|
|
Post by Neo Nibu on Mar 1, 2007 21:15:41 GMT -5
What do you think?
Civil Union, for those who don't kno, it basically marriage, but a non-religious form.
-Nibu
|
|
|
|
Post by airoland on Mar 2, 2007 13:59:36 GMT -5
Absolutely should be legalised. Any two people living together, as a married couple do (and this includes old siblings who live together) should have the same recognition from the state. Anything else is discrimination.
|
|
|
|
Post by deutschgarten on Mar 2, 2007 16:14:53 GMT -5
Love is love no matter the gender.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo Nibu on Mar 2, 2007 17:04:41 GMT -5
I agree, but I don't think they have the right to forcible change how a religion goes about marriage.
That's why I think Civil Union are the best answer to this issue.
-Nibu
|
|
|
|
Post by airoland on Mar 2, 2007 19:31:17 GMT -5
I agree, I didn't realise I voted against Civil Union. Ah well.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianawi on Mar 3, 2007 9:28:00 GMT -5
love is love and you cant change it unless its beastiality ...eugghh
|
|
|
|
Post by deutschgarten on Mar 4, 2007 13:55:03 GMT -5
Yeah, as long as it's age appropriate human love I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alida & Syren on Mar 5, 2007 13:13:36 GMT -5
yes- love is love and it doesnt matter who you are and i think a civil union would be fine. however i do draw the line at gay couples being able to adopt. i think its kinda unatural and may mess with the kid a little bit, but i dunno?
|
|
|
|
Post by Robespierre - P.R. of Debro on Mar 5, 2007 16:30:06 GMT -5
Yeah, the whole life is a socialization...so if u see your "mother" and "father" as a socially accepted model, your chances to follow that model is higher, indeed. But I don't think it's a problem...the society should be as tolerant as it can be.
In the other hand, if love is love, the whole marriage thing is unnecessary...you don't need a ceremony and a paper to be happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by libertemundo on Mar 5, 2007 20:53:29 GMT -5
I believe in pro choice.That says it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by deutschgarten on Mar 6, 2007 17:07:24 GMT -5
I got this in my daily issue thing. I put the one that let anyone marry as many "partners" as the want just to see what would happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashlandis on Mar 25, 2007 0:19:24 GMT -5
im against gay marriage fully.
|
|
|
|
Post by silvado on May 30, 2007 17:39:10 GMT -5
I don't care who marries who, just don't do anything weird in front of me.
As I find my self slowly transforming into a neo hippie, bring back free love!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Archaix on May 31, 2007 5:17:18 GMT -5
I'm tolerant of gay marriage, but I can't see what's wrong with civil unions. It's exactly the same thing, but without religion -what's the downside? @ Silvado: What do you mean by 'weird' (hint: you're very close to being politically incorrect  ? |
|
|
|
Post by silvado on May 31, 2007 18:10:46 GMT -5
Ah good point- Im trying to say something like personnal things, I guess. Im sure you catch my drift
|
|
|
|
Post by Archaix on Jun 1, 2007 6:59:42 GMT -5
I think so. There's just somethings you're happy to tolerate as long as you don't have to see it. Like the working classes!  |
|
|
|
Post by Kardas on Jun 1, 2007 9:12:55 GMT -5
I believe it should be legal. Not everyone is the same. As I said in a debate at school today: "No one should be left out because they are different"
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo Nibu on Jun 1, 2007 20:52:28 GMT -5
It's fine with me but, forcing Region to change their way is wrong in my opinion. That's why I say civil Union
|
|
|
|
Post by Republicas Gloria on Jun 12, 2007 14:17:57 GMT -5
I say a State offered Civil Union should be available. The Churches don't have to marry them if the priest doesn't want to. The Church is their own buisness/organization and the state should not force them to do something they don't want to without a very valid reason like nation security or something (not what Bush calls national security though).
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo Nibu on Jun 12, 2007 16:04:37 GMT -5
I agree
|
|
" -Archaix
?
