Is this a good solution to the Gay Marriage issue?

Question

Since Marriage originated from religion, why should any marriage mean anything to the government? I think it should be called a Civil Union, whether 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 baptism or confirmation. Yet gays could have a civil union, and obtain the same rights as what is now a marriage. Does anybody agree?

Answer 1

I think it's a great idea.

The only real problem I have with homosexual marriage is that once you change the definition of marriage the freakshows will start coming out and demanding their right to marry animals and shoes and pieces of land ... how do you make the legislation so that consenting adults can marry but they have to marry other people. You know that as soon as you allow homosexual marriage but say it has to be between two people some guy is gonna sue for his right to marry a hole in a watermelon. The madness will never stop.

Answer 2

That's really interesting. I agree with you. The idea of a civil union for everyone is a good idea. Whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman getting married, some people like the idea of getting married in a church without realising what the religious meanings are. Keep it simple with a civil union that is done so that people can declare their love for each other without all the religious extras that a lot of people don't agree with.

Answer 3

Yes. There is a difference between civil marriage (the piece of paper you need to have the government recognize your marriage) and religious marriage (performed in a house of worship). I do not think churches/synagogues/mosques should be required to perform any type of religious ceremony with which they do not agree. For instance, many conservative rabbis will not marry a Jewish person and a non-Jew. Being the product of an interfaith marriage myself, I don't see any problems with it but I don't mind that people have different opinions. If the GOVERNMENT, on the other hand, refused to recognize an interfaith marriage, I'd have a huge problem with it. So yeah, let religious organizations take whatever stance they'd like. If I agree with them, maybe I'll be part of their religion. If I don't, I can find another place to worship. Live and let live.

>how do you make the legislation so that consenting adults can >marry but they have to marry other people.

You write the law to say that it applies to consenting adults.

Answer 4

To be honest, it should have been like that from the VERY beginning, right when they decided to separate church and state. Why? Because marriage deals with the church, and shouldn't deal with the state.

But now, it's too far along in our history probably to make a change like that, although I would support it beyond 100%. As long as everyone could get a union and have the same rights as any other union (man and woman or not).

Answer 5

Sounds good to me. The trouble is, lots of people get church and state mixed up. They say that offering such an option would be the end of marriage as we know it and it would increase our societal problems.

Here's what they say and what I think:

1. Allowing gay civil unions/gay marriage will destroy marriage.
No, it won't. I cannot see any reason how it could possibly do anything to my marriage if the two men next door were married or granted a civil union under the law. My marriage is fine no matter what. They live together there now, and it doesn't affect me or the neighborhood or anything.

2. Allowing gays to marry will influence our children and change our schools.
My children will be primarily influenced by what their father and I teach them. We will teach them that the Bible is truth and the Bible teaches us that homosexuality is wrong. The Bible also teaches us to love one another and that God loves us unconditionally. We will also teach them that the right thing to do is grant equal rights to all people under the law and to treat every person as one of God's children, with respect and love. As for the schools, they don't have any business teaching about sex until the students are old enough to begin to gain a true understanding of such things. If they start teaching that homesexual unions are just as good as heterosexual unions, that's fine. It's just like how we teach our children that different colors of people are all normal people and that handicapped people are just as good as other people. What's that? You're saying those people don't have a choice of the color of their skin or their handicap? Well, we teach kids that different religions are OK, too. Modern materials are developed to include all kinds of diversity and expose the students to all kinds of people to help prepare them for the real world. Yes, it will influence the public schools, but for the better.

3. Allowing gays to marry will make them want kids, and those kids will grow up to be gay.
Ha! You mean that children of all heterosexual couples are heterosexual?

4. Because children from households with only a mother are statistically more likely to end up in prison and/or in poverty, allowing gay unions will produce more children that will become criminals and welfare recipients. I see it the other way. Aren't these people in jail or in poverty because they only had one parent. Criminals and poor people are more likely to have grown up in tough households in tough neighborhoods without a truly loving, nurturing environment. It doesn't matter what the sexual orientation of the parents is; what matters is the overall family environment, supervision, education, and nurturing of the child.

Answer 6

I've been making the same argument for years. Also answered some questions here just like that. And I am somewhat conservative. Government doesn't belong in personal lives. And for people who say the crap about polygamy and animals...civil union, a partnership recognized by government between 2 legal, consenting adult HUMANS period.

Answer 7

Sounds kinda logical. However, why not just disband marriages all together? The divorce rate in this country is like 60%. That pretty much proves it's a failure. I mean really 40% of marriages last? You'd fail anything you got a grade like that on. Heck, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell havn't gotten married and they've been together for like 20yrs. They've outlasted most other Hollywood hooligans.

Let's hear it for doing away with marriage. Not too mention it would save a butt ton of time/money on divorces.

Answer 8

I agree with you,
but there still shouldn't be marriage then, there should only be civil unions based on the religious factor.

Marriages should not be seen at all by the government and only civil unions should be recognized.
At least that's how I see it.

Answer 9

How does one make the leap from two human beings getting married to a person wanting to marry an animal? This kind of thinking is, well, retarded. People want the right to marry other people, plain and simple. The asker didn't make this leap, but an answerer did and I just don't get it.

Answer 10

This would be good answer for many topics.

Gay marriage issues, having more then one wife / husband issues.

But, most of our laws actually originates because of religion so no matter how much it makes sense, it wont work. Religions aren't really known to make sense.