Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Meister]

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

Churches perform ceremonies for gays too ya know. That arrangement, however, works fine for me. (PSSST...we're still gonna call it married, though..."I just got Civil Unioned" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.)

I can't imagine in my wildest dreams what rolls off your tongue

Once you have that civil union paper in your hand you can call it whatever you want, but when the rubber meets the road, it would be a civil union.
Like I said, I don't believe that the government should be in the marriage business.

 

[Meister]

If you are married in Vegas, its recognised as a marriage, not a civil union.

Your point?
I'm just giving you what was presented in this thread that both sides had some common ground...I don't feel that the government should be in the marriage business, but could be in the civil union business, where all would have equal rights.
Marriage be with the church and the same equal rights between a man and a woman. But, that IS MY opinion.

Homosexuals will never be able to marry if the church keeps hold of marriage, as they constantly discriminate.

Get rid of marriage and have civil unions. Then everyone is equal - but you wait for the heterosexuals to start bitching.

You have your opinion and I have mine, Noomi. We just need to agree to disagree.

 

[Lakhota]

Recognized Marriage Officiants -- People Who Can Perform Wedding Ceremonies

Finding an Officiant for Your Wedding - How to Find the Person Who Will Marry You

 

[Noomi]

Your point?
I'm just giving you what was presented in this thread that both sides had some common ground...I don't feel that the government should be in the marriage business, but could be in the civil union business, where all would have equal rights.
Marriage be with the church and the same equal rights between a man and a woman. But, that IS MY opinion.

Homosexuals will never be able to marry if the church keeps hold of marriage, as they constantly discriminate.

Get rid of marriage and have civil unions. Then everyone is equal - but you wait for the heterosexuals to start bitching.

You have your opinion and I have mine, Noomi. We just need to agree to disagree.

Well, at least we have enough mutual respect for each other to agree to disagree. Others wouldn't have a bar of it!

 

[Seawytch]

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

Churches perform ceremonies for gays too ya know. That arrangement, however, works fine for me. (PSSST...we're still gonna call it married, though..."I just got Civil Unioned" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.)

I can't imagine in my wildest dreams what rolls off your tongue

Once you have that civil union paper in your hand you can call it whatever you want, but when the rubber meets the road, it would be a civil union.
Like I said, I don't believe that the government should be in the marriage business.

They are in and they aren't getting out.

Has a single legislator in any office anywhere ever even tried? No.

If you want to re-write over 11,000 Federal Laws and countless state laws just so, on paper, we don't call it "marriage", go right ahead. I know a lot of people who will be happy to get hired to do the work.

 

[Cowman]

They want to be able to force, FORCE, churches, etc, to have ceremonies, any that refuse will be sued into the ground.


This never had anything to do with equality, at least not to the puppet masters.

Uhh, what does legalized gay marriage have to do with forcing churches to have ceremonies?

There are TONS of churches and religious communities that will openly accept and marry gays.

They don't need your pretentious stick up their evil little asshole church.

That's pretty naive.. You KNOW people sue even when they KNOW they will not be served. That's why photographers and bakeries and all those folks get sued right now if they try to refuse to serve. And there are gay folks out there who are LOOKING for an opportunity to draw legal blood.

Oh yes. Let's keep gay marriage illegal because we live in a litigious society.

I've heard everything now.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

Some would no doubt, complain bitterly that they had to sign contracts. That is not fixed to just conservatives, GOP, Democrat or progressives however. I have found that people, when they don't get every fucking thing they want, they bitch, moan and piss away hours and hours complaining about it.

The reality of the situation is this. Marriage in the eyes of the law has already been reduced to legal entities and binding acceptances of contractual obligations. In many marriages today, people will even sign the prenuptial agreement before marriage. A prenuptial agreement is, guess what? A contract placing limits and obligations on the marriage.

The biggest problem here that I see is that in order to get their way, the gays are willing to shove their own particular brand of morality down the throats of others, alter historic meanings and understandings, just so that they can have their way right now, instead of doing what the left seems to always scream at the right to do. Win the hearts and minds of the opposition.

There are those who say that government won't ever be out of the marriage business. But then, there are those who say that government would never be in the health insurance business either. Yet, here we are.

