[Turias]

This entire topic concerning homosexuality, marriage, and civil unions has been getting a lot of publicity, lately. I've had an idea that I haven't heard discussed much, and I wanted to see what you guys think.

I feel that marriage is such a religious institution that there will never be resolution between advocates and opponents of homosexual marriage. The opponents feel that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Usually, this definition came from either the church or God, and has been thus defined for thousands of years. What right does the state have to alter this timeless, God-given definition? None.

Advocates simply want equality from their government.

So, here is what I propose:

The government needs to stop recognizing marriages. The government should deal with civil unions and only civil unions. If a man and a woman want to have their relationship recognized by the state, fine, they apply for a civil union. The same thing happens with homosexual couples.

Then, if a couple wants to have their union recognized by their church, great, they go through their church and become married in the eyes of God.

I've talked to a few people on both sides of the argument and so far, none have been against that idea. So, what do you guys think? Why would/wouldn't this work? Are there any of you who would be against such a change?

Please, don't reply and simply play devil's advocate. I can do that myself and be just as productive.

[Zimphire]

I would be ALL FOR that, as long as the marriages in the Church are recognized as civil unions.

Meaning.. you'd not have to have two "weddings"

[Turias]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would be ALL FOR that, as long as the marriages in the Church are recognized as civil unions.

Meaning.. you'd not have to have two "weddings"

I don't think that's a good idea. It would force the state to figure out which religions "count". We really need to completely separate church and state on this one.

And you wouldn't have to have two "marriages". I'm thinking that you fill out one state form for civil unions (like you do for marriages now). Each religion can then do it however they want. If a religion wants to accept a copy of the state form to make it easier for their members, great. If the religion needs to add a supplemental form for some extra information/signatures, that would be ok, too. I don't think it would be an exorbitant amount of work.

[Zimphire]

As long as I could get married in my Church. The state can call it a Civil Union. I wouldn't care.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
As long as I could get married in my Church. The state can call it a Civil Union. I wouldn't care.

Excellent.

[voyageur]

I think some countries may already do this, at least with heterosexual marriages.
My parents married in Germany. There, they had two ceremonies, a civil and a church. It is my understanding (and Spheric and the other Germans here please correct me if I'm wrong) this was because the state recognized only the civil union. The church part was for themselves and their family.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Turias:
This entire topic concerning homosexuality, marriage, and civil unions has been getting a lot of publicity, lately. I've had an idea that I haven't heard discussed much, and I wanted to see what you guys think.

I feel that marriage is such a religious institution that there will never be resolution between advocates and opponents of homosexual marriage. The opponents feel that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Usually, this definition came from either the church or God, and has been thus defined for thousands of years. What right does the state have to alter this timeless, God-given definition? None.

Advocates simply want equality from their government.

So, here is what I propose:

The government needs to stop recognizing marriages. The government should deal with civil unions and only civil unions. If a man and a woman want to have their relationship recognized by the state, fine, they apply for a civil union. The same thing happens with homosexual couples.

Then, if a couple wants to have their union recognized by their church, great, they go through their church and become married in the eyes of God.

I've talked to a few people on both sides of the argument and so far, none have been against that idea. So, what do you guys think? Why would/wouldn't this work? Are there any of you who would be against such a change?

Please, don't reply and simply play devil's advocate. I can do that myself and be just as productive.

Sounds good to me. The state recognizes the secular aspects of the relationship with a civil union and the church/mosque/temple recognizes the religious aspects of the relationship with a marriage.

Every couple wishing to be recognized as legally bound to one another should be required to have a civil union and then their religion could make a determination as to whether or not a marriage ceremony is required as well. And if the couple had no religion, or practiced a religion that did not require a marriage ceremony, the civil union would be all they need.

As long as each state's civil union is required to be recognized as valid by every other state, like current marriages are, I see no problem with this idea.

[Zimphire]

Now we just need to get Turias in office..

