View Poll Results: Do you support gay marriage?

Voters
76. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    53 69.74%
  • No, but civil unions

    10 13.16%
  • No, just unregistered co-existance

    1 1.32%
  • No, ban homosexuality!

    3 3.95%
  • Gay? Isn't that a synonym for happy?

    9 11.84%
Page 4 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 644

Thread: Gay marriage views?

  1. #46
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    No, I'm asking a different question. As it stands there's a legal benefit to being married, and the civil partnership benefits are almost identical. But I'm asking why the legal benefit to being married is even there. How does that help society?

    Or in relation to gay marriage, why don't we just let people box themselves into whichever social structures they like, and call their relationships and ceremonies whatever they like, without the state getting involved? It seems really odd to me that it's the job of the state to define what does and what doesn't constitute marriage.
    To the first part - Are you saying that a gay union has inferior rights to a straight marriage? Clearly that's against everything that I have said.

    To the second point, a definition is a definition. I can't say that everything that lacks edges is a water melon just to make a pumpkin feel better.
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.

  2. #47
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,357
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    A title is nothing more than a title, and people like you (and there are plenty) trying to distinguish between the two breed prejudice. No one else.

    As long as basic rights are ensured, we're all sweet.
    Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm totally for civil unions since in most states in the US, we don't have them at all. But once you have that, you keep fighting until it's called marriage because it's not really equal until then.

    You said you don't want to call a marriage between a heterosexual couple a 'civil union'. The fact that you don't want to give the same recognition (rights wise is the vital part, but wording wise is also important) means it's not quite 'all sweet', as you do think there's a fundamental difference between the relationships (and perhaps by extension in the feelings that two people have for each other). I'm simply against that.

    Now, mind you, I'd much rather be in this debate than be in a debate that's arguing for the exact same rights, so I'm very glad that we agree on that. That has been the biggest hurdle. So you ask for marriage, and as a compromise, you get civil unions. That's awesome. But then you keep asking for marriage until you get it.

    Either call them both marriages, both civil unions, or use both terms to describe both.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  3. #48
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    There is in terms of inheritance and the like, superannuation etc.

    Am for it. Why should gay people get to be happy when they should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us.
    Comes back to my original stance, there needs to be equal rights. Having the same title isn't a right, it's simply inconsequential.

  4. #49
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,357
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    To the second point, a definition is a definition. I can't say that everything that lacks edges is a water melon just to make a pumpkin feel better.
    I agree with this point, we know that's what the current definition is by most people. It's just that some of us disagree with that definition. The definition has changed in the past (interracial couples) and it ought to be again. It's not as black and white a difference as between a water melon and a pumpkin.

    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    Comes back to my original stance, there needs to be equal rights. Having the same title isn't a right, it's simply inconsequential.
    Again, if it's inconsequential, why would people be so against it? Basically, by 'being against it', you're making it consequential.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 05-03-2011 at 09:35 AM.


  5. #50
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    23,054
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    I think there has to be some legal codification of relationships because there are issues of inheritance, property rights, and all sorts of things that may need to be decided 'officially' by society. I don't have any problem with calling them both civil unions, or both marriage, or call them both by either name (as sledger was alluding to). But as long as it's consistent with both, I'm OK with it.
    I definitely don't think it's necessary for the legal systems surrounding property/inheritance to distinguish between married and unmarried people. Although given that they are that way already I guess there's no real point in dismantling them.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  6. #51
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm totally for civil unions since in most states in the US, we don't have them at all. But once you have that, you keep fighting until it's called marriage because it's not really equal until then.

    You said you don't want to call a marriage between a heterosexual couple a 'civil union'. The fact that you don't want to give the same recognition (rights wise is the vital part, but wording wise is also important) means it's not quite 'all sweet', as you do think there's a fundamental difference between the relationships (and perhaps by extension in the feelings that two people have for each other). I'm simply against that.

    Now, mind you, I'd much rather be in this debate than be in a debate that's arguing for the exact same rights, so I'm very glad that we agree on that. That has been the biggest hurdle. So you ask for marriage, and as a compromise, you get civil unions. That's awesome. But then you keep asking for marriage until you get it.

    Either call them both marriages, both civil unions, or use both terms to describe both.
    But a marriage is between a man and a woman! That's the thing. It's the definiton. You can't change a definiton. It's a fact of life.

  7. #52
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    cricsim, lol
    Posts
    30,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    I definitely don't think it's necessary for the legal systems surrounding property/inheritance to distinguish between married and unmarried people. Although given that they are that way already I guess there's no real point in dismantling them.
    Would open a whole can of worms if it wasn't tbh, potentially a massive legal quagmire right there tstl. Not that I'm saying the current way of dealing with things is ideal...but holy hell.

