is this a terrible idea?

Question

ok about gay marrige
i think that they should get the same rights as a commited man and woman. i think that they should get rid of "marrige" in the goverment, EVERYONE would get civil union. it people want to get married they can do so in a private ceremony for religious people or any private organization,
Thast way if someone wanted to get married in an organization where only gay men can be married they can

Answer 1

I think you have been doing some thinking on this subject, and I like what you have come up with. I agree that the institution of marriage has no place in politics. Very good point.

Answer 2

If Floyd takes 2 rematches in a row he'll significantly harm his abilities status in historical past. De l. a. Hoya misplaced a cut up choice, thats actual, it used to be a near combat, however in all possibility, it may not be all that interesting this time round both - even supposing its a different cut up choice, all it'll end up is that Mayweather can beat an over the hill Oscar in a chess fit two times....Hatton did not particularly come practically beating Floyd, a rematch headquartered on the truth that he thinks the ref used to be a bit of too worried is dull. He had his shot, if he needs a different one he must exhibit he can beat a slick boxer, and WIN two or three fights in a row earlier than simply getting a rematch. This is likely one of the enormous issues with the game, and in which they're digging themselves a gap subsequent to MMA - boxing must be pushing its more youthful stars into those huge fights, matching up hazardous customers, as a substitute of milking each and every buck from their older, headquartered names. Top men simplest combat two or three occasions a yr, losing those fights, in each and every experience of the phrase, is how the game would get sunk. Once Hopkins, Mayweather, Oscar, and the men who're begins at this factor depart, at this factor boxing hasn't performed whatever to set a degree for his or her replacements.

Answer 3

Ok, a civil marriage is a marriage only recognized by the state, ie: the government. So, you are incorrect in your question. The issue about marriage, gay or otherwise, is that the legal recognition of a marriage gives the couple certain legal rights: ownership of marital assets, tax breaks, ability to get health insurance and the list goes on and on. So, if the government recognizes gay marriages, it costs all of us to cover these breaks that married people get.

I think that anyone should be able to marry anyone they choose regardless of sex, but the issue is bigger than that.

Answer 4

It's an excellent idea, sweets. Marriage is a pagan ritual for people who want to spend zillions of dollars on crap that won't last. I say if you really want a committment that matters, make it a legal, binding one in a courthouse situation. Then go and have a groovy, inexpensive party with all your friends and family to celebrate.

I feel the exact same way about funerals. Once I kick, I have no problem my corpse being fed thru a wood chipper and cremated with the ashes used in a garden. Then have a smashing wake in my honor!

Answer 5

yeah it's pretty pathetic that people are against gay marriage b/c they think it is a disgrace to the institution itself and what next "Men will be marrying horses" lol...you know what s disgrace to marriage?? A 66% divorce rate and over a 50% infedelity rate. Give the gay community long enough and they'll screw up marriage once they get the right just like straight people:)...for some reason humans in general are just unable to committ

Answer 6

You idea is good.

In the USA, a lot of people have 2 "marriages" and don't even realize it. You have the religious "marriage" and then you have the legal "marriage". The legal marriage is the one that gives you your rights. You HAVE to have that one. You don't have to have the religious marriage.

It the legal (civil) marriage was renamed to civil union, people would not be so confused about the matter.

Answer 7

I'm dead excited about the whole gay marrieage/ civil partnership thing as it means I can finally marry my girlfriend and it actually mean something in the eyes of the law.

We plan to get married 2009

Answer 8

in the abstract I think its a good idea the only issue I have with it is that when the government gets new legislation I have a feeling that they will add alot of fine print that can make things worse then better I guess I just dont trust politicians but I like the fact that someone is thinking the way you are if only we could clone you and put you in office :-)

Answer 9

Since you asked? Yes, the idea lacks the approval of the
Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths. The Scriptures of all three faiths reject any kind of homosexual unions. If you do not belong to any of those faiths you are certainly running against the grain of the majority of society. In the Bible homosexual unions are forbidden and "disgusting " to God. Jesus Himself quoted a passage in Genesis to remind the Jewish authorities who questioned him saying, "Have you not read, that God created them male and female and that for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one." (Marriage between a man and a woman is the only acceptable kind of marriage relationship). However, if you believe what you proposed, then such unapproved, un-Scriptural unions will pay a heavy price both personally and socially. A illegitimate union comes under the judgment of God. Your choice, as always. There is a price to pay for freedom of choice. There are always consequences. Dare we find out what they are?

Answer 10

Tes, is a good idea, but rather than say we are getting rid of marriage, just say that the government no longer has a hand in it. Except for alimony and child support.