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.

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!