Homosexual Marriage

[Matt W]

Let's try and get back to the topic, please...

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Rog Yes there are multiple ways your goals can be achieved, but you have to take in consideration even thought we are supposed to have separation from church and state all current president candidates call themselves religious.

The so called separation of church and state means there is to be no state-sponsored religion. No more, no less. Religious members of congress and state legislatures that create laws that do not also serve a secular purpose run afoul of this boundary and weaken the very foundation of our country.

Every US citizen has the right to believe and practice their religion, including elected officials. However, there's a difference between practicing a belief and forcing others to practice that belief through acts of law. So, in reality, it is our elected officials that need to learn how to conduct themselves within the spirit of church/state separation.

Quote by: Rog So unless there are some behavior changes it will be a while. why is it civil union with the same rights enough?

Civil unions would be fine with me if they actually had the same rights. But that's not reality right now. If it were reality, states and the federal government would grant rights and responsibilities identical to those of opposite-sex civil unions. But they don't.

Beyond that, this nitpicky, whiny argument about the words "marriage" -vs- "civil union" is a strawman. Most states use the word "marriage" to describe the process whether it is performed at a church or at the county clerk's office. If the word "marriage" is used in a state's laws, why waste taxpayer money to change laws, forms and procedures to add "civil unions" if the rights are the same as you say? This claim that the wording makes the difference is nothing more than a childish temper tantrum by people without critical thinking skills.

[Tycoon]

The problem with civil unions is they don't provide the same legal rights and benefits as marriage.

Even if they did, I don't want a civil union. Who the hell wants a civil union?

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Tycoon Even if they did, I don't want a civil union. Who the hell wants a civil union?

I got married in a civil union. No difference that I can see.

I can't imagine for the life of me why people actually want to get married. Guess it's a social thing.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Tycoon Even if they did, I don't want a civil union. Who the hell wants a civil union?

What's wrong with a civil union?

[italiangm]

Quote by: SoylentGreen What's wrong with a civil union?

From a personal perspective, nothing if the outcome is equal to marriage in benefits and responsibilities.

From a taxpayer perspective, 'civil unions' represent unnecessary waste if a state and the feds use the term "marriage". Laws, forms, etc, all cost money to rewrite, refile, revote, reclassify. The old documents may be unusable, invoking a cost to destroy, shred, recycle, etc.

Using "marriage" eliminates a lot of that waste.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: SoylentGreen What's wrong with a civil union?

It's still the government giving special rights, privileges, benefits, etc. based on their choice to mate.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: italiangm From a personal perspective, nothing if the outcome is equal to marriage in benefits and responsibilities. From a taxpayer perspective, 'civil unions' represent unnecessary waste if a state and the feds use the term "marriage". Laws, forms, etc, all cost money to rewrite, refile, revote, reclassify. The old documents may be unusable, invoking a cost to destroy, shred, recycle, etc. Using "marriage" eliminates a lot of that waste.

Hang on, isn't it the governments job to rewrite , refile , re vote and reclassify old documents into new ones? Politicians usually do make new laws and amend old ones, it kind of goes with the job.

ChancellorIt's still the government giving special rights, privileges, benefits, etc. based on their choice to mate.

What special privileges? It is only taking out the words, "man and woman" and replacing it with "gender unspecified".

[italiangm]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Hang on, isn't it the governments job to rewrite , refile , re vote and reclassify old documents into new ones? Politicians usually do make new laws and amend old ones, it kind of goes with the job.

You're missing the point. Why spend taxpayer money adding 'civil union' to a shitload of laws and documents when 'marriage' already exists at no extra cost?

Quote by: SoylentGreen What special privileges? It is only taking out the words, "man and woman" and replacing it with "gender unspecified".

Perhaps he meant that since same-sex couples aren't recognized, opposite-sex couples are getting 'special privileges', which he objects to.

[ShadowFox]

Actually, i suspect that Chancellor doesn't want the government involved in marriage or civil unions at all. He wants no benefits for married couples. This is just a guess though.

