Why not just call it a "Civil Union"?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

 

[Seawytch]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I've got no problem with it, but I'm a big government liberal. I mean changing the language on hundreds of thousands of laws and forms is so much better than just letting us get married for all the job security it will create for clerks!

 

[Mr Natural]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

Who's being knocked down?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

Damn, Grampa Murked!!!

GIDDY UP!

I do believe you're turning-into a....

PROGRESSIVE!!!!!

Hell...we're gonna have you smokin' "dope" in SHORT-ORDER!!!!

 

[Mustang]

That is a very good question to which there is no reasonable response.

It isn't gender, it's semantics.

I'm not going into the street to define a minor word, one way or the other.

This is obviously being kept a 'burning issue' (directly affecting a small group out of a small minority) by forces that either get part of their support from anti-homosexuals of from pro-homosexuals.

It's sort of like religion; to keep going, the end must never be attained. There are directors and workers that derive their being (and their salaries) from the movement/cause/sect existing.

There's a perfectly easily understood answer to the question. Despite the fact that it's a reasonable compromise, the concept of Civil Unions would please neither side. To social conservatives (especially the religious ones), it would be giving ground on what they consider to be a moral absolute. To people who equate marriage with equality, civil unions would fall short of equal treatment. Neither side would be happy because both sides have taken an 'all or nothing' approach, like many, if not most, debates going on in DC these days.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Because equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

Who's being knocked down?

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

No one is forcing you to believe it.

Just because we have racial anti-discrimination laws in this country doesn't mean you can't be a racist, in your mind.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

That is a very good question to which there is no reasonable response.

It isn't gender, it's semantics.

I'm not going into the street to define a minor word, one way or the other.

This is obviously being kept a 'burning issue' (directly affecting a small group out of a small minority) by forces that either get part of their support from anti-homosexuals of from pro-homosexuals.

It's sort of like religion; to keep going, the end must never be attained. There are directors and workers that derive their being (and their salaries) from the movement/cause/sect existing.

To social conservatives (especially the religious ones), it would be giving ground on what they consider to be a moral absolute.

So.....how do we call this a "free" Country....if the church-folk are layin'-down-the-LAW....or,trying to....once, again??!!!​

 

[Seawytch]

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

Who's being knocked down?

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

 

[WUN]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I think the people who are pro-gay marriage are over-simplifying and the people who are against gay marriage are over-complicating it. I think Civil Unions should be allowed across the board. However, that won't make gays happy (no pun intended).

They want more than to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This isn't just about getting visitation or other basic rights that heterosexual couples have. They want all the monetary/tax/benefits that heterosexual married couples get. They want all of society to not just see them as equals legally, but basically the same or interchangeable in all aspects of society and life, as though there is no difference at all. I'm all for monogamy and life-long committments no matter if it's hetero or homosexual relationships for many practical and health reasons, but I don't see how that cannot be accomplished under the banner of 'civil unions'. The term 'marriage' has more than just religious overtones, it has overtones in society of the bond between mother/father/child. The argument that not all heterosexual couples can or will procreate is not valid as far as I am concerned since the predominant reality of why 'marriage' was instituted was to preserve the traditional/nuclear family unit. There may be a lot of divorces and re-marriages, but that is not the original intent.

The only possible way I could see gay marriage affecting heterosexual marriage is that gay couples would be competing for adoptions and court time. I think it will put a much greater burden on the legal system by adding complexities regarding child custody cases.

 

[gallantwarrior]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

No need to strike the term marriage.

That would be like striking the term homosexual and replacing it with heterosexual.

Marriage means between a man and a woman
Civil union means between two of the same sex

Accurate descriptions. Unless you are ashamed of who you are and feel the need to mask it with a different term.

Why not allow any couple so inclined to describe their partnership as a "civil union"? I know heterosexual couples who have been together for years and who remain unmarried. By declaring a civil union, they, too, would gain the same legal protections that married couples have, too.
Here's a question, though: what if one or both partners who enter a "civil union" are married to other people?

 

[boedicca]

As I posted in another thread, Iowahawk identifies the correct motorcycle:

So yeah, in a secular society maybe it's time for opponents to recognize a rational basis for legal SSM. But it's also time for supporters to recognize they are espousing a position that every society in the first 99.99% of human history would have considered nuts.

The problem, I think, is that marriage uniquely represents a religious sacrament that doubles as an official secular legal status. We don't have laws, for example, that recognize someone's baptism or confirmation. Because of that duality of marriage, attempts to expand its definition naturally are seen as an attack on religion, while attempt to restrict its definition are seen as the imposition of religion on society. Everybody gets mad and yells.

The solution? Maybe it's time for government to get out of the whole marriage business altogether. Or at least to treat it as a standard civil contract between adults conferring certain privileges (wills, powers of attorney, co-ownership) and obligations (say hello to alimony and the marriage tax penalty, Bert and Ernie). Don't want to call it "marriage"? Fine, call it a civil union, domestic partnership, blancmange, whatever, leave it open to any pair of consenting adults. Leave the holy sacrament business to churches, and if First Lutheran or Immaculate Conception or Temple Beth-El don't want to bestow the title of "married" on a same sex couple, that ought to be their own business. You get married at a church, you get blancmanged at the county courthouse.

Maybe then we can get back to talking about our $16 trillion debt.


Same Sex Marriage and Gilligan's Island Game Theory

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

Who's being knocked down?

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Fine! Make marriage all-inclusive....like Webster's already done....and, be DONE-with-it!!!

If social-conservatives can't produce their copyright (on Marriage), there IS no "case", to start with!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who's being knocked down?

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

Bingo!!!​

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Who's being knocked down?

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

Wrong. Marriage is already defined under the law. And it doesn't include gays just like affirmative action doesn't include me.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

Wrong. Marriage is already defined under the law. And it doesn't include gays just like affirmative action doesn't include me.

Civil Marriage is defined under the law. In some places it is a man and a woman. In other places it is a man and multiple women. In 9 states and the District of Columbia it is a man and a woman, a man and a man, and a woman and a woman.


There is no one legal definition of Civil Marriage, either world wide or even just here in the United States.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

Wrong. Marriage is already defined under the law. And it doesn't include gays just like affirmative action doesn't include me.

Separate but equal has been tried. If ALL people got civil unions, fine...not fiscally conservative, but fine.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

I think the people who are pro-gay marriage are over-simplifying and the people who are against gay marriage are over-complicating it. I think Civil Unions should be allowed across the board. However, that won't make gays happy (no pun intended).

They want more than to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

That doesn't make any sense.

If Gays are allowed to marry, they'd (somehow?

) be MORE married than heteros??!!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Because equality is the issue.

It would be like saying that adoption is legal but you can't call the adopted children your sons and daughters because adoption isn't 'natural'.

Nonsense. Its about forced acceptance. Its about knocking down another group of people because of your perceptions of being slighted. It's all about image and perception.

I have 0 problem's with gays having the same rights. I have a big fuck8ng problem when you try to marginalize someone elses beliefs for bullshit gains in semantics.

No one is forcing you to believe it.

Just because we have racial anti-discrimination laws in this country doesn't mean you can't be a racist, in your mind.

I will refrain from negging you this time. Im trying to have an earnest discussion and your insinuating tone is completely unnecessary.

Troll elsewhere

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'd have no problem with that. Everyone (same-sex and different-sex couples) would have a Civil Union under the law. All references to "marriage" or "Civil Marriage" would be struck and replaced with "union" or "Civil Union" and then apply the law the same.



(BTW - Many states in the early 2000's passed amendments to their state constitutions barring even Civil Unions.)

>>>>

No need to strike the term marriage.

That would be like striking the term homosexual and replacing it with heterosexual.

Marriage means between a man and a woman
Civil union means between two of the same sex

Accurate descriptions. Unless you are ashamed of who you are and feel the need to mask it with a different term.

Why not allow any couple so inclined to describe their partnership as a "civil union"? I know heterosexual couples who have been together for years and who remain unmarried. By declaring a civil union, they, too, would gain the same legal protections that married couples have, too.

Nahhhhhhhhhhh.....they're Living In SIN, if social-conservatives are gonna be getting all Dark Ages on us!!​