Do you believe that civil gay unions should be legalised?

Lux23

Well?

Jesus Wept

Marriage should be.

chopperbyrne

Don't see why not.

the dee

Why not make it marriage? Why have 2 kinds of civil unions? Makes no sense.

admiralofthefleet

voted yes because i couldnt really care less

Lux23

A marriage strictly speaking means in a church so thats why I put civil union, obviously the church won't allow that.

rubadub

As long as they are not going to get incentives that are intended for the rearing of children, and intended to help a partner who does not work or worked less due to rasining children.

I think these incentives should be changed and more rules put in place for heterosexual married couples too.

If it is just a "union" with no financial benefits I have no problem.

If there were benefits you would get a lot more marriages/unions of convenience going on. Just like childless couples are getting now and do not deserve.

e.g. they should not have a combined tax rate for income. They should not be getting widowers pensions or similar finance. They should not get tax breaks on houses left to them if a "spouse" dies. Should be equivalent to a friend dying, possibly stretch to a sibling under law (not sure if siblings get any breaks)

AckwelFoley

equal rights for all citizens

Yes


...im still a bit of a homophobe.. but i try to see past that

princess-sprkle

yeah, i don't see why not.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Yea why not.

(Although I voted no for a laugh).

I've a few gay friends, if it makes them happy I'm for it.

aidan_walsh

Lux23 wrote: »

A marriage strictly speaking means in a church so thats why I put civil union, obviously the church won't allow that.

So the Church says. There is no problem in my mind of the State using the term to give the same civil rights and protections to a gay couple.

Lux23

rubadub wrote: »

As long as they are not going to get incentives that are intended for the rearing of children, and intended to help a partner who does not work or worked less due to rasining children.

I think these incentives should be changed and more rules put in place for homosexual married couples too.

If it is just a "union" with no financial benefits I have no problem.

If there were benefits you would get a lot more marriages/unions of convenience going on. Just like childless couples are getting now and do not deserve.

What if they are raising children?

Im using the word union rather than marriage to discount the religious argument, if your not getting 'married' in a church God or Church has nothing to do with it.

AckwelFoley

As long as they are not going to get incentives that are intended for the rearing of children, and intended to help a partner who does not work or worked less due to rasining children.

Why would you deny them equal rights?

Replies such as:

Becauae its immoral

Because its wrong for them to rear children

Because god said so,

..are not to be used, because it will lower the intellectual tone of the debate.

Jesus Wept

rubadub wrote: »

If it is just a "union" with no financial benefits I have no problem.

If there were benefits you would get a lot more marriages/unions of convenience going on.

True, I'm a hetrosexual male, but I might just switch to cock for the tax benefits.

rubadub wrote: »

Just like childless couples are getting now and do not deserve.

How so?

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

As long as they are not going to get incentives that are intended for the rearing of children, and intended to help a partner who does not work or worked less due to rasining children.

I think these incentives should be changed and more rules put in place for hetrosexual married couples too.

If it is just a "union" with no financial benefits I have no problem.

If there were benefits you would get a lot more marriages/unions of convenience going on. Just like childless couples are getting now and do not deserve.

e.g. they should not have a combined tax rate for income. They should not be getting widowers pensions or similar finance. They should not get tax breaks on houses left to them if a "spouse" dies. Should be equivalent to a friend dying, possibly stretch to a sibling under law (not sure if siblings get any breaks)

Married people with no children should get no benefits? Wtf?

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

LadyJ

Yes, I'm for gay "civil unions". The right to adopt as well.

rubadub

Lux23 wrote: »

What if they are raising children?

Then they probably should get the same benefits. Dunno how it would be worked out, the whole system should be changed IMO. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals, I do have problems with people screwing the system, or with the government allowing benefits where people are not screwing the system but getting benefit by default, gay or straight.

snyper wrote: »

Why would you deny them equal rights?
Replies such as:
Becauae its immoral
Because its wrong for them to rear children
Because god said so,

..are not to be used, because it will lower the intellectual tone of the debate.

It is not just them, it is any childless "union".

