Legal Gay Marriage

[FrostyM288]

With the government's new stance on DOMA, I thought this would be a topic on people's minds. There is quite a responsive thread going on whether gay marriage threatens traditional family values, but I wanted to get into the political side of the debate.

Whether or not this is the case, do you feel the government should have any control on who can/not marry whom? If so, do you feel the government should allow or disallow gay marriage?

[Kuan]

All I am advocating is to get rid of marriage as a legal term, let the religious have it. Instead, give everyone a civil union. If they want to perform a separate ceremony in their own religious ways, that is perfectly fine.

I don't personally have a problem with that- if we all decided to rename wallets 'dlagles' they would still be small folding cases used to carry money and credit cards.

However, I do not see the point. And seeing as the issue with the word marriage only arose when gay marriage became a realistic possibility, it seems clear as water to me that it's not marriage used as a legal term they object to, it's marriage applied to homosexuals that is bothering them. I questions the necessity to make a fuss over a semantics issue in order to indulge a few churches with their desire to interfere in state affairs, but I'll agree it's not a huge concession anyway.

Exactly what I am trying to say, its not a big deal. All it is, is a word. This seems to be a good compromise to me, both sides get what they want. Yes, some religious dont want the term to be given to homosexual couples, not because of the term but because they view it as a sin or abomination. If we change this, they cant really complain at all. They protected their "sacred" marriage term. Homosexuals cant complain either. They can now get "married." It seems interesting to me that on one side, they dont want to give them the term marriage. On the other hand, the homosexual side seems intent on the religous accepting them and dont want civil unions, but marriage. It amazes me how humans can fight over some arbitrary term that has no value or meaning.

[FrostyM288]

Though I would begrudgingly accept everything being switched to civil union, I don't feel it's quite the same. First, it's got the feel of separate but equal. "We both get to goto schools...just different ones..." just with marriages. All will have civil unions, some will have special ones only allotted to non-gays (civil union + marriage).

I sincerely doubt churches will take this religious reclaiming of marriages seriously. Many will still offer them to atheists and agnostics, but not to lbgt. They'll just be satisfied with not having gay marriages since they don't seem to be whining about traditional values ruined by the large # of shotgun wedding (Brittney Spears anyone?) or non-religious weddings.

Also, I bring up again that the status of being married has been "genericized" for its ubiquitous use for so long that if anything there should be a "religious marriage" and a "non-religious marriage" liked there are kleenex brand kleenexes and generic brand kleenexes.

[Prisoner of the Sun]

For me, the legal entitlements that go with a legally recognised union are all that matter. Call the arrangement what you like - civil union is as good a term as any - just give gays and lesbians the same legal rights as other couples (taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.).

[Goat]

For me, the legal entitlements that go with a legally recognised union are all that matter. Call the arrangement what you like - civil union is as good a term as any - just give gays and lesbians the same legal rights as other couples (taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.).

I find that while it probably would be a good step 'separate but equal' never is.

[JoeyKnothead]

For me, the legal entitlements that go with a legally recognised union are all that matter. Call the arrangement what you like - civil union is as good a term as any - just give gays and lesbians the same legal rights as other couples (taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.).

I find that while it probably would be a good step 'separate but equal' never is.

+1 for Goat.

You there, y'all can call y'all's union a marriage, with all the historical and social notions that apply.

Y'all over there, y'all can't, but y'all are more than welcome to pretend you're just as equal as us, heck, we'll even pretend it too.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 11:

Exactly what I am trying to say, its not a big deal. All it is, is a word.

I think .... failing to recognize the social and secular significance of this word.

This seems to be a good compromise to me, both sides get what they want.

If it were such a good compromise, I propose so many folks wouldn't continue to carry on about it.

Yes, some religious dont want the term to be given to homosexual couples, not because of the term but because they view it as a sin or abomination.

Who says religious folks alone get to define words? Certainly ..... encountered folks telling ... that since ..... a Mormon, ... can't be Christian.

If we change this, they cant really complain at all. They protected their "sacred" marriage term.

I've come to learn folks'll find things to complain about. Beyond that, to drop such a common, easily understood term from our vocabulary simply because some folks get upset seems like caving to a bully.

Homosexuals cant complain either. They can now get "married."

No, they could get "civil unioned". They would ostensibly be barred from ever uttering the word marriage.

Notice ... had to use quotaters around the word. This indicates a special definition, which further indicates just how separate civil unions would be, and the loss of social significance involved.

It seems interesting to me that on one side, they dont want to give them the term marriage. On the other hand, the homosexual side seems intent on the religous accepting them and dont want civil unions, but marriage.

Homosexuals are not so much asking religious folks to accept them - such discrimination is a "holy writ". What they do ask is to have their love for one another recognized by a government that declares all are equal before the law.

It amazes me how humans can fight over some arbitrary term that has no value or meaning.

