NationStates Jolt Archive

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers To Stupid Questions.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union.Nope. In the U.S., at least, marriage refers both to religious and to civil unions.

no

my wedding was presided over by a judge and im just as married as someone who got married in a church.

there is no reason to have a seperate form of marriage for same sex couples.

if one can go to a justice of the peace and have a ceremony absolutly devoid of any religious activity what so ever, and have their union recognized by, and refered to as a marriage by the government, then "gay marriage" is a perfectly legitimite term.

Your argument would carry weight if, by law, the only time we use the word marriage is in a religious context. We don't, so it doesn't.

Indeed. Just because you're not married in a church does not mean you are not married at all.

Of course it is a stupid question.

One which hasn't been discussed enough.

Btw was that No to everything?

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers To Stupid Questions.

Brought to you by the folks who gave you "Why ID Isn't Science" and "Why 'Feminazi' Is A Stupid Term". :D

Of course it is a stupid question.

One which hasn't been discussed enough.



hahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahaaa



...




hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha




...


no, wait...


...


hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I just...I just can't...

Brought to you by the folks who gave you "Why ID Isn't Science" and "Why 'Feminazi' Is A Stupid Term". :D
And by the letter "Q".

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?
If by 'we' you mean your pluralised self, do so if you wish, if you mean 'everyone else', no, I'm quite fine with speaking my own way.

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union.
That's just not true.

In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.
Right, which point is probably relevent to those living in a theocracy, whether or not they want to. Of course this doesnt explain why you think 'all' marriages are religious rather than only those that occur in theocracies, nor does it tell us whether or not it is desirable for all marriages to be religious unions.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.
A marriage is not a ceremony, it is a social institution. Neither weddings nor marriages need be religious. Marriages and weddings are no more religious than eating.

If by 'we' you mean your pluralised self, do so if you wish, if you mean 'everyone else', no, I'm quite fine with speaking my own way.

That's just not true.


Right, which point is probably relevent to those living in a theocracy, whether or not they want to. Of course this doesnt explain why you think 'all' marriages are religious rather than only those that occur in theocracies, nor does it tell us whether or not it is desirable for all marriages to be religious unions.

A marriage is not a ceremony, it is a social institution. Neither weddings nor marriages need be religious. Marriages and weddings are no more religious than eating.
Nicely put. You dignify this silly thread far beyond anything it deserves. Have a cookie.

Nicely put. You dignify this silly thread far beyond anything it deserves. Have a cookie.
Gee, thanks, I love cookies. My only concern though, is it a cookie if I dont eat it in church with the blessings of an ordained minister, or would it only be a (baked) ingrediant union?:p

Gee, thanks, I love cookies. My only concern though, is it a cookie if I dont eat it in church with the blessings of an ordained minister, or would it only be a (baked) ingrediant union?:p

Hmm, good question. I suppose it would depend on whether you think the Baker's Son was completely like the Baker or only partially so, or only seemed as bakerly as the Baker. Only the true Baker could make a complete and sacred Union of the Ingredients. :D

Gee, thanks, I love cookies. My only concern though, is it a cookie if I dont eat it in church with the blessings of an ordained minister, or would it only be a (baked) ingrediant union?:p

You're fine with cookies. They're a pagan food. Wafers, on the other hand, only count as wafers if they're blessed by a priest and become the body of Christ. Otherwise, you better call it something else.

Yay! An answer!

Hmmm, rather negative to me.... Yay! Negative answers!

Zagat, in response to your question, you'd be a filthy sinner who caused the death of the dinosaurs; by touching yourself at night.

Well, of course ID is science, why do you think they have all of those truly brilliant people who know scientific theory so well that they can ignore most of the rules of how a scientific theory can be constructed?

And everyone knows that the letter Q is part of the syndacite of scrabble evil (along with x and z).

*serious* Feminazi is a rather ridiculous term, unless it was a feminist nazi (rather than a knee jerk term).

Yay! An answer!

Hmmm, rather negative to me.... Yay! Negative answers!

Zagat, in response to your question, you'd be a filthy sinner who caused the death of the dinosaurs; by touching yourself at night.

Well, of course ID is science, why do you think they have all of those truly brilliant people who know scientific theory so well that they can ignore most of the rules of how a scientific theory can be constructed?

And everyone knows that the letter Q is part of the syndacite of scrabble evil (along with x and z).

*serious* Feminazi is a rather ridiculous term, unless it was a feminist nazi (rather than a knee jerk term).
Tell you what, you can call it "dancing the can-can on stage at Maxim's around 1898 with Toulouse-Lautrec and a bevy of beautiful maidens" for all I care, as long as it is recognized by the Government and I and my Lady receive the rights, privileges and responsibilities that go with it, just the same as any Jack and Jill who can afford a marriage license.