True, I'm a hetrosexual male, but I might just switch to cock for the tax benefits.

And many would, well at least pretend. Imagine 2 mates in their 80s in the old folks home. Both wives die, then they have a union for tax reasons. Probably happens all the time with male & females. marriage of convenience or in this case union of convenience.

bluewolf wrote: »

Married people with no children should get no benefits? Wtf?

Of course not. why should they? They should get the exact same benefits as 2 mates would have living together. All the incentives given to married couples is so they can and incentive to produce a stable environment, raise children so the furture economy can grow with a decent workforce.

Morlar

The Scientist wrote: »

But absolutely no to adoption of children.

Could not agree more - hate to be old fashioned but if the kid is their own naturally then thats fine. They should not be allowed to adopt children though. I am with the pope on that one 'its an act of moral violence against the child' and all that.

AckwelFoley

The Scientist wrote: »

But a categorical and absolute NO to adoption of children.

Why?

I am with the pope on that one 'its an act of moral violence against the child' and all that.

lol.. your're joking.. right?

the dee

The Scientist wrote: »

Yes.
But a categorical and absolute NO to adoption of children.

I'm staying out of this one....

Jesus Wept

rubadub wrote: »

Then they probably should get the same benefits. Dunno how it would be worked out, the whole system should be changed IMO. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals, I do have problems with people screwing the system, or with the government allowing benefits where people are not screwing the system but getting benefit by default, gay or straight.

The system should be changed in my opinion too.

There should be no financial incentive for getting married, or having children.

Anyhow, it's not an incentive, it's a tax on single people and a tax on people who don't feel the need to replicate.
Equal rights?

LadyJ

LadyJ wrote: »

Yes, I'm for gay "civil unions". The right to adopt as well.

+1

Moral violence against the child, my foot

And if one person is about to post "but the other kids at school...", don't bother

BaZmO*

Two men getting married is just Gay!

Lux23

I think anyone whether they be straight or gay who seeks to adopt a child should go through rigourous testing but I fail to see how their sexuality would affect what kind of parent they would be.

Morlar

snyper wrote: »

.. your're joking.. right?

Untrendy as it sounds - Nope.

purple'n'gold

Have nothing against gay people, live and let live. But no to any sort of gay “marriage”. It’s unnatural. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. People of any gender can always make a will, so their property will go to their friend after their demise.

LadyJ

Lux23 wrote: »

I think anyone whether they be straight or gay who seeks to adopt a child should go through rigourous testing but I fail to see how their sexuality would affect what kind of parent they would be.

Agreed.

I was raised by three women and I turned out perfectly fine and a well rounded individual. Also, I was far more accepting as a child of anything that other kids found "unusual" (eg. homosexuality, single parents etc.). I was the only kid in my class until we were 7 or 8 even who knew that you didn't have to be married to get pregnant!

Lux23

purplengold wrote: »

Have nothing against gay people, live and let live. But no to any sort of gay “marriage”. It’s unnatural. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. People of any gender can always make a will, so their property will go to their friend after their demise.

What about a Civil Union then? That has nothing to do with God and the Church, just the state? Whats unnatural about two people falling in love and wanting to really commit to each other? Its the most natural thing in the world. Fair enough it may be unnatural for you but its wrong of you to force you standards on others.

Jesus Wept

purplengold wrote: »

Have nothing against gay people, live and let live. But no to any sort of gay “marriage”. It’s unnatural. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. People of any gender can always make a will, so their property will go to their friend after their demise.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but the amount you can gift/leave to a 'random' person and to a wife/husband before it's taxed is different, I think.

Throw in widowers pension, etc, the list goes on.

rubadub

The-Rigger wrote: »

The system should be changed in my opinion too.

There should be no financial incentive for getting married, or having children.

I do not mind incentives for having children and combined salaries taxation etc. I want young people in the country looking after me when I am old. These tax breaks were brought in to encourage people to have kids, it costs a fortune to rear a child these days. When introduced the common presumption was that people got married to have kids, not necessarily so anymore, to a much greater degree- far more women have careers and marry later in life with no plans to have a child at all. The tax system has to change with the times.
Some childless couples past & present is due to infertility, still has no grounds to get tax breaks.

