<eom>

Still cant comphehend why anyone cares.

Maybe its just me but seems like there is sooooo many better things to worry about. Guess some people dont have anything better to do!!!

I voted YES!!! Hope i get to go to a gay wedding at some point!!

Yes!

Yes.

I certainly have no problem with it.

Actually, I don't have a probbo with it either.

It should and will happen. In the future, I expect it will be seen in the same respect as inter-racial marriages: "People were against it once? Really?"

No.

Live and let love.

yes...

I voted yes, but I really meant no, if you mean in a legal sense.

I don't think anyone should be legally "married" -- that should be a religious or cultural practice only. Straight and gay people should be able to enter into civil unions, and that's all the government should have to do with it.

Yes.

i see several votes for NO......

wonder where these squares are hiding!! Would like to see some dissenting opinions!! Only one nay sayer even posted.

Wow that is great Alex and I agree on something. I don't think the state should be in a marriage business either. This is a religious union, why is the state involved?

But as it stands now I vote NO! Because marriage is a religious institution and likewise the state should not impose its will on religion. If you want a legal contract between two people go to a lawyer and draw it up, But leave marriage out of it.

If you grant civil unions the same legal rights enjoyed by married couples (in terms of inheritance, next of kin status etc), surely all that's left to differentiate the two is the name.

Personally I don't see the problem - what you call it is, in a sense, irrelevant if you're granting equivalence under the law. If this is all that stands in the way of stopping the hoo-ha controversy over a way forward - then great. I still think its rather silly to be hung up on a name when it is essentially the same thing.

The Govt can't mandate that a religious institution has to comply with these laws - but plenty of straight people get married in secular ceremonies. Are those "marriages" any less because the church isn't involved?

Ditto my friend.

definitely

Whatever.

yikes... Now husband and husband may kiss the groom?

I believe in civil unions and that homosexual partners should have the same rights that heterosexual partners do. The government allows homosexuals to adopt children together and both be legal guardians, why should they not also be allowed to inherit, be next of kin for health issues, etc? Some states do allow this already, I realize, but it needs to be more common.

I think there's a diff between "marriage" and "civil union" (or domestic partnership). Marriage, imo, is sacred between a man and a woman.

Sorry, but that is very immature. And not funny. Why shouldn't homosexuals be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals?

What is the difference though?

good point.... tell me I'm not as "married" as someone who said it in a church... pfft!

As for the poll...YES.

Sister Julez, you are wise. It is indeed, not funny at all.

That's what gets me about this - though perhaps there's something I'm missing... From what I'm reading so far the difference seems purely cosmetic one. If you're granting the same level of legal recognition to a couple, and equivalent legal benefits associated with marriage - then what's wrong with calling it what it is?

Demanding a monopoly over a word - when for all intents and purposes we're talking about the same thing seems a little silly IMO.

I also agree (I'm the one who made the poll).

My very good friends had a wedding this weekend and got "married" - obviously not legally, but the ceremony and reception were beautiful. I'd never seen two brides before, yet it didn't seem weird. I'm so used to seeing them together all the time anyway.
They both wore white dresses and had bridesmaids.

I mean in the usage of the words, for me. I associate marriage as pledging myself before God, which is not the case in a civil union. I suppose, having said this, that I concede that any ceremony taking place before a judge, JP, etc, not using the word "God" would also be a civil union, but by my definition, still a marriage.

I think I confused myself. I personally think that the there is a difference in the words, with the religious meaning attached.

Btw, both my surviving brothers are gay and one did have a ceremony. They've been together for 15 years and are registered domestic partners. I don't have a problem with it, but I suppose my spiritual upbringing rears its head when I think of saying "married." My brother and his partner do not refer to themselves as married either, but as being "partners."

what kind of rights they're seeking for? they do have equal rights as heterosexuals the differences its ILLEGAL for man to man to get married.

are you homo or you have homo's blood line its why you're mad about it?

Peter Puffers and Carpet Munchers UNITE!!

No, perhaps we are just people who happen to believe in equality and happen to think your "joke" is in very poor taste. But homophobic "jokes" are usually like that.

Lady boys in Philippines would be more cuter they really look more feminine.

I don't think I have a right to marry someone that is the same sex as me either. So what right do I have that they don't? If they would like to marry someone of the opposite sex they are free to do so.

I really do not think it is appropriate to confuse children by this issue being taught to them at such young ages. The plan is already underway to start teaching that this is ok at kindergarten or 1st grade level. I think that is a violation of parental rights to teach the children things contrary to what their family teaches. The schools do not have this right!

So if you take the state out of the marriage business and out of the education business. Make it a legal contract between two people, then offer school tax vouchers so every parent has a say in what is taught their child, instead of forced support of the public school system and their extremist agenda then I will be ok with it.

as long i pleases myself.. i don't really care if you're unhappy with it. its my freedome of speech.

Whatever makes a person happy, he/she may choose to pursue it.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

tell me if I'm wrong but wasn't someone in the bible gay?

eta: let them wed!!!!!! gay straight bi green purple black blue whatever they're people just like the rest of us and deserve the same rights even if some people don't like it!

I think people need to be honest about what they're talking about. Either they're believe in equal rights under the law or they don't.

This nitpicking over what to call it seems rather pointless to me.

If they can date, but they aren't allowed to get married, are they allowed to have sex?

