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

[Maryland Patriot]

"The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'" is absolutely correct.

Let the gay haters prove they were not opposed. They can't.

prove they all were. You cant.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Why does Mac pretend that the term "marriage" has no legal implications?

why do you pretend that a civil union could not have the same legal implications.

 

[Bombur]

Civil Unions passed in CT but the courts turned them into marriage.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Civil Unions passed in CT but the courts turned them into marriage.

its all about the name and becoming mainstream.
this has nothing to do with any percieved rights.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

I have not. This is just an "idea" on my part, not distorted by some commitment to a partisan ideology.

.

See here is the thing- the tone of your posts indicate some partisanship

or would you want to usurp that term too?
does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.

If you had merely suggested that Christians take up a new name for their religious unions- that would not have been partisan. If you had expected- but waited- for some negative response to that suggestion- or for someone to say "Hey if Christians start using the term Cosmic Amalgamation" my gay spouse and I want to also"- AND then objected to that 'ursurping' then that would not have been partisan

Your tone doesn't suggest 'compromise'- it suggests blame of the Left and homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

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 love the cowardly sucks who use the ignore button- people like yourself with a vocabulary of 10 swear words and not much else, and the fragile ego of a 3 year old- ignore us- just makes it more fun to mock your ignorant and hateful posts.

 

[bodecea]

"The problem is that the opponents of 'gay marriage' were also opponents of 'civil unions'" is absolutely correct.

Let the gay haters prove they were not opposed. They can't.

prove they all were. You cant.

They had enough clout to get laws passed against even civil unions in several states PLUS ensuring that civil unions from other states would not be recognized.

 

[Mac1958]

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?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

I have not. This is just an "idea" on my part, not distorted by some commitment to a partisan ideology.

.

See here is the thing- the tone of your posts indicate some partisanship

or would you want to usurp that term too?
does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.

If you had merely suggested that Christians take up a new name for their religious unions- that would not have been partisan. If you had expected- but waited- for some negative response to that suggestion- or for someone to say "Hey if Christians start using the term Cosmic Amalgamation" my gay spouse and I want to also"- AND then objected to that 'ursurping' then that would not have been partisan

Your tone doesn't suggest 'compromise'- it suggests blame of the Left and homosexuals.

That's your perception from your political viewpoint. As with most other issues, I'm not thrilled with the behavior and tactics of either "side" of this issue, and I just point them out. I can see both sides of this, and I think both sides have made mistakes.

Pro-gay marriage people wanted the word "marriage" and now here we are. Great, sounds good to me. But if Christian conservatives were to follow my advice (which I highly doubt) and say that a man-woman marriage under their God was an "ABC", it would not surprise me to see your side of this have a problem of some kind with it.

Conflicting arguments can exist in the same space. I see both sides, and I'm just being honest, not partisan - although it could be said that I'm partisan for gay marriage.

.

 

[Syriusly]

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

I have not. This is just an "idea" on my part, not distorted by some commitment to a partisan ideology.

.

See here is the thing- the tone of your posts indicate some partisanship

or would you want to usurp that term too?
does not change the fact that once the Left demanded "marriage", civil unions were no longer good enough.

If you had merely suggested that Christians take up a new name for their religious unions- that would not have been partisan. If you had expected- but waited- for some negative response to that suggestion- or for someone to say "Hey if Christians start using the term Cosmic Amalgamation" my gay spouse and I want to also"- AND then objected to that 'ursurping' then that would not have been partisan

Your tone doesn't suggest 'compromise'- it suggests blame of the Left and homosexuals.

Pro-gay marriage people wanted the word "marriage" and now here we are.

.

Pro-gay marriage people- myself included- wanted gay couples to be able to be legally married- just like my wife and I are.

Anti-gay marriage people- fought against that- and any legal but similar alternative.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

 

[Mac1958]

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.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

I'm assuming that your typo "why would then complain" was meant to be "why would they complain", as in the gay marriage advocates.

