NationStates Jolt Archive

We've all, by now, heard the argument against gay marriage, where they support equal rights through civil unions, but are against calling it marriage. Most of us have also got it through our heads that marriage has truly ceased to be a religious thing, so why is it that people are so uptight as to not give gay people the same title as a couple as straight people?

To quote something I said to a friend of mine:

"That's like saying negros could have equal rights as white people, but they still can't be referred to as people."

It's insulting to me, personally, being in a gay relationship at the momment. I think marriage, and the title of marriage, is more to do with law than religion nowadays, and enjoying rights and benefits granted by such. I believe it still should be considered marriage, as civil union just doesn't get across the message that it involves two loving participants, more like just two people who live together, but aren't really in love.

But then, being fair, besides the legal aspect, I believe the church should have every right to deny gay people a ceremony to commemerate their marriage, if it is against their beliefs. I don't want to be overbearing and sound just like the biggots who persecute us and press their beliefs on us by forcing the church into doing things against their will.

What are your thoughts on this whole issue, everyone? I know mine seem a bit jumbled.

We've all, by now, heard the argument against gay marriage, where they support equal rights through civil unions, but are against calling it marriage. Most of us have also got it through our heads that marriage has truly ceased to be a religious thing, so why is it that people are so uptight as to not give gay people the same title as a couple as straight people?

To quote something I said to a friend of mine:

"That's like saying negros could have equal rights as white people, but they still can't be referred to as people."

It's insulting to me, personally, being in a gay relationship at the momment. I think marriage, and the title of marriage, is more to do with law than religion nowadays, and enjoying rights and benefits granted by such. I believe it still should be considered marriage, as civil union just doesn't get across the message that it involves two loving participants, more like just two people who live together, but aren't really in love.

But then, being fair, besides the legal aspect, I believe the church should have every right to deny gay people a ceremony to commemerate their marriage, if it is against their beliefs. I don't want to be overbearing and sound just like the biggots who persecute us and press their beliefs on us by forcing the church into doing things against their will.

What are your thoughts on this whole issue, everyone? I know mine seem a bit jumbled.

You need to learn to crawl before you can walk.

I think it's better, in a time where the issue is so deeply divided, to try and not force the issue full throttle, because you will likely experience a backlash against it and you will fail. People don't take change in huge batches. They take it little by little, easing into it. First try to get civil unions, and then after that becomes more socially accepted, then push for full marriage. It's insanely optimistic to strive for gay marriage nowadays, and while I respect and appreciate sticking to your guns, it's sometimes better to learn when to compromise.

You need to learn to crawl before you can walk.

I think it's better, in a time where the issue is so deeply divided, to try and not force the issue full throttle, because you will likely experience a backlash against it and you will fail. People don't take change in huge batches. They take it little by little, easing into it. First try to get civil unions, and then after that becomes more socially accepted, then push for full marriage. It's insanely optimistic to strive for gay marriage nowadays, and while I respect and appreciate sticking to your guns, it's sometimes better to learn when to compromise.

That's a rather intellegent response, and I agree with you on the method itself, I just don't really agree with the whole issue of civil unions as opposed to marriage, at the same time.

It doesn't much matter to me personally, at the momment, as I'm a Canadian and plenty of places in Canada already DO allow gay marriages and/or recognize them. My worries come mostly from the USA, where I plan to move after graduating to attend university in Maine with my boyfriend, and who knows afterwards... Though, unless they strip the rights of the state, I believe Maine is moving towards same sex marriage rather rapidly, just the same.

We've all, by now, heard the argument against gay marriage, where they support equal rights through civil unions, but are against calling it marriage. Most of us have also got it through our heads that marriage has truly ceased to be a religious thing, so why is it that people are so uptight as to not give gay people the same title as a couple as straight people?

To quote something I said to a friend of mine:

"That's like saying negros could have equal rights as white people, but they still can't be referred to as people."

It's insulting to me, personally, being in a gay relationship at the momment. I think marriage, and the title of marriage, is more to do with law than religion nowadays, and enjoying rights and benefits granted by such. I believe it still should be considered marriage, as civil union just doesn't get across the message that it involves two loving participants, more like just two people who live together, but aren't really in love.

But then, being fair, besides the legal aspect, I believe the church should have every right to deny gay people a ceremony to commemerate their marriage, if it is against their beliefs. I don't want to be overbearing and sound just like the biggots who persecute us and press their beliefs on us by forcing the church into doing things against their will.

What are your thoughts on this whole issue, everyone? I know mine seem a bit jumbled.
personally, i want a civil union and not a marriage, regardless of the gender of the person i end up marrying. as i have often said, i believe the history of marriage is shameful and disgusting, and i would prefer not to dirty my union with association to such an institution. however, i want the legal, civil benefits from entering into such a binding union. if civil unions are going to be made available to gay couples, i would like them to also be made available for straight couples who want equal marital rights but who love their partner too much to want to be associated with the freak show that is Western marriage.

