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.
part of me thinks we don't need gay marriage, that it is just an attempt to legitimize the lifestyle culturally/socially and needlessly expand government. gay people can have wedding ceremonies and commitments and things, but the intended purpose of state sponsored marriage precludes homosexual couples being given them.
the other part of me recognizes the present-day need for homosexual couples to have hospital visitation rights and other things that come in handy in emergencies, or for legal matters like buying a house, dying w/o a will, etc. there should probably be some sort of way to recognize that two such people are joined that would be useful to them legally. that doesn't mean they need all 1400 benefits (or whatever it is) that heterosexual couples have. there is a very good reason to encourage heterosexual unions.
sadly government has gotten so intrusive that it's sometimes necessary to be able to prove your legal connection to a loved one in order to exercise the most basic rights. smaller government would do away with the issue altogether.
lastly I'd like to say that "separate but equal" has gotten such a bum rap. a common misconception is that gays have to have every single thing straights have, otherwise it's Discrimination. that's not really true. it can be the little d kind and not at all heinous. this issue though is so emotionally charged that pro-gms are not often willing to settle for anything less than the whole enchilada, and anti-gms are simply unwilling to surrender unconditionally and immediately.
this is a beautiful composition and quite true to myself.
Cephus and I were talking about gay marriage. In context, he was arguing that denying marriage on the basis of procreation (or lack thereof) is not legitimate in his opinion.
The POINT was that there ARE institutions out there that have procreation as a make or break point for marriage.
well your answer was that not having children is grounds for annulment in the catholic church. (actually I thought if you consummated this wasn't true but you are probably right.) it does not require annulment, but permits it. this implies that catholics at least view a marriage without children to be potentially invalid, even if the couple is hetero. I think I can handle this better, especially in the historical context before marriage was licensed by the state instead. I feel like my IQ right now is about 108 and I have been thinking about this all day. I don't know why I can't make it make sense as everyone else seems to get it. previously I had assumed I was pretty clever. I feel a little like crying. however you can't claim that catholics believe all marriages without children are invalid because they still have no problem marrying old people. so they wouldn't deny an infertile couple for the same reason the state wouldn't, because they are the exception tolerated...? so when cephus says he doesn't know of any license being denied based on ability to breed, the correct answer is, that's because they aren't.
Last edited by emdash; 03-19-09 at 02:25 AM.