Civil Unions

Bodhisattva said:

What are you talking about...

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.

Click to expand...

I am talking historically. I guess you missed that little detail?

Hatuey said:

The moment an atheist got married marriage stopped being a religious institution. Please stop this?

Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding?

Hatuey said:

You can not ignore history that doesn't exist. Religious people getting married does not make marriage a religious institution.

Click to expand...

In the history of this country it does exist.

You mite want to bone up on your history just a little. :mrgreen:

Lerxst said:

Discrimination is discrimination.

Click to expand...

:applaud

Orius said:

I don't believe any of the options are satisfactory. There will always be heterosexual people who believe they and they alone are entitled to the institutions of love, and there will always be activists who are never satisfied with the rights that gays have. I believe the moderates on both sides were willing to compromise on this issue a long, long time ago... it's the extremists that are dragging it on and complicating matters.

Click to expand...

the institution of love is not the one in question here; the topic is marriage.

Hatuey said:

The moment an atheist got married marriage stopped being a religious institution. Please stop this?

Click to expand...

this is willfully ignorant. it is to your credit that you care about gay people and their love for each other, but you still need to be logical if you want to win arguments.

Bodhisattva said:

It is ridiculous that it is not already this way and ther is no logical argument backing up the haters position...

Click to expand...

I am disappointed in you.

Bodhisattva said:

What are you talking about...

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. [/I]

Click to expand...

if you want to be technical, you can't leave out parts that you don't like. quote the dictionary or don't, but don't misquote it for heaven's sake, or that defeats the whole purpose of consulting it at all.

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?

Goobieman said:

You know that churches have that right already, right?

Click to expand...

I wasn't sure of how it worked in the U.S... but if that's the case, then great!

Goobieman said:

Why should Atheists not be allowed to be married?

Click to expand...

They should be allowed, if they want to have a Church wedding. I really don't see why any Atheist would go for a Church type setup though... maybe to satisfy their parents' religious requirements? Who knows. In any case, if they can find a Church that is willing to give them a certificate of marriage (in addition to the non-denominational license provided by the State), then good on them.

Goobieman said:

Marriage is a creature of the state. Its impossible to have 'marriage' without involvement from the state, as the state defines the institution, its benefits, its penalties, and its interaction with the law.

Click to expand...

I realize that, but my point is that the State licensing process doesn't have anything to do with religion, it is simply an allocation of benefits of people. This should be universal to all couples while avoiding usage of traditionally-oriented words like "marriage", since marriage, even in the heterosexual sense, varies greatly among all cultures. Not all cultures even refer to it as the English word "marriage". It just makes sense to remove the specific terminologies from State hands and continue to allow Churches to honour their traditions internally.

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.

Marriage is first and foremost a social institution, hence its universal existence in human cultures of vastly different religious practice-- including those cultures who have had their religious traditions suppressed by tyrannical government.

I believe that the government has a legitimate role in deciding which marriages it will and will not officially recognize, since that official recognition concerns the government's interactions with the married couple. And, just as the government may decide for itself which marriages it will or will not recognize, each church should have every right to decide for itself which marriages it will or will not recognize-- as that is concerned with the church's interactions with the married couple.

Beyond that, I believe the argument should revolve around which policy is more beneficial to the citizens and the culture, and which policy better upholds the traditions and the values of our society.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Marriage is first and foremost a social institution, hence its universal existence in human cultures of vastly different religious practice-- including those cultures who have had their religious traditions suppressed by tyrannical government.

I believe that the government has a legitimate role in deciding which marriages it will and will not officially recognize, since that official recognition concerns the government's interactions with the married couple. And, just as the government may decide for itself which marriages it will or will not recognize, each church should have every right to decide for itself which marriages it will or will not recognize-- as that is concerned with the church's interactions with the married couple.

Beyond that, I believe the argument should revolve around which policy is more beneficial to the citizens and the culture, and which policy better upholds the traditions and the values of our society.

Click to expand...

Tradition should never be a reason to deny/accept any sort of law. Laws should be based on what is right and what is wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kal'Stang said:

Tradition should never be a reason to deny/accept any sort of law. Laws should be based on what is right and what is wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

That is a very powerful and very definitive way of saying absolutely nothing.