Interesting thoughts there. I never thought of a straight person wanting a civil union, although the name civil union just doesn't hold the weight or love that the word marriage does, despite the messed up history you perceive for marriage.

Interesting thoughts there. I never thought of a straight person wanting a civil union, although the name civil union just doesn't hold the weight or love that the word marriage does, despite the messed up history you perceive for marriage.

One idea i have heard is making "civil union" a legal word and "marriage" a religious one. This way, there is no legal "gay marraige" although there is no legal "straight marriage" either. Personally I can't wait for the day when government decides not to recognize marriages at all.

I want to see both banned in the constitution so it will cut down the number of queers.

Yeah, right, it'll cut down on the number of 'queers' you biggoted cockbite. No, it won't, I can tell you. Love triumphs over all, and damned sure that I wouldn't give up on my Mark just because we couldn't marry. I'd still spend the rest of my damn life with him.

Interesting thoughts there. I never thought of a straight person wanting a civil union, although the name civil union just doesn't hold the weight or love that the word marriage does, despite the messed up history you perceive for marriage.
on the contrary, to me marriage doesn't mean much. marriage is what Brittany Spears picks up on a whim when she is in Vegas. marriage is the institution that was invented as a form of property exchange between males, using females in pretty much the same way as livestock or currency. marriage is what religion tells us is the formalization of a man's domination over his wife and children. marriage has little or nothing to do with love, in and of itself, and the love that two people bring to their union has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

further, marriage carries a religious connotation in American culture, and i don't believe it is possible to have a healthy and respectful union if God is involved. so for me, civil unions carry a connotation of respect, love, honor, and dignity, while marriage automatically represents a set back to what might otherwise be a healthy relationship.

A marraige is union between two persons acting in their civil capacity. Marraige is a civil union....as is any contract between persons acting in their civil capacity. It makes no sense to call marraige something else, either you are for civil unions between gay people of the type usually referred to as marraige, or you are not. Calling a contract a civil union changes nothing except pronounciation. A marraige like a contract is a particular type of civil union, calling a potatoe a vegetable doesnt make it any less a potatoe...calling a woman a person does make her any a woman, calling a car an automobile doesnt make it any less a car.

Calling marraiges civil unions doesnt make them not marraiges, and to offer 'civil union but not marraige' to homosexual couples simply implies that society is so intolerant that when it has no good reason to deny civil unions of a marital type to certain groups of citizens, it still has to pretend that what 'they' do is different so what 'we' do wont be tainted. It's a way of sweeping the issue under the carpet by pretending to 'grant' equality when really it's just creating a linguistic device for the sole purpose of legislating discrimination against particular types of relationships whilst appearing to 'tolerate' them.

All of this can be distilled into one simple question: Do you love him or her?

I would love Joanna even if she were a he.

One idea i have heard is making "civil union" a legal word and "marriage" a religious one. This way, there is no legal "gay marraige" although there is no legal "straight marriage" either. Personally I can't wait for the day when government decides not to recognize marriages at all.

Ditto.

I dunno if I'll have a marrige or civil union. I'd need a lass first :p

A marraige is union between two persons acting in their civil capacity. Marraige is a civil union....as is any contract between persons acting in their civil capacity. It makes no sense to call marraige something else, either you are for civil unions between gay people of the type usually referred to as marraige, or you are not. Calling a contract a civil union changes nothing except pronounciation. A marraige like a contract is a particular type of civil union, calling a potatoe a vegetable doesnt make it any less a potatoe...calling a woman a person does make her any a woman, calling a car an automobile doesnt make it any less a car.

Calling marraiges civil unions doesnt make them not marraiges, and to offer 'civil union but not marraige' to homosexual couples simply implies that society is so intolerant that when it has no good reason to deny civil unions of a marital type to certain groups of citizens, it still has to pretend that what 'they' do is different so what 'we' do wont be tainted. It's a way of sweeping the issue under the carpet by pretending to 'grant' equality when really it's just creating a linguistic device for the sole purpose of legislating discrimination against particular types of relationships whilst appearing to 'tolerate' them.

That is about the most intellegent response I can ever have conveived on the issue, and he put things into words that I was thinking but didn't explain well (or skipped over entirely... Too tired after hockey to go back and check what I wrote in the first post). However, I'm not entirely clear on what you think, that gay people should just accept this term's petty discrimination and shut up, or eventually push for the full recognition of the word marriage?

Yeah, right, it'll cut down on the number of 'queers' you biggoted cockbite. No, it won't, I can tell you. Love triumphs over all, and damned sure that I wouldn't give up on my Mark just because we couldn't marry. I'd still spend the rest of my damn life with him.
Simmer robesia, he's a moron, but no reason to get that huffy, you'll only draw the mods in against us.

Simmer robesia, he's a moron, but no reason to get that huffy, you'll only draw the mods in against us.

The way I figure it, he used 'queer' as an insult to a sexual preference, so he's no more in the right. But nonetheless, you're right.