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

And your follow-up question is exactly my point. I suspect that such a thing would happen, rendering the word useless, again. Would I complain? No, sadly I know how people are.

.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

I'm assuming that your typo "why would then complain" was meant to be "why would they complain", as in the gay marriage advocates.

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

And your follow-up question is exactly my point. I suspect that such a thing would happen, rendering the word useless, again. Would I complain? No, sadly I know how people are.

.

No Civil Union ever passed had the same rights, responsibilities and privileges that Civil Marriage provided.

(And yes, it was one of two typos that I'd corrected before you posted.)


>>>>

 

[Mac1958]

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.

.

Let make sure I understand you.

Civil "Marriages" would apply to different-sex and same-sex marriages in a secular and civil law context.

Churches and religious organizations would come up with a new word that would only be applicable to them and would have no secular/civil law meaning.


Why would they complain?


And as a followup, if Churches and religious organizations that accept same-sex religious marriages started using that word for religious ceremonies and it had no secular/civil law meaning would you complain?



>>>>

Because they have been saying that "civil unions" are essentially not as good as "marriages" because they're against "separate but equal" (although they're fine with hyphenated Americans). So if they stay consistent on that, perhaps they would decide to complain about this.

.

Hmmmm civil unions were never as 'good' as marriage- never. They were never recognized by the Federal government.

Why were you okay with civil unions that were separate- but never equal?

So make 'em as legally sound as marriage.

Why does this need to be so complicated?

.

 

[Bombur]

Civil Unions passed in CT but the courts turned them into marriage.

its all about the name and becoming mainstream.
this has nothing to do with any percieved rights.

It is about being accepted and not a second class group that has to be singled out by the majority.

 

[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.

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.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

Calling one side aggressive and absolutist but not the other isn't really the way to go. Is this more of your pretense at bringing people together?

 

[Ravi]

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?

.

Good idea...why not just let christians change what they call their union

I wonder, though, if the gay population will want that word then, too.

.

I wonder why you wonder that.

Have you met any homosexuals who have asked you to invent a new term for marriage for Christians to use that they want to use also?

I have not. This is just an "idea" on my part, not distorted by some commitment to a partisan ideology.

.

Your commitment should be to the ideology of EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Vociferously.

One would think. Apparently he is a phony.

 

[koshergrl]

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 know some who would have been just fine with civil unions. Still a commitment and they get all the tax and insurance benefits of a married couple.

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion. The left often takes up causes that don't exist, at least not until they convince enough people that they should feel insulted, belittled or even outraged. The left has an agenda and they will use any means or any people to get what they want.

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.

This is an interesting article that does point out some things regarding the recent push for gay marriage. I don't expect any real discussion from the left, but I will remind you libs that I attended my niece's wedding and supported her and her girlfriend. Funny, they didn't care what the union was called. They wanted commitment and the ability to file joint taxes and cover each other on insurance. Marriage is a religious term adopted by lawmakers, but can anyone tell me why the language was more important than the act?

The left has never been supportive of marriage. Some feminists even called it legal slavery. Why the dismissal of any talk regarding civil unions that would have been the exact same thing only without the religious ties?


"The media created a false debate "marriage or no" to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!

They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.

Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because "Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore." That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.

That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us."

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33857

No, because they objective has always been to change the law to allow the state to dictate religion.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Great.

I'm just looking for a way in which the two "sides" of this argument would hate each other a little less.

And life is good.

.

Calling one side aggressive and absolutist but not the other isn't really the way to go. Is this more of your pretense at bringing people together?

Amazing how you folks manage to "not see" when I say the same things about the other "side", the two are so similar it's easy.

People on this board will not be brought together, too many narcissistic hardcore partisan ideologues here.

Maybe in real life.

.

 

[Ravi]

Why does Mac pretend that the term "marriage" has no legal implications?

why do you pretend that a civil union could not have the same legal implications.

It could. And then what, you make it illegal for two people to call themselves married? This is where the your argument fell apart last time. People can call their arrangement anything they please. You could call your relationship with your dog marriage, if you wanted to do so.