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Turias:
This entire topic concerning homosexuality, marriage, and civil unions has been getting a lot of publicity, lately. I've had an idea that I haven't heard discussed much, and I wanted to see what you guys think.

I feel that marriage is such a religious institution that there will never be resolution between advocates and opponents of homosexual marriage. The opponents feel that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Usually, this definition came from either the church or God, and has been thus defined for thousands of years. What right does the state have to alter this timeless, God-given definition? None.

Advocates simply want equality from their government.

So, here is what I propose:

The government needs to stop recognizing marriages. The government should deal with civil unions and only civil unions. If a man and a woman want to have their relationship recognized by the state, fine, they apply for a civil union. The same thing happens with homosexual couples.

Then, if a couple wants to have their union recognized by their church, great, they go through their church and become married in the eyes of God.

I've talked to a few people on both sides of the argument and so far, none have been against that idea. So, what do you guys think? Why would/wouldn't this work? Are there any of you who would be against such a change?

Please, don't reply and simply play devil's advocate. I can do that myself and be just as productive.

HALLELUJAH! You're dead-on right! Though, I believe I said the same thing a couple months ago and caught flack from it.

[Zimphire]

I wonder how homosexuals would feel about this? Anyone?

I know some will be upset unless it's called marriage.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Turias:
I don't think that's a good idea. It would force the state to figure out which religions "count". We really need to completely separate church and state on this one.

And you wouldn't have to have two "marriages". I'm thinking that you fill out one state form for civil unions (like you do for marriages now). Each religion can then do it however they want. If a religion wants to accept a copy of the state form to make it easier for their members, great. If the religion needs to add a supplemental form for some extra information/signatures, that would be ok, too. I don't think it would be an exorbitant amount of work.

Actually, as soon as you sign the license and have it notarized you're "married". The ceremony is, in large part, unnecessary.

[Turias]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Actually, as soon as you sign the license and have it notarized you're "married". The ceremony is, in large part, unnecessary.

Oh, I know (I've been through it). I was just speculating on how it might be done my way.

[el chupacabra]

How about the government not recognize any civil union or marriage and everyone is their own individual by the government. Marriage would only exist as a religous thing and if people want to form a non religous civil union they can do that too. but maybe the government shouldn't have any part in it. This would require reworking of many tax and inheritance laws which is fine because those laws suck anyway and should just be gotten rid of. .ie get rid of inheritance tax all together. I guess this could cause a lot of things to become screwed up too since there would no distingtion between what is adultery and what not in the eyes of the state. But hey we could get rid of those laws too.

[Zimphire]

Get rid of the ideal of adultery ?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Get rid of the ideal of adultery ?

Define adultery.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wonder how homosexuals would feel about this? Anyone?

I know some will be upset unless it's called marriage.

I suppose I would be one of those - except in this case, I'm not.

I guess most gays who want marriage, not just a civil union, do so because they want their partnership to be recognized by the state in the same way that straight marriages would be. Whether or not they're both called civil unions or both called marriages, I couldn't care less! I like this idea.

In Denmark, as with Germany, only the state can grant you a marriage. The church can't. You sign some papers for the state, and then you have the whole ceremony in the church, if you want to. Either way, you're married (we don't have the concept of civil unions at all). If you have the church ceremony, you declare your marriage in front of God etc., but lots of people don't do that (my parents didn't).

In other words, gay or straight, you get the same marriage. Effectively, that's what the result of Turias's idea would be as well, except that you would get the same civil union instead of the same marriage. All fine by me!

(The problem would arise when gays would want to declare their partnership in front of God, and the church wouldn't let them, but that's another story, if church and state are separated)

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Turias:
I feel that marriage is such a religious institution that there will never be resolution between advocates and opponents of homosexual marriage.

You may feel that but marriage is not now nor was it historically a religious institution. Certainly not a christian institution. Marriage existed in North America before the bible was written and before the man made book was shipped across the Atlantic.

