Civil Unions: Separate and Unequal

[pdoel]

You are not setting up a seperate class for gay and lesbians - theoretically anyone can get a civil union. In fact, I would think that many people would prefer a civil union over a marriage.

If you aren't setting up a separate class for gays and lesbians, then why the separate term? Why not just call them all a marriage?

You mentioned in the other thread that you supported a civil union because it's like a marriage without the religious connotations.

What about Churches that support homosexuals and have no problem marrying same sex couples? There are quite a few Churches in the country today that do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. Should they not be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies on same-sex couples?

What about heterosexual couples that are atheists, would they be required to go the civil union route for now in as well?

 

[evearael]

I wasn't trying to squabble over a word, I was just curious if that is where the objection to marriage lies.

I know. I just know how vicious a thread like this can get and I wanted to prevent it from going that route. Period. It is not in anyway an attack on you.

 

[Green Gaia]

- but it is not a marriage.

Marriage should be about love and commitment to the person you've chosen to spend your life with - something gays and lesbians do just as well (and as badly) as heterosexuals.

 

[pdoel]

Because marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman - throughout the history of man-kind. In my view, it has a religious connotation.

I bolded the key part of your statement. Marriage has many meanings for many different people. Why should YOUR view be chosen when deciding what's best for the country at large? You mentioned earlier that you are Catholic. Well, based on "your" view, does that mean only Catholics should be allowed to marry? I'm Presbyterian, should all Presbyterians have to get Civil Unions instead? What about Buddhists or Muslims?

And forgive me if I'm assuming, but it sounds like you think a same-sex couple would not have religion, since you seem to think only a heterosexual couple would marry in a Church and have religion in their lives.

I'm gay, but I'm also a Christian. Make no doubts about that. I realize now all Churches would be willing to marry me and my partner, but I would find some (quite a few in my area, even). God would be just as big a part of my marriage as He would be for yours.

 

[GloriaPatri]

If you aren't setting up a separate class for gays and lesbians, then why the separate term? Why not just call them all a marriage?

You mentioned in the other thread that you supported a civil union because it's like a marriage without the religious connotations.

What about Churches that support homosexuals and have no problem marrying same sex couples? There are quite a few Churches in the country today that do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. Should they not be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies on same-sex couples?

What about heterosexual couples that are atheists, would they be required to go the civil union route for now in as well?

What about them? They can do that if they like - I just don't agree with it.

Well, my parents are atheists and they were married by a priest. Ultimately, it's up to the institution that is marrying the couple. If they want to marry same-sex couples and atheists that's fine - if not that's fine too. I just don't agree with it.

 

[Green Gaia]

Your phrasing opens the floodgates for the polygamy and incest debate. You may want to clarify that argument as being for another thread.

Well, 'couple' would imply only two people, so that covers polygamy and you must be an adult to sign a legal contract, so I believe the incest issue is covered as well, also there are other laws against incest. But yes, that is for another thread... in fact I think there's a recent one somewhere. ...

 

[pdoel]

The institution of marriage and the word 'marriage' and closely entwined. Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. Marriage is a sacrement. If people want to get civil unions so that two persons of the same-sex can get the benefits of married couples that's fine - but it is not a marriage.

For starters, historically, marriage is not a religious institution. It's been around centuries before religion. So your statement is incorrect.

Next, your comment that a union between two people of the same-sex is not a marriage. Sorry, but I find that incredibly offensive. What makes you think that the bonds between a man and a woman are different than the bonds between a man-man or a woman-woman.

Out of all my family and friends, I feel I have probably the strongest relationship. There's no doubt in my mind that my partner and I will be together till the end of time. I see the screwed up relationships of the married heterosexual couples around me, and I'm amazed.

For you to think that only a relationship between a man and a woman can be Holy, or that only it can be a marriage, and a relationship between two people of the same-sex isn't, is extremely offensive.

 

[Sunstone]

Because marriage has been traditionally between a man and a woman - throughout the history of man-kind. In my view, it has a religious connotation.

I've never researched this topic, but I suspect you're substantially correct that marriage has rarely been between members of the same sex. Yet, I can think offhand of some same sex marriages in Native American societies, and also of same sex marriages in the Roman Empire. So, the rule is not inviolate.