What is right and what is wrong depends entirely on personal belief, and those personal beliefs are, in many cases, strongly influenced by cultural tradition.

Korimyr the Rat said:

That is a very powerful and very definitive way of saying absolutely nothing.

What is right and what is wrong depends entirely on personal belief, and those personal beliefs are, in many cases, strongly influenced by cultural tradition.

Click to expand...

What is right and what is wrong can be figured out by using logic.

Blackdog said:

You have got to be kidding?

Click to expand...

Not really.

In the history of this country it does exist.

Click to expand...

And like I said. The moment an atheist got married marriage stopped being a religious institution.

Kal'Stang said:

What is right and what is wrong can be figured out by using logic.

Click to expand...

Only if you accept and agree upon a priori moral principles-- which is circular, when you're trying to determine what those moral principles are supposed to be.

Layla_Z said:

My question is: Is there room for compromise in the gay marriage debate? Would it be acceptable to label all marriage (man and woman, or two men, or two women) a civil union for legal purposes. If I'm not mistaken now a couple is married once they sign the marriage certificate, the ceremony is secondary from a legal standpoint. So make all marriages a civil union in the eyes of the government with all the legal rights that go with it. Marriage would be a religious issue.

Click to expand...

Marriage would be religious for me only if it had no benefits but seeing there are tax benefits with it. It is a Government issue not religious and no, i see no problem with civil unions being called marriage of vice versa for everyone.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Only if you accept and agree upon a priori moral principles-- which is circular, when you're trying to determine what those moral principles are supposed to be.

Click to expand...

1: Do homosexuals get to marry who they want? 2: Do heterosexuals get to marry who they want? 3: Are the answers the same?

1: No.
2: Yes.
3: No.

Where is the morality in those questions? Is there logic to those questions? Yes.

Layla_Z said:

My question is: Is there room for compromise in the gay marriage debate? Would it be acceptable to label all marriage (man and woman, or two men, or two women) a civil union for legal purposes. If I'm not mistaken now a couple is married once they sign the marriage certificate, the ceremony is secondary from a legal standpoint. So make all marriages a civil union in the eyes of the government with all the legal rights that go with it. Marriage would be a religious issue.

Click to expand...

Where is Gallenrox?

I told him this was necessarily the logical consequence of gay-marriage nearly 4 years ago on this forum, and he said I was full of ****.

Where is he?

So we're doing away with marriage now?

Well there you go: gay-marriage is endangering my right to marry, therefore it is unconstitutional.

Hatuey said:

Am I supposed to take this literally? Do you know what a patent is? And if religion had a patent on marriage I'm pretty sure it would have expired after the first couple hundred years. :lol:

Click to expand...

No, you weren't. It was a euphemism. You get the point though. Marriage has historically been defined by religion.

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.

Click to expand...

Tell, which, which religion is older: The one practiced by ancient Egyptians, on the earliest pagans?

Anyways, fair enough. After 20 minutes of Google, I can't find anything definitive. However, I can't find anything definitive about where marriage actually started. Anyways, we know that pagans in Europe go back at bare minimum 5,000 years.

But no one really knows where the first marriage came from, who started it and what it entailed.

You also fail to understand the point I'm making. While religion has historically defined what marriage was, marriage was not historically always defined as one man one woman. I'm actually on your side.

Hatuey said:

And like I said. The moment an atheist got married marriage stopped being a religious institution.

Click to expand...

Not really, but you can think what you like.

obvious Child said:

No, you weren't. It was a euphemism. You get the point though. Marriage has historically been defined by religion.

Click to expand...

It's also been defined by politics. Remember is it wasn't until around 1560's that Catholic priests started being apart of getting people married. Before then all it took was two people to say that they were married and their fathers agreeing to it.

Jerry said:

Where is Gallenrox?

I told him this was necessarily the logical consequence of gay-marriage nearly 4 years ago on this forum, and he said I was full of ****.

Where is he?

So we're doing away with marriage now?

Well there you go: gay-marriage is endangering my right to marry, therefore it is unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't endanger anything if you would just let homosexuals get married. You know give them the same right to marry who they want to marry like you get....