The-Rigger wrote: »

Anyhow, it's not an incentive, it's a tax on single people and a tax on people who don't feel the need to replicate.
Equal rights?

That is just as wrong, if not an even worse way of putting it! imagine they did come out and call it a singles tax.

Varkov

Civil union yeah sure, no issue with that. There shouldn't be any benefits though.

Absolutely against gay adoption though, it is biologically unnatural and as such, is not something a child should have to be subjected to just because the parents want to have children.

Jesus Wept

rubadub wrote: »

Imagine they did come out and call it a singles tax.

Well that's what it is.

Lux23

Varkov wrote: »

Civil union yeah sure, no issue with that. There shouldn't be any benefits though.

Absolutely against gay adoption though, it is biologically unnatural and as such, is not something a child should have to be subjected to just because the parents want to have children.

Well in a Civil Union they will have all the same benefits as a straight couple or else what be the point in calling it a 'Civil' Union.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

BaZmO*

Lux23 wrote: »

What about a Civil Union then? That has nothing to do with God and the Church, just the state? Whats unnatural about two people falling in love and wanting to really commit to each other? Its the most natural thing in the world. Fair enough it may be unnatural for you but its wrong of you to force you standards on others.

Not unnatural at all, by should they get tax incentives for a Civil Union? I understand the principal of becoming the next of kin and all that comes with that, inheritance rights, etc.
But what benefit is it to the state to give tax incentives/benefits?

Varkov

Varkov wrote: »

Civil union yeah sure, no issue with that. There shouldn't be any benefits though.

Why?

Absolutely against gay adoption though, it is biologically unnatural and as such, is not something a child should have to be subjected to just because the parents want to have children.

Sitting in front of a computer is biologically unnatural, so is drinking coffee...
I don't see how a loving family is something to be "subjected" to.
How many families have kids and subject them to god knows what just because the parents wanted kids?

Put yourself in the childs shoes.... What kind of an upbringing can he/she possibly expect, only incessant bullying through their school years & embarrassament through college until they can move out and actually start a life.

Oh here we go again. Can't do something because someone might make a comment.
Kids will bully for any reason; if they don't have gay parents it's because they're too quiet or have glasses or red hair blah blah blah. if you want to be idealistic, cut out bullying, not gay adoption.

Oh and for the record I was never bullied or embarrassed through college

Kernel32

Varkov wrote: »

Absolutely against gay adoption though, it is biologically unnatural and as such, is not something a child should have to be subjected to just because the parents want to have children.

Yeah they would be much better off tied to a bed in a Chinese orphanage. That way those gays wouldn't be able to get their hands on them and provide them with a loving family or anything of that nature.

BaZmO*

The Scientist wrote: »

I think thats self explanatory.
The main argument against it; Put yourself in the childs shoes.... What kind of an upbringing can he/she possibly expect, only incessant bullying through their school years & embarrassament through college until they can move out and actually start a life.

So fat people, black people, poor people, etc. shouldn't be allowed to have children either?

moridin

Lux23 wrote: »

What about a Civil Union then? That has nothing to do with God and the Church, just the state? Whats unnatural about two people falling in love and wanting to really commit to each other? Its the most natural thing in the world. Fair enough it may be unnatural for you but its wrong of you to force you standards on others.

Exactly the point. I hate soccer, others find it natural to play and watch the game. Some people get physically sick when they eat meat, while others will happily chow down on a steak.

You can't define what's "natural" using just you as a reference. Just because you are attracted to women doesn't mean that all guys are, or vice versa, and it's not something that you can change. If you can't change it, you gotta live with it and make the most of it, right?

The-Rigger wrote: »

I'm not an expert on the subject, but the amount you can gift/leave to a 'random' person and to a wife/husband before it's taxed is different, I think.

Throw in widowers pension, etc, the list goes on.