Marriage, at least in most complex societies, has traditionally been an institution focused on acquiring children, wealth, and family alliances. It has seldom in history been an institution sanctified by love, compassion, friendship, mutual respect, or even a notable lack of emotional, physical, and mental abuse. Given how it has traditionally been viewed, a homosexual couple might be excused from thinking at most times in history that marriage was something they desired. That is, there probably wasn't in most societies much demand on the part of homosexuals to engage in an institution focused on children, wealth, and family alliances. Hence, it could be a bit unfair to expect history to show a widespread pattern of homosexual marriage. Just a thought.

 

[Green Gaia]

Well, my parents are atheists and they were married by a priest. Ultimately, it's up to the institution that is marrying the couple. If they want to marry same-sex couples and atheists that's fine - if not that's fine too. I just don't agree with it.

My religious institution proudly recognizes, affirms and marrys same sex couples, so why then aren't they recognized by the government? A case could be made that this is a form of religious discrimination by the government against my religion.

 

[pdoel]

What about them? They can do that if they like - I just don't agree with it.

Who says you have to agree with it? My Lord, if we waited until everyone agreed on items in this country we'd never get anywhere.

I don't agree with parents who teach hate and raise intolerant children, but I realize they have that right and wouldn't keep them from being married.

Well, my parents are atheists and they were married by a priest. Ultimately, it's up to the institution that is marrying the couple. If they want to marry same-sex couples and atheists that's fine - if not that's fine too. I just don't agree with it.

So, by your own definition, your parents weren't really married. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[GloriaPatri]

I bolded the key part of your statement. Marriage has many meanings for many different people. Why should YOUR view be chosen when deciding what's best for the country at large? You mentioned earlier that you are Catholic. Well, based on "your" view, does that mean only Catholics should be allowed to marry? I'm Presbyterian, should all Presbyterians have to get Civil Unions instead? What about Buddhists or Muslims?

All marriages between a man and a woman are natural and good - even if those people are not Catholics. This is the view of the Church.

And forgive me if I'm assuming, but it sounds like you think a same-sex couple would not have religion, since you seem to think only a heterosexual couple would marry in a Church and have religion in their lives.

No, same-sex couples have religion.

I'm gay, but I'm also a Christian. Make no doubts about that. I realize now all Churches would be willing to marry me and my partner, but I would find some (quite a few in my area, even). God would be just as big a part of my marriage as He would be for yours.

I'm not saying God won't be a part of your life, in fact I hope He is. I just feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are fine - even religious civil unions. I just want marriage to stay between a man and a woman.

 

[Green Gaia]

Those are pretty good definitons.

I think so too, but if we were to try and advocate that, we'd get slaughtered with the "the gays are trying to destory the institution of marriage!"

 

[evearael]

I think so too, but if we were to try and advocate that, we'd get slaughtered with the "the gays are trying to destory the institution of marriage!"

It is all in how you market it. "We are giving marriage back to the control of the church!"

 

[standing_alone]

All marriages between a man and a woman are natural and good - even if those people are not Catholics. This is the view of the Church.

But why should the church dictate who is able to obtain civil (secular) marriage? And are relationships between homosexuals unnatural and bad? Because that certainly was implied.

 

[Green Gaia]

I just want marriage to stay between a man and a woman.

Why should the government recognize your religion's definition of what is a marriage and not my religion's definition? Why should my religion be discriminated against by the government?

 

[mr.guy]

I just feel that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I know the legislators are always serving us best by enacting what some "just feel".

 

[Green Gaia]

It is all in how you market it. "We are giving marriage back to the control of the church!"

But which church?

 

[mr.guy]

But which church?

Obviously, the "right" one.

 

[pdoel]

All marriages between a man and a woman are natural and good - even if those people are not Catholics. This is the view of the Church.

Actually, that is not the view of the Church. My sister is Presbyterian. My brother-in-law is Catholic. Because they were married in a Presbyterian Church by a Presbyterian Minister, his Church does NOT recognize their marriage. So your claim that the Catholic Church views all marriages of a man and a woman as good and natural, is not true. Also, I'm even more offended by this statement that your previous ones.

For you to say that all marriages between a man and a woman are natural and good, makes it sound like you believe a marriage between two men or two women are unnatural and evil.

I'm not saying God won't be a part of your life, in fact I hope He is. I just feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions are fine - even religious civil unions. I just want marriage to stay between a man and a woman.

And I want to live in a country free of intolerance and hate. I'd like to live in a country that learns from its past mistakes and wouldn't make the mistake of trying to institute another "separate but equal" plan.

 

[evearael]

But which church?

Don't specify. Let them fight over it.

Just kidding. Really, though, it is all about spin and if you don't spin it properly it will fail... regardless of what is right or just.