Those who join in a long term recognized union will for all intents and purposes be married. Their union should therefore be called marriage.
The Dutch have something similar to the German scenario described by others in this thread. Those who enter into a union through a civil procedure are thereafter legally married, regardless of the sex of the partners. That and nothing less is what true equality is about. Marriage.

Those same sex partners who want to have their marriage sanctified as well in the presence of their friends and family in front of the community they are a part of and in the eyes of their god(s) should also have the right to have a religious ceremony in the church or temple etc of their choosing like all other people who want to be married in their faith.

As was written in other threads where people made similar proposals. The civil union compromise is not yours to offer and it is only a matter of time before it is replaced by the real solution. Nothing less than equality in rights, obligations and name.

[hyteckit]

Here is how it should be split.

Holy Matrimony - Religious, Only Man & Woman, Divorce & Adultery Illegal and punishable by law.

Marriage - Gay or straight, all religions and non religion, divorce & adultery not illegal

Anyone who wants to protect their sanctity of marriage can now get a Holy Matrimony which can be only given by the Church.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Here is how it should be split.

Holy Matrimony - Religious, Only Man & Woman, Divorce & Adultery Illegal and punishable by law.

Marriage - Gay or straight, all religions and non religion, divorce & adultery not illegal

Anyone who wants to protect their sanctity of marriage can now get a Holy Matrimony which can be only given by the Church.

I agree... except, isn't it only the Catholic Church that deems divorce illegal? In the Prostetant Church it's allowed, isn't it?

[SimeyTheLimey]

We already have civil marriage, and religious marriage. Aside from some trivial differences in vocabulary, what is the difference here?

The current debate is all about civil marriage, the issuing of licenses for civil marriage, and the legal rights that flow from the status of being married in the eyes of the government. It doesn't touch religious marriage at all, except that people keep confusing the two.

Civil Unions (as in Vermont) are simply a second-class version of civil marriage. Your proposal seems to be just to change the name of civil marriage to civil unions and then grant equal access to the renamed institution. Well, if bait and switch works, that's fine. But how long will people be fooled? And how long before people call civil unions what they are -- marriages?

[scottiB]

^Exactly^. No need to create a separate term form the same thing. Call it marriage and be done with it.

[Turias]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
You may feel that but marriage is not now nor was it historically a religious institution. Certainly not a christian institution. Marriage existed in North America before the bible was written and before the man made book was shipped across the Atlantic.

You may feel that way, but many people feel that religion and marriage are heavily intertwined. Just look at Catholicism. Their entire religion is based around the sacraments, marriage being one of the most important of those. The Catholics believe that marriage is one of the few acts that is done completely and totally with God. So, while you feel you can separate religion out from marriage, many, many people can't. Even if it used to be separate from religion, it isn't, now.

Originally posted by lurkalot:
Those who join in a long term recognized union will for all intents and purposes be married. Their union should therefore be called marriage.
The Dutch have something similar to the German scenario described by others in this thread. Those who enter into a union through a civil procedure are thereafter legally married, regardless of the sex of the partners. That and nothing less is what true equality is about. Marriage.

Those same sex partners who want to have their marriage sanctified as well in the presence of their friends and family in front of the community they are a part of and in the eyes of their god(s) should also have the right to have a religious ceremony in the church or temple etc of their choosing like all other people who want to be married in their faith.

I agree, but what I am proposing is true equality in the eyes of the state. If you want true equality in the eyes of religion, then go petition each religion separately. That is not going to happen for a long time.

Originally posted by lurkalot:
As was written in other threads where people made similar proposals. The civil union compromise is not yours to offer and it is only a matter of time before it is replaced by the real solution. Nothing less than equality in rights, obligations and name.

Ok, I followed you up to here. But with this, I must ask the question: what are you talking about? The compromise is not mine to offer? Did I ever say I was the president? Or even that I am an influential person of congress? I am merely asking what others think of my idea and whether or not they think it would work. I never said that if 80% of MacNNers vote yes, then I will make it law.

And again, what I have said is equality in rights, obligations, and name in the eyes of the state. I don't think we can ask for much more, right now. Changing religious doctrine takes much longer than changing a few state and federal laws.