I mean....unmarried hetero couples have sex all the time.

Or are they just allowed to date but not screw? Like, they can only go to the movies but .... no relations.

Or are they not allowed to date at all?

Actually, I think you left off a poll choice - I really don't care because it's none of my business.

our country has deteriorated to worst level...people writing all type of nonsense justifying why two men should lie together and even worse marry....where is the decency in society....think about it...if two men marring was so right, why cant they produce children....its the nastiest thing i have ever heard any one try to justify....same sex union...who next should be given equal rights "Animal-Humans Unions"...Everyone should be given the same rights...that term has been so abused..becareful what u wish for...I forget at times that religion mean nothing to many in society...but use ur logics...just imagine ur child waking up seeing two men going to bed every night...

Putting religion aside....the main purpose for humans is to procreate...with all the same sex unions...what will happen to society ...we all will cease to exsist.....dont understand when Christians and heterosexual defend this nastiness...
.

..God Bles all your souls

Right. Because gays = pedophiles = dog f*ckers = deviants = EVIL EVIL EVIL BAD BAD BAD

Indeed where is the deceny in society? Apparently when uppity "church folks" refuse to recognise that homosexuality already exists in the mainstream of society (unless you live somewhere like Iran), that it poses absolutely no danger to them, their children or anyone else; and that their objections to it are not only pointless and insultingly backward thinking - but quite simply, none of their bloody business.

Religion indeed does mean nothing when it is used as a blunt stick to beat people over the head by the so-called "moral majority".

Humanity ceasing to exist because of homosexual marriages is the most ludicrous thing I ever heard - and just shows how much of this rationale is based on scaremongering. Sure - allow gay people to marry - and pretty soon everybody will realise that they've been missing out on something, and will want in on the action. Meanwhile all the children will see this and will decide that the brown eye is better than the pink, and vice-versa. Suddenly Bob's your uncle, noone's having children or doing anything worthwhile; but rather laying about at home having anal sex, muff-diving and smoking hash - while the God, disgusted by all the depravity decides to throw a big f*ck off asteroid in our direction.

Right. I can really see that happening.

I don't like the term civil union. Separate but equal nonsense. Gays should be able to marry.

Why should a marriage have to be a religious institution? I have a right to be married to my husband and I don´t need to be religious for that.
I disagree with guys having multiple wives and those things are legal too in some religions and if someone asks me if I vote yes or no for that I say I vote yes cuz if someone is allowed to have multiple wives and wants to and the wives for some reason have no problems with that then that´s their choice. It´s nothing for me though.
So now why shouldn´t a homosexual have the same right as a heterosexual? All of us are human beings and homosexuals care for their partners as much as anyone else does. God made them that way so why does someone have a problem with it I don´t know. And you can´t just pick something from the Bible or something and say this isn´t right. You could as well say God says you don´t kill. Then why do countries have huge armies and fight and kill and say God bless us? Didn´t he tell you not to kill? You think you can bend one rule and strictly stick to some other one according to what´s convenient to you at the moment? It doesn´t make any sense. Besides that homosexuals are not allowed to marry isn´t even a rule.
Love is love and that´s what´s important.
I vote YES.

Besides every other man dreams of seeing two girls making love...so they are allowed to give people pleasure that way and shouldn´t be allowed to actually really love each other and have a valid relationship?

Concerning your child waking up seeing two men or women going to bed every night....why does a child wake up when two men or women are going to bed? Besides...if it´s there, the child will see it anyways and it doesn´t matter if the people are married or not. The child doesn´t care about if they are married or not. Marriage is for the two people that are involved not for others to constantly watch them. Besides kids who know some homosexual couples are one of the greatest kids ever and tolerate other human beings.

Why don´t you make two people get married when they have kids together? It´s a sin to have kids and not be married. You should make them get married even if they don´t want to. Also, you shouldn´t be having sex when you aren´t married.

Lots of heterosexual couples can´t have kids these days. Does that mean God doesn´t want them to get married now? Cuz that´s what you are saying about homosexual couples...since they can´t have kids they shouldn´t be able to get married.

Animal-Human unions? Hm? Who are you considering to be an animal here? All of us are people and we are on the same level.

It is the pedophile dog fcukers that are the true evil ones the others are half evil. The poor puppies who is looking out for them?

LOL What on earth are you gonna do if your kids turn out to be homosexuals?

Excuse me?

I guess if you're going to miss the point you may as well do it completely.

mission impossible: finding the best man at a lesbian wedding.

You are down right offensive. And while you are right, currently it is illegal for homosexuals to marry, that doesn't mean that the law is right. It was once illegal for women and black people to vote. Laws change. And they should. Its unfortunate that so many are so intolerant of someone who is different from them. So much so that you unnecessarily quetion another's sexuality for being tolerant. I find bigotry like that which you have expressed to be extremely offensice. I actually pity somone like you.

My stance used to be that we should allow civil partnerships but not 'marriage'. However, that has changed. It is, after all, only a word, and it's certainly not exclusive to religion. Unions between two people have existed long before religious connotations were bestowed upon them.

As for homosexuals destroying the sanctity of marriage - haven't heterosexuals done enough to that already, what with the divorce rate as it is?

Plus, what with wars raging and broken families, you think we'd do anything to encourage and honour love and commitment between two people.

oh no. *runs from the prune patrol*

zomg! the gays are attacking! protect your rears!