<p>I doubt I offended anyone on College Confidential by calling terrorists animals. </p>
<p>I just think that The U.S. shouldn't live in fear of terrorism. Also, Bush has done much more than the entire gay population to anger terrorists.</p>
<p>
<p>However civil unions should be granted to any pair who supports each other financially and live together, with a long-term commitment.
Bam! That's exactly how I see it. Exactly. Nice job.</p>
<p>However civil unions should be granted to any pair who supports each other financially and live together, with a long-term commitment.</p>
<p>Should that only include 2 people who are actually having sex with each other, or would your definition of any pair include long term friends or adult family (sisters, brothers, widows, widowers, friends, partners, neighbors etc.) who are not sexually active with each other; that is to say, any two people who find it either emotionally or socially advantageous to be involved in a recognized union of two individuals? </p>
<p>I'm pretty open-mined; if we are not going to recognize such unions for the sake or possibility of children and their well being, why not any possible union of two people: two long-haul truckers, say, even if they are not physically attracted to each other.</p>
<p>Or, why not just say that marriage has no actual status beyond 2 people having sex and splitting the check.</p>
<p>ummm being a Muslim....i don't appreciate you depicting the entire religion as violent...</p>
<p>For. Its none of the government's business to be decided who can and can't get married. By that same token, I am opposed to special government benifits for married persons.</p>
<p>"ummm being a Muslim....i don't appreciate you depicting the entire religion as violent..."</p>
<p>I hope you aren't referring to me.</p>
<p>it's fine
it's fine</p>
<p>For, for way to many reasons to list. So many that I may turn it into my senior thesis in college :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should that only include 2 people who are actually having sex with each other, or would your definition of any pair include long term friends or adult family (sisters, brothers, widows, widowers, friends, partners, neighbors etc.) who are not sexually active with each other; that is to say, any two people who find it either emotionally or socially advantageous to be involved in a recognized union of two individuals?</p>
<p>I'm pretty open-mined; if we are not going to recognize such unions for the sake or possibility of children and their well being, why not any possible union of two people: two long-haul truckers, say, even if they are not physically attracted to each other.
[/quote]
Alright, I'll clarify: whenever the relationship is such that the couple may wish to share a child eventually. And because, single persons are allowed to adopt, there is no reason for gay couples to not be allowed to adopt, and hence, they should be allowed compensation for a foreseeable shared burden of children.</p>
<p>I know I'm getting a little hazy, but you can probably see how I reason. (someone's gonna call me out on a "contradiction" i know it.) But currently there are laws on the books that grant tax breaks to unmarried couples who have lived together for a long time.</p>
<p>But why not let them have civil unions. It is a very small % of the population. Seriously it would effect no one and the ones it does it will make all of the difference. I mean everyone says all the advantages married couples get and that's nice but what about just the feelings of those involved. How sad is it when your own gov't is telling you, that you can't be legally "married" to the one you love b/c it is immoral and depraved? How can a union between two people of the same gender who love each other and are devoting their lives to each other destroy marriage anymore than normal people who divorce and get married and break up after 55 hours have already? Wasn't it illegal and immoral and against God for interracial couples not too long ago (in this century)?</p>
<p>I don't know but that just seems wrong to me. I can't see why people feel they have a right to control others lives or even worse come up with reason upon reason to rule others lives b/c it is against morals of their own. Heh well that seems wrong. Most people are not gay and thereby have no right to judge the lives of those they cannot understand. Maybe it is just me being empathetic but I just don't see how people can understand that and still say that letting a gay couple unite is bad. (<a href="http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=16903&repository=0001_article%5B/url%5D">http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=16903&repository=0001_article</a>)</p>
<p><a href="in%20this%20century">quote</a>?
[/quote]
Nope, actually interracial marriages have always been legal during the 21st century. Haha but yeah, I know what you mean. On that topic I don't think people of different sexual orientation should be described as a separate ethnicity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't see why people feel they have a right to control others lives or even worse come up with reason upon reason to rule others lives b/c it is against morals of their own.