[Turias]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Here is how it should be split.

Holy Matrimony - Religious, Only Man & Woman, Divorce & Adultery Illegal and punishable by law.

Marriage - Gay or straight, all religions and non religion, divorce & adultery not illegal

Anyone who wants to protect their sanctity of marriage can now get a Holy Matrimony which can be only given by the Church.

But again, that is mixing church and state, which I am trying to separate. How can a religious institution get people to sign a contract that says adultery is punishable by a state law? I think it is really important to take the religious aspects of marriage and get them out of the government completely.

And if you want to change my "marriage" to your "holy matrimony" and my "civil union" to your "marriage", I would be ok with that. I'm not sure it really makes a difference, though.

[Turias]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
We already have civil marriage, and religious marriage. Aside from some trivial differences in vocabulary, what is the difference here?

The current debate is all about civil marriage, the issuing of licenses for civil marriage, and the legal rights that flow from the status of being married in the eyes of the government. It doesn't touch religious marriage at all, except that people keep confusing the two.

Civil Unions (as in Vermont) are simply a second-class version of civil marriage. Your proposal seems to be just to change the name of civil marriage to civil unions and then grant equal access to the renamed institution. Well, if bait and switch works, that's fine. But how long will people be fooled? And how long before people call civil unions what they are -- marriages?

But the differences in vocabulary are exactly the current problem. Homosexual couples do not want to be branded differently than heterosexual couples. They don't want to be given their own water fountain, even if it is just as cold and just as clean as all other water fountains. They want to be seen and classified exactly the same as everyone else according to the government.

In Vermont, civil unions reap the exact same state benefits as marriages, but that is not good enough. Homosexual couples do not want to be placed in a different category, even if the only difference is the name.

A rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Turias:
But the differences in vocabulary are exactly the current problem. Homosexual couples do not want to be branded differently than heterosexual couples. They don't want to be given their own water fountain, even if it is just as cold and just as clean as all other water fountains. They want to be seen and classified exactly the same as everyone else according to the government.

In Vermont, civil unions reap the exact same state benefits as marriages, but that is not good enough. Homosexual couples do not want to be placed in a different category, even if the only difference is the name.

A rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet.

No, you really have got this wrong. Gay people want to be treated equally by their government in all respects. The separate but equal thing might work -- if it is really equal. But the Vermont example isn't equal. Most glaringly it isn't equal because the federal government doesn't recognize it. That means that the IRS (i.e. income, transfer, and estate taxes) and Social Security Adminstistration (i.e. pension rights) don't recognize it, and a whole host of other laws that affect people's daily rights and personal finances don't recognize it. And until they do, you don't have equality however much people say it is equal.

The problem is that anything that creates true functional equality is going to be so equal that people are going to see right through the separateness. Because of that, I doubt that your compromise would be effective. Most people on the pro-gay or neutral about gays side will say "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck." They will simply revert to habit and call it marriage, because in substance, that is what it would be.

For the same reason, anti-gay people won't be happy because what they basically want is for gays to have an unequal status and for that unequal status to be fixed in law. They aren't going to go for anything that doesn't reinforce a different, lesser, status. They certainly won't go for anything that looks like the state affirmatively granting a stamp of approval on gay relationships. But the problem is that this is exactly what equal rights would do. The state puts an affirmative stamp of approval on heterosexual relationships through the rights that flow from marriage. If it is going to treat people equally, it has to do the same with gay relationships.

And on top of this, your basic distinction -- between a legal status recognized by the state for secular reasons, and a religious institution -- is already the law. When you go to a church wedding, you are really seeing two separate ceremonies. There is a civil one there as well as the religious. The fact that people have a hard time separating the two in their minds is the basic problem. I don't think that renaming it would change that. People by and large see through such transparent subterfuge.