Feminazi is a funny term. Clippings often are. [/linguistikz] But that's for the other thread.

I don't quite get the threadstarter's notion. If the government decides to call them marriages, then marriages they are. You don't have to agree with them (I don't) to admit that.

Zagat, in response to your question, you'd be a filthy sinner who caused the death of the dinosaurs; by touching yourself at night.
Even if I use a pagan cookie? Surely this is only true if I use waffers in my naughty baked-goods debauchery? :confused:

Even if I use a pagan cookie? Surely this is only true if I use waffers in my naughty baked-goods debauchery? :confused:

The Church of You're a Filthy Sinner has gone into the biscuit/cookie business so not even biscuits/cookies are pagan; they have been christinofied!

Now, quick, give me some money to 'preach the word'.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.

Now the nonreligious don't have marriage rights, either?

Now the nonreligious don't have marriage rights, either?

Well, duh!





Only procreating, heterosexual, white, Christian people do!

Well, duh!





Only procreating, heterosexual, white, Christian people do!
Meh, those heterosexual, white, Christian folk get all the luck....not to mention the waffers.

Meh, those heterosexual, white, Christian folk get all the luck....not to mention the waffers.

And the waffles, too. Damn them all to hell!

EDIT: The link didn't work.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

In Canada, where gays and lesbians are finally on equal footing with straight couples vis-a-vis marriage, it is simply called "marriage". It's only among the unenlightened, stone-aged or authoritarian nations where this still remains any sort of a supposed "issue".

Sure it can be refered to as civil unions...

...As long as you use civil unions to describe heterosexual marriages as well.

Sure it can be refered to as civil unions...

...As long as you use civil unions to describe heterosexual marriages as well.

NOnonononono! Heterosexual, white, Christian, procreating couples can call it marriage. It's everyone else who can't. Isn't that easy to understand?

NOnonononono! Heterosexual, white, Christian, procreating couples can call it marriage. It's everyone else who can't. Isn't that easy to understand?

Are feeling okay, Dem? I haven't seen a long, well-reasoned reply to anything from you for the last couple hours? :p

In Canada, where gays and lesbians are finally on equal footing with straight couples vis-a-vis marriage, it is simply called "marriage". It's only among the unenlightened, stone-aged or authoritarian nations where this still remains any sort of a supposed "issue". So… pretty much every nation on the planet then.

Was there a nuclear armageddon while I was at the pooter?

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?
Because a civil union can also be used by *gasp* heterosexuals. It works both ways.

And, I now hereby propose that we start calling 'marriage' Heterosexual Marriage, so that we know what parties are involved. If it works for the homos, it works for the heteros.

Are feeling okay, Dem? I haven't seen a long, well-reasoned reply to anything from you for the last couple hours? :p

I'm in a silly mood today, and there are plenty of silly threads to reply to! =)

I'm very anti-semantic. No.

Now the nonreligious don't have marriage rights, either?

Actually I'd prefer the non religious ones named as civil unions because I'd like a greater seperation of religion and state even in language.

Sure it can be refered to as civil unions...
...As long as you use civil unions to describe heterosexual marriages as well.

That is exactly what I want. If they were civil unions regardless if it were homo/hetero and the union was peformed by the state with no religious overtones I'd like them to be called civil unions.

I'd prefer marriage (as the religious union) to be just an extra that has no absolutely actual legal relevance (except in defacto relationships but anyone could do that no matter what their religion [or if the have no religion] is).

Because a civil union can also be used by *gasp* heterosexuals. It works both ways.
And, I now hereby propose that we start calling 'marriage' Heterosexual Marriage, so that we know what parties are involved. If it works for the homos, it works for the heteros.

Perfectly fine with me; though if the religion involved allowed homosexuals and heterosexuals to marry then there wouldn't be much point calling it homo/hetero marriage. Marriage would work fine in that case (unless for some reason the two had completely different ceremonies).

I'm very anti-semantic. No.

I decided to try to be semantic.

Only procreating, heterosexual, white, Christian people do!

Damn, I knew being a anglo-saxon christian fundementalist who only had sex for getting children from my wife (and flagellating myself after) was a bad thing to give away.

Wait...... I'm not a christian (though I do have a godmother with strong religious convictions)! I also don't have any love in my life :( .

I am anglo-saxon though..........

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.

When did marriage become a religious institution?
Religious marriages are not recognised in most Western countries, what is recognised is the marriage performed by the states.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?
Funny, in my country, they're same-sex marriages.

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.
Marriage didn't start out as a religious institution, it started out as a civil one. It's just being reclaimed now.

