A Compromise on "The Compromise"

[JoeyKnothead]

Many folks put forth a compromise whereby all legal unions of folks should be considered "civil unions".

This compromise has been rejected by a good bunch of folks, so I propose another'n...

Let's let the government keep the term 'marriage' for such legal unions, and ask / require that all other organizations who consider such to place their unions under the banner of "civil unions". This would preserve the cultural and historical significance of the word marriage, while allowing others to offer some form of 'marriage'. Of course all rights and privileges would be the same under the legal term, and those folks who object to certain marriages would of course be allowed to continue to object within legal boundaries.

Is this proposal reasonable? Why or why not?

[McCulloch]

However, it appears the only way to extend the legal protections is to call it a civil union.

I disagree. Why not extend the legal protections without the name change? It worked in Canada. Churches who don't want to marry same-sex couples are still free to not marry them.

Many are afraid that they will face legal lawsuits if marriage is also extended to homosexuals. I don't see why. Churches are free now to refuse to marry couples for whatever reason they wish. They are not public servants. Such protection is explicitly built into Canadian law. Would the objections to extending marriage to same-sex couples go away if churches' right to be discriminatory was explicitly protected?

I agree with Joey's proposal with a slight wording change. The government should continue to license and regulate marriage, extending it to same sex couples. Churches and other religious bodies should continue to perform weddings and that the marriages thus performed would have some exclusive religious title such as "Holy matrimony", legally meaningless, but granting the couples formal recognition of the church's blessing on the union.

I have heard nothing from any of the various solutions about what a gay-friendly church would do. Being a church, under whatever new terminology is suggested, would they not be allowed to provide the church blessing on gay marriages?

[Kuan]

Would the objections to extending marriage to same-sex couples go away if churches' right to be discriminatory was explicitly protected?

Yes, for the most part although you might have some trouble with the WBC. Mormons wont have no problem I know that. All we want is to retain our right to discriminate. We dont want to perform homosexual marriages in our Temples, or let them live in our Universities on-campus housing. Mormons are mostly just wary of the government and we have a habit of making sure we are protected legally. Our history aint been pleasant with the government. I cant speak for other religions though but I think that most would be similar.

[lastcallhall]

However, it appears the only way to extend the legal protections is to call it a civil union.

I disagree. Why not extend the legal protections without the name change? It worked in Canada. Churches who don't want to marry same-sex couples are still free to not marry them.

Many are afraid that they will face legal lawsuits if marriage is also extended to homosexuals. I don't see why. Churches are free now to refuse to marry couples for whatever reason they wish. They are not public servants. Such protection is explicitly built into Canadian law. Would the objections to extending marriage to same-sex couples go away if churches' right to be discriminatory was explicitly protected?

If the government passes a law that allows same sex couples to marry and the hate crimes bill passes why could they not sue the church for discrimination? I understand I just threw in something that was not part of the question but I feel that one leads to the other or they both pass at the same time. I feel this is part of the homosexual agenda to push the gay lifestyle on people who feel it is sin. If both go into play the church would be wide open to lawsuit, how could a church not recognize a "married" same sex couple if the state grants them a license?

I agree with Joey's proposal with a slight wording change. The government should continue to license and regulate marriage, extending it to same sex couples. Churches and other religious bodies should continue to perform weddings and that the marriages thus performed would have some exclusive religious title such as "Holy matrimony", legally meaningless, but granting the couples formal recognition of the church's blessing on the union.

Any two people can enter into a loan, buy property, live together but to change the definition of marriage how could you say no to 3 men who want to marry? 2 women and 2 men? I man and a cow? Really what legal standing would you have? The homosexual argument is that I can't push my beliefs on them and who am I to keep them unhappy, well the same argument applies to any other "marriage". As a christian I can't condone something I feel is sin.

I have heard nothing from any of the various solutions about what a gay-friendly church would do. Being a church, under whatever new terminology is suggested, would they not be allowed to provide the church blessing on gay marriages?

A church that is involved with gay marriage really should not be called a church. If they don't mind sin could I show up and do drugs or show up with my girlfriend when everyone knows my wife? A strong Bible church can't condone sin.

[Kuan]

A church that is involved with gay marriage really should not be called a church. If they don't mind sin could I show up and do drugs or show up with my girlfriend when everyone knows my wife? A strong Bible church can't condone sin.

There are liberal christian churches that support homosexual marriages. Also, not all churches are christian.

[JoeyKnothead]

There seems to be a great bunch of folks who seek to be married, however, there's also a great bunch of folks who object to such. These folks have typically presented a "great compromise" that entails the use of the term "civil unions". Unfortunately, such a proposal has been rejected by an opposing great number of folks. So then, since the compromise is so "great", then let's ask those offering the compromise to do the compromising.

It's kinda like how ya split up a bag of refer that two folks went in on. The one guy splits it up, the other'n picks between the two.

Now that the original compromise has been presented, the one to which the original compromise is offered now says, "So then, ya'll take the new term".

[micatala]

However, it appears the only way to extend the legal protections is to call it a civil union.

I disagree. Why not extend the legal protections without the name change? It worked in Canada. Churches who don't want to marry same-sex couples are still free to not marry them.