[Mr. Bob]

My honest opinion is that gay marriage is overall not good. Now before any of you fanatics start yelling, I am not a homophobe. A real problem in America is that people only see black and white. I have no problems with gay people, but I dislike the idea of gay marriage just as much as polygamy. This is my idea of marriage...

Marriage of a man and a woman serves the purpose to give birth and then to raise children.

Now, if two gay people want to live together for the rest of their lives, well then so be it. But because they cant make children, why do they want to get married? Marriage is mainly for children anyway. When kids grow up, they are psychology frail, and need to know who mom and dad are. Now, if my parents got divorced, it would not be such a big deal. I would not like it, but I live by myself now and am soon turning 23, so they can do what they want. When I was 12, then that would be a bad thing.

Now, In Japan, I cannot really get married. See, if I fall in love with a Japanese woman, because I am not Japanese I cannot legally get married. We can live together, and do all kinds of husband/wife things together, but the Japanese government will only know us as being single. In fact, if we have kids, Japan will recognize her as a single mother with kids. This would not be a problem with me, I am a grown adult, I don�t need a legal piece of paper telling me �you love your wife�. I think Japan can do this, because this is how Japan wants life to be. But if I were to have children, I would probably get some legal document in another country stating that we are indeed man and wife. Which again goes to the idea that gay couples cannot have children.

Now, if you legalize gay marriage, then you must do so for polygamy too, or else it is not fair. You then must allow men and young girls to get married too. You cannot slice up the cake of what is right and wrong. One and man and one woman is the only extenuation because it only takes one man and one woman to make children. One man and 3 women is unnecessary, so it is not good. 2 men cannot make kids, so it is not good. Hell, one man and a dog is not good.

And no, gay couples adopting kids is just plain wrong. If you understand the previous paragraphs, then you already know why.

Remember, being gay is a disorder �as it is against the natural order�. People want to have sex to make kids. Yes it feels good, but this is to make you want to have sex, to make children. If for some reason your body is out of order and wants to have sex with something else, then you have a disorder. If for some reason I wanted to drink through my nose, I would have a disorder. I have no problems with people having disorders �hell we all have a few�, but modifying an institution to adopt an disorder, is just not logical.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
Now, if two gay people want to live together for the rest of their lives, well then so be it. But because they cant make children, why do they want to get married?

Why is it important to you to even ask that question? It's not your life we are talking about. It doesn't change your life if gay couples get married. If they want to get married, let them marry. Then you can live your life and they can live theirs.

[Monique]

It is already separate you need a liscense to get married so it gets sanctioned by the state. And it is true that in most European countries there is a separation between the two.

Society will benifit a lot by letting gay people get married, it brings stability and let them know that the people around them are humans.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:

Now, if you legalize [heterosexual] marriage, then you must do so for polygamy too, or else it is not fair. You then must allow men and young girls to get married too. You cannot slice up the cake of what is right and wrong.

I changed one word changed to illustrate why slippery slope arguments are weak arguments.

Slippery slope arguments are weak because they start with an assumption that the status quo isn't already standing on a slippery slope. If the slope isn't so slippery that the status quo doesn't slide, then it won't be so slippery that we can't move the status quo a little bit.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Define adultery.

Well, adultry is when a person is married and has consentual sexual congress with someone else. In Christendom it's even a little more defined to include the unmarried person who is involved with a married person, they're considered an adulterer as well.

Webster's says: "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse".

Sex between two unmarried people is not adultery in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it wasn't even frowned upon that much until the 9th century. That's when the Roman Church decided to crack down on the over-abundance of abandoned children and unwed mothers. So, they then decided to give it's own "nasty" name and call it fornication. But again, it was all about more control for the Roman Church. In the ancient world it wasn't even considered a sin. Back then the only "bad" things about premarital sex were: 1.) pregnancy 2.) STDs 3.) the girl's father catching and killing you, virgins were MUCH more valuable.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Define adultery.

a�dul�ter�y __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(-dlt-r, -tr)
n. pl. a�dul�ter�ies
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Why is it important to you to even ask that question? It's not your life we are talking about. It doesn't change your life if gay couples get married. If they want to get married, let them marry. Then you can live your life and they can live theirs.