Tax is one reason I guess, especially in the case of the above for wills / inheritance issues. Another would be the rights of a spouse in the event of an accident. Kids is another biggie... imagine two people living together one of whom has a kid and that child is raised as their son/daughter by the couple. If the birth mother/father dies then their partner (who's raised that kid as their own) has zero legal rights to be a guardian for that child.

Finally, the last point is that Marriage is a commitment to someone else and a public affirmation in front of your friends, family, and the state that you love someone. You don't "need" it I guess, but how is it fair to allow some people the right to make this commitment and deny it to others?

Guy:Incognito

BaZmO* wrote: »

So fat people, black people, poor people, etc. shouldn't be allowed to have children either?

yes but they should be locked away and not allowed mingl ewith us normal folk in case we get the urge to persecute them.

magpie

Jesus, everything is being unionised these days.

LadyJ

Imo, a child brought up in such circumstances will learn to be more accepting and open-minded. They will not be embarassed for long. School kids are cruel sure but as you get older (although people can still be idiots) there is less mockery made of people who are "different" in my experience anyway.


Tbh, kids will make fun of everyone who is different to the "norm". However, by changing what the norm is it may become less of an issue in the future.

ScumLord

I think a marriage is basically a commitment to raise children. Love is fleeting and people do often fall out of love but if the contract is about the child more so than two people being in "love" then it should be easier for those two people to get along as long as their fulfilling their commitment to do whats in in the best interest of the child.

When it comes to a religious marriage I see no problem with the church denighing gay couples the right. They clearly say up front they don't allow it and if you don't like it there's plenty of other religions that will allow it.

Unions for the purpose of making the partner next of kin should be open to anyone.

I don't think it's ideal for children to be leased out to gay couples, it's best if they live with man/woman not just because of social stigmas. Of course having any parents is normally better than having no parents at all but your standard male/female couples should always be given priority over gay couples.

tbh

yes to civil unions, adoption on a case by case basis, just like the breeders. Blanket bans on anything make me.....uncomfortable. Also, if a man and a woman can't have kids, isn't it un-natural to give them some? whether through adoption or IVF.

Varkov

Human being evolved and developed in a certain way.

Man and woman conceive child. Man and woman raise said child. Civilization flourishes.

We've been doing it this way for 200,000 years, and it seems to have worked out so far.

Morlar

LadyJ wrote: »

Tbh, kids will make fun of everyone who is different to the "norm". However, by changing what the norm is it may become less of an issue in the future.

There are a lot of things that can hamper a childs social developmemt and progress into adulthood - intentionally throwing an obstacle in their path (on the basis that you think it should not be an obstacle) is not acceptable.

Regarding adoption the rights of the child should always be the only consideration - the rights of a gay person (to feel normal and fully accepted by society while understandable . . ) are 100% irrelevant.

Jesus Wept

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think it's ideal for children to be leased out to gay couples

Shouldn't be leased out, but what about getting them on Hire Purchase?

Lux23

Varkov wrote: »

Human being evolved and developed in a certain way.

Man and woman conceive child. Man and woman raise said child. Civilization flourishes.

We've been doing it this way for 200,000 years, and it seems to have worked out so far.

And has homosexuality just come out of nowhere? Its been around just as long. It occurs in other animals too so its not a learned or forced behaviour.

Thats no argument at all, its not like we are all going to decide to be gay just because the governments lets them marry.

Kernel32

ScumLord wrote: »

When it comes to a religious marriage I see no problem with the church denighing gay couples the right. They clearly say up front they don't allow it and if you don't like it there's plenty of other religions that will allow it.

I don't think anybody argues against a church being able to marry who they want and recognize in their eyes what a marriage is. Religion by it's definition is a collection of discriminatory organizations and has every right to be. That is very different to a legal union of two people.

What gets me is how two faced a particular denomination can be about it. As an example the Catholic Church is against homosexuality and against contraception and sex before marriage. But yet a couple with a child together or even not together would very likely be allowed to be married in a Catholic church, but a homosexual couple would definitely not be.

constitutionus

i voted no.

ive no problem with some form of lesser legal agreement but what the gov. is proposing in regards to this puts it on a par with marriage and i dont agree with that.