Gay marriage

[saechalyn]

I don't think anyone has.  My argument was that we shouldn't change the definition of marriage to suit anyones needs that comes along (see my man loves dog point earlier).  A civil union would give gay couples all the rights a straight couple would have.  Leave marriage for the intented purposes of the institution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what, exactly, would be the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Just the name? Why would that matter?

[Blackmail]

So what, exactly, would be the difference between a marriage and a civil union?  Just the name?  Why would that matter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Semantics to you.

Religion to many others.

[saechalyn]

Semantics to you.

Religion to many others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, to many others, but not to everyone, and people do not all have the same definitions. Heck, my coworker could not marry her husband in the church she’s been going to for 20 years because her now-husband was not a member. And they are both Christians, just different denominations. On the other hand, there are some churches (some unitarians, for instance) who are willing to accept and bless homosexual unions.

If a church chooses not to recognize a marriage for whatever reason then that is its prerogative. I’m just saying marriage in a legal sense should be open to everyone; churches can make up their own minds.

[The_Dark]

I stand corrected. The Dolphin was infact male. But what does it have to do with gay marrige? Not alot... just another example of the declining moral fiber of the world and the disrespect for the oldest cross cultural institution humans have.

[The_Dark]

Semantics are important to the people who put meaning to words. A good portion of the people that oppose gay marrige do support civil unions. It's the outspoken few who argue for gay marrige that wont accept them.

[saechalyn]

Semantics are important to the people who put meaning to words. A good portion of the people that oppose gay marrige do support civil unions. It's the outspoken few who argue for gay marrige that wont accept them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there was such thing as a civil union that truly offered all of the legal protections of marriage (insurance, inheritance, being allowed in the ICU, etc, etc, etc) then I would be all for it. I do not see that happening, and I am reminded of our country's previous attempts at what was ostensibly "separate but equal."

[The_Dark]

A Civil Union as you describe has been proposed... and regected by the gay marrige lobby.

[saechalyn]

A Civil Union as you describe has been proposed... and regected by the gay marrige lobby.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When was this?

[Shade Everdark]

I for one say thank goodness they rejected it.

Civil unions being tacked on as some sort of addendum to 'legal' marriage is no different than having, oh, designated gay marriage areas.

Words have power. For every glassy-eyed person out there who says words will never be the equal of actions, I have only to direct you to Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry.

That said, I think it becomes fairly clear what I'm driving at. Gays being 'united', even if they get all the same legal protections that hetero couples get, will still be treated as second-class marrieds by the millions of Americans who are still afraid of the gay community.

I am not for gay marriage, in the legal sense, because I am not for any kind of legal sanctions for marriage. As The_Dark points out, it is a social contract, and in my mind, should really stay that way. If we have to bring it into the legal sphere, all compacts between two people who want to share their lives together should be termed 'civil unions' in the eyes of the law. That eliminates the problem entirely, and still allows religious orders to have their holy and sanctified marriage rituals.

About this issue, I'm pretty adamant. Religious organizations are free to do what they want, I suppose, as long as they aren't out actively hurting others. If they want to be closed-minded and shun people who would like to be a part of their group, so be it. But we cannot allow a government that is supposed to represent everyone, even the minority (it's majority rule, not suppression of everything but the majority), to condone--AGAIN--this sort of prejudicial, bigoted, and ultimately harmful view of people whose only difference from the rest of us is that they love people with the same reproductive bits as they have.

[torn asunder]

I for one say thank goodness they rejected it. 

Civil unions being tacked on as some sort of addendum to 'legal' marriage is no different than having, oh, designated gay marriage areas. 

Words have power.  For every glassy-eyed person out there who says words will never be the equal of actions, I have only to direct you to Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry. 

That said, I think it becomes fairly clear what I'm driving at.  Gays being 'united', even if they get all the same legal protections that hetero couples get, will still be treated as second-class marrieds by the millions of Americans who are still afraid of the gay community.

I am not for gay marriage, in the legal sense, because I am not for any kind of legal sanctions for marriage.  As The_Dark points out, it is a social contract, and in my mind, should really stay that way.  If we have to bring it into the legal sphere, all compacts between two people who want to share their lives together should be termed 'civil unions' in the eyes of the law.  That eliminates the problem entirely, and still allows religious orders to have their holy and sanctified marriage rituals.

About this issue, I'm pretty adamant.  Religious organizations are free to do what they want, I suppose, as long as they aren't out actively hurting others.  If they want to be closed-minded and shun people who would like to be a part of their group, so be it.  But we cannot allow a government that is supposed to represent everyone, even the minority (it's majority rule, not suppression of everything but the majority), to condone--AGAIN--this sort of prejudicial, bigoted, and ultimately harmful view of people whose only difference from the rest of us is that they love people with the same reproductive bits as they have.

[The_Dark]

Exactly Shade... I've proposed exactly that in threads before. Make it a Civil Union for the legal side of things for everyone and leave marrige alone. Let it be the social thing it has always been.. that both the Church and the Governments have no business trying to control.

[The_Dark]

saechalyn, I should rephrase.... the people I was refering to were the majority of the gay marrige supporters on DGN. The actual gay people I really know are all for it.

[saechalyn]

saechalyn, I should rephrase.... the people I was refering to were the majority of the gay marrige supporters on DGN. The actual gay people I really know are all for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, okey dokey.

