The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes
Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used
The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples
Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.
Most of these inherited genetic diseases manifest in full within the first generation of procreation.
However, genetic diseases caused by inbreeding take many generations to develop.
Why is it that the state prevents the union that causes eventual genetic daises, but not the union the causes immediate genetic disease?
If there were a movement to ban people with inheritable genetic diseases from marrying, I would support that; just as I would support a movement to dissolve hetero marriages which do not raise children.
I don't see where you think any of this is arbitrary. Clearly no part of it is.
If you're not raising children, the state has no interest in your union. It's as simple as that.
All sides of the issue agree that the word " marriage" has great intrinsic value as a sociological institution in the minds and hearts of the people.
All sides agree that "civil union" is less than "marriage", even when each have complete and total access to all of the civil rights as the other.
Reducing my hetero union from "marriage" to "civil union" is to weaken my marriage, just as increasing a gay's "civil union" to "marriage" is to strengthen their union.
This would be a damage to me, it would in fact weaken my familial bonds to some degree.
This is the part where someone makes the argument personal by insinuating that any weakening of familial bonds are the result of my actions or shortcomings, in an attempt to reset the standard procedure of isolating the issue so as to re-polarize it.
Just for shi** and giggles, don't you think that children or not the state should uphold the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in this case? Since government already is involved in marriage anyway.
Just wondering about your point of view. Nothing up for debate here.
No Lives Matter
Make it a Conservative issue and you have my full support.
- Show me that a significant demographic of gay couples are raising children.
- Show me that gay couples who are raising children would be in first-marriages if the legislation were to pass.
- Show me that gays couples in first marriages are not in step-parent homes.
Those are the hetero marriages I support.
I am eager to support the gay marriages which reflect the hetero marriages I support.
I'm not going to support gay marriage per-se in the name of equality, because I don't even support hetero-marriage per-se in the name of equality.
As a tangent, if we could boil away every objection to gay marriage other than religious belief, yes, I can, have, and would again, make a religious argument in support of gay marriage without misinterpreting or misrepresenting scripture in any way, with total transparency.
Last edited by Jerry; 03-08-09 at 05:56 PM.
This stuff is a very sticky situation, I can find myself on both sides of fence easily.
For one, I support gay love, everybody in the world is entitled to love, gay or straight.
I might support gay marriage but I do not support civil unions, period.
As far as I am concerned it's an "equal but separate" law and term, and if Obama ever signed it into national law, he might as well sign it next to a "blacks only" water fountain because he'll be sending the country back 40 years if he did.
At the same time, I think gays should be vehement about gay marriage and their rights and frankly, if it's not worth fighting for what you really want, then don't fight for it. If I were gay, I would want to be equal and get married personally. I think it's ridiculous to separate gays as something different. "When I grow up, I want to get a civil union, mommy!!!"...eh? They should just add another bullet in the dictionary.
Definition 1: A union of eternal love between a man and a woman under god and/or state.
Definition 2: A union of eternal love between a (wo)man and a (wo)man under state and possibly Church if the church authority approves it.
The purpose, to me, of government recognizing heterosexual marriages is to give them tax cuts, incentives to have children. Our children are the future of the country and gays cannot, per say, provide that for us. But I think gay couples that adopt children/got children one way or another, absolutely deserve the same rights as married heterosexual couples but until then, I wouldn't give it to them to prevent any "Chuck and Larrys" trying to scam the government...
Last edited by ladilala; 03-08-09 at 07:18 PM.
Your argument here is a shining example of how gays are fighting for social equality.
I would like to point out that the 14th amendment does not guarantee social equality, but legal equality.
Using California as the example, gays have achieved legal equality even in the face of Prop8. There is nothing more the law can offer California gays that they do not already have.
The fight is a sociological one, and as such can not be resolved by the courts.
When the sociological fight is won, the legislation allowing gay "marriage" will follow. IMO the California Supreme Court must yield to the will of The People. It is not the court's place to impose social policy.
Last edited by Jerry; 03-08-09 at 07:20 PM.
I accidentally voted the wrong way. Sans one for "the terms marriage should be used for straight couples and the term civil union should be used for gay couples." Add one to "civil union should describe both" (in a legal context).