Do you beleive that a guy should be able to marry more then one woman? In fact, do you beleive that a man can have sex out of marrige? I mean, if you want to change what marrige means, then marrige can mean anything, so it means nothing.

Yet again, simple logic. Think about it. I can honestly say I have looked into gay marrige with an open mind, and dissaggree.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
You may feel that but marriage is not now nor was it historically a religious institution.

It sure is/was.

Certainly not a christian institution. Marriage existed in North America before the bible was written and before the man made book was shipped across the Atlantic.

AHahha you know people were worshipping the God of Abraham waaaaaaaay before the BIble existed right? That these marraiges were being performed WAAAAAY WAAAAAAY back right?

I think you need to go back and do some research.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by scottiB:
^Exactly^. No need to create a separate term form the same thing. Call it marriage and be done with it.

Then why do we have a separate term for homosexuality? Why didn't we just call it 'heterosexuality" too?

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I changed one word changed to illustrate why slippery slope arguments are weak arguments.

Slippery slope arguments are weak because they start with an assumption that the status quo isn't already standing on a slippery slope. If the slope isn't so slippery that the status quo doesn't slide, then it won't be so slippery that we can't move the status quo a little bit.

Slippery Slope this is not. This is not creeping from one central topic and then agreeing to others. Gay marriage is in the same exact bracket as polygamy, it is against the one, man one woman principal.

Slippery slope would be, if we legalize pot, we then should do the same for crack and coke.

Plain and simple, if you agree to gay marriage, then you also agree to polygamy, or you are being hypocritical.

How can you say �gay people matter, but polygamists do not�.

Think about it.

[Spliffdaddy]

help me here, Simey...he's making sense. (and I support gay marriage)

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, you really have got this wrong. Gay people want to be treated equally by their government in all respects. The separate but equal thing might work -- if it is really equal. But the Vermont example isn't equal. Most glaringly it isn't equal because the federal government doesn't recognize it. That means that the IRS (i.e. income, transfer, and estate taxes) and Social Security Adminstistration (i.e. pension rights) don't recognize it, and a whole host of other laws that affect people's daily rights and personal finances don't recognize it. And until they do, you don't have equality however much people say it is equal.

The problem is that anything that creates true functional equality is going to be so equal that people are going to see right through the separateness. Because of that, I doubt that your compromise would be effective. Most people on the pro-gay or neutral about gays side will say "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck." They will simply revert to habit and call it marriage, because in substance, that is what it would be.

For the same reason, anti-gay people won't be happy because what they basically want is for gays to have an unequal status and for that unequal status to be fixed in law. They aren't going to go for anything that doesn't reinforce a different, lesser, status. They certainly won't go for anything that looks like the state affirmatively granting a stamp of approval on gay relationships. But the problem is that this is exactly what equal rights would do. The state puts an affirmative stamp of approval on heterosexual relationships through the rights that flow from marriage. If it is going to treat people equally, it has to do the same with gay relationships.

And on top of this, your basic distinction -- between a legal status recognized by the state for secular reasons, and a religious institution -- is already the law. When you go to a church wedding, you are really seeing two separate ceremonies. There is a civil one there as well as the religious. The fact that people have a hard time separating the two in their minds is the basic problem. I don't think that renaming it would change that. People by and large see through such transparent subterfuge.

Sorry, Simey, I think you're wrong here. If you make civil unions the ONLY legal joining ANY couple can get from the gov't you make it completely fair. Any perception shifts would occur anyway, simply because of the change to that institution. Sure, they can CALL it anything they want, but legally it's a Civil Union.

This is also good because it removes the state from the religious institution of marriage, a place where it never should have been involved to begin with.

