Since Marriage orginated from religion, why should any marriage mean anything to the government? I think it should be called a Civil Union, wether it is between a man and a woman, or man and man, or woman and woman. Wouldn't that eliminate the argument? If a man and woman wanted to get married, they could still go to their church and get married, but there would be a separate document involving the state, that would be a 'civil union document'. If two men wanted to get married, they would have to find a church willing to do so, but it wouldn't matter, because they could go to the courthouse and get a 'civil union' anyway. This would keep from offending christians and other religious people, because you would still only be able to get "married" if you are man and woman, yet it wouldn't really mean anything outside of church, just like a batism or confirmation. Yet gays could have a civil union, and obtain the same rights as what is now a marriage. Does anybody agree?
2006-06-23 08:46:47 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Why is that such a small percentage of the population can cause so much grief. Most of the people in this country still see homosexuality for what it is morally wrong. If they must be together I am not even going to attempt to stop them. Neither will I ever embrace their cause,and this is what really irks me that the homosexual community and their supporters insist that I do so or then I must be a homophobe. The lifestyle in my view is no different than an addiction to drugs or alcohol or any other aberrant behavior. "I often hear live and let live" FINE don't try to force me into accepting what I cannot and will not.
2006-06-23 08:56:09 · answer #1 · answered by Den_Rode_Bjornen_Losener 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's already the case with marriage the ceremony and the legal documents are completely separate. Which is why I'm totally for gay civil unions.
To Matt: a civil union is a legal agreement between two consenting people. A cow or a goat or a toaster cannot sign a contract don't be stupid.
To Ozymadius: no one is calling to remove the word marriage but we are acknowledging that marriage is religious and a civil union is a legal union. There's a difference and if churches won't marry gays then they can still have a ceremony elsewhere but they shouldn't be denied the right to sign a piece of paper. Stop being a homophobe.
2006-06-23 08:53:13 · answer #2 · answered by stephanie7938 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course that's the most fair solution. But, who cares what it's called? If this was all an argument over whether it's called a marriage or a civil-union, wouldn't that seem pretty childish? That's not the case. The whole debate we're currently witnessing IS concerning what you describe as civil unions. The states (and now the senate) are voting on whether or not the government will recognize unions between homosexuals. The church, obviously, is taking it's side and voicing a very influential opinion, but I'm afraid you haven't stumbled on some new solution. Unfortunately, the majority of our population is currently voting against civil unions for homosexuals. As for anyone who disagrees with these peoples' "lifestyle", who are you to judge? Have you ever experienced what these people have? How can you be so sure that what they feel is a "perversion" and not something that they have no control over? It is such a gross display of intolerance to cast judgement on something that you are not capable of knowing anything about. Imagine being told by the government that you are not allowed to share your life and resources with the person you love. It's a barbaric ideal.
2006-06-23 08:51:49 · answer #3 · answered by anonymous 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Definitely. I've been saying this ever since the debate came up. After all, in Indiana at least, the minister has to certify that the marriage ceremony took place. Even though a judge can do it too, it seems like we're getting into some shaky Constitutional ground on that. Plus, that way the government has to recognize the economic and other rights of people who have made a commitment to each other, no matter who they are. If a church will sanctify the union after it's been entered into, more power to them. If not, the couple still has legal rights.
2006-06-23 09:06:08 · answer #4 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It means something to the governement because they have to have their darn noses in everything that we do, and they have to do what the "majority" says is right because they are the ones that line their pockets.
I fully agree with what you're saying, I think they should have a right but unfortunatly I don't think it will ever happen. There are too many political/religion powers that won't let it.
It personally ticks me off that two people that love each other can't have a union or a marriage to committ themselves to each other just because they are of the same sex.
I actually planned a "union" for two very close friends, even though it wasn't legal we did everything else but sign the papers (there was even an officiant of one of the ministries here). I was so proud of being a part of it with them, but the people I encountered in the process were so closed minded.
2006-06-23 08:57:10 · answer #5 · answered by SmilingG 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
which civil good have the lost, because of the fact of race ? faith ? nationality? wager I on no account observed sexual perversion as a secure type of people, So the place is this shrink do you have faith Cousins ought to marry Brother and Sister mom and son if no longer why do no longer you, what approximately thier rights, next what approximately age, why is the 12 year previous having thier civil rights violated because of the fact of age ( a secure type) the government does for the secure practices of society have a outstanding to limit all varieties of freedoms as long as they do no longer violate a real constititional secure practices. Marriage is a states situation and the federal government has no good interfering at any point. ( to assist or to disclaim) And the courts even have not got a outstanding to make new regulation. the marriage of gay is additionally carried out rightly, if the states pass rules to permit it. so if no longer vote of the persons, or rules written by potential of it officers, it rather is the only way. yet whilst given a decision, the persons in each state the place it has come to a vote has denied marriage for everyone yet one guy and one women people. so they have the comparable rights, they are in a position to marry a man or woman of the different intercourse each time they want.
2016-10-31 08:58:52 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gays and lesbians should have the right to marry both in a civil ceremony and in the church. Canada does allow gays and lesbians to marry but the new government wants to overturn that decision. Our new Prime Minister is sucking up to religions that oppose the idea. This week is "Pride Week" in Toronto and gay and lesbian couples from the States and other parts of the world will be getting married here. Hopefully, the new government will not be able to overturn this right.
2006-06-23 08:54:04 · answer #7 · answered by older woman 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not me...I don't agree with you. Marriages or "civil unions" as you like to call them are between a man and a woman ONLY.
2006-06-23 08:55:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because if gays get civil unions, it would be descriminatry not to give them to guys who wanted to marry goats or buildings. then it would be descriminatory to not recognize polygamists, or women or men who want to marry children and so on and so forth. the man and woman structure has been the standard up until now for the good and growth of society (kids), but now perversion is a motivation for people to get together and do nothing for the society that is responsible for producing them in the first place.
2006-06-23 08:52:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
So basically you want to destroy the idea of 'marriage' by not legally calling it marriage anymore...
This is the reason people get offended...
Gays want to change the entire world and let everyone know that they are gay...
The point is, no one cares!
It is the gays that have the identity problem where they demand that everyone of their friends, family and everyone they meet know and acknowledge that they are gay...
THAT is the problem most people have with gays... you change the way you act, talk and live...
Anyone who wraps their whole life around their sexual orientation has a problem... gay or straight.
2006-06-23 08:52:40 · answer #10 · answered by Ozymandias 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