provided (more in details)? First off I am not looking to offend anyone. I have my opinions on the subject which some of you may have seen before. But I constantly get emails because of my opinions calling me a moron or whatever. That's fine, that's your opinion and I'm not mad at you at all.
That aside, if all benefits were stripped would this eliminate the argument over the subject? I am married and I think the biggest mistake was the government ever getting involved in the first place. I do understand why they did to a certain extent, however I agree you should be with whoever you want to be with. The only thing I see is that the benefits (tax, estate, etc) awarded to a straight union over a gay union. I have no problem with doing away with any so-called benefits.
I also have no problem with replacing marriage in legal terms with civil union. This would be all inclusive so no discrimination would exist at all, in my opinion. Legally, I consider my marriage a civil union. Spiritually, I consider my union a marriage under my God.
Sure, if it was done away with legally then as a couple we would pay more taxes, fine with me. But my estate is set up as to not be at the mercy of Probate anyways so no problem there either. Then other little issues, etc.
So basically, the simple question here is does the conflict just revolve around benefits? And do either of my solutions work for you. And if not tell me the problem with mine and your solution other than rewriting the definition of marriage (not the modified dictionary version).
That aside, if all benefits were stripped would this eliminate the argument over the subject? I am married and I think the biggest mistake was the government ever getting involved in the first place. I do understand why they did to a certain extent, however I agree you should be with whoever you want to be with. The only thing I see is that the benefits (tax, estate, etc) awarded to a straight union over a gay union. I have no problem with doing away with any so-called benefits.
I also have no problem with replacing marriage in legal terms with civil union. This would be all inclusive so no discrimination would exist at all, in my opinion. Legally, I consider my marriage a civil union. Spiritually, I consider my union a marriage under my God.
Sure, if it was done away with legally then as a couple we would pay more taxes, fine with me. But my estate is set up as to not be at the mercy of Probate anyways so no problem there either. Then other little issues, etc.
So basically, the simple question here is does the conflict just revolve around benefits? And do either of my solutions work for you. And if not tell me the problem with mine and your solution other than rewriting the definition of marriage (not the modified dictionary version).