicable to same-sex partners.

[Aequalitia]

So you're against all kind of state marriage regulations?

Yes and no.

What??

[The 93rd Coalition]

No.

RUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRURNRUN

(I'm cool with civil unions, though.)

[4years]

Welcome to McWeddalds, would you like a gay priest at your wedding too, for only an added $59.99?

I don't really know how to respond to this. But when I say privatise, I mean that it should be done as a religious/personal decision that should be completely separate from government meddling.

And the 1,140 rights and privileges associated with marriage be abolished causing of kinds of havoc?

[Rocopurr]

No.

RUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRURNRUN

(I'm cool with civil unions, though.)

Why can't our marriages be equal to yours?

[Aequalitia]

No.

RUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRUNRURNRUN

(I'm cool with civil unions, though.)

You don't got a valid point!