That is about the most intellegent response I can ever have conveived on the issue, and he put things into words that I was thinking but didn't explain well (or skipped over entirely... Too tired after hockey to go back and check what I wrote in the first post). However, I'm not entirely clear on what you think, that gay people should just accept this term's petty discrimination and shut up, or eventually push for the full recognition of the word marriage?
My position is that society cannot give homosexual adults the right to marry a consenting adult of their choice, because that right is not societie's to give. Homosexual people have as much right to marry the consenting adult of their choice as anyone else does, and all this pretence that it is a right that some of society can rightfully with-hold from others in society is exactly that, a pretence ridden fantasy.

I see no sound reason to not acknowledge reality in regards to the rights of homosexual people, and acknowledging reality means accepting that their right to marry the consenting adult of their choice is exactly that, their right.

Bring
Up
My
Post

WEE!

And just so it doesn't look like I'm responding to nothing, I think I get your viewpoint more now, People.

personally, i want a civil union and not a marriage, regardless of the gender of the person i end up marrying. as i have often said, i believe the history of marriage is shameful and disgusting, and i would prefer not to dirty my union with association to such an institution. however, i want the legal, civil benefits from entering into such a binding union. if civil unions are going to be made available to gay couples, i would like them to also be made available for straight couples who want equal marital rights but who love their partner too much to want to be associated with the freak show that is Western marriage.

That is what a civil union is.
A civil union is the civil version of a marriage. Only they're not legally recognised hence they are not given the same benefits nor are they subject to the same restrictions/duties under the law.

Putting civil union and gay marriage against each other is terminology wise, just plain wrong.
Civil unions are available to everyone-straight or homosexual.


Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage either. Nor do I like that it has been hijacked by Christanity and proclaimed as a sacred Christian practice. You'd think people would have realised that marriage predates Christianity by several thousand years. Heh, but that goes for many pagan practices I guess... ;)

That's a rather intellegent response, and I agree with you on the method itself, I just don't really agree with the whole issue of civil unions as opposed to marriage, at the same time.

It doesn't much matter to me personally, at the momment, as I'm a Canadian and plenty of places in Canada already DO allow gay marriages and/or recognize them. My worries come mostly from the USA, where I plan to move after graduating to attend university in Maine with my boyfriend, and who knows afterwards... Though, unless they strip the rights of the state, I believe Maine is moving towards same sex marriage rather rapidly, just the same.

Move down here to Massachusetts. It's not much further, and gay marriage is tentatively legal, and we've got the current Super Bowl AND World Series champions!

Civil unions are available to everyone-straight or homosexual.


The problem is that they are not currently available to everyone.

The problem is that they are not currently available to everyone.


The other problem is that this is an international forum...hmmm :)

In New Zealand, civil unions are not yet recognised at all. But the Civil Unions Bill currently before Parliament is trying to change that. Under that Bill, civil unions include unions between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I don't really know about anywhere else, but I made the assumption that the definition was the same the world over. My bad. As they say, assumption is the mother of all f*ckups :D

We've all, by now, heard the argument against gay marriage, where they support equal rights through civil unions, but are against calling it marriage. Most of us have also got it through our heads that marriage has truly ceased to be a religious thing, so why is it that people are so uptight as to not give gay people the same title as a couple as straight people?

To quote something I said to a friend of mine:

"That's like saying negros could have equal rights as white people, but they still can't be referred to as people."

It's insulting to me, personally, being in a gay relationship at the momment. I think marriage, and the title of marriage, is more to do with law than religion nowadays, and enjoying rights and benefits granted by such. I believe it still should be considered marriage, as civil union just doesn't get across the message that it involves two loving participants, more like just two people who live together, but aren't really in love.

But then, being fair, besides the legal aspect, I believe the church should have every right to deny gay people a ceremony to commemerate their marriage, if it is against their beliefs. I don't want to be overbearing and sound just like the biggots who persecute us and press their beliefs on us by forcing the church into doing things against their will.

What are your thoughts on this whole issue, everyone? I know mine seem a bit jumbled.
What would be fair is to call all civil ceremonies legally joining two people a civil union. That is all the government is empowered to do anyway.

Leave the term marriage for the religionists to use. Their ceremonies must be legally filed with the government anyway.

What would be fair is to call all civil ceremonies legally joining two people a civil union. That is all the government is empowered to do anyway.

Leave the term marriage for the religionists to use. Their ceremonies must be legally filed with the government anyway.
Bingo. However, I think gay marriage will happen before the government backs out of religion though.

I want to see both banned in the constitution so it will cut down the number of queers.
It wouldn't affect the numbers either way. If you want the constitution to do something meaningful make Bush's "No Child Left Behind" an absolute requirement with a minimum of sixteen years of significant education, cut out vacations other than say four weeks over twelve months and make the application of SPF 45 or greater a requirement for all. Then we could reduce the number of redneck assholes running around loose.

Bingo. However, I think gay marriage will happen before the government backs out of religion though.
It would be an interesting side effect if the former had the latter as it's byproduct.

What is the status of litigation on this on the federal level?