[Turias]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, you really have got this wrong. Gay people want to be treated equally by their government in all respects. The separate but equal thing might work -- if it is really equal. But the Vermont example isn't equal. Most glaringly it isn't equal because the federal government doesn't recognize it. That means that the IRS (i.e. income, transfer, and estate taxes) and Social Security Adminstistration (i.e. pension rights) don't recognize it, and a whole host of other laws that affect people's daily rights and personal finances don't recognize it. And until they do, you don't have equality however much people say it is equal.

True, as far as federal laws go, they are not equal. But, I do believe that the state has made it as equal as it can with regards to itself. There's only so much a single state can do.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The problem is that anything that creates true functional equality is going to be so equal that people are going to see right through the separateness. Because of that, I doubt that your compromise would be effective. Most people on the pro-gay or neutral about gays side will say "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck." They will simply revert to habit and call it marriage, because in substance, that is what it would be.

The thing is, these are supposed to be equal, so they can see through the separateness as much as they want. The reason it's supposed to be effective is the fact that they are equal, except for the minor point that religious marriages have a slightly different word associated with them, so that religious people who want their ceremony to mean something slightly different than the state ceremony can have it their way. It seems that most of the pro-gay anti-gay-marriage people are merely anti-gay-marriage because they don't want their religious ceremony to be tainted with people who their religion says can't get married.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For the same reason, anti-gay people won't be happy because what they basically want is for gays to have an unequal status and for that unequal status to be fixed in law. They aren't going to go for anything that doesn't reinforce a different, lesser, status. They certainly won't go for anything that looks like the state affirmatively granting a stamp of approval on gay relationships. But the problem is that this is exactly what equal rights would do. The state puts an affirmative stamp of approval on heterosexual relationships through the rights that flow from marriage. If it is going to treat people equally, it has to do the same with gay relationships.

Screw the anti-gay people. I'm looking for a solution that will make everyone else happy. There is no solution that will appease both gays and anti-gays. I have no tolerance for intolerance.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And on top of this, your basic distinction -- between a legal status recognized by the state for secular reasons, and a religious institution -- is already the law. When you go to a church wedding, you are really seeing two separate ceremonies. There is a civil one there as well as the religious. The fact that people have a hard time separating the two in their minds is the basic problem. I don't think that renaming it would change that. People by and large see through such transparent subterfuge.

I realize that separate religious and state marriages is already the way the law works. My proposal is basically a proposal of lexical changes, one that I believe would appeal to both homosexuals and heterosexuals and would further distinguish the difference between the way the church and state view marriage.

[Zimphire]

Turias I agree. I have always said no one side will get it's way entirely.

There will be a compromise.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sorry, Simey, I think you're wrong here. If you make civil unions the ONLY legal joining ANY couple can get from the gov't you make it completely fair. Any perception shifts would occur anyway, simply because of the change to that institution. Sure, they can CALL it anything they want, but legally it's a Civil Union.

This is also good because it removes the state from the religious institution of marriage, a place where it never should have been involved to begin with.

But there is already a legal concept that covers exactly the same ground as your proposed civil unions. It's the concept of civil marriage. All you want to do it rename it. What does renaming civil marriage "civil unions" actually accomplish beyond the trivially semantic?

Secondly, right now the state isn't in any way involved in religious ceremonies. It's more the other way around. The state allows religious institutions to carry out a civil function -- administring an oath for civil marriage. But it is the civil marriage that the state recongnizes, not the religious one.

[Shaddim]

For the record, I see nothing wrong with idea of Polygomy, and a great many religions endorse it. In fact, if homosexual couples are allowed to civily join (or even marry) I damned well better be allowed to do the same with two women. (MacNStein starts to form a plan in his somewhat twisted mind)

[Turias]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But there is already a legal concept that covers exactly the same ground as your proposed civil unions. It's the concept of civil marriage. All you want to do it rename it. What does renaming civil marriage "civil unions" actually accomplish beyond the trivially semantic?

Secondly, right now the state isn't in any way involved in religious ceremonies. It's more the other way around. The state allows religious institutions to carry out a civil function -- administring an oath for civil marriage. But it is the civil marriage that the state recongnizes, not the religious one.