[Msterbeau]

Exactly Shade... I've proposed exactly that in threads before. Make it a Civil Union for the legal side of things for everyone and leave marrige alone. Let it be the social thing it has always been.. that both the Church and the Governments have no business trying to control.

I'd completely agree with this. Words DO matter.. and I'm perfectly OK with religions keeping the "sanctity" of marraige to themselves. Of course... as Saechlyn pointed out, Unitarians (and a few others) would still perform gay "marriages".

Shade. Very eloquently put, sir.

[The_Dark]

I really need to find the old threads where I brought this exact same thing up and was shot down.

[Fierce Critter]

Can someone please explain to me what "marriage" is if it's not a legal/governmental/religious thing?

What would a non-governmental and non-religious "marriage" ceremony entail? Who officiates?

I'm lost on this one.

[Msterbeau]

I really need to find the old threads where I brought this exact same thing up and was shot down.

Newer crowd? Maybe people have thought on it more... Maybe how it's being worded in this thread makes more sense? *shrugs*

[Msterbeau]

Can someone please explain to me what "marriage" is if it's not a legal/governmental/religious thing?

What would a non-governmental and non-religious "marriage" ceremony entail? Who officiates?

I'm lost on this one.

Justice of the peace/Judge/Mayor at city hall kinda thing? Technically... you'd just fill out some paperwork... :whistling

I think the point being... for the legal part, (Civil Union) you sign the papers and you're good to go. For "marriage" you do it within the bounds of whatever religious/social community you belong to/believe in... or you make it up if you're the sort that likes to make their own rules.

[The_Dark]

If it were not for the fact that Shade has it almost verbatum to how I normally describe it.... maybe he found my old posts....

[Fierce Critter]

Justice of the peace/Judge/Mayor at city hall kinda thing?  Technically... you'd just fill out some paperwork...  :whistling

I think the point being...  for the legal part, (Civil Union) you sign the papers and you're good to go.  For "marriage" you do it within the bounds of whatever religious/social community you belong to/believe in... or you make it up if you're the sort that likes to make their own rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But I'm being told that Marriage has nothing to do with government or church.

It's sounding more and more like "marriage" is more of a concept than a set-in-stone institution.

[Steven]

:blink Wait ... so because I've had two failed marriages (married at 18 and 21), you'd think it'd be wrong if I were to get married again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's wrong to move forward and repeat the same dynamics of the past if you have not first taken the time to work on what may have broken down.

Married at 18 is one thing.

21 is not much different.

35, now thats (hopefully) something new, becaue hopefully some experience and maturity has evolved.

incidently, laura and I did not always have a good marriage.

I left her for a year.

She served me divorce papers

we got involved with other people.

prior to that we had a terrible marriage, to include heavy addictions, infidelity and violence. I know the drill.

we did not start that way. we ended up that way by the 5th year. two young fucked up kids who got married, who had no clue HOW to be married, let alone how to be happy. we were not marriage material. we had to learn how to be.

I've been married for 19 years.

but when we got back togethor - we started doing serious and very painful work on ourselves. It took a few years. we had mentors. we took classes, lots of them. we dug some serious ditches. had nothing to do with natural compatibility. Had everything to do with our individual and thus group hangups. And aour willingess to work.

[Steven]

Let's open this can of worms too:  Failed marraiges seem mostly to be the result of people with psychological problems getting together, thinking that the relationship will either cure the problem... or they use that as a mask for what's really going on.  This can happen in any kind of relationship.  It happened with mine and from the work I did afterward it's not difficult to see the issues in other peoples divorces. 

I agree somewhat with what T/A and Blackmail discuss.  Relationships/Marraiges/Civil Unions should be largely hands off by government.  I know two gay couples who are very monogamous and commited.  One has an adopted child.  I think the notion that they can't have this sort of relationship is completely bunk...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.... time will tell.

and that's what makes this argument both divided and passioante, because people have expereinced both sides of the coin. Unfortunately Mark I've only seen damage to kids raised in Gay and lesbian marriages. I havent ever witnessed the other side of the coin.

[Rayne]

Unfortunately Mark I've only seen damage to kids raised in Gay  and lesbian marriages.  I havent ever witnessed the other side of the coin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've never met my little brother ....

[Steven]

Words have power.  For every glassy-eyed person out there who says words will never be the equal of actions, I have only to direct you to Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry. 

I liked this simple point.

may I add, that fear is a far too often cited cause for repression.

I dont fear the gay lifestyle.

I dont fear anybody.

i dont know the actual "history" of marriage.

I've heard many theories in here about its history however.

the only history on marriage that I've been taught (although I'm open to your explanations) is indeed rooted in a judeo christian foremat.

its exemplified in 7 covenenats of profound importance in the bible.

it goes on to exemplify that a "covenent" is a blood oath - an agreement sealed unto death. Covenents were made between ruling powers, between armies, between business leaders, and between God and Man. It also ties in the exact same word, "covenent, in regard to marriages. It does this to ensure that the reader understands the importance and depth of the marital agreement.

this is the only marital history that i know of. Therefore my ideals about marriage are rather serious.

[Steven]

You've never met my little brother ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, your right. and I cant mandate that my definitions supercede any other experiences. nor can anyone else do the same with me. and so there lies the conundrum.

I'm glad however, (honestly) that your brother is good people. I beleive you.