gay community accept this as fair and just? Why or why not? Let's say the title of "life partners" maybe this sounds cheesy but you get my drift.
2006-10-20 05:50:56 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
yes this would also include the same benefits as married couples.
2006-10-20 05:55:53 · update #1
It will not matter until they get equal benefits that married couples enjoy, such as joint health insurance and inheritance benefits.
2006-10-20 05:53:58 · answer #1 · answered by MЯ BAIT™ 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess this is fine. We all love to play word games this way these days. All a marriage is from a civil and legal perspective is, is a civil union. The "marriage" trappings are a religious thing. No one of course is suggesting that churches should (even if they could be) compelled to perform same sex marriage.
I am a very strong proponent of gay/lesbian marriage. However, I do not think that marriage is a proper area for the federal government to regulate in any way--whether permitting same sex marriage or prohibiting it.
2006-10-23 17:08:44 · answer #2 · answered by beckychr007 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hopefully the community would have the political savvy to accept it, lay low for 10 years or so, then start the separate but equal argument. Sometimes I am amazed at the all or nothing attitude from some activists, ignoring that these things progress in stages. 20 years ago no one would talk about gay marriage and today it is legal for now in one state and public support has grown overall.
But in any case it is inevitable as we are increasingly living in a post-christian era.
2006-10-20 13:29:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
While it would be nice to be able to call it a "marriage" to stick with tradition, I think it's time to dump tradition.
Call it a union, life partners, or some other tag just being able to share, not only a life but the benefits that go with it are what is important.
I won't live to see it but it will be a great day when all the darn labels for everyone are gone.
2006-10-20 13:06:57 · answer #4 · answered by dragon 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A lot of great answers so far.
I would still go to Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, or South Africa, because marriage is marriage and love is love.
By allowing civil unions you socially stratify society. You create a class of people that are allowed to do things and a class that aren't...just like now. And, as we all know, class struggles are the woes that plague societies.
2006-10-20 14:01:40 · answer #5 · answered by zea_m 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the few states that allow it, called it a "civil union", i think that's a good way for the two partners to be together and get treated equally as two straight people would getting "married", i just don't think many "higher-ups" and some people like the word gay and marriage in the same sentence, so they can keep their "marriage" and we can call it something else, what does it matter what it's called, it's a title, what it implies and means is more important
2006-10-20 12:59:50 · answer #6 · answered by Bailey 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Separate but equal is already a failed experiment here in the United States.
That said...
If civil partnerships were instituted nationwide with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, the marriage conversation would effectively be stopped for probably the next 30 years.
2006-10-20 12:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by knightofsappho 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
First, unless each and every single benefit is the same, no, it would not be acceptable. Second, if each and every single benefit is the same, "separate but equal" becomes a very valid issue. Inferring that our relationships are "different" or somehow "less" than any other would be a form of bigotry and bias and therefore completely unacceptable.
2006-10-20 12:59:20 · answer #8 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think marriage should be open to all consenting adults, not just based on what a select few people feel it should be open to.
Anything less would be settling. Separate but equal has been tried before, and failed horribly. If separate but equal is acceptable, what next separate water fountains, and separate seating at the lunch counter? gay and non gay bus seats?
why is it so hard to simply accept we are consenting adults who want to live our lives?
2006-10-20 14:08:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think they want the benefits and rights of married couples not the name MARRIED although it may be important to a lot of people to be able to say I AM MARRIED not I AM LIFE PARTNERED!!!!!
Congress is too paranoid. What's gonna happen when they get married that can't happen now while they live together, have sex, raise kids, and go to work?????
2006-10-20 13:00:52 · answer #10 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sure, as long as you enforce that any straight people that get married can only call themselves "life partners." If you can't agree to this, then "marriages" will work just fine for ALL the ceremonies.
Anything else would be discriminatory and bigoted.
2006-10-20 12:59:57 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