[/quote]
This is the purpose of government. So should we try to "understand" the lives of pedophiles? Or that tiny minority who think murder is okay? What about allowing minors to drink alcohol or smoke? Or balancing the right to protest and the targeted individual's right to privacy?</p>
<p>Regardless, I support civil unions, just not gay marriage.</p>
<p>Anonymous, comparing homosexuals (two consenting adults) to pepophiles and murderers is ludicrious. There is nothing wrong with two adults consenting to a non-harmful relationship. Let's get real here. And marriage is a joke. 60% of Americans divorce. Marriage is no longer sacred. It is a special ceremony not much unlike graduation...but nothing more. </p>
<p>The government has no right to interfere in people's personal lifestyles. As for religious ceremonies, each denomination should make up its own mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its none of the government's business to be decided who can and can't get married. By that same token, I am opposed to special government benifits for married persons.
[/quote]
Marriage historially has been authorized by government even though it began as a religious institution. If the government were not involved, spousal support would not be possible meaning that for many couples the dissolution of the relationship would cause instant poverty for the poorer person in the relationship. In addition, it would be far more difficult to equally distribute assets earned during the relationship without government setting the standard. Without government involvement in marriage, I don't think marriage would exist.</p>
<p>The government has no right to interfere in people's personal lifestyles.</p>
<p>Would that include polygamy? That is, a relationship and union between more than two people who by their own account claim to love each other and prefer to make life-long commitments to each other. </p>
<p>There is, moreover, a long standing tradition of polygamous relationships existing, likely to be at least as long a history as homosexual relationships--going back into pre-history. </p>
<p>Beyond that there are major and recognized world cultures that believe in and practice polygamy in the 21st centuryapproximately a billion or so people believe it to be acceptable and lawful (Muslims, etc), yet few people on this board would argue that The government has no right to interfere in people's personal lifestyles as regards polygamy; moreover It is a very small % of the population in the USA that would care to engage in such colorful unions.</p>
<p>I can't see why people feel they have a right to control others lives or even worse come up with reason upon reason to rule others lives b/c it is against morals of their own. I dont know, but would that include polygamy?</p>
<p>We should at least be consistent in our arguments.</p>
<p>Excellent question. I personally do not believe in polygamy, and I feel that certain abuses can result from allowing polygamy, but it is an excellent point. One could certainly make the argument.</p>
<p>For it, for similar reasons to many of the posts above.</p>
<p>Furthermore, it helps people to care for each other. If two people marry, they can write wills to favour each other, inherit property without tax, and receive pensions - in short, to be self-supporting in old age. I would rather that two people figure out, together, how to support each other in old age rather than have the government do it. </p>
<p>I could easily see a situation in which a gay couple has a child, and one of the parents spends a disproprotionate amount of time raising the child (i.e. not working, sacrificing career, etc) - so that person has earned less money and saved less. Should the other partner die first, the one who raised the kids could be in dire straights - much like a housewife if she could not inherit from her dead husband without heavy taxes and could not receive his pension, Social Security, etc.</p>
<p>I'm in favour.</p>
<p>Marriage is a public declaration of love, two people making a binding commitment to each other. So what's wrong with allowing 2 consenting adults who love each other to make that commitment?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And marriage is a joke. 60% of Americans divorce. Marriage is no longer sacred.
[/quote]
That's too bad. Maybe THAT's the problem, and we should be addressing divorce courts. A spouse should not be merely an exalted boyfriend or girlfriend (a la celebrity marriages).</p>
<p>"Also, Bush has done much more than the entire gay population to anger terrorists."</p>
<p>The terrorists were angry at us in the first place y do you think they bombed the trade towers? It is impossible to anger or please someone who is willing to give up their life to kill YOU for no reason.</p>
<p>Actually, there ARE reasons, just not very good ones. They're sore over American businesses taking over their homelands, and stuff. And building plants that dump wastes into the local rivers, killing the fish the local fishermen rely on, etc. Then they blame the average American taxpayer for "actively" supporting the opression of their countrymen. The connection is vague, yeah. But mostly, it's just pure racism.</p>