In the end though, aren't you just asking the government to quit spelling it "M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E" and start spelling it "C-I-V-I-L U-N-I-O-N-S"?

What would be the difference between the two other than spelling?

It sounds like just another trick in the "forced acceptance" arsenal.

No one's pulling the wool over your eye....that's exactly what it is.

Leauki:

Worthless and flimsy argument.  Black Slavery didn't effect the Nothern States, but if it weren't for them, slavery would have lasted much longer.  Since I don't drink alcohol, laws against drinking wouldn't effect me, but those who do enjoy a few drinks would appreciate me voting to keep it legal if the question came up.  I don't smoke so the stupid laws telling bar owners they can't let people smoke in their places don't effect me, but I still have a right to my opinion on that one.

If we kept to laws that only effect us, most of what we consider "progress" would never happen.

1. How interested are you in the sex life of other people?

( ) I couldn't care less.

( ) I don't want them to do it where I will see it.

( ) I am very concerned! I need to know what they do and how they do it.

2. If two men enter a "civil union" or sign a contract about the sale of a car of the one to the other, what rights should you have in that deal?

( ) I couldn't care less.

( ) I need to know that their deal will not directly harm other people.

( ) I am very concerned! I need to know that I have a veto and that they cannot simply form an agreement among each other with which I might disagree.

3. If two men decide to have a "wedding ceremony" for some reason, how would you react?

( ) I couldn't care less.

( ) Don't do it in my house and give me the choice of not being a member of whatever organisation plays along with their funny ideas.

( ) I am very concerned! I think such "wedding ceremonies" should only be available to people who I think it should be available to.

4. Would you see yourself as "religious" and an authority on what is right and true?

( ) No.

( ) I am traditional, not religious. This whole thing is if about religion at all certainly about the Allmighty, not about me. So why would it matter what I believe? I would like people to listen to me. But I am not an authority unless people see me as such.

( ) Yes. I am all about loving other people, respecting them as fellow souls created by the Allmighty, and trying to help them to find the way to the Allmighty as long as that way is the one I deem to be the correct one. This is not about the Allmighty but about me and what I believe and what I want people to believe.

5. Would you attend a "homosexual wedding" if invited?

( ) Yes or no, I cannot say, I have no opinion on the event as such.

( ) Yes. And I would even refrain from making jokes during the ceremony.

( ) No. I love every creature the Allmighty has made. Hence I wouldn't attend the happiest day of two fellow humans' lives.

Black slavery affected someone outside the people who agreed with the concept.

The drinking question is an interesting one. You are right, other people drinking doesn't affect you; just like other people forming civil unions doesn't affect you.

However, you have decided to allow the one (even though it doesn't affect you) but prohibit the other (even though it doesn't affect you).

Actually, progress is to a large extent the sum of freedoms we have because we abolished laws that didn't affect us.

Leauki: You should work for the incompetent press... your "survey" is about as weighted and packed with logical fallacies as theirs are.

Feel free to fill in your own answers.

1. How interested are you in the sex life of other people?

What adults do in the privacy of their own place is their own business.

2. If two men enter a "civil union" or sign a contract about the sale of a car of the one to the other, what rights should you have in that deal?

If the contract is between two individuals, I have no say in the deal at all.  If the two people involve the people (through the government), then they have no right to say that it's none of our business. 

3. If two men decide to have a "wedding ceremony" for some reason, how would you react?

If two men dedice to go through the motions of a "wedding ceremony" that is up to them, if they insist the people (through the government) recognize their wedding ceremony they have no right to say it's a private matter an no one else's business.

4. Would you see yourself as "religious" and an authority on what is right and true?

This question is blatantly bigoted against people of faith.

5. Would you attend a "homosexual wedding" if invited?

No.

Ok.

What if the two people insist that the government recognise that the car changed owners? I would argue that all business deals involve other people if the government has to recognise the deal. For examples, tax liabilities change if someone sells a car (or "marries" his partner).

Ok.

It absolutely isn't, unless you believe that it is impossible for someone to be religious but no authority on what is right and true.

I, for example, might be regarded as "religious" by some standards, but I am certainly no authority on what is right and true.

Ok.

You tried to make the point that I shouldn't have any say since "civil unions" wouldn't effect me.  I gave an example of something that never would have been changed if those who had nothing to do with slavery kept their mouths shut.

Nice try, but no cigar. 

Drinking alcohol doesn't effect me at all, until someone decides to endanger the general public with their drinking.  Then it becomes my business.  It's the same with adults and anything else in their private lives.  It isn't anyone else's business, until they make it everyone's business.  Bringing the government into it makes it the people's business.

The purpose of titles and deeds it to establish ownership.  When a person sells a car to someone else, the title is transfered and little is made of it.  The only part of the transaction the government has in the deal is acknowledging that he transfer was in accordance with the local and state laws.

