....than the right to marry? Gay rights advocates who previously fought for "marriage or nothing" are shifting strategies. Rather than fighting to legalize marriage for same-sex couples, they're lobbying for the protections marriage provides. Bills were introduced this year in Rhode Island and Washington state. \
Advocates in Rhode Island have introduced bills to legalize gay marriage every year since 1997, but have gotten nowhere. So this year, in addition to filing marriage legislation, they hope to have some success with six new bills that focus on incremential rights rather than the label of marriage.
Are they fighting a losing battle?
2007-03-19 13:45:08 · 11 answers · asked by rare2findd 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's all in how you describe it pcpy...but then again there are often various descriptions with reference to oral sex as it is performed by both men and women in straight relationships/marriages, as well as other sexual acts between man and woman. . But most do not need to dscribe them so vividly.
We did not need such descriptive references, but then again, it takes all kinds I imagine.
2007-03-19 14:31:55 · update #1
Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans think gays should have marriages or civil unions that give them equal rights iwith married heteros.
2007-03-19 13:52:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Actually, I prefer that to labeling their unions as marriage. To me, it seems like a good compromise since the religious right wouldn't have to concede to "allowing" gays to marry yet gay couple would have legal marriage rights without actually being married. Of course, it won't go that easily. The religious right will insist that a "rose by any other name..." and I've even seen in New Jersey, where gays got some kind of similar thing not long ago (I'm not sure exactly.), gay activists insist that they wanted nothing less than marriage.
For me, I feel a little "weird" in calling their unions marriage, but I still think their unions should have what you wrote in your question.
Why does that first guy have to be so insulting? What's he going to do if "cons" DO have a problem with it? Beat them up?
2007-03-19 13:52:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a trick question, you'll get a lot of people on here who will say it's ok but however ask them if they will mind a gay couple living next door to them while they are trying to raise thier children and watch them ,then if they thought it might really happen. If you have any doubt they will put themselves in the position to answer thier small children when they ask them why Billy has 2 daddies or Alice has 2 mommies, you better think again.!!!!
2007-03-19 14:10:57 · answer #3 · answered by mississippi_goat 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have hit the nail on the head. This has always been my objections to "gays" and "lesbians". They want it all and they want it for nothing. Hey if some chick wants to munch some carpet with another, I don't care and if some dude wants to get a little shi* on his pecker from another dude, it's disgusting, but as long as it's behind closed doors then I DON'T CARE. But I will be dam*ed if I will pay for them to do that perverted cr*p.
That's about it.
That's the point; if you're not legally married your partner can't get benefits. This is what it is all about. Claim you "partner" and your "partner's family" (?) on your insurance. It's not the sanctity of marriage, it's the "we're special, Hetero couples can't get the benefits unless they're married but we're special cause we're gay and we should get the benefits.
I don't think so.
2007-03-19 13:52:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They need to call it anything but marriage and I'm cool with. but why the hell anyone would get married if there are no kids is beyond me. Divorces suck, and gay couples splitting up is no different that heterosexuals divorcing.
2007-03-19 13:56:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Cons better not have a problem with it. Their issue was with calling it marriage, right? Well, now gays don't want to call it marriage, they just want the same legal rights as spouses.
2007-03-19 13:48:04 · answer #6 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
cons will have a problem with it- they're not for equal rights.
I'd rather there be gay marriage- but this is good (for now at least)
2007-03-19 15:46:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely no problem with it.
I look at it this way....
Say you work a job that has benefits including life insurance, health benefits etc.. and one of your coworkers who is not gay is cohabitating with someone he isnt even married to.
Why should that guy be able to name his girlfriend he lives with as a beneficiary but you if you were gay could not name yours as a beneficiary.
Anyone should be able to name someone as a beneficiary of their benefits and estate. I think thats fair and right.
2007-03-19 13:53:11 · answer #8 · answered by sociald 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Do you have a problem with equal rights? maybe if people don't get hung up on the marriage thing they can be more human about it
2007-03-19 13:48:46 · answer #9 · answered by squeegie 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i think all marriages should be "civil"
maybe the divorce rate would go down
(joke)
2007-03-19 13:54:44 · answer #10 · answered by ... 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