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.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Seriously. What are you going on about and do you have any evidence for what you're talking about? As far as I know marriage started as a way for tribes and clans or families to unite. How you can say that marriage between 'a man and a woman' is new is beyond me considering marriage between a man and a woman has been in practice since the days of Ancient Egypt and before that. I await a source for your post.The key issue here is which religion. Marriage remember started off as a Pagan idea open to effectively anyone and any number of people. You could marry your best friend and his wife. Kind of weird but that's how it started. Marriage as a concept of between one man and one woman is comparatively a new thing compared to open, possibly polygamous, homosexual pagan marriage which predates it by thousands of years.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Marriage is a good thing, I for one do not wish to see it besmirched by the politically correct and their support of the homosexual.
It's a simple concept; but beyond the ken of so many, that a marriage is between a man and a woman.. nothing else...this is something that must never change.
Also, those who are not 100 % mentally and physically, do not , cannot have the same rights...
marriage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
Corporations can marry, or merge too. Give homosexual marriage legal sanction, and then it is the same. There is no rational, intelligent or logical argument that can be made regarding denying homosexuals the right to get a legal marriage. Laws can change, and as long as most people are homophobic bigots, then it probably wont... but that doesn't make their position the correct one.
Also, please explain how discriminating against homosexuals can be seen as a good thing, or even a neutral thing? THanks...
The term marriage should be a religious term used by religious people to describe whatever their particular religion means by marriage. For Unitarians, it can mean gay couples as well as straight couples, for example. For Catholics it is straight couples only. For others it might be polygamous marriage, even when there is no legal recognition by the state. Whatever, as long as everyone involved can consent to the arrangement. No religion or group of religions gets to tell other religions or groups of religions what marriage is, and they certainly don't get to dictate it through the legal framework of the states or the country.
All the benefits of marriage should transfer to people who should now be defined as being in civil unions... except that there should be no tax benefits to being in a civil union/marriage other than inheritance. For example, a person who is single should not be discriminated against and should have to pay more no more taxes than a person who is married. Each person should have to file taxes as an individual. Other than that, we ought to all be able to enter into an arrangement with any other individual who can consent to it to have the rights and assume the responsibilities of a civil union.
Last edited by Dezaad; 03-06-09 at 10:34 PM.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife without legal sanction is not relevant to the topic of this thread, though it is certainly a romantic and progressive concept. trial marriages are not a particularly popular practice in my experience, but perhaps I've led a very sheltered life.
however I'm always happy to hear from the dictionary, and I do agree with you that once something makes it into the dictionary it can no longer be controversial. the fact that homosexual marriage, as you have pointed out, is listed as an existing type of marriage is clearly proof that it should be available everywhere worldwide.
A little marriage history here...
In the 1500's the Council of Trent had noticed that many people were getting married. Apparently they were so disturbed by this that around early 1560's they declared that a marriage had to be preformed in front of a priest and at least two witnesses. When I say "disturbed by this" I am talking about the "apparent" lack of officiality to marriage. Basically since they weren't involved then anyone getting married were living in sin. So they started requiring people to get married "officially". That is my take as to why they declared what they did anyways. But no matter what I think the very fact that there was at one time an obvious lack of church involved marriages shows that marriage was not really a religious ceremony...until they basically demanded that it be one. And considering the times it wasn't that hard for the church to get what they demanded....
Also it wasn't until that last 100 years or so that people could even marry who they wanted to marry. (except in the case of homosexuals obviously) Most marriages were arranged. If people are so intent on keeping "traditional" marriage alive then perhaps we should start making arranged marriages for our son's and daughter's again?
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
Then the licensing can be universal, the right-wing won't feel like the term "marriage" is being usurped by a group contrary to their beliefs, and Churches who do believe it is okay can still perform their own rituals. I don't see why the State should call it "marriage" on its licenses, when that is a Judaeo-Christian term.
Licenses issued by the State should only be regarding benefits for couples that are having a civil union, and all licenses should be referred to as civil unions because it falls under civil law.