  8. #53
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,357
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    But a marriage is between a man and a woman! That's the thing. It's the definiton. You can't change a definiton. It's a fact of life.
    Sure you can. The definition of 'person' was changed when we realized hey - black people should be called people too (it was 3/5th of a person in the US). The definition of marriage was changed when we realized that 'hey, it's so unfair to have the definition of marriage as a man and woman of the same race.'

    We change definitions all the time. Every time we change a law, or add something else, we slightly change the definition of all sorts of terms, like murder (maybe changing the minimum age) and rape (not too long ago, non-consensual sex between married couples was not rape)....

    Definitions aren't concrete like that, they change all the time.

  9. #54
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Sure you can. The definition of 'person' was changed when we realized hey - black people should be called people too (it was 3/5th of a person in the US). The definition of marriage was changed when we realized that 'hey, it's so unfair to have the definition of marriage as a man and woman of the same race.'

    We change definitions all the time. Every time we change a law, or add something else, we slightly change the definition of all sorts of terms, like murder (maybe changing the minimum age) and rape (not too long ago, non-consensual sex between married couples was not rape)....

    Definitions aren't concrete like that, they change all the time.
    The interracial issue in terms of marriage has never been an issue here, and for mine the definition of marriage is what it currently is, simple as. I have no issues with homosexual couples getting equal rights with straight couples and that's the main thing. The thing I hate most in life is unnecessary symbolism. This issue is certainly one of those.

    I'm going to bed, I'm drunk.
    Last edited by benchmark00; 05-03-2011 at 09:51 AM.

  10. #55
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,357
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    The interracial issue in terms of marriage as never been an issue here, and for mine te definition of marriage is what it currently is, simple as. I have no issues with homosexual cuples getting equal rights with straight couples and that's the main thing. The thing I hate must in life is unnecessary symbolism. This issue is certainly one of those.

    I'm going to bed, I'm drunk.
    I don't know about English history on interracial marriage (but there was slavery at one point, so I'm sure the notion of personhood came up).

    I suppose we just disagree that it's "unnecessary" symbolism. After equal rights have been granted, it is symbolic to also give it the same name, but IMO it's very much necessary.

  11. #56
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    23,054
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    Would open a whole can of worms if it wasn't tbh, potentially a massive legal quagmire right there tstl. Not that I'm saying the current way of dealing with things is ideal...but holy hell.
    Yeah, I'd definitely say it'd be possible to devise a better system from scratch. It's just that realistically it would be so much more trouble than it's worth.

  12. #57
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    40,397
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    The interracial issue in terms of marriage has never been an issue here, and for mine the definition of marriage is what it currently is, simple as. I have no issues with homosexual couples getting equal rights with straight couples and that's the main thing. The thing I hate most in life is unnecessary symbolism. This issue is certainly one of those.

    I'm going to bed, I'm drunk.
    Yes they were. Years ago they were. Religion too. FMD, there was apoplexy if a Prod wanted to marry a Rock Chopper here.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  13. #58
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,567
    Just to point out - the definition of marriage has never been constant or particularly easy to name. Under Norman feudalism, for example, a woman was legally the property of her husband.

    A quick wikipedia-ing throws up some interesting results. One recent change I could find, as an example away from gay marriage, is the widely-changing status of polygamy as oppose to monogamy. Polygamy is notably permitted and referred to repeatedly in the Bible and Koran. On recent changes to its stautus, apparantly:

    The People's Republic of China shifted from allowing polygamy to supporting only monogamy in the Marriage Act of 1953 after the Communist revolution.
    So for various reasons the definition of marriage has been continually altered over time, in different ways and at different rates.

    As an aside, I for one quite like Confucius' overly poetic definition:

    Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.
    Last edited by Howe_zat; 05-03-2011 at 10:05 AM.
    I'm always suspicious of shops that sell bait.

  14. #59
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    FMD, there was apoplexy if a Prod wanted to marry a Rock Chopper here.
    I've no idea what this means, but awta.

  15. #60
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Justice For The 96
    Posts
    19,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Why is marriage a legal status anyway? What's the benefit of that?
    In ye olde dayes, in order that children were legitimate and were thus entitled to inherit property etc. from their parents. Also used as a political tool amongst the nobility to strengthen alliances between families.

Page 4 of 43 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Marriage
    By Pratters in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 31-03-2010, 12:18 AM
  2. Neutral Views
    By roseboy64 in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 07:25 AM
  3. Why I'm Against Gay Marriage...
    By Matteh in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 396
    Last Post: 23-04-2008, 07:22 AM
  4. Most Disappointing Team?
    By Waughney in forum ICC Champions Trophy 2004
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 14-09-2004, 12:13 PM
  5. Views on CWC99 game (cricket world cup 99)
    By san769 in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2002, 09:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •