What do you think of this solution to the Gay Marriage?

Question

We cannot keep denying benefits to people just because of their sexual preferences. It is discrimination.

However, I also recognize that to some people, the homosexual lifestyle is very distasteful. Given that people have the freedom of religion, and separation of Church and state, the gov't cannot force churces to accept gays or perform marriages.

I would define Unions under law as a joint partnership for members of the gay society, and continue to keep the definition of Marriage between a man and a woman. I would then make sure that gay and lesbian partners of a union are given the same benefits as every heterosexual partner is entitled to.

What do you you think of this?

That's a good perspective, that yes, have some very good perspectives.

I can see how you could say that using a different word might still be discrimination. But at least it's a start and a step forward towards giving Gays and Lesbians some legal benefits. After all, they are people too, they pay taxes, and are a contributing factor to the economy and make-up to the United States.
I say we should let the semantics of "Marriage" be sorted out between the Churches and Gays/Lesbian Community.

[sorry about the little blurb of nonsense I left up top there under "additional details" .It is leftover from a cut and paste and I didn't notice it. Please disregard. Thanks]

Answer 1

I thought that it sounded great until I read Coragryph's answer. He is right, separating them is still discrimination.

However, I do not see this country accepting his idea as easily as yours. So I would say, let's shoot for your idea first. Let the homophobes get used to it, then institute Coragryph's ideal.

Answer 2

It is already a flawed conclusion to say that denying people benefits associated with marriage because of their sexual preference is discrimination, because the states are not denying certain married people benefits because of sexual preference.

The states laws regarding marriage are rationally related to the goal of seeking to continue society and provide, what they believe, is the best environment for raising children. Because marriage is not a fundamental right, the states do not have to provide hard facts supporting their reasoning. The decision of the state is not based on religion, but other factors, the remaining of which I will not go into.

As to providing benefits for gay couples, I think states should do it, but then it would be contrary to the rationale for the creation of legal marriage in the first place. I am not against gay receiving these rights, but I am also for the states having the power to enact legislation the feel benefits society. The citizens of the states have the power to influence the legislatures and should do so.

Answer 3

Marriage could be defined and known through the church it fairly is sanctioning it. That leaves each and every denomination loose to go back to a call no matter if or not they'll help classic marriage really, or also gay marriage. less than our structure, that's illegitimate for the regulation to attend to human beings unequally. presently, marriage advantages are given out really to classic married couples. to fix this, we both eliminate criminal attractiveness of marriage, and it turns right into a bond cemented really through the church, yet without criminal advantages. Or, the authorities recognizes all marriages between consenting adults and bestows the priveledges that bypass alongside with marriage to them, alongside with well being facility visitation, well being care plan sharing, etc. This makes marriage contained in the eyes of the state no better than a criminal dedication to one yet another. gay marriage will be criminal in this u . s .. that's if truth be told a count number of time. The arc of the universe bends in course of justice and equality.

Answer 4

I guess that would be better than nothing, but I think the religious right are the people who are against gay marriage. Where is the separation of Church and State? I say let them marry!, how is that going to destroy the sanctity of marriage?. If the lesbians across the street want to get married, that isn't affecting my heterosexual marriage! But, if the uptight right cannot deal with that, then at least a civil union, I agree with that.

Answer 5

First of all, I would like to state that homosexuality being natural or unnatural is not a concern for me. This is because Marriage in itself is a social construct so there is no 'right' or 'wrong' to it because we give meaning to Marriage...Marriage does not give meaning to us as Gravity would.

Marriage, as most things, are symbiolic of a certain meaning.
If the meaning changes, then there will be some ppl that hold the new meaning as the meaning of marriage while older generations will hold the old meaning of marriage as something else.

So, to even consider the issue of gay marriage, we have to define marriage first.

For myself, and probably for older generations, the meaning of marriage is the uniting of two people in love to produce new life.

For newer generations, the meaning of marriage probably means the union of two people in love.

There are two major solutions to this;

1, as you have suggested, keep the old meaning of marriage but also introduce the idea of union for homosexuals that cant reproduce. And also have the same benefits.

or

2. Have the definition of marriage established with the new meaning of marriage, that is, the union of two people in love. This would also allow benefits to include homosexuals.

The problem with choice 1, is that, are sterile, heterosexual people not allowed to be married just because they cant reproduce? Would we then go one step further and say, people cant reproduce unless they have 'normal' genes?

The problem with choice 2, is that incest and beastiality would get included in this category.

Of course, the two definitions I mentioned are not the only two definitions that exist.

So, I think before we can even consider the equality of benefits, we should first agree as a society/country what a the meaning of a marriage is.

Answer 6

I think the major problem people would have with that is you are still identifying homosexuals as different. They would argue the point is that the government shouldn't see homosexual relationships any different then they see heterosexual ones. The government should not only give the same rights to all, but recognize all the same. I think ultimately, for this issue to truly not be discrimination, the government must not see any difference between homosexual and heterosexual unions.

Answer 7

You have just described exactly the way I feel about it, that the term 'marriage' should be limited to heterosexual traditional marriage, and that gays should have all the same legal rights as anyone else, but the term should be something like 'civil union' or 'life partnership' or something. After all, the term marriage implies husband & wife. Gays deserve a similar but different term. And this is just my personal opinion, don't mean to offend anyone.

Answer 8

I do not support gay mairrage because the Holy Bible(God's Word) forbids the homosexual lifestyle. First of all, there is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay. Homosexuality is a behavior not an identity. Secondly, even if people were born with a homosexual predisposition, it still would not nullify God's Word. Just because someone desires to do something does not make it right. People desire to fornicate, commit adultery, lie, steal, murder, get drunk, but the fact that these people desire to do these things does not make it right. Furthermore, mairrage is defined by God as between a man and a woman, therefore anything outside of that is not mairrage.

Answer 9

There's no reason to call it something else if you are going to give them the same benefits. Churches can already refuse to marry whoever they want, BTW.

And there are lots of marriages that I find distasteful, too, but they get to remain married. You can't use "I don't like it" as an excuse here. I don't like lots of heterosexual couples I see. You might think gay sex is gross, but what about, say, sex with Rush Limbaugh - NASTY!!! THAT is definitely an immoral and unnatural act.

Answer 10

if we had true separation of church and state, there would be no government sanctioned "benefits" like social security, different tax status etc. people living together would be "roommates". if they wanted to have a legal union it would be a contract, not some religios ceremony. The contract would establish joint ownership of properties, custody of children, etc. Don't get me wrong, people should get married in a church if they want, but it should just be a ceremony like baptism and have no effect on any legal status. That's true separation.

Answer 11

That's one solution. But it is inherently bigoted, trying to use two terms for the same legal relationship based solely on the gender of those involved. It's pure gender discrimination, and we already know that "separate but equal" is never truly either.

But there is a closely related solution. Leave the term "marriage" to private and religious usage only, and make "civil unions" the only term recognized by the govt and the laws.

That way, people are free to define "marriage" however they or their church wants, but their personal or religious beliefs have no effect on the law. Which is the way it should be.