And the right to marry will never get taken away even if the government ends up not recognizing it. But just because the government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean that you can't have a marriage recognized by your church.

Blackdog said:

Not really, but you can think what you like.

Click to expand...

Prove otherwise then. :2razz: - Since when has marriage been a religiously owned institution? What patent, copyright or any method of protection for intellectual property have the religious placed on marriage? The claim of the religious to owning the word marriage and all it comes with is Mickey Mouse.

Hatuey said:

Prove otherwise then. :2razz: - Since when has marriage been a religiously owned institution? What patent, copyright or any method of protection for intellectual property have the religious placed on marriage? The claim of the religious to owning the word marriage and all it comes with is Mickey Mouse.

Click to expand...

Didn't some religious group try to sue Mickey Mouse not to long ago?

Kal'Stang said:

Didn't some religious group try to sue Mickey Mouse not to long ago?

Click to expand...

His ears use to be pointier.

Hatuey said:

Prove otherwise then. :2razz: - Since when has marriage been a religiously owned institution? What patent, copyright or any method of protection for intellectual property have the religious placed on marriage? The claim of the religious to owning the word marriage and all it comes with is Mickey Mouse.

Click to expand...

If I was claiming that or said anything even close you could have had a point. I did not.

I said it is OUR history, that distinctly American history. Pick up a history book about this country and you could learn allot about our traditions.

In the beginning of the history of the 13 colonies you could find a complete history of most families were? In the family Bible. This included Births and marriages. This went for many, many years and included Jewish and other religions including slaves at the time.

This country may not have been formed as a Christian country, but it was formed by a huge undeniable majority of Christians, period. We are still the majority to this very day.

Don't need a copyright or anything else for that. :mrgreen:

Let gays and straights use the word marriage. As long as the govt. is in the marriage business, they should recognize both without seperate but equal terminology.

Kal'Stang said:

It wouldn't endanger anything if you would just let homosexuals get married. You know give them the same right to marry who they want to marry like you get....

And the right to marry will never get taken away even if the government ends up not recognizing it. But just because the government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean that you can't have a marriage recognized by your church.

Click to expand...

Well my post was just supposed to be one big 'haha I told you so where'd you run off to'...but if you want to get to the issue itself:

Kal'Stang said:

It wouldn't endanger anything if you would just let homosexuals get married.

Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that gay marriage is endangering my own personal right to marry. Gay marriage now achieves the criteria to be legal discrimination, and must never be allowed.

Kal'Stang said:

You know give them the same right to marry who they want to marry like you get....

Click to expand...

I never had any such 'right to marry who I want', though. Never.

Gays have always had each and every single right that I enjoy, and I have always been bound by each and every single restriction that gays have been.

There never was inequality, and to be fair, if marriage is abolished things would still be equal.

So, we know that gay marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality, in any way, to any degree, at all whatsoever.

Kal'Stang said:

And the right to marry will never get taken away even if the government ends up not recognizing it. But just because the government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean that you can't have a marriage recognized by your church.

Click to expand...

No one's talking about religion, and I don't belong to a church even if we were.

Nice try at a Red Herring, but you'll need to come up with something I haven't heard over and over for years.

The only thing new you bring to the table is a concession that gay marriage seeks to destroy my rights. Since your position destroys the gay marriage argument in toto, I care even less about 'gay rights' as a result.

Blackdog said:

If I was claiming that or said anything even close you could have had a point. I did not.

I said it is OUR history, that distinctly American history. Pick up a history book about this country and you could learn allot about our traditions.

In the beginning of the history of the 13 colonies you could find a complete history of most families were? In the family Bible. This included Births and marriages. This went for many, many years and included Jewish and other religions including slaves at the time.

This country may not have been formed as a Christian country, but it was formed by a huge undeniable majority of Christians, period. We are still the majority to this very day.

Don't need a copyright or anything else for that. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

If you want to use only the America's history then you have to include all the way back to 1492. That is as much a part of our history as before the US was actually formed. It is during this time that led up to the Revolutionary war. And is even taught as US history in schools. Which still puts it within the time line of before priests started officiating marriages.