ikol Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 So some states should be allowed to not recognize the legal/cultural legitimacy of same sex civil unions or marriages? Any state run by me would have civil unions for anyone that wants them. If others don't want them, that kinda goes with the whole states' rights thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Any state run by me would have civil unions for anyone that wants them. If others don't want them, that kinda goes with the whole states' rights thing. Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions What Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Ok, but what I advocated was completely doing away with the term marriage and replacing it with civil union (for all couples/multiples, gay, straight, etc.), so there's no inequality there. If there are rights conferred by the federal government relating to marriage, then they should apply to civil unions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 A. I'd like to reiterate that I agree with ikol on this one (do you all realize the magnitude of this?!?),and that the distinction he's making was clear to me from the get-go. B. Does everyone in this thread have me on ignore? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 A. I'd like to reiterate that I agree with ikol on this one (do you all realize the magnitude of this?!?),and that the distinction he's making was clear to me from the get-go. This is epic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Ok, but what I advocated was completely doing away with the term marriage and replacing it with civil union (for all couples/multiples, gay, straight, etc.), so there's no inequality there. If there are rights conferred by the federal government relating to marriage, then they should apply to civil unions. I could get behind that, though, after you are elected, I don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 A. I'd like to reiterate that I agree with ikol on this one (do you all realize the magnitude of this?!?),and that the distinction he's making was clear to me from the get-go. B. Does everyone in this thread have me on ignore? Aww. I think of you whenever that Dockers commercial with the "California Soul" song and the beauty shots of S.F. come on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
plasticeyeball Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 A. I'd like to reiterate that I agree with ikol on this one (do you all realize the magnitude of this?!?),and that the distinction he's making was clear to me from the get-go. B. Does everyone in this thread have me on ignore? I didn't but I guess I will now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SlowBurn68 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 You perverts are all going to hell - Soon we'll be having "Civil Unions" with our dogs, cats, vacuum cleaners... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 You perverts are all going to hell - Soon we'll be having "Civil Unions" with our dogs, cats, vacuum cleaners..."fleshlights," right hands, cucumbers ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 That one guy seems to be arguing with someone he agrees with just to make the other person sound like they don't agree with him, or something. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Just another court exceeding the scope of its responsibility. From a dissent: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 This is a great day. I am very happy for this decision - it's been way too long in my opinion, and I only hope that this is just the beginning. That being said, the timing is not so good - just what we need : the old divisive issue rears its head again just in time for the election cycle. Like it or not the christian conservatives will use this (as they did in '04) to fire up their constituency and garner votes. I've never understood it but some folks think the fate of our moral compass hinges on issues like this (and gays in the military, etc.). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I could get behind that, though, after you are elected, I don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Yeah. No. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 No. I disagree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I disagree. Why, you snot nosed little brat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Aww. I think of you whenever that Dockers commercial with the "California Soul" song and the beauty shots of S.F. come on. If you were a woman, and I was gay, I would totally marry you. I didn't but I guess I will now. Why I oughta... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Geez, next thing you know, they'll be wanting the vote! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 If you were a woman, and I was gay, I would totally marry you.Sadly, I do not think my HMO will cover both a sex change and a gayification. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Sadly, I do not think my HMO will cover both a sex change and a gayification. This is a prime example of why our health care system is in a shambles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I'd totally marry a "cougar" if they legalized it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 And I'm not so sure that the government's role should be to prevent polygamy and incest. I am late to this party, but I noticed this statement by ikol early in the fray. As a general matter, (I think), polygamy and incest rarely occurs between two consenting adults. I can agree with you if your point assumes there are two consenting adults involved. Is it safe for me to assume that you think the government should be getting involved to prevent polygamy and incest when it is to protect children or women that do not have the power to resist? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 I assume Ikol was referring to cases in which two (or more) consenting adults are considering entering into an incestuous or polygamist union, marriage, or whatever you prefer to call it. In which case, I totally agree. As far as I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.