I know this has probably been done before but...

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't.

So even you aren't as much of a pinko/commie as I thought...

Ah, so you're someone else who doesn't know what "pinko/commie" means.

And, FYI, there's basically no one who supports such things. Just stop getting your religion in my marriage (and, 'lo and behold, I'm straight, too).

[Willy Woz]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't.

So even you aren't as much of a pinko/commie as I thought...

Ah, so you're someone else who doesn't know what "pinko/commie" means.

And, FYI, there's basically no one who supports such things. Just stop getting your religion in my marriage (and, 'lo and behold, I'm straight, too).

Also, this forum has VERY skewed politics. According to most polls, a plurality of Americans vote "no recognition" and even a significant number of college-age Americans do...

Certainly don't see that around here...

[Josh/Devilman88]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't.

So even you aren't as much of a pinko/commie as I thought...

Ah, so you're someone else who doesn't know what "pinko/commie" means.

And, FYI, there's basically no one who supports such things. Just stop getting your religion in my marriage (and, 'lo and behold, I'm straight, too).

Also, this forum has VERY skewed politics. According to most polls, a plurality of Americans vote "no recognition" and even a significant number of college-age Americans do...

Certainly don't see that around here...

You have to be out of your mind if you think colege-age americans would vote no recognition.

[Alcon]

Gay marriage, though technically what I really support is civil unions for all (hetero and homo) with what defines marriage being left up to individuals and churches.

Agreed, although I'd prefer gay marriage over the current scenario any day of the week.

Also, this forum has VERY skewed politics. According to most polls, a plurality of Americans vote "no recognition" and even a significant number of college-age Americans do...

Certainly don't see that around here...

I hope that's comforting to you.

[Willy Woz]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't.

So even you aren't as much of a pinko/commie as I thought...

Ah, so you're someone else who doesn't know what "pinko/commie" means.

And, FYI, there's basically no one who supports such things. Just stop getting your religion in my marriage (and, 'lo and behold, I'm straight, too).

Also, this forum has VERY skewed politics. According to most polls, a plurality of Americans vote "no recognition" and even a significant number of college-age Americans do...

Certainly don't see that around here...

You have to be out of your mind if you think colege-age americans would vote no recognition.

I didn't say that MOST would, or even a plurality...

I just said that a higher percentage did than I would have expected...

[Verily]

Gay marriage, though technically what I really support is civil unions for all (hetero and homo) with what defines marriage being left up to individuals and churches.

Agreed, although I'd prefer gay marriage over the current scenario any day of the week.

^
In case I haven't made my position clear yet.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Passion and Romance. I don't care how it's done but no social structure should distinguish between hetrosexual or homosexual relationships. Personally I don't care whether you call it Marriage or what. (Though I agree with Ebowed, Civil Unions is a cowardly form of "equality". I'll ignore Willy Woz's inane ranting though.)

[Frodo]

Just civil unions, for the time being. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All the same rights as for marriage, but not necessarily using that particular word.

[Ebowed]

Willy Woz, you don't need to go on a rant about freedom of belief after stating your opinion.  That's an indication you don't have any good, relevant arguments to defend your position, since no one is banning homophobia.

May I ask why you find homosexuality to be immoral, and, regardless of your reasoning, why does this mean that there should be no recognition for same-sex couples?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

[Josh/Devilman88]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

And why is that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

Is next-of-kin status, according to you, a Right or a Privilege?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

Is next-of-kin status, according to you, a Right or a Privilege?

A right.

Josh - to answer your question - because you shouldn't be rewarded for your sin, but you also should not be punished, b/c that's not the government's place.

[Josh/Devilman88]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

Is next-of-kin status, according to you, a Right or a Privilege?

A right.

Josh - to answer your question - because you shouldn't be rewarded for your sin, but you also should not be punished, b/c that's not the government's place.

Is it a sin to love someone? Just because you think it is a sin doesn't give you the right to say what we can do.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

Is next-of-kin status, according to you, a Right or a Privilege?

A right.

Josh - to answer your question - because you shouldn't be rewarded for your sin, but you also should not be punished, b/c that's not the government's place.

Is it a sin to love someone? Just because you think it is a sin doesn't give you the right to say what we can do.

Should polygamy be legalized as well then?  If a man loves multiple people?  What gives us the right to outlaw that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A right.

So you do support some state recognition then?

[Ebowed]

Should polygamy be legalized as well then?  If a man loves multiple people?  What gives us the right to outlaw that?

Slippery slope fallacy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Should polygamy be legalized as well then?  If a man loves multiple people?  What gives us the right to outlaw that?

Slippery slope fallacy.

No - I'm asking Josh why polygamy is wrong.  Why do we outlaw polygamy?

[Josh/Devilman88]

No recognition - but should have the individual RIGHTS of every other citizen (but not privileges of couples in any way).

Is next-of-kin status, according to you, a Right or a Privilege?

A right.

Josh - to answer your question - because you shouldn't be rewarded for your sin, but you also should not be punished, b/c that's not the government's place.

Is it a sin to love someone? Just because you think it is a sin doesn't give you the right to say what we can do.

Should polygamy be legalized as well then?  If a man loves multiple people?  What gives us the right to outlaw that?

If I remember right many people in the bible had multiple wives...

[Ebowed]

Why do we outlaw polygamy?

Because the members of the marriage cannot be treated equally.  Not that this is really a pressing issue anyway, since no one outside of the Utah/Arizona border cares about polygamy.  Why do you bring it up?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why do we outlaw polygamy?

Because the members of the marriage cannot be treated equally.  Not that this is really a pressing issue anyway, since no one outside of the Utah/Arizona border cares about polygamy.  Why do you bring it up?

How do you know they can't be treated equally.  And what if they don't mind being treated unequally?  Who are you to legislate what's being fair in a marriage?  Point is - if you can legislate polygamy, you can legislate homosexuality.

[Ebowed]

How do you know they can't be treated equally.

Historical perspective.

And what if they don't mind being treated unequally?

Well, I don't care whether they live together or anything.

Who are you to legislate what's being fair in a marriage?

I'm not "legislating" anything.  I am arguing in favor of extending recognition of marital couples to those containing two people of the same sex.

Point is - if you can legislate polygamy, you can legislate homosexuality.

Yes, and you can also legislate fornication, ban oral sex, or ban contraception.  But I won't, since that's stupid reasoning, Inks.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Personally I would want to legalize (if that's the word.. nah, really - integrate it into the culture) Polygamy, Polygyny and Polyamoury. And personally I really don't have a problem with the slippery slope arguement.

In other words:

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How do you know they can't be treated equally.

Historical perspective.

And what if they don't mind being treated unequally?

Well, I don't care whether they live together or anything.

Who are you to legislate what's being fair in a marriage?

I'm not "legislating" anything.  I am arguing in favor of extending recognition of marital couples to those containing two people of the same sex.

Point is - if you can legislate polygamy, you can legislate homosexuality.

Yes, and you can also legislate fornication, ban oral sex, or ban contraception.  But I won't, since that's stupid reasoning, Inks.

Ban oral sex?  Non sequitor fallacy here.