It was brought to my attention that the question of gay marriages would be more readily accepted if the word "marriage" were dropped and changed to civil union. Same sex couples would have the same benefits of marriage, just not the, well, marriage. I'm interested in hearing how gay and straight people would respond to this!
2006-12-24 01:44:38 · 32 answers · asked by David S 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
It was brought to my attention that the question of gay marriages would be more readily accepted if the word "marriage" were dropped and changed to civil union. Same sex couples would have the same benefits of marriage, just not the, well, marriage. I'm interested in hearing how gay and straight people would respond to this!
By the way, please respond weather you are gay or straight!
2006-12-24 01:48:39 · update #1
Good question. I have thought about this too. The word "marriage" has connotations that are linked to heterosexual persons. I will be looking at the other answers to your question. I hope people respond to you in a intelligent, objective way.
2006-12-24 01:49:00 · answer #1 · answered by Dulcinea 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, that's just being used as a way pacify gay people and band aid the problem. It's not really equal, it tends to make straight marriages better than gay marriages. If you could accept the gay civil unions but not marriages are you really accepting them? If you are then why is there a distinction? It is always the argument that marriage is a religious ceremony and churches forbid it. Are you aware that marriage was not founded in Christianity? And that the state recognizes marriages of non-Christian couples. That objection just doesn't hold up. Civil Unions is not equal rights, it unequal. If the state believes marriage to be a religious event, then all couples should have civil unions. No state marriages, that way it would be blind like justice claims to be. In the same sex marriage issue, justice seems to peek from the blindfold to see who is getting married and then decides to issue a license of marriage or civil union depending on what she sees. Does that sound like fair justice?
2006-12-24 12:05:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, that's in basic terms getting used as a fashion pacify gay people and band help the subject. that isn't from now on probable equivalent, it has a tendency to make interior the present day marriages greater desirable useful than gay marriages. in case you may settle for the gay civil unions yet now no longer marriages are you extremely accepting them? in case you're then why is there an excellent difference? that's continuously the argument that marriage is a non secular ceremony and church properties forbid it. do you already know that marriage replaced into now no longer based in Christianity? And that the state recognizes marriages of non-Christian couples. That objection in basic terms does no longer delay. Civil Unions isn't equivalent rights, it unequal. If the state believes marriage to be a non secular journey, then all couples could desire to have civil unions. No state marriages, that way it somewhat is blind like justice claims to be. contained interior the comparable intercourse marriage subject, justice seems to peek from the blindfold to be sure who's getting married and then includes a determination to subject a license of marriage or civil union in step with what she sees. Does that sound like uncomplicated justice?
2016-10-18 22:51:06 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) Separate but Equal is Unconstitutional.
2) Marriage as a religious sacrament holds absolutely no legal significance. In order for any Marriage to be Legal it must be Licensed and Registered with the Federal and State authorities. Without that registration the "sacrament" is meaningless and carries no legal weight whatsoever.
3) Creating an alternate terminology sets up a line of demarcation enabling discrimination in the legal arena.
4) In the United States the SCOTUS ruling of Lawrence VS Texas makes sexual activity between two legal adults a private matter and not subject to laws or regulations, not only does this invalidate sodomy laws and statutes but it would also cover any legal definition of the consummation of a marriage.
I will not sit at the back of the bus or drink from a separate water fountain because some feel uncomfortable.
2006-12-24 02:22:59 · answer #4 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
About Me
Member since: July 31, 2006
Total points: 3,170 (Level 4)
Points earned this week:
Total answers:
Best answers:
Marriage began as a religious sacrament. Where the government went wrong was in adopting the word marriage for the license. I would propose that all couples receive a "certificate of civil union." If they are to be married, then that will be performed by their church and the church can issue a marriage certificate if they wish to. As far as the state is concerned, the couples are all equal under the law and can have any ceremony they want, performed by a person legally eligible to join them either through a civil or religious ceremony.
2006-12-25 12:53:52 · answer #5 · answered by Magic One 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Firstly I'm gay and have no intention of getting married.
Now that's out the way. Over here in britain they are called civil unions and they're slightly different, firstly they're open to straight couples too, carry