From a purely compassionate standpoint, whether you approve of their lifstyle or not, some partners stay together for many years and when onw of them dies the other gets nothing under the law.

I think there should be something along the lines of "civil unions" put into effect so that the partner who has been supportive all those years doesn't get screwed over by the pissed off family of the deceased. Some might consider homosexuality wrong, but is it any more morally right to screw over fellow human beings just because you don't approve of their lifestyle?

I believe not. I also don't believe they should legally be able to obtain the title "married". Marriage is between a man and woman. Society must progress, yes. But we must not thow away the things which make us a society to begin with such as "marriage".

If the gay couple wants to say that they are married after getting the civil union, there would be nothing stopping them due to freedom of speech, and they should have similar benefits. Under no circumstances should they ever officially be given the title of "husband and husband", or "wife and wife", in my opinion.

__________________
Those who are last shall come first.

On what do you base that? Why should your basis for that statement be made into law?

First, no one wants to destroy heterosexual marriage, so nothing would be "thrown away" if gay marriage were legalized. There would be a different definition, but it would still include heterosexual couples. Second, you are no doubt thinking of the purpose of marriage. Asking what the government's policy on the purpose of marriage should be is asking the wrong question. Why should the government define marriage when no one's rights are infringed upon?
Even if you think that homosexuality is immoral, I assure you that many heterosexual unions are entered for all of the wrong reasons, but it certainly isn't the government's place to forbid marriages between shallow people (with the government defining the "proper" reasons for marriage). Churches may choose to recognize or not to recognize gay couples, but the government has no ethical right to recognize some marriages but not others so long as all concerned are consenting adults. I make a caveat for incestuous marriages because of the harm done to children conceived through incest. Other than that, though, please explain why marriage is the government's business in the first place.
Now granted, until and unless homosexuality can be proven to be inborn, gay rights issues are states' rights (10th Amendment) issues, but on a state level I support getting the government out of marriage in nearly all circumstances. I think that sexual orientation is inborn. I know that I could not be attracted to a man, so I doubt that a gay man could be attracted to a woman. If and when science establishes what most of us already know- i.e. that sexual orientation is inborn- gay rights will become, on a Constitutional level, a 14th Amendment matter of equality, thus making un-Constitutional any inferior legal status for homosexuals. Until then, I reluctantly leave the issue to the states despite the frequent decisions of voters to ban gay marriage state-by-state.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

It is a profound cultural convention in every culture up until recently to define marriage as between a man and woman. To call a union between the same sexes marriage would be wrong to a historical degree. Why not call their union something else? Koin a new term to describe their unique place in history?

I believe labeling something else with a term that has always been used to describe the the major step in heterosexual coupling does degrade the value of the institution by saying that marriage can be a union of any old person.

Where does it stop? If you allow same-sex "marriage", couldn't you have two straight guys getting "married", keeping it quiet, then using it to twart the system? Does it then have to be homosexuals to be eligible for a same-sex union? Do they have to provide proof that they are homosexual? How would they provide that proof? Would there be a certain criteria to be met? How would you meet that criteria?

This whole thing wreaks of lawsuits. "I married him because I thought I was gay. I got psychoanalysis and discovered that I'm not gay. He "turned me".

How would that go down in divorce court?

__________________
Those who are last shall come first.

If two straight guys get married, how does it thwart the system.
They must theoretically honor the contract they have signed, forsake all others, provide for one another, and share assets. They just don't have sex with each other (true of many couples that have been married for a long enough time ).
I don't think we should be too keen on saving the concept of marriage based on history... If you look closer at the history of marriage, you'll find our current concepts are nothing like the old ones with the exception of being male/female. Marriage historically was a rather oppressive and lop-sided arrangement based on male inheritable property rights (the woman being property of course). Over time we've developed the concept of romantic love and mutual devotion. We've also become a society not so dependent on over-breeding and used to longer lifespans making marriage more about taking care of one another than children.
The old marriage concept is one that should be abolished not preserved. And it was. By adaptation.

The word "marriage" as it is different from "civil union" is purely about religion...
So why do we not just get government out of marriage altogether? Government can do civil unions and that will be the recognized union of the state. Marriage can be a symbolic gesture not recognized by law but recognized by religious institutions that perform them.
Still a problem? Then allow religious authorities to apply for the right to perform civil unions during marriage ceremonies...
This basically amounts to allowing gay marriage... but not really. The law will recognize the civil unions and the church will recognize whichever marriages they feel like recognizing.
Everyone should be happy. But no. Religious zealots want privelage and they delude themselves into thinking that allowing the same privelage to spread to others hurts them.
In all truth no church has to recognize a marriage it doesn't want to.
Gay people CAN get the ceremonial side of marriage NOW.... but not legal benefits. What civil union rules do is force gays to have two ceremonies if they wish to be "married" while straights get one.

And what about two non-Christians that have no desire for kids getting married? I am in such a marriage. Funny that it's recognized as marriage now. Wait a while. Give the religious zealots too much rope and they'll hang us all with it. All in the name of nomenclature.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

On most issues I lean to the right. However this is one of those issues I feel really strongly about. Honestly besides the fact that people are homophobes, why shouldnt "steve" and "bill" be able to get married if they want to??

It doesnt hurt me, it doesnt hurt you, it doesnt hurt your dog, it doesnt hurt your kids, it doesnt hurt anyone. They can live together already so having them be married is nothing more then just two people who are in love getting the opportunity to be together and express their love towards each other.

People dont want it because they are bringing religion into the mix. Ok now the problem with that is that religion needs to be kept out of policy. I am a christian and im proud of it, however religion and policy need to stay completely seperate.

So besides Religion, and besides homophobia what reasons do the rest of us who are allowed to get married just because we are straight have for not wanting to allow gay & lesbian couples to get married??

As I have stated, I have no problem with homosexuals. Because I don't approve of them taking on the institution of marriage, it makes me a homophobe?

I believe they should be able to have a union akin to marriage, but not called marriage. I have no problem with gay people.

__________________
Those who are last shall come first.

I don't think you do have a problem with homosexuals.
My question is simply why should the law recognize a two-tier "seperate but equal" system of marriage/civil unions rather than supporting civil unions for all people and allowing individual churches to accept whatever they want as marriages... in other words, make marriage a religious issue not upheld by the state and civil union the phrase used for all state-recognized "marriage"?
There were a few other questions two, but this one is the most important.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

oooooh, wrong word. did you mean too?

So basically if gays get hitched and call it toast your ok with that?

lol....exactly. You are just trying to keep the word "marriage" between a man and a woman. Seriously who gives a crap if two guys get married, and they call it "marriage" tell me how does that effect you??

Do you consider yourself better then them, and because of that you dont want them to use the word marriage when you are able to use it??

It goes back to your religious beliefs, and religion has no place in policy.

Your right , marriage is between a man and a woman but:

There is no need for the deceased partner to get nothing. It's called a Will. The bed buddies can give each other all or none of their worldly goods as they see fit.It is the same for men and women that live together for many years (in my state anyway). Make a Will.