Yea, i agree... to clarify:

Why limit it to two people? what about polygamists.

Yap, funniest thing (well, sad-funny) is how many children are stuck in orphanages. Unloved and uncared for. And people get up in arms about people who "Shouldn't be allowed to adopt".

You know what? I don't CARE if gay parenting makes a child turn gay. Let them. So they wount have any kids, big deal. If all those "good samiritans" went out and adopted some children this wouldn't be an issue, but no, they don't want to adopt, and they don't want gays to adop.

No problem. A group of three A, B, and C, requires civil unions between A and B, B and C, and C and A. Any newcomer to the group will have to form a civil union with each member of the group.

It's only insulting to people of faith who believe that their faith gives them authority over others. The second answer is pretty usable for anyone who has faith, is a church (or synagogue) goer and does not consider himself an authority over others.

"El-Duderino" took the test, disagrees with me on every question, and I don't think the test insinuates that he is foolish.

You are making the mistake of thinking that the group of people who think it is important to let others know that they are faith and who want others to live according to their moral standards are really the only people of faith. They are not.

You are right in one point. I didn't leave answers for atheists opposed to homosexual "marriage". So I apologise for offending that particular subset of atheists.

As for the people of faith who feel insulted by the quiz, please do think why it was even possible to form answers that represent your opinions AND insult you.

And as for civil unions I stand by my opinion. If it doesn't harm other people, it's up to G-d to judge it, not me or "people of faith".

People who can legally adopt sometimes spend thousands of useful dollars on being able to conceive.

In the mean time we let children rot in orphanages because some god we have never seen tells us that it would be wrong to let gay couples adopt them.

And we are the good guys.

You can't fault them for wanting to pass on their genes instead of just their beleifs.

But you CAN fault people who protest that gays should be forbidden to adopt and yet refuse to adopt anyone themselves. If you haven't adopted a child you don't have a right to forbid anyone else from adopting one.

Actually this is what I want.. I want the status of gay adoption to be put up to a direct vote... where ONLY people who have adopted would be allowed to vote on it. Or maybe people who adopted and orphens?

You contradict yourself here.  First you say that the government should provide all the benefits of marriage under the term "civil union", but now you say that the only participation the government would have in this contract is registering its existence.

Providing benefits and protections is a lot more than just registering existence.   A major argument for same sex marriage or civil unions is so same sex couples can have all the benefits and protections the marriage contract allows.

You can't argue that the government merely registers the existence of the contract but then argue that same sex couples are being denied benefits and protections.

You literally want the government to sign a contract and resent any say they might have in the terms of it.

I'll also add the fact that the contract requires something of everyone.  I can't unilaterally decide whose marriages or civil unions I recognize and whose I don't.  Niether can anyone else.  Granting "civil unions" would force us all to accept same sex relationships and extend any and all marriage benefits to same sex couples.

It is forced acceptance and nothing else.

Force seems to be the only thing liberalism wants.  Freedom of choice is a farce.  I think the only "choice" liberalism does respect is in the context of abortion.

I don't know what "benefits of marriage" the government has anything to do with, or should. I am thinking inheritance rights, rights to make decisions, visiting rights in a hospital etc.. None of these require the government to do anything.

If there are any tangible government benefits paid to married couples at the moment, I would argue that those benefits shouldn't be paid to anyone and if they are, they should be paid to everyone, not just to married couples of a certain sexual orientation. Unmarried individuals and gay couples as well as normal couples should have the same access to government benefits without being required to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And why shouldn't they? Anyone ought to be entitled to government protection of his property and contracts, regardless of whether they want to marry someone of the opposite sex or not.

Of course I can argue that, because that's all the government has to do. There are no new duties for the government in this.

No, not at all.

Why not?

That makes sense.

I think this is a good idea. And if the religious people who know best really are the great solution to the problem they claim to be, they would have the most votes and can vote for what's best and what's working. I like it.

You seriously don't see the contradiction here?

I don't.

You say you don't know what benefits of marriage the government has anything to do with, then you list two whole categories of them.

How is it not a contradiction to say you don't know something, then list the things you know about it?

Yes, and I don't think government has anything to do with either of them.

Who is going to inherit from me and who has rights to speak for me is entirely my business, government HAS to accept what I say. It has nothing to do with WHY I made the decision to grant those privileges to another person just like government has no say in to whom I might sell my car but has to accept that the title to that particular property has changed (even if some religion prohibits the selling of cars to other men).

I don't consider those two things "benefits" in the sense of government having to agree with them.

If you want to talk tax advantages, i.e. government losing money because two people marry, then I'd agree with you; but I am also against tax advantages for married couples (of any type). But then I'd be curious whether this is about money or about morality. Would you support an official gay marriage without tax advantages rather than tax advantages for civil unions without an official gay marriage?

But do let's talk about the religious aspect of this again. Where exactly does the Bible (Christian or Hebrew) say that gay men must not form civil unions (or even marriages)? I thought only certain sexual practices are banned between men (and I understand some might say that those practices are banned between men and women as well). So where is the scriptural source or evidence for a religious duty (for Christians and possibly Jews) to be against civil unions or gay marriage?

For example, I wonder whether it would be legal for me, according to Jewish law, to join a pork meat appreciation society, despite the fact that I am banned from the very activity that the club was founded for (maybe I only participate on chicken day). And I wonder whether I have a moral duty to speak up against other people, possibly non-Jews, to join such a society based on my belief that my religion tells me not to eat pork.

I haven't actually asked an authority about that, but my personal belief is (until a rabbi can convince me otherwise using actual scriptural and/or rabbinal sources as evidence) that while I am not allowed to eat pork, I could join a pork meat appreciation society (but still not eat pork), and I can certainly support other people's right to form and join such clubs.

In fact it is quite possible that I have an obligation to support the right to form such societies if it makes people happier.

Leauki, you're either illiterate or just a liar.  Either way, I'm done with you.

Sorry to disagree with you about how much government ought to be allowed to control our lives.

The insult is noted but not returned. What's the point? I'll just take into account your way to discuss things the next time we meet. I'm afraid one of the more negative aspects of my personality is that I am vindictive. I shouldn't be, but I am. I am sorry that that will interfere the next time we meet.

my 2 cents worth is gay marriage / civil union what ever you want to call it should be allowed for any two consenting adults with same rights and obligations. personaly i would prefer they call it cival union, marriage is to religious sounding for me and i def am not religious.

and you people arguing about sodom and gormora being destroyed  by god cos  of homo sex did u ever stop to think perhaps it was because a mere man wanted to have sex with a angel? AN ANGEL people thats like a animal trying to have sex with a man/woman i would destroy a animal that tried to have persistent sex with one of my daughters just like god destroyed that town (personaly i reckon it was more then likely a metore shower tho)

ps i am gay and yes i do have 3 daugthers since i tried doing the str8 thing but in the end it was either kill myself or be true to myself and honest to everyone else and come out and that is the only choice in being gay or straight... either be true to ones self or not!