That the fight occurs indicates to me the word is not so arbitrary, not so valueless, and not so meaningless.

(edit to ensure civility)

[Kuan]

From Post 11:

Exactly what I am trying to say, its not a big deal. All it is, is a word.

I think .... failing to recognize the social and secular significance of this word.

If we started calling chocolate, Coklat, it still would be chocolate. It did not change because the word changed. Same as the word marriage.

This seems to be a good compromise to me, both sides get what they want.

If it were such a good compromise, I propose so many folks wouldn't continue to carry on about it.

People fight over stupid things all the time. What I see as a good compromise, you dont. Its great though that we can all get along and talk about it.

Yes, some religious dont want the term to be given to homosexual couples, not because of the term but because they view it as a sin or abomination.

Who says religious folks alone get to define words? Certainly ..... encountered folks telling ... that since ..... a Mormon, ... can't be Christian.

I dont care about that term. I am a mormon, ill call myself christian, they can call me whatever they want. If they define me as a christian, nothing changes. If they dont define me as christian, nothing changes. My beliefs are still the same and dont change because of the views of others. When I first came here, I cared about the term. Now my mind and view has become what I like to think is enlightened, I have changed my views.

If we change this, they cant really complain at all. They protected their "sacred" marriage term.

I've come to learn folks'll find things to complain about. Beyond that, to drop such a common, easily understood term from our vocabulary simply because some folks get upset seems like caving to a bully.

Very true, I cant say much more beyond that for this.

Homosexuals cant complain either. They can now get "married."

No, they could get "civil unioned". They would ostensibly be barred from ever uttering the word marriage.

Notice ... had to use quotaters around the word. This indicates a special definition, which further indicates just how separate civil unions would be, and the loss of social significance involved.

Actually, I used quotations because the term would no longer exist. The word marriage would probably become the unofficial way to refer to civil unions instead of saying something like civil unioned.

It seems interesting to me that on one side, they dont want to give them the term marriage. On the other hand, the homosexual side seems intent on the religous accepting them and dont want civil unions, but marriage.

Homosexuals are not so much asking religious folks to accept them - such discrimination is a "holy writ". What they do ask is to have their love for one another recognized by a government that declares all are equal before the law.

Why then are they so against a compromise? Segregation didnt go away over night, this wont either. Patience, diligence, and hardwork will lead to the right path, but first we need to take a step down that path.

It amazes me how humans can fight over some arbitrary term that has no value or meaning.

That the fight occurs indicates to me the word is not so arbitrary, not so valueless, and not so meaningless.

(edit to ensure civility)

Well, it seems to me that the term is arbitrary. Interesting that a mormon of all people would find the term so useless.

P.S. I would be fine with keeping the term marriage and just legalizing homosexual marriage.

[Kuan]

For me, the legal entitlements that go with a legally recognised union are all that matter. Call the arrangement what you like - civil union is as good a term as any - just give gays and lesbians the same legal rights as other couples (taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.).

I find that while it probably would be a good step 'separate but equal' never is.

How is it separate but equal if everyone is getting a civil union?

[Kuan]

Though I would begrudgingly accept everything being switched to civil union, I don't feel it's quite the same. First, it's got the feel of separate but equal. "We both get to goto schools...just different ones..." just with marriages. All will have civil unions, some will have special ones only allotted to non-gays (civil union + marriage).

Well, I never said homosexuals couldn't go get a marriage too. Everyone has the choice to get just a civil union, or to get both a civil union and marriage.

I sincerely doubt churches will take this religious reclaiming of marriages seriously. Many will still offer them to atheists and agnostics, but not to lbgt. They'll just be satisfied with not having gay marriages since they don't seem to be whining about traditional values ruined by the large # of shotgun wedding (Brittney Spears anyone?) or non-religious weddings.

You have not experienced the mormon culture have you....The LDS church does not perform marriages inside our temples unless they are members. Not even non member parents or family are allowed inside during the ceremony. The LDS also care very deeply about traditional values.

Also, I bring up again that the status of being married has been "genericized" for its ubiquitous use for so long that if anything there should be a "religious marriage" and a "non-religious marriage" liked there are kleenex brand kleenexes and generic brand kleenexes.

Well, yeah. There will be both. Everyone can get a civil union, then if they are not satisfied they can go get a marriage. I didnt think this was a big deal because homosexuals wanted the rights and privileges that marriage gives you. I assumed that it would be the religious getting the marriages.

[Goat]

For me, the legal entitlements that go with a legally recognised union are all that matter. Call the arrangement what you like - civil union is as good a term as any - just give gays and lesbians the same legal rights as other couples (taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.).

I find that while it probably would be a good step 'separate but equal' never is.

How is it separate but equal if everyone is getting a civil union?

Do you really think that can be accomplished??? The same ones against the idea of marriages from Gays would be complaining 'Because of gays, you are taking marriages away from me'.