Are you against Gay Marriage? Would you be ok if they called it Civil Unions?

Question

Here is where I think people are misundertanding....

Gays don't want to be "married" in the eyes of the Chuch.
They want to be joined in the eyes of the government, and insurance companies, and hospitals etc.

They want equal rights in legal terms not religious rights.

So would you care if they were allowed to call themselves civil union partners?

Answer 1

First, I'm against calling it "gay marriage" because that's not what we're talking about. We aren't talking about creating some new and novel institution for gay people. We're talking about allowing gays to enjoy the benefits of an institution which already exists. It's not a debate over "gay marriage". It's a debate over marriage, plain and simple, and whether the important part of the deal is the love and commitment two people feel toward each other, or whether it's how much other people happen to like who you fell in love with.

Calling it "gay marriage" is just a way to make the issue seem detached enough from heterosexuals so they don't have to admit they're trying to do something they'd throw a $#!+ fit about no one having the right to even think about doing if you tried to do it to them.

Second, there are a lot of gay people out there who DO want the same religious rights as everyone else, and who DO want to be married in the eyes of their church. There are a lot of churches out there which want to marry gay couples. However, those churches that want to accept gays into their congregation and hold the marriage ceremonies so gay couples can have the blessing of their church and congregation and be married in the eyes of God, already do.

So, while it's not accurate to think it's a purely legal debate for gay people, it's an irrelevant consideration the other side keeps throwing about since churches already have the right to refuse to marry couples, heterosexual or homosexual, they don't care to.

They could refuse to do it because they don't think decent white people should marry black people, and there wouldn't be a thing the government could say about it. The couple would simply have to find another church.

As for calling them "civil unions" instead, no, I'm not fine with that. Why? Because as someone once said "separate is NEVER equal". I'm sorry, but it's the marriage equivalent of saying "here's the colored water fountain for YOU to use, and there are some good seats right at the back of the bus", and thinking they're being fair about it (mind you, I'm glad to see we've made it far enough that someone would consider letting us on the bus).

By calling it a "civil union", you are in effect saying gay people are inferior enough that you can't call the love and commitment they have, the relationships they forge, marriage in the "true sense". Only straight people can achieve that... so you created a second type of relationship you're willing to let all the people who aren't good enough to qualify for a real marriage have instead.

Imposing a separate category on gay people is tantamount to imposing a different level of humanity on them, and gay people accepting the notion is tantamount to trading away the full measure of their humanity for easy rewards instead of fighting to be treated as a person for all that they are.

It's not a good trade in my book. So long as it's a matter of others taking away my rights, I can stand on my feet and consider myself a human being who is being wrongfully deprived.

The instant I accept second best treatment, I choose to only be a second-best human and help build a wall which excludes me from the rest of mankind, and in doing so tell everyone that I don't DESERVE to be looked on as fully human.

Calling what gay people have "civil unions" instead of marriage may be a subtle difference, but it's also an insidious one which gets gay people themselves to simply end the fight and admit-- whether it was their intention to do so or not-- they are lesser people deserving of lesser things, and have that notion institutionalized on both sides of the table (making it much harder to do away with).

I'm not fine with that solution. Not at all.

Answer 2

I agree with AndiGravity that there should not be a seperate classification...but I DO think it should be called a Civil Union and here's why.
If marriage is a sacred religous bond, then let the churches have the authority to marry. Everyone can choose a church that suits them and the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether.
Every citizen should be allowed to enter into a civil union. To designate a civil partner...It doesn't matter who that person is. This will be a legal partnership with all the legalities today we refer to as marriage. That alone should be the role of the government.

Answer 3

Yes I am against homosexuals all the way.

Now if they call it "civil union" or any other name , I will still fight against it.I do not like the name "civil union" because attaching the word "civil" to uncivilized behavior is an insult for civilization

I hate it more, when some people call "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage", I consider these names as a great insult to the most clean God loving word and the supreme human relation, "MARRIAGE".

Answer 4

Yes, I'm against gay marriage and No I wouldn't be okay with it if they called it something else. It would still be the same thing and it would still stink. Marriage is the most enduring institution of our society and marriage between a man and a woman has formed the foundation of our society for 3000 years. Whatever you call it, kids will be being raised without the benefit of both a mother and a father. And there are many other problems with being raised by homosexuals.

Answer 5

If someone wants to be MARRIED why not let a person get MARRIED.

Life is too short and love too fleeting to try and manage other people's lives and loves.

Can't we all just get along?

I happen to be a Het, but i know of one gay couple (at least) who wants to be married in a church, so i don't think it's quite right to say "gays don't want to be married in the eyes of the church" -- also depends on what you mean by "church" i guess. Some churches are more liberal than others.

Answer 6

I have no problem with Gay marriages, first off all i am not God i cannot judge anyone.......

I would care because they are part of us in a way, but i believe whoever you are, whether gay or straight, they deserve the same treatment as in civil partners or religious partners......

It is our differences that bring us closer together

Answer 7

I am against gay marriages, because God is against the practice of being gay.
The people may/maynot be able to be otherwise (gay)...am not sure about that, but the act is sinful........

They are cheating by getting married for the benefits. They are using that to get around the LAW of God and mankind too. So if you are cheating......it is wrong....right?

It has long been a practice of common law so why don't they just use that law? WHY?????? because they want to flaunt being gay in your face...........for shame!...there is no shame anymore...

Answer 8

Frankly, I don't give a damned what others call it, but I demand the same legal JUSTICE, every bit of "MARRIAGE." I want to be able to go to the courthouse, complete the registration, pay the fee, do the ceremony, and end up with ALL of the protections of legal "MARRIAGE."

Answer 9

Ditto AndiGravity. If I were gay and wanted to get married, I'd insist on calling it MARRIAGE. If marriage is good for ninety-five percent of the population, there can be no justification for denying it to the other five percent.

Answer 10

Why not...?
Ain't gays human beings? they r 1 of us all here. they must b given all the rights s individuals and a couple or partners. they 've their own wish. Why should v consider them different 4m ous?

by d way what made 2 ask such a q?