Many are afraid that they will face legal lawsuits if marriage is also extended to homosexuals. I don't see why. Churches are free now to refuse to marry couples for whatever reason they wish. They are not public servants. Such protection is explicitly built into Canadian law. Would the objections to extending marriage to same-sex couples go away if churches' right to be discriminatory was explicitly protected?

If the government passes a law that allows same sex couples to marry and the hate crimes bill passes why could they not sue the church for discrimination? I understand I just threw in something that was not part of the question but I feel that one leads to the other or they both pass at the same time. I feel this is part of the homosexual agenda to push the gay lifestyle on people who feel it is sin. If both go into play the church would be wide open to lawsuit, how could a church not recognize a "married" same sex couple if the state grants them a license?

I agree with Joey's proposal with a slight wording change. The government should continue to license and regulate marriage, extending it to same sex couples. Churches and other religious bodies should continue to perform weddings and that the marriages thus performed would have some exclusive religious title such as "Holy matrimony", legally meaningless, but granting the couples formal recognition of the church's blessing on the union.

Any two people can enter into a loan, buy property, live together but to change the definition of marriage how could you say no to 3 men who want to marry? 2 women and 2 men? I man and a cow? Really what legal standing would you have? The homosexual argument is that I can't push my beliefs on them and who am I to keep them unhappy, well the same argument applies to any other "marriage". As a christian I can't condone something I feel is sin.

I have heard nothing from any of the various solutions about what a gay-friendly church would do. Being a church, under whatever new terminology is suggested, would they not be allowed to provide the church blessing on gay marriages?

A church that is involved with gay marriage really should not be called a church. If they don't mind sin could I show up and do drugs or show up with my girlfriend when everyone knows my wife? A strong Bible church can't condone sin.

We're having enough trouble arguing about what counts as a "marriage." Perhaps we should forego getting into what counts as a "church."


On the drugs issue, well, if you are talking about illegal drugs the bigger problem will be with the state, not anyone's particular church. As far as blatant adultery, that would be up to the given church to decide.

Not all churches need to subscribe to your notion of "strong biblical church" to be called a church.

[McCulloch]

A church that is involved with gay marriage really should not be called a church. If they don't mind sin could I show up and do drugs or show up with my girlfriend when everyone knows my wife? A strong Bible church can't condone sin.

From where I sit this is an internal squabble between the various groups calling themselves Christians. You assume that homosexuality is a sin. Other Christians have come to different conclusions. The point is, that those religious groups, whom you condemn, will perform marriages. If they perform same-sex marriages, should those marriages be given the same recognition from society as any other church sanctioned marriage.

Metropolitan Community Church

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

Incorrect. I propose the use of the word marriage based on its cultural and historical significance.

I still dont get WHY this matters. What does this have to do with the government? The government shouldnt make laws based upon these issues.

Personally I have no need for marriage, civil unions, or any of the sort. If it ain't shakin' up with some chick with a nice set of hooters, I don't want in on it. On the issue of why it matters I propose we must question those who seek the term, as well as those who seek to deny others the use of the term.

...You talk about being sensitive to the meaning of the word to homosexuals, but seem to brush aside what it may mean to others.

My contention is that we should "brush aside" those who seek to deny others the use of a word with such cultural and historic significance.

[micatala]

There seems to be a great bunch of folks who seek to be married, however, there's also a great bunch of folks who object to such. These folks have typically presented a "great compromise" that entails the use of the term "civil unions". Unfortunately, such a proposal has been rejected by an opposing great number of folks. So then, since the compromise is so "great", then let's ask those offering the compromise to do the compromising.

It's kinda like how ya split up a bag of refer that two folks went in on. The one guy splits it up, the other'n picks between the two.

Now that the original compromise has been presented, the one to which the original compromise is offered now says, "So then, ya'll take the new term".

First, I think it's spelled reefer.

Second, I would almost agree except that the terms are not like hopefully indistinguishable bags of whatever. Both "marriage" and "civil unions" have both literal and connotational meanings that are not exactly identical.



I suppose what we could do is just throw both terms out and use two new terms.


Let's call legally sanctioned marriage, the civil institution monitored by the state, some new made up term. We could borrow some existing terms and call it something like "nuptial merger."

Or, get rid of all possible connotations and invent a completely new word.

How about "amaslattery"?

Too long? How about "mapala"?

Then, NO existing word, including marriage would have an legal meaning with respect to any relationships. However, no one could prevent anyone or any church from using whatever word they wanted to for the ceremonies or relationships they sanction.


I'll see if my church will go along with "nuptial mergers."

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

A church that is involved with gay marriage really should not be called a church. If they don't mind sin...

As sin is typically considered some kind of transgression against a god, I propose that until such time one can show a god has an opinion on such, that such opinion be held as just that.

If they don't mind sin could I show up and do drugs or show up with my girlfriend when everyone knows my wife?

Only if you bring your own drugs, and are willing to share said drugs, girlfriend, wife, or any combination thereof.

A strong Bible church can't condone sin.

Nor can a "strong Bible church" show that its opinions on a god's wants or wishes are true and factual.

(edit for speling and a bit of clarificatin')