The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:

at1with0 wrote:Well to answer your question, I'm unconcerned because heterosexuals can get married.

That was the Supreme Court ruling in the first gay marriage case, where they ruled because of civil unions, gays were not discriminated against. Legally, civil unions has all the same rights as marriage.

The use of the word marriage constitutes a significant social difference.

If Civil unions provides the same rights as Marriage, what constitutes an significant social difference? They both exclude what the other includes in that same sex does not qualify for marriage, while opposite sex does not qualify for civil unions.

The word choice has an important social meaning.

at1with0 wrote:The word choice has an important social meaning.

Neither is deprived of any choice is civil unions and marriage result in the same rights.

Should there be a ban on same-sex civil unions?

Should you ignore the inherent inequity of civil unions to heterosexuals, you are the one suggesting social difference?

greeney2 wrote:Should you ignore the inherent inequity of civil unions to heterosexuals, you are the one suggesting social difference?

I think the government should stay out of marriage and civil unions.

Your turn. Should civil unions be prohibited to gays?

If you had read what I wrote I gave my opinion about civil unions and Gays. did you read it? The government has to be involved with Marriage, because it is a contract that has provisions an laws that involve the government, such as children born with the marriage, and other issues of public record.

Why shouldn't gay people be able to get married?

greeney2 wrote:If you had read what I wrote I gave my opinion about civil unions and Gays. did you read it?

If I did, it must have slipped my mind. Now why was that easier than simply saying yes, gay civil union should be banned or no, gay civil union should not be banned?

The government has to be involved with Marriage, because it is a contract that has provisions an laws that involve the government, such as children born with the marriage, and other issues of public record.

I understand. The IRS would throw a hissy fit if it couldn't collect back taxes of a deceased from their spouse. Who the children go to after a divorce. Who gets paid death benefits. Who is a dependent when it comes to insurance. etc., etc.

Why shouldn't gay people be able to get married?

You're not going to get a straight answer from greeney on this one, or, at least, not the honest, true reason he's against it.