Same sex marriage; A look at CP's gradual acceptance

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by pylon

You know Jack Tripper?

Originally Posted by troutman

I saw you at the Regal Beagle.

errrmmm Law School not a chef....come on

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by pylon

Again, it's just a hypothetical question. I personally believe if two people are close enough to from a lifelong partnership, share the bills, the mortgage, even adopt a child as a non intimate couple, what makes them any less worthy of being a parent, or two be granted the same legal benefits.

If you want to marry Bobby from the automotive department for the tax benefits then do it. It's called sam sex marriage, not gay marriage.

The tax benefits married couples receive vs the ones who aren't married is a totally separate issue and is really mudding up this thread however.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

errrmmm Law School not a chef....come on

Are you sure, because Three's Company ran from 1977-1984, which is 7 years.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by pylon

Are you sure, because Three's Company ran from 1977-1984, which is 7 years.

hmmm, I will have to let me buddy know.


Maybe he can sue whoever took the story of his life and made it into a TV show.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

If you want to marry Bobby from the automotive department for the tax benefits then do it. It's called sam sex marriage, not gay marriage.

The tax benefits married couples receive vs the ones who aren't married is a totally separate issue and is really mudding up this thread however.

No problem, my apologies. I respect the work you moderators do on this board.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by pylon

No problem, my apologies. I respect the work you moderators do on this board.

Well, okay. It's an interesting topic, like I said before. People who choose to get married shouldn't get better benefits then those that don't, but it's not a same sex issues. You can get snippy all you want, but I'm just pointing out you're confusing the two points and one doesn't have to do with the other.

If straight Gary and straight Jerry want to get married and grow old together as best friends they've been able to do so in Canada for a decade now.

[Flash Walken]

http://thewalrus.ca/coming-out/

Good article from a social conservative Canadian about his evolving attitude towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

[Yamer]

To draw it back to the changing attitudes question posed by the OP, count me as another person who started with the whole different terminology solution. It sounds fine until you realize you're segregating people over a concept wrapped in semiotics.

[Muta]

Why do married couples / common law couples get financial advantages over non-married / single people? That's discriminating.

The marriage thing bugs me, since it means you get a financial advantage if you're religious. What if you're atheist / agnostic, and a religious institution such as marriage simply doesn't apply to you? You get left in the cold.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Okay, so we've sorted out the sexes. How do we sort out the races now? Which races get Marriage and which ones get Civil Unions?

One's race would be immaterial.

Race is, as is often stated, a social construct.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Ah, so LifeIlliterate is what your name should be. Got it.

I thought that you were better than that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

In the context of this discussion, perhaps only heterosexual adults have the right and freedom to marry, but only homosexual adults have the right and freedom to have a civil union.

So separate but equal.

Only whites have the right to ride at the front of the bus, but only blacks have the right to ride at the back!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is what "separate but equal" looks like:

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

In the context of this discussion, perhaps only heterosexual adults have the right and freedom to marry, but only homosexual adults have the right and freedom to have a civil union.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So separate but equal.

Only whites have the right to ride at the front of the bus, but only blacks have the right to ride at the back!

Here let's help with a picture.........

[Thor]

I find most of those who remain against gay marriage are religious, usually quite religious and there is really not much you can do to convince them. They will either slowly come to accept it with time, or reason themselves to accepting it.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I thought that you were better than that.

Likewise. But you cleared it up for me.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

So separate but equal.

I see it more as a "same same but different" concept.

[Minnie]

This woman has some good posts on her FB page - she's made them public remarks, and many of them have been shared numerous times so I presume it's ok to link to her profile. There's several of them, too many to copy/paste so I'll just leave the link and people can look if they wish.

Link

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Muta

The marriage thing bugs me, since it means you get a financial advantage if you're religious. What if you're atheist / agnostic, and a religious institution such as marriage simply doesn't apply to you? You get left in the cold.

Say what? My wife and I are atheists and were married in a non-religious ceremony officiated by a judge.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Thor

It is not affecting you, whether your neighbor gets same sex married will not change your own life in any meaningful way. Your issue is with the slippery slope, but again these ideas you suggest are other issues, Gay marriage is an issue, which has resolved, if you sincerely think we will start seeing a wave of pro incest movements and calls for equal rights, then I don't know what to say.

I should have been more clear, I do not think there'll be a wave of pro-incest marriage people. My point was more theoretical in that if you were to take a poll, there'd be fewer people who would be ok with let's say 2 sisters getting married-even though the impact personally is the same.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Say what? My wife and I are atheists and were married in a non-religious ceremony officiated by a judge.

Oh, sorry. I thought marriage was a religious institution, is it not?