Playing devils advocate here but when you say that its about half the populations religious beliefs dictating how the rest of "us" live couldn't the same be said for the non religious beliefs of half the population dictating how the rest of "us" live if the decision is reversed?

This has been a sore spot, and if you wait long enough I am sure that this would be passed as people become more open and a lot of the truly religious people die off...sorry to be so blunt but you know its true.

Now a question I would have is what is a reasonable compromise until then? If a gay couple was given EXACTLY the same rights as someone who was "Married" but the called it lets say a "Union" would that be acceptable?

You are asking people with a religious background to vote for your cause, which is a perfectly valid cause, but you need to change their minds and sometimes that means compromise. If you are not willing to compromise I have a feeling you will face the same backlash that has been present until a majority of the population is no longer religious.

Not the same. People who are religious lose NOTHING by permitting gays to get married.

I honestly disagree. The Maine law was written specifically with this in mind, and stated that "individuals and religious groups" could "refuse to perform these marriages." That effectively eliminates any way that it would affect a religious person's life. We compromised.

http://www.answers.com/marriage

Your point is?

All I can say Marli is for the people voting against you don't care about the fact of them having rights (well im sure a bunch do) but a lot of the ones on the fence are simply afraid what happens if they give up the word. Its just an interim solution and I bet in 5 years from now it will be 60-40 in favor of using the term Marriage, but by using something slightly different which allows for all the same rights until a time when people realize its not that big of a deal

Yes Maven to you it is NOTHING but to them you are taking their beliefs. By using a different word what are the same sex couples giving up?

So becasue a section of society is racist also we should give into them and bow to their bigoted 'beliefs' for fear of taking them?

I personally think not.

On that train of thought try to use the word "Engineer" next to your name. You cant because that term belongs to the engineers to represent their status. Does that make them racist?

Again I am playing devils advocate here but people are not open to both sides. I have stated that if they are given exactly the same rights but it was called union instead of marriage why wouldn't there be willingness to compromise?

This is a horrible attempt at an analogy

I'm not open to a side that's bigoted and biased against another human, no.

So you cant possibly be for either side?

Bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Compromise does not make either side a bigot. Realizing that couples in same sex marriage deserve the exact same rights (again something I have stated in the post) while still allowing the opponents to keep a word does not make either side a bigot.

Both sides have differing beliefs, those beliefs in themselves do not make them bigots, the intolerance of others opinions and beliefs is what makes them a bigot.

so its not only floriduh

By that logic, the separate water fountains/facilities for blacks in America were totally fine, too.

"Well, we're still giving them water, they just have to drink from that fountain *over there." (never mind that that fountain is cheap and rotting and the "white's only fountain is maintained)

Or: "Why are they so upset about sitting in the back of the bus? We're all going the same place; if they would just sit down back there and let the white people have it their way, there wouldn't be any fighting at all!"

You're right, in a sense just calling it something different will get something like equality.

But something like equality turns out to be not equal, at the end of the day.

I'm on the side of those who are trying to live their lives without adversely affecting anyone else.

In this issue I'm on the side of same sex couples.

Tell me what harm same sex marriage does to anyone. Tell me other than some religious folks having their cages rattled because they can't impose their biblical beliefs on others what harm or adverse effect same sex marriage has on society or heterosexual people.

Come on Lynx your analogy is as bad as mine.

I stated they receive the EXACT SAME RIGHTS not different rights. So your analogy they are getting something cheap and rotting? My example is more like saying that instead of them calling it water the call it aqua but it comes from the same place and is exactly the same thing.

I have also stated that it is a means to an end to get people who are "bigots" to slowly get to the end goal of equality. You cant change the world overnight no matter how unfortunate it is.

It is the closed mindedness of the situation that is putting us in this situation. By both sides being "bigots" we are not getting to a solution.

EDIT: changed Linx to Lynx ...don't want to put any more fire on this flame lol

Dont get me wrong I live in a province where same sex couples are given the same rights as others and are also declared married and I have no issue with it.

But based on your logic tell me what adverse effect same sex couples face by gaining all the same rights of married couples if it is simply called a union?

Uh uh, I have to say this makes no dang sense then. If it's the same thing, then just call it water! Or do you have to call it aqua for the people who have this shade of skin, then h20 for people with that shade of skin, and XX for people with this skin, and so on until what point? That's so stupid!
going along with this mentality, let's have a different word for all the diff. marriages that don't match up to the Bible's ideal "baby producing union between man and woman."
i.e. marriage for the "standard" union for "those gays! ah!" "selfish sex" for those who don't want kids but can have them etc.

My analogy isn't bad because of the analogy, it's bad because of the reality.

When people originally set up the "separate but equal" situation between black and white Americans, on paper that meant everyone gets the same stuff under a different name (this being your solution for gay rights, too).

So on paper, that's nice and all well and good.

HOWEVER, in practice, how did "separate but equal" work out? It meant whites = good stuff/front of bus, blacks = crappy stuff/back of bus.

Can you honestly not see how that same situation will play out with gay marriage if heterosexuals get "marriage" while gays get "unions?"

Again Choco I have said by doing this they will receive the same rights now because as you can see by the results of the vote it is very close. All you need to do is to sway a few votes and same sex couples will get the rights until the day when peoples minds are more open. When this day comes...again I don't feel this is far off the word marriage will be used for all unions lol

Think how much easier a law would be to pass by saying we are going to change the word union to the word marriage vs the current debate

Is it stupid....Yup...but will it work?

Means to an end Lynx. How is the current battle working out? Its not always all or nothing