[SoylentGreen]

italiangmYou're missing the point. Why spend taxpayer money adding 'civil union' to a shitload of laws and documents when 'marriage' already exists at no extra cost?

They would have to do that anyway just to change the meaning of the word marriage as it stands now.

[italiangm]

Quote by: SoylentGreen They would have to do that anyway just to change the meaning of the word marriage as it stands now.

Not necessarily, and certainly not in all states.

[Nausicaa13]

Quote by: Rog Wrong is it a life choice? can you prove they are born with it?

Animals are born with it (and humans are animals...) . The Canada Goose population has the largest percentage of homosexual animals... and there' s a reason. Its not just a bunch of people randomly deciding to like the same sex. It's natural.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Rog Wrong is it a life choice? can you prove they are born with it?

You've known some homosexuals in your life, and you need proof that some people are born that way? I think it's pretty obvious that some people are born that way, that many people couldn't put on such a good act. Two men loving each other, and acting like a man and woman would in the same situation would be hard to make up. How about when they have to tell Mom and Dad? Yowzer, why would you want to have to go through such stress? There are too many for so many to be making it up.

[Tycoon]

I got married in a civil union. No difference that I can see.

What's wrong with a civil union?

It's just not the same. It promotes ignorance for a start, it only gives ignorant people more support in their belief that gays are less than people.

Not to mention... I've known a few gay couples, and everybody has a hard time describing their relationship. Usually they end up calling them partners instead of husbands or wives. It's stupid.

It's also just the fact in general that they would deny gay marriage that bothers me.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Tycoon It's just not the same. It promotes ignorance for a start, it only gives ignorant people more support in their belief that gays are less than people. Not to mention... I've known a few gay couples, and everybody has a hard time describing their relationship. Usually they end up calling them partners instead of husbands or wives. It's stupid. It's also just the fact in general that they would deny gay marriage that bothers me.

I'd say you can call it marriage for gays, but the husband/wife deal seems like it's reaching, partners sounds just as good and it tells what the reltionship is.

A husband or wife denotes male/female to most everybody. Male/male, female/female needs to have it's own word(s).

If a gay man comes up and say, "my wife burned the beans last night", you're not going to know they are gay. Gays should be proud of themselves in their own right, and not be trying to copy heterosexuals down to the last nut & bolt.

[Tycoon]

If a gay man comes up and say, "my wife burned the beans last night", you're not going to know they are gay. Gays should be proud of themselves in their own right, and not be trying to copy heterosexuals down to the last nut & bolt.

That's not what I was thinking, I was thinking more along the lines that a gay would refer to his partner as his husband, or a lesbian to her partner as her wife.

Together they would be referred to as husbands or wives.

[SoylentGreen]

Tycoon;]

It's just not the same. It promotes ignorance for a start, it only gives ignorant people more support in their belief that gays are less than people.

How so? A civil union gives the same rights, there is no difference but in name.
A marriage is nothing more than a legal document. The church only own the right to tell you that a god blesses your union.
In the end it doesn't matter what the ignorant think, what matters is that two people can legally live together.

Not to mention... I've known a few gay couples, and everybody has a hard time describing their relationship. Usually they end up calling them partners instead of husbands or wives. It's stupid.

Even a civil union wouldn't change that. And calling yourselves partners is better than saying man and wife. Religion promotes the idea that in marriage the woman belongs to the man it is not an equal relationship

It's also just the fact in general that they would deny gay marriage that bothers me.

A rose by any other name...

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Tycoon;] How so? A civil union gives the same rights, there is no difference but in name. A marriage is nothing more than a legal document. The church only own the right to tell you that a god blesses your union. In the end it doesn't matter what the ignorant think, what matters is that two people can legally live together. Even a civil union wouldn't change that. And calling yourselves partners is better than saying man and wife. Religion promotes the idea that in marriage the woman belongs to the man it is not an equal relationship A rose by any other name...

Again, civil Unions in the U.S. don't provide the same rights.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Halofan48 Again, civil Unions in the U.S. don't provide the same rights.

Then work to make the changes so that they do.
The only difference there should be is that the church doesn't get to bless a civil union.