People say that no one will be willing to spend all that money rewriting marriage law into contract law (ignoring the fact that marriage law is nothing BUT contract law), yet these same people have no problem creating huge new bureaucracies and forests of paperwork for a new health insurance entitlement.

Some have even argued that all the gays want is to be able to enjoy the inheritance of a spouse that passes away without being penalized by a 60% tax. Yet these are the same people who have no problem taking 60% of a child's inheritance when a parent passes away.

The arguments of the advocates of gay marriage need a better argument then the phoney 'civil rights of blacks' comparison and they need a coherent philosophy that does not contradict other positions they hold. It gives them little credibility.

 

[Darkwind]

See, what I don't get is making it seem like only the gays are at fault here. Again, they have been marginalized, humiliated, cast out, and spit on for years. If we're gonna get into the hate mongering that's at the very, very least a two way street, so it's not much use in discussing because we could do this forever.

Second, I'm fine with the government getting out of the marriage business all together (with regards to the word) and only dealing in civil unions. That's OK, so I don't have much to say on the subject.

But honestly, I can't really see that happening (can you?), so I think the marriage debate from the standpoint of what and what the gov't won't recognize is where we find ourselves. That's just how things are working out at this point.

And finally, what's the big deal if the gov't says two gays are married and also says two straights are married; do they need to interact in some way? Is the straight couple required to hand their children over to the gay couple a few times a month for some gay education program? The point I'm making is why do you care so much if gay people can get married? It's not going to impact your life!

.

People have held values and morals beliefs for thousands of years. I literally mean thousands of years. They have been marginalized and cast out, but that is what happens when people have strong opinions. There are people here on the left who would gladly cast out, spit upon and marginalize anyone who disagrees with them. It is hardly a conservative trait.

You also seem to just ignore the fact that the compromise has been all one way. Compromise by people who hold deep seated moral beliefs. They have their right to these beliefs, and they have every right to defend and promote them. Every bit as much right as the gays do. The fact that they have been willing to compromise whereas those who advocate for gay marriage have not should point out that the intolerance in this issue has shifted to the proponents of gay marriage.

As for changing government. 25 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the federal government would be violating the Constitution and interfering with the health choices of Americans. Yet, here we are. It would have been unthinkable that gays would have been given civil unions, let alone a standing in the courts for gay marriage. Yet here we are.

Getting government out of anything seems to be unthinkable to progressives and government worshipers, but that does not mean we should stop trying. Perhaps getting children out of the government indoctrination centers will go a long way toward that.

Finally, simply because you do not see the 'big deal' does not mean that there isn't one. Many thousands of lines of argument have been made for this 'big deal'. Have you just summarily rejected and not bothered to read them because you have made up your mind that it is no big deal?

And speaking of which, because I have to run and cannot spend anymore time today on this forum, I have a question.

Why do you support gay marriage? Deep down, why do you think it is okay?

Thanks for the nice and thoughtful response (not being sarcastic).

I support gay marriage for a few reasons. First is that (personally) I believe that life is very, very short, and if two people of the same sex love each other and want to form a life around one another, who am I to say that they can't fall under that same umbrella I do with my wife? I don't know the secrets to the universe, or if a god exists, or (if he does exist) what his plans are - no one does - so with that as a given if something is going to have no effect on my life, but will make someone else's life much better, I say fine, "go ahead". What's to gain from bickering over it?

If gay people were trying to reduce my rights, or change the conditions of my own marriage, then we'd have an issue. But they are not..

Secondly, the gay couples I know personally act and live exactly the same as the straight couples I know; they hang out, they go on vacations, they take care of one another when one is sick, they pay bills together, they raise kids, ect. So given that the structure of their relationship is exactly the same as my wife and I, who am I to say that they shouldn't call it a marriage?

My question is, what sort of bad things will happen if marriage is redefined to be both same and opposite sex couples? I mean, the gay/straight ratio will still remain the same (that's not going anywhere), and gay people are still going to form couples, adopt children, live amongst you, so again, what does barring them from the word marriage and a few tax breaks accomplish?

Why can't you just enjoy straight marriage alongside gay marriage?

.

Now this is reasonable. I too have many gay friends and many of them share life that is no different than that which My wife and I enjoy. I have repeatedly said that I have no dog in this fight as I don't care what the gay community does as long as they don't try to teach My children or family that what they do is something they should try, or that it is somehow natural. For that is definitely is not. That does not make it wrong, it just means that it is against nature. The way nature intended our species to exist. There is no moral judgement in that, at least not from Me.