Here's a suggestion :

As marriage is by no strech a religious term or institution, why don't we just keep on calling regular, state-sanctioned unions marriages, but for those folks who went to church to get the extra show, let's call them religious unions?

Here's a suggestion :

As marriage is by no strech a religious term or institution, why don't we just keep on calling regular, state-sanctioned unions marriages, but for those folks who went to church to get the extra show, let's call them religious unions?
I think that's a brilliant idea!

Here's a suggestion :

As marriage is by no strech a religious term or institution, why don't we just keep on calling regular, state-sanctioned unions marriages, but for those folks who went to church to get the extra show, let's call them religious unions?

I'd prefer State/Civil Union and Religious Union to that.

I'd prefer State/Civil Union and Religious Union to that.

And for easier everyday use, let's just call both "marriages".

After all, you can get married, but you can't really get civil/religiously unioned, can you?

And for easier everyday use, let's just call both "marriages".

After all, you can get married, but you can't really get civil/religiously unioned, can you?

Not in most states in the Southern US, you can't! Damn hippies! :D

Now we get to the crux of the matter (the part that makes the OP look like a fool): Marriage has too many overtones of religion.

Since a religious marriage not sanctioned by the proper civil authorities is not recognized anywhere outside the particular sect, and a legal marriage requires no religious actions whatsoever, even the use of the word marriage as a religious act is questionable.

Also, marriage was originally a civil/legal/governmental arrangement long before religions was involved, we should refer to religious "marriages" as religious uniions and reserve the term marriage for it's traditional legal/civil action.

You're fine with cookies. They're a pagan food. Wafers, on the other hand, only count as wafers if they're blessed by a priest and become the body of Christ. Otherwise, you better call it something else.

They don't become the body of Christ, they represent the body of Christ! Heathen!

*Starts hundreds of years of bloody war with Dempublicents over the point*

And as for homosexual/heterosexual marriage/civil unions: I much prefer cake. I suggest that all unions of any of these types are replaced with cake forthwith.

Now we get to the crux of the matter (the part that makes the OP look like a fool): Marriage has too many overtones of religion.

I don't see it having any religious overtones at all, to be honest.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?


Of course it is a stupid question.


Well, perhaps you should have came to this conclusion before you asked :D

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.

Mwahahahahahahahahah you're funny

And as for homosexual/heterosexual marriage/civil unions: I much prefer cake. I suggest that all unions of any of these types are replaced with cake forthwith.

"CAKE OR DEATH?"
"Cake!"
"CAKE OR DEATH?"
"Cake!"
"CAKE OR DEATH?"
"Death! I mean Cake!"
"YOU SAID DEATH...."
"But I meant Cake."

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.

Next you'll be telling me that breathing air is in reality just a religious inhalation.

We can do a lot better than this.

Let's call a typical-XY-man-to-XX-woman-union marriage.
Gay guys can then have a gayriage.
Two women can have a lesriage.
Put three together in a triage.
All sorts of possibilities!
An arranged marriage between an old man and an underaged girl could be a pediage.
Marrying someone to give that person a legal status in a country could be called a immigrage.
This opens a whole new world of terminology!
* ranting on for hours on end *
:p

We can do a lot better than this.

Let's call a typical-XY-man-to-XX-woman-union marriage.
Gay guys can then have a gayriage.
Two women can have a lesriage.
Put three together in a triage.
All sorts of possibilities!
An arranged marriage between an old man and an underaged girl could be a pediage.
Marrying someone to give that person a legal status in a country could be called a immigrage.
This opens a whole new world of terminology!
* ranting on for hours on end *
:p

Cute. :rolleyes:

I've said it before, the actual term used doesn't mean that much to me, not really, but sometimes I get so pissed off at the people who carry on about how "marriage" (the word) should only be used for hetero unions, that I want to insist on it for same-sex unions just to get in their face. I would have far more respect for the opponents of gay marriage if they would stop the dancing around and just say, "We don't like gay people, we think they are perverts, and as such should not be entitled to full citizen rights. So there." But they don't, so screw them, I want to call it "marriage" because it makes the veins stand out on their sloping foreheads.

"CAKE OR DEATH?"
"Cake!"
"CAKE OR DEATH?"
"Cake!"
"CAKE OR DEATH?"
"Death! I mean Cake!"
"YOU SAID DEATH...."
"But I meant Cake."


We all know the proper answer is PIE!

Cute. :rolleyes:

I've said it before, the actual term used doesn't mean that much to me, not really, but sometimes I get so pissed off at the people who carry on about how "marriage" (the word) should only be used for hetero unions, that I want to insist on it for same-sex unions just to get in their face. I would have far more respect for the opponents of gay marriage if they would stop the dancing around and just say, "We don't like gay people, we think they are perverts, and as such should not be entitled to full citizen rights. So there." But they don't, so screw them, I want to call it "marriage" because it makes the veins stand out on their sloping foreheads.

