No I'm not, because as I've said before marriage is overwhelmingly accepted as the union of one man and one woman and is defined to include the requirement of consummation. I would say therefore that if a majority of people are attached to that definition they should have their way - that's known as democracy.

km

You don't have to thank me... anyone would think reading some of the posts in this thread that people can just demand whatever 'rights' they want as though their exercise has no effect on other people. It reminds me of that idiot when I was at university who kept me awake all night with his right to late-night parties who only believed I had a right to a good night's sleep when I clocked him one as a reminder of what was going to happen from then on.

km

Oh very funny... if you look closely I think you'll find that 'No' is fractionally heavier than 'Yes' on your scales.

km

A last word on this, and then I'm going to sleep. A quote seems in order:

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Boston lawyer Joseph Welch speaking to Senator Joseph McCarthy on June 9, 1954

Yeah well, that particular quote seems out of order because it's an attempt to mischaracterise my position as lacking decency when in reality it's one of fairness and equality for all.

km

Then please characterize your position — specifically regarding this issue, that is. "Equal rights for all, full stop" is a very broad brush stroke. Problem is, a brush is made of many hairs, and some hairs may actually be unique. So let's split some of those hairs.

Time to man up. Your position on same sex marriage as a right is________?

Okay I'll repeat my position since you obviously missed it first time around. if changing the meaning of marriage to include same-sex partners is going to offend some people with legitimate objections one has to decide whose viewpoint should prevail or reach a compromise. Most of Europe has reached a compromise of legalising same-sex civil unions so as to remove discrimination regarding taxation and succession rights whilst not trampling on the rights of those who favour a restricted view of marriage. Those who want to shun compromise and super-elevate their own rigid prejudices are being selfish and trying to con everyone that the opposing viewpoint can only be explained by homophobia. Oh alright then - the United States is homophobic... your next president is homophobic.

km

C'mon, KM. Stop dodging.

So what have you decided?

I didn't ask about most of Europe. I asked for your position.

And shunning the rights of gays to marry isn't selfish and a rigid prejudice?

And so it would seem, much to my disappointment. But he's stated his position clearly. Your turn.

I've made that clear as I've made clear my position on every other question you're posing. Instead of asking me repeat everything why don't you just take some time out to review my posts on this subject?

Clue as to my position on your above question: I favour civil unions over same-sex marriage - they take into account the feelings of those with religious objections and others preferring a restricted view of marriage.

For the others - review my posts.

km