4/9/2013 6:09 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 6:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 5:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 4/9/2013 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I have a buddy who is a Mets fan.   He said "I'm gonna miss Shea Stadium."   I said "Why?  It's a goddam shithole.  Maybe 2nd worst in the majors just ahead of Tropicana."    He said "Yeah but it's the only shithole I've known.  My dad took me to games there when I was a kid."

Do you think history and tradition was meaningful to him?  
Exhibition Stadium!

Alas, they still tore it down. Because history and tradition didn't trump moving forward.
Pretty fitting comparison since that was all about the money.   

And so is gay marriage. 
Go on...I'm not following.
Remove benefits from the equation.

"OK, Mark and John.  You can get married but there will be no cross medical coverage, SS benefits, no tax advantage, etc, etc. associated with said marriage."

OK, then you're fighting the same battle again.  It's called marriage, but you're taking away benefits, which, again, is unequal.  
So you agree that there would be less clamoring to be married from SS couples?
4/9/2013 6:11 PM
No - they'd ALL get married.  Then they'd fight for benefits.
4/9/2013 6:17 PM
What if no marriage brought benefits with it?
4/9/2013 6:26 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 5:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by deathinahole on 4/9/2013 4:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 3:48:00 PM (view original):
I have a buddy who is a Mets fan.   He said "I'm gonna miss Shea Stadium."   I said "Why?  It's a goddam shithole.  Maybe 2nd worst in the majors just ahead of Tropicana."    He said "Yeah but it's the only shithole I've known.  My dad took me to games there when I was a kid."

Do you think history and tradition was meaningful to him?  
Exhibition Stadium!

Alas, they still tore it down. Because history and tradition didn't trump moving forward.
Pretty fitting comparison since that was all about the money.   

And so is gay marriage. 
I would say that you speak for a portion, but not all. Very cynical view.

I, like you, knew I was with "the one", and would have been happy married or not married. She wanted marriage, bad. And not for money - trust me on that.

There is something about the ceremony of commitment, of bringing your friends and family together and proclaiming to them that you and another person have decided to be with each other forever.  It is important, and not in a monetary sort of way.

Frankly, (speaking Canadian), you're common law after 3 yrs, 1 with a child, regardless of whether you're same sex or not. You can get the doe if that's your only aim without having to go through the ceremony.
4/9/2013 6:46 PM
Well, on that note, my first marriage was family and friends brought together and proclaiming to them that I and another person have decided to be with each other forever.   Two good years, two bad years and a divorce.

My second marriage was in Vegas.   At The Little Chapel by the Courthouse.   I think the receptionist was our witness.   It hasn't been all ice cream and candy but we passed our 12th year 4 months ago.

So much for the importance of declaring committment in front of family and friends.
4/9/2013 6:50 PM
And your point is?
4/9/2013 8:57 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 6:17:00 PM (view original):
What if no marriage brought benefits with it?
I don't think you'd see a significant drop in marriage rates. Most people don't get married purely for the benefits.
4/9/2013 9:01 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 8:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/9/2013 6:17:00 PM (view original):
What if no marriage brought benefits with it?
I don't think you'd see a significant drop in marriage rates. Most people don't get married purely for the benefits.
So you believe the gays only want to be married, as opposed to accepting civil unions, because of the word "marriage"?

Really?
4/9/2013 9:04 PM
I am sure that they want equal benefits, too. Don't get me wrong.

But, YES.
4/9/2013 9:06 PM
Read the Elton John link I posted earlier. He wants to call his partner his "husband." Its important to him.
4/9/2013 9:13 PM
I don't think that Elton John needs to worry too much about benefits.  So maybe he's not the best example to use as the spokesman for why gays want to be married.
4/9/2013 9:14 PM
Or should I say spokesperson?
4/9/2013 9:56 PM
Both accurate. Since hes a man.

I'm not sure why this would be a surprise to anyone. You've been asking "why does it need to be called marriage." I've been trying to explain that it isn't just about benefits for some time now.
4/9/2013 10:27 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 9:06:00 PM (view original):
Read the Elton John link I posted earlier. He wants to call his partner his "husband." Its important to him.
husband ['h?zb?nd]
n
1. a woman's partner in marriage

Sorry, Elton.  That just not going to work for you.
 
4/9/2013 11:43 PM
Unless its changed. I know how much you hate to change definitions of words, even for equality's sake.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.