Bwahahhhahhaha sloping foreheads, hehehehh *giggle**snaarf*

Cheers for that ohh my!

We can do a lot better than this.

Let's call a typical-XY-man-to-XX-woman-union marriage.
Gay guys can then have a gayriage.
Two women can have a lesriage.
Put three together in a triage.
All sorts of possibilities!
An arranged marriage between an old man and an underaged girl could be a pediage.
Marrying someone to give that person a legal status in a country could be called a immigrage.
This opens a whole new world of terminology!
* ranting on for hours on end *
:p

Let's not.

Anyway, if we use your naming scheme shouldn't man/woman marriage be called mawiage?

Let's not.

Anyway, if we use your naming scheme shouldn't man/woman marriage be called mawiage?

I knew a girl who called it that - mawiage - but she was four and her mom said she'd grow out of the speech impediment. :p

Marriage was originally an economic contract, initially having nothing to do with religion and everything to do with allocation of resources for the benefit of the young, e.g. survival. Then religion co-opted it (and the corresponding terminology) in order to gain more power over people and their resources. So, religious bias notwithstanding, any union that is designed to maximize resources for the individuals involved can be deemed a "marriage" regardless of the genders and preferences of said individuals.

Let's not.

Anyway, if we use your naming scheme shouldn't man/woman marriage be called mawiage?

Mawiage. Mawiage is what bwings us togevah today. Mawiage. That bwesed awangement, that dweam wifin a dweam.

Mawiage. Mawiage is what bwings us togevah today. Mawiage. That bwesed awangement, that dweam wifin a dweam.

:eek: Damn, I should have remembered that!

I knew a girl who called it that - mawiage - but she was four and her mom said she'd grow out of the speech impediment. :p
http://www.urbandigs.com/princess-bride-2.jpg
Mawiage!
Marriage was originally an economic contract, initially having nothing to do with religion and everything to do with allocation of resources for the benefit of the young, e.g. survival. Then religion co-opted it (and the corresponding terminology) in order to gain more power over people and their resources. So, religious bias notwithstanding, any union that is designed to maximize resources for the individuals involved can be deemed a "marriage" regardless of the genders and preferences of said individuals.
Well, that takes care of that.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.

I've got a nutty idea, why don't we just call it 'marriage'? :p

Marriage was originally an economic contract, initially having nothing to do with religion and everything to do with allocation of resources for the benefit of the young, e.g. survival. Then religion co-opted it (and the corresponding terminology) in order to gain more power over people and their resources. So, religious bias notwithstanding, any union that is designed to maximize resources for the individuals involved can be deemed a "marriage" regardless of the genders and preferences of said individuals.

*sigh* So clinical. Marriage was originally two people coming together to raise children and propagate the species, not to mention because they enjoyed each other's company (or, undoubtedly, because their parents told them to). No one says things like "the allocation of resource for the benefit of the young." And while I am as anti-religious as the next person, personifying Religion the way you did makes me roll my eyes. "Religion" did not thrust itself into marriage, it was probably there are at the start, sanctifying the union of two people. Non-religious marriage is the later development, not the other way around.

Can we please stop calling it 'Homosexual Marriage' when it is clearly referring to civil unions?

All a marriage is in reality just a religious union. In a theorcracy the only type of union would be the religious one, a.k.a marriage.

Now if it is a marriage ceremony done by a religion that consents to homosexual relationships that is fine.

If people also want their religion to peform their ceremonies then try to reform that religion/religious institution.

To some of the good points already posted, I'd like to add that there are many people trying to work a compromise by calling it not a marriage but a civil union, who are still shouted down by those who want to refer to it as a "marriage" either way.

To some of the good points already posted, I'd like to add that there are many people trying to work a compromise by calling it not a marriage but a civil union, who are still shouted down by those who want to refer to it as a "marriage" either way.

That has a lot to do with the fact that they want to create an entirely different legal construct called "civil unions" just for homosexuals. You'd see much less opposition if the suggestion were that civil marriage, in general, be referred to as civil unions. It would truly be silly to change the name, but if that's what it takes...

Of course, then you'd run into some international treaty issues.....

To some of the good points already posted, I'd like to add that there are many people trying to work a compromise by calling it not a marriage but a civil union, who are still shouted down by those who want to refer to it as a "marriage" either way.

I still think it would be far easier to keep calling the legally binding civil bits "marriage" and refer to the optional religious bits as "religious unions".
It would be a lot less paperwork.