But that's the whole problem; one of semantics. I have talked to numerous homosexuals and asked them about the country granting "civil unions" with equal rights as "marriages". They said, "No way, not good enough."

Homosexual couples do not want to be branded, plain and simple. In this case, the word means everything.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But there is already a legal concept that covers exactly the same ground as your proposed civil unions. It's the concept of civil marriage. All you want to do it rename it. What does renaming civil marriage "civil unions" actually accomplish beyond the trivially semantic?

Secondly, right now the state isn't in any way involved in religious ceremonies. It's more the other way around. The state allows religious institutions to carry out a civil function -- administring an oath for civil marriage. But it is the civil marriage that the state recongnizes, not the religious one.

I want to remove the involvment of the state in that religious institution (marriage) all together. It should have never even started.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Turias:
But that's the whole problem; one of semantics. I have talked to numerous homosexuals and asked them about the country granting "civil unions" with equal rights as "marriages". They said, "No way, not good enough."

Homosexual couples do not want to be branded, plain and simple. In this case, the word means everything.

I guess we will stop having to call them homosexuals or gays then.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Turias:
It seems that most of the pro-gay anti-gay-marriage people are merely anti-gay-marriage because they don't want their religious ceremony to be tainted with people who their religion says can't get married.

Nobody wants to force religions to perform or recognize any kind of marriage they don't want to. We are only talking about civil marriages here. And a civil marriage is a civil marriage whether you call it civil marriage or a civil union. Changing the word doesn't alter the substance. If you open up civil marriage to gays and lesbians, you do so whether or not you call it by a new name.

I tell you what. Let's call civil marriages "marriages" and religious marriages "covenants"? Marriage is a term that already has both secular and religious connotations. Covenant is a term with only a religious connotation. If we want separate terms, it makes more sense to use words that are already separate rather than redefining the word marriage to mean something narrowly religious when it currently means something that can be religious or civil.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I guess we will stop having to call them homosexuals or gays then.

Bah, you know what I mean. You even said you agree with me.

Don't get me started.

[Turias]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I tell you what. Let's call civil marriages "marriages" and religious marriages "covenants"? Marriage is a term that already has both secular and religious connotations. Covenant is a term with only a religious connotation. If we want separate terms, it makes more sense to use words that are already separate rather than redefining the word marriage to mean something narrowly religious when it currently means something that can be religious or civil.

I said earlier in this thread that I would be fine with changing the terms I proposed as long as one term refers to the state and one term refers to religious institutions.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nobody wants to force religions to perform or recognize any kind of marriage they don't want to. We are only talking about civil marriages here. And a civil marriage is a civil marriage whether you call it civil marriage or a civil union. Changing the word doesn't alter the substance. If you open up civil marriage to gays and lesbians, you do so whether or not you call it by a new name.

I tell you what. Let's call civil marriages "marriages" and religious marriages "covenants"? Marriage is a term that already has both secular and religious connotations. Covenant is a term with only a religious connotation. If we want separate terms, it makes more sense to use words that are already separate rather than redefining the word marriage to mean something narrowly religious when it currently means something that can be religious or civil.

Nope, because then some gays will want covenants and try and force the gov't into letting them have one.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Turias:
Bah, you know what I mean. You even said you agree with me.

Don't get me started.

I agreed with your idea in the first page. I know not everyone will.

Even if we start calling everything a "Civil Union" many wont be happy.

This isn't so much about getting equal rights as it is trying to force society into accepting homosexual relationships as being just as normal as heterosexual ones.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I want to remove the involvment of the state in that religious institution (marriage) all together. It should have never even started.

Do you have any idea how many laws and private arrangements would be upended by that?

To take just three examples, the tax code would have to be rewritten from scratch. Almost every will would have to be rewritten from scratch. Most deeds to property would have to be rewritten.

It would take years and I bet the costs bit direct and indirect would be in the trillions. And for what? For the sake of the definition of a word. Let Webster's do that, and let the rest of us get on with important things.