The real government involvement comes when the ownership of the car is challenged.  Then the government is dragged into by way of the civil courts.  Once the courts are involved, it becomes the people's business.

It's the same with relationships.  Two adults in a relationship can decide amongst themselves the terms of their relationship.  However, once they bring the government into it, they expect all the protections and priveleges that come with the contract.  They can't demand these protections and priveleges but claim the government has no business in their relationship.  That is what this whole argument hinges around.  Same sex couples want all the protections and priveleges of the marriage contract, but they don't want the government (or the people) having any say on the terms of that contract.

Would you agree to a contract the other two signatories of that contract tell you you have all the responsibilities but no say about the terms?

Ditto for civil unions. The government only has to register its existence.

That's because enforcing contracts is the people's business. But that doesn't mean that every individual has a legitimate reason to oppose certain contradicts that would not normally harm anyone.

Yes, just like our car dealers expect all the protections and privileges that come with a sales contract that the government would enforce if necessary.

They absolutely can. I absolutely can sell you a car, I can expect the government not to interfere wish our deal, and I absolutely can demand that the government will enforce the contract, despite the fact that the government had no say in my selling the car originally.

Yes. In other words, they want the same rights and privileges for that contract as car deals and heterosexual couples have for theirs.

I disagree that a marriage or civil union of two people I have no reason to care about should give me any responsibility at all.

On the other hand I understand that our car dealers can demand that I acknowledge the change of ownership in the car, so perhaps married couples (of any type) do have a right to demand that I recognise the existence of their contract.

For example our car buyer might have a separate contract with me that grants him permission to park his but not somebody else's car on my land. In that case it becomes necessary for me to accept the car deal (the contract) even though I had no say in that contract.

I will still refuse, perhaps, to recognise a homosexual "marriage", simply because I believe that such a thing does not exist. But a civil union with equal rights and privileges I might have to accept since free individuals have the right to make deals with each other and, apparently (see the car example) I will have to live with it.

Maybe I run a hospital and some guy is ill and I should contact his close personal friend, not knowing whether I can talk about that person's illness in front of his contact. But if I know that those two people are in a civil union, I might have to recognise that contract as giving me permission to talk freely to that very close personal friend about his partner's condition.

1. How interested are you in the sex life of other people?

(X) I couldn't care less.

( ) I don't want them to do it where I will see it.

( ) I am very concerned! I need to know what they do and how they do it.

 

2. If two men enter a "civil union" or sign a contract about the sale of a car of the one to the other, what rights should you have in that deal?

(X) I couldn't care less.

( ) I need to know that their deal will not directly harm other people.

( ) I am very concerned! I need to know that I have a veto and that they cannot simply form an agreement among each other with which I might disagree.

 

3. If two men decide to have a "wedding ceremony" for some reason, how would you react?

(X) I couldn't care less.

( ) Don't do it in my house and give me the choice of not being a member of whatever organisation plays along with their funny ideas.

( ) I am very concerned! I think such "wedding ceremonies" should only be available to people who I think it should be available to.

 

4. Would you see yourself as "religious" and an authority on what is right and true?

(X) No.

( ) I am traditional, not religious. This whole thing is if about religion at all certainly about the Allmighty, not about me. So why would it matter what I believe? I would like people to listen to me. But I am not an authority unless people see me as such.

( ) Yes. I am all about loving other people, respecting them as fellow souls created by the Allmighty, and trying to help them to find the way to the Allmighty as long as that way is the one I deem to be the correct one. This is not about the Allmighty but about me and what I believe and what I want people to believe.

 

5. Would you attend a "homosexual wedding" if invited?

( ) Yes or no, I cannot say, I have no opinion on the event as such.

(X) Yes. And I would even refrain from making jokes during the ceremony.

( ) No. I love every creature the Allmighty has made. Hence I wouldn't attend the happiest day of two fellow humans' lives.

Agreed

What if the car is stolen? Or has a tampered milage meter. etc...

But the intent of the analogy is sound, there is no reason two men cannot enter a civil union as long as all things involved are legal... (ex contrary would be a nambla member adopting a baby, and 10 years later "marrying" him.

Couldn't care less if they have a ceremony.

If anything this is insinuating that atheists don't have moral convictions... I see myself as an atheist AND an authority on what is right and true. I have strong moral convictions that I always try to amend to the best of my ability to be righteous and true. There is nothing wrong with having beleifs about morality.

Depends on whose wedding it is. But most likely anyone who is close enough to invite me to their wedding is close enough for me to be respectful towards their choices.

Leauki you are normally an inspiration but you really slipped on this one. This questioneer is insulting to people of faith, atheists, is biased, and insinuates anyone who disagrees with you is arrogant and foolish.