However, your position right here is one free of intolerance for the gays, and so far, it has been free of intolerance of the hetero community who oppose gay marriage. That is exactly how it should be. Each side should argue the merits of their morality, vote for people who will support their view and just continue on with their life.

For many of the gay advocates, that is not the case. They have resorted to vile invective, outright slander, threats of violence, and pure vitriol whenever anyone suggests that they oppose gay marriage. They do this for the single purpose of shutting down debate and because they are not much more mature than a three year old child who sees something they want, demands it, and then throws a tantrum when they are told no.

If, as they claim, that the country is moving toward their position, they have just to wait a few more years, maybe a generation, and they'll have enough of a majority to elect those people who can make things like this happen. That is how responsible social change comes about.

Now, the reason I asked you why you supported gay marriage was to see if you would simply say that YOU feel it is the right thing to do.

I have to ask you this.

Don't you believe that those who oppose gay marriage also feel it is the right thing to do?

If you were to evaluate a pure moral response to something you found repugnant, do you analyze why you find it repugnant? Consider this.

Someone suggests to you that you should have sex with some animal...Say....an Orangutan....Do you reject it immediately? Do you get a 'revulsion' reaction in your mind at the very thought of it?

Now suppose that the Orangutans started calling you primaphobes for hating primates!!!!

I have nothing against gays as I've said. My entire philosophy can be summed up by how much government involvement is associated with any issue. This is because I determine that I wish to live free and to Me, that means the least amount of government possible.

But I am married to a woman because the curves of a woman are enticing to Me, and the thought of a hairy ass just gives Me that 'revulsion' reaction I was speaking of.

After all, do you want this:

or do you want this:

I'll take the latter, thank you. Particularly because I'm a big fan of Kate Beckinsdale.

 

[Lakhota]

How did "Orangutans" enter the discussion?

 

[auditor0007]

Gays aren't happy unless they are flouting their perversions and pressing to have them accepted as the norm. They are a snippy, agressive lot more self-righteous than fundametalist preachers.

Yea, why should we let faggots have the same rights as us normal people, right? God forbid they should stand up for themselves. Homophobes such as yourself just want the faggots back in the closet because you're afraid their gayness might just rub off on you because you're not secure enough in your own heterosexuality.

 

[Lakhota]

I'm convinced gays are born that way. Rachel Maddow confirms my belief.

 

[Flaylo]

Gays aren't happy unless they are flouting their perversions and pressing to have them accepted as the norm. They are a snippy, agressive lot more self-righteous than fundametalist preachers.

Yea, why should we let faggots have the same rights as us normal people, right? God forbid they should stand up for themselves. Homophobes such as yourself just want the faggots back in the closet because you're afraid their gayness might just rub off on you because you're not secure enough in your own heterosexuality.

Bullshit, if gays are given the same rights under a civil union that others have under a marriage where is the inequality? Just as the govt cannot and does not mandate bar mitzvahs neither should govt be involved with marriages, all non-believers and non-church goers and atheists should have civil unions, leave marriages to church since marriages are DIVINE and SACRED and represents the union of a man and woman.

 

[JoeB131]

one solution is this;

more here;
Covenant marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have two types of marriage in Arizona, the plain old "contract" kind and the "covenant" marriage. It seems to me this would satisfy everyone.

Is that kind of like this?

 

[Seawytch]

Gays aren't happy unless they are flouting their perversions and pressing to have them accepted as the norm. They are a snippy, agressive lot more self-righteous than fundametalist preachers.

Yea, why should we let faggots have the same rights as us normal people, right? God forbid they should stand up for themselves. Homophobes such as yourself just want the faggots back in the closet because you're afraid their gayness might just rub off on you because you're not secure enough in your own heterosexuality.

Bullshit, if gays are given the same rights under a civil union that others have under a marriage where is the inequality? Just as the govt cannot and does not mandate bar mitzvahs neither should govt be involved with marriages, all non-believers and non-church goers and atheists should have civil unions, leave marriages to church since marriages are DIVINE and SACRED and represents the union of a man and woman.

Fine do it. Make it so. Civil Unions for all. In the meantime I'm going to go the cheaper, more efficient route and just get equal access to civil marriage.

 

[Flaylo]

Yea, why should we let faggots have the same rights as us normal people, right? God forbid they should stand up for themselves. Homophobes such as yourself just want the faggots back in the closet because you're afraid their gayness might just rub off on you because you're not secure enough in your own heterosexuality.

Bullshit, if gays are given the same rights under a civil union that others have under a marriage where is the inequality? Just as the govt cannot and does not mandate bar mitzvahs neither should govt be involved with marriages, all non-believers and non-church goers and atheists should have civil unions, leave marriages to church since marriages are DIVINE and SACRED and represents the union of a man and woman.

Fine do it. Make it so. Civil Unions for all. In the meantime I'm going to go the cheaper, more efficient route and just get equal access to civil marriage.

Marriage isn't civil, its divine, thats the mistake you and others have made about marriage. Marriage is only for churches, it got twisted up somewhere along the lines by retards.

 

[High_Gravity]

Bullshit, if gays are given the same rights under a civil union that others have under a marriage where is the inequality? Just as the govt cannot and does not mandate bar mitzvahs neither should govt be involved with marriages, all non-believers and non-church goers and atheists should have civil unions, leave marriages to church since marriages are DIVINE and SACRED and represents the union of a man and woman.

Fine do it. Make it so. Civil Unions for all. In the meantime I'm going to go the cheaper, more efficient route and just get equal access to civil marriage.

Marriage isn't civil, its divine, thats the mistake you and others have made about marriage. Marriage is only for churches, it got twisted up somewhere along the lines by retards.

There are Churches that support gays and will marry them, so if we are looking to the Churches to decide this gays will have no problem getting married. The Church has very little to do with this right now.

 

[PratchettFan]

If you are married in Vegas, its recognised as a marriage, not a civil union.

Your point?
I'm just giving you what was presented in this thread that both sides had some common ground...I don't feel that the government should be in the marriage business, but could be in the civil union business, where all would have equal rights.
Marriage be with the church and the same equal rights between a man and a woman. But, that IS MY opinion.

Homosexuals will never be able to marry if the church keeps hold of marriage, as they constantly discriminate.

Get rid of marriage and have civil unions. Then everyone is equal - but you wait for the heterosexuals to start bitching.

The churches don't have a hold on marriage. The only thing any church can do is perform the ceremony. The cermony confers no rights of any kind. It is the civil government which confers those rights.

The Catholic church will not perform a marriage for a Lutheran, but that does not make the married Lutheran any less married. An Atheist married by a justice of the peace is just as married as someone who was married in a church. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is entirely about the legal benefits of marriage under the law.

 

[PratchettFan]

Bullshit, if gays are given the same rights under a civil union that others have under a marriage where is the inequality? Just as the govt cannot and does not mandate bar mitzvahs neither should govt be involved with marriages, all non-believers and non-church goers and atheists should have civil unions, leave marriages to church since marriages are DIVINE and SACRED and represents the union of a man and woman.

Fine do it. Make it so. Civil Unions for all. In the meantime I'm going to go the cheaper, more efficient route and just get equal access to civil marriage.

Marriage isn't civil, its divine, thats the mistake you and others have made about marriage. Marriage is only for churches, it got twisted up somewhere along the lines by retards.

For this issue, marriage is purely civil. If you want your marriage blessed by a divinity there are ceremonies you can undergo for that purpose, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the legal benefits the condition of being married brings. God does not get involved with medical decisions, tax benefits or probate.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

Then please tell me why my piece of paper says "Marriage License".

 

[Meister]

Would heterosexuals be happy to have their marriages reduced to civil unions?
After all, civil unions are the same as marriage, aren't they? All the right wing Republicans tell us that, but you know what? If straight people were handed civil unions they'd complain that they didn't have equal rights.

I wonder why?

there have been some give on both sides.

When the government performs the marriage...it's a civil union, no matter who it is that gets married, and when a church performs the marriage between a man and a woman, it's a marriage.

Then please tell me why my piece of paper says "Marriage License".

These were opinions that some from both sides could agreed with on this board.....try and stay up to speed.
Some gays are concerned about the legal aspects of not getting everything that a marriage between a man and a woman get....I agree they should have all the bells and whistles.
But, it seems that with other gays, it goes beyond that.....they need to morph the sanctity of the term marriage, I'm not for that.