Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?

[PratchettFan]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Or we can stop wasting time and money crying over which words won't hurt the feelings of people that were never going to be cool with gay people in the first place. Do you honestly believe if you come up with a new institution for religiously based unions that it has any chance of success?

Oh, not really. But "hurt feelings" apply to both ends of this issue. And I can't help but think that if the Christians came up with a new word for what they want, the other "side" would find a reason to object.

Both ends of this issue need to bend a little, and neither will.

.

I have noticed it is always the other guy who needs to bend a little.

 

[PratchettFan]

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Who is stopping you?

From what?

.

Giving a name to a "man-woman/religiously based union".

Because I'm neither a Christian nor anti-gay marriage.

It's just a suggestion to get us past this.

.

Well then, I guess you can just get on with your life. Problem solved.

 

[bodecea]

My great uncle was gay, and would have laughed at either option.

That's nice. Why?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

That notion faded away when states decided civil unions were too close to marriage for their comfort and banned those as well. The social conservatives overplayed their hand and now they are claiming gay people should have been fine with civil unions despite the fact that they fought those at every opportunity. Civil unions only became a compromise option for these people when it became abundantly clear that they were losing the battle. By that time it was too late.

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Afraid not, it's more than semantics.

We are discussing the birth of a new society, not the society we are accustomed to, this is a new society in which the rules have changed.

As long as you have same sex marriage and you say they are blessed by God, who's God would that be??

Our institution of marriage is another of those ceremonies / traditions steeped in thousands of years of culture.

I keep stating that there is no "God" who will sanctify same sex marriage, so where / who do you think this God would be??

Which religion is going to suck it up and accept the faggots??

Yes there will be a few confused souls in the clergy who will not only approve but condone it also.

Any sub set or group of people will always have the exception that strays from statistical norms.

All religions are against homosexual marriage, no matter what some of the insignificant bit players do.

You need to look no farther than Priest having sex with children to see a religion with a crack in it, doesn't make the religion bad just means the screening process for Priest are skewed / lacking.

Clergy running sanctuary cities would be another example of mis-placed religion.

 

[Mac1958]

I can see that. That's why I suggest that they give a name to a man-woman/religiously-based union, and we can all get on with our lives.

.

Who is stopping you?

From what?

.

Giving a name to a "man-woman/religiously based union".

Because I'm neither a Christian nor anti-gay marriage.

It's just a suggestion to get us past this.

.

Well then, I guess you can just get on with your life. Problem solved.

Uh, thanks.

.

 

[bodecea]

Gays were not going to be happy till they had destroyed the institution of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman were part of a society that does not include homosexuals. The only way to gain ACCEPTANCE and form a society that would condone your life style, was to change societal rules. Now that marriage can be between two same sex partners we are in a different society, one is which gays can find acceptance and tolerance.

They would not have been satisfied with anything less than marriage as it would not have changed our societal values in the manner they were seeking.

Sorry to hear that you believe that the institution of civil marriage (and perhaps religious marriage as well) is so frail.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Gays were not going to be happy till they had destroyed the institution of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman were part of a society that does not include homosexuals. The only way to gain ACCEPTANCE and form a society that would condone your life style, was to change societal rules. Now that marriage can be between two same sex partners we are in a different society, one is which gays can find acceptance and tolerance.

They would not have been satisfied with anything less than marriage as it would not have changed our societal values in the manner they were seeking.

Sorry to hear that you believe that the institution of civil marriage (and perhaps religious marriage as well) is so frail.

you can characterize it any way you want, wait ........

You were not discussing the issue but me, one of those nasty dick breathed faggots I keep speaking of who could only come back with a character assassination.

Too bad you are too fucking stupid to discuss the subject and not flame me, another ignorant faggot silenced by the ignore button and relegated to that cyber shit hole in space.

 

[bodecea]

No American should ever have to "settle" for less than the rest of us take for granted.

And the link is beyond merely ridiculous. There's not one word of truth in it.

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Simply not true. It was the Right that rejected Civil Unions, completely. That left no options but to go for marriage.

 

[PratchettFan]

Who is stopping you?

From what?

.

Giving a name to a "man-woman/religiously based union".

Because I'm neither a Christian nor anti-gay marriage.

It's just a suggestion to get us past this.

.

Well then, I guess you can just get on with your life. Problem solved.

Uh, thanks.

.

No problem. I'm glad I could be of help.

 

[bodecea]

Gays were not going to be happy till they had destroyed the institution of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman were part of a society that does not include homosexuals. The only way to gain ACCEPTANCE and form a society that would condone your life style, was to change societal rules. Now that marriage can be between two same sex partners we are in a different society, one is which gays can find acceptance and tolerance.

They would not have been satisfied with anything less than marriage as it would not have changed our societal values in the manner they were seeking.

Sorry to hear that you believe that the institution of civil marriage (and perhaps religious marriage as well) is so frail.

you can characterize it any way you want, wait ........

You were not discussing the issue but me, one of those nasty dick breathed faggots I keep speaking of who could only come back with a character assassination.

Too bad you are too fucking stupid to discuss the subject and not flame me, another ignorant faggot silenced by the ignore button and relegated to that cyber shit hole in space.

I was not "flaming you" at all. I was making an observation on your post which seems to indicate that you believe the institution of Marriage to be so weak and frail as to destroyed by allowing loving gay couples to marry. How you would see that as "character assassination" is puzzling to say the least.

 

[bodecea]

I don't mind referring to gay couples as spouses, but "husbands" or "wives" makes those terms a joke.

Then, don't use them.

 

[bodecea]

Dipshit, the argument came down to words, as in which ones to use to describe the union. The left immediately dismissed the civil unions, opting to call it marriage.

No one settles. It's nothing more than a religious term versus a more descriptive term for a couple.

Question was why did so many liberals, many of whom are not gay, put up such a fight to use the word marriage?

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.
Click to expand...
Okay you are kind of all over the place here- let me break down what I think you are saying:

a) You know some gays that would have been just fine with civil unions
I imagine lots of gays would have been- heck much better than not having any kind of legal union. The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'

Don't believe me? Look at Georgia's gay marriage ban- which also- explicitly bans civil unions too.

And here is the thing- as long as some states banned both same gender marriages and civil unions- any gay couple who needed to travel or relocate to another state would face the possibility of crossing a state line and no longer being legally related.

Gay couples sued for marriage because Americans have a right to marry- but no right to civil unions- so there was redress in the courts, but would be no redress for states not recognizing 'civil unions'.

b) It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

Why does it seem like that you? Let us look at the well known examples- the case of Edith Windsor and DOMA

They were together for 40 years- went to Canada to get married and then Federal government would not recognize their marriage.

Why do you think that they were motivated by a hatred of religion?

How about James Obergefall and partner?
Meet Jim Obergefell The Man Behind the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Case - ABC News

Jim Obergefell's case will affect the marriage laws under which about 200 million Americans live, but the reason he sued his home state of Ohio was very personal: To make state bureaucracy recognize him as the widower of his late partner of 21 years, John Arthur.

They were legally married in Maryland just a few months before John died in 2013 -- but in 2004, Ohio voters had amended their state constitution to prohibit gay marriage from being "valid in or recognized by" the Buckeye State. In April, Obergefell's lawyer argued his case before the Supreme Court, which could issue its opinion as soon as today.

So I addressed two of your points- that seems enough.

I look forward to your response.

I didn't say all were against religion and I am pointing out the ones who insisted it be called marriage instead of civil unions. They would be the same thing as far as the law is concerned and only religion separates a marriage and a civil union. I am saying we should make a law that allows civil unions for anyone, not just gays.

That wasn't what your OP said- I addressed the very specific points in your OP- and you are not responding to my response.

Here is what you said:

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion

I pointed out examples of lead plaintiffs in the cases that resulted in the law changing across the United States- they were asking for their right to marriage- nothing about hating religion at all.

So talk to me about Edith Windsor and James Obergefall- tell me how you think that they hate dislike or hate religion- since they were the ones actually suing for their marriage rights.

I think many were calling for marriage instead of civil unions because they knew it would anger religious people. Can you distinguish between the two terms? That is why I wonder why they didn't fight for civil unions instead of redefining marriage. There was a lot of bashing religious people over this. It doesn't matter what religious people thought of civil unions and the courts could have decided on that and ended up with the same result, without having to redefine anything.

It's about the term they chose to fight for. And, yes, plenty of atheists and religion bashers were heard from on this issue.

They didn't give a shit about what religious assholes thought. The religious assholes were going to hate them whether it was a marriage or civil union

Religious marriage was never an issue. There were already churches and other forms of religious organizations that married gay couples. We were married in the MCC church a decade and a half before we got our legal marriage licenses. Not an issue at all.

 

[bodecea]

Well syr was another of those overbearing, obnoxious faggots that got relinquished to the cybershit hole with her little faggot buddies.

i wasn't going to respond, I have already put you on ignore, have no idea what nasty shit you will write, but I want be reading it.

Not only did you spam the thread but you were just spewing shit out your ass when you were character assassinating me.

I don't want to see anyone dead or what was that other lunatic phrase, "locked up", only nasty ass faggots hate other people enough to wish things like that upon them.

Actually if you folks would just go find you another jungle / country to call home all would be fine. You want to create a society that I want no part of, you can't force me through laws and trying to shame me is fucking funny as shit.

Anyway like I have told the other score of silenced faggots, you may be spewing your shit, but I ain't got to step in faggot shit.

Have a nice life and enjoy your conversations with your faggot buddies of like mind.

You were talking about "character assassination"?

 

[bodecea]

Well syr was another of those overbearing, obnoxious faggots that got relinquished to the cybershit hole with her little faggot buddies.

i wasn't going to respond, I have already put you on ignore, have no idea what nasty shit you will write, but I want be reading it.

Not only did you spam the thread but you were just spewing shit out your ass when you were character assassinating me.

I don't want to see anyone dead or what was that other lunatic phrase, "locked up", only nasty ass faggots hate other people enough to wish things like that upon them.

Actually if you folks would just go find you another jungle / country to call home all would be fine. You want to create a society that I want no part of, you can't force me through laws and trying to shame me is fucking funny as shit.

Anyway like I have told the other score of silenced faggots, you may be spewing your shit, but I ain't got to step in faggot shit.

Have a nice life and enjoy your conversations with your faggot buddies of like mind.

Thanks fag...

You talking to yourself??

You are just another insignificant piece of dick breathed faggot shit, are you running a flag up so I will add you to the ignore list with the rest of your little nasty faggot buddies??

I like how you stick to the subject and don't go personal or anything.

 

[Ravi]

Why can't gay people just stfu in other words.

 

[Seawytch]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

The opportunity for all civil marriage to be civil unions still exists. It's not a job or obligation for gays to seize that opportunity. We don't give two shits and a handshake what it's called. We just want it to be the exact same. What religions call it does not matter a whit to gays. We have ALWAYS had equal access to religious marriage.

Since I have 25 more posts to read, I'll have to assume it has already been mentioned that a number of states wrote into their anti gay marriage laws, prohibitions on civil unions as well as civil marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

Once again- the gays were 'absolutist'?

I have pointed out in post after post how Christian Conservatives fought civil unions just as much- and for the exact same reason- as they fought against allowing Americans to marry.

The argument against civil unions is that Americans have no right to a civil union- but all Americans have a right to marriage. Since Christian Conservatives were legally blocking marriage and civil unions, homosexual couples went to court to fight for their right to marriage.

This revisionist history by opponents of same gender marriage is just ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.

The argument against civil unions now appears to be "equal but separate" or "unequal but equal", or whatever. But they're now in absolutist mode, so this is essentially a moot point. No compromise.

Maybe Christians should come up with a new word that denotes a marriage under God or something. A great deal of energy is being put into semantics and symbolism here.

.

So you don't think that having civil marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is the epitome of separate but equal? Fighting against 2nd class citizenship equals "aggressive and absolutist"?

As I said, I think this is far more about semantics and symbolism than anything else. Each "side" just has to "win".

What about my idea for a new word that describes a "marriage under God", or whatever? Would that not be acceptable, or would you want to usurp that term too?

.

You can invent any term you want. Why would expect anyone else to want to use some term you invent?

Meanwhile- Americans who want to marry someone of the same gender are getting married- just like my wife and I are married.

And life is good.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why can't gay people just stfu in other words.

Yes, they are so annoying. They JUST CAN'T STOP trying to get their equal treatment.

 

[Ravi]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I do think there was a time that they would have been perfectly happy with calling them "civil unions", but over time as they grew more and more aggressive and absolutist, that notion just kind of faded away.


.

Incorrect. Gay people were told they couldn't even have civil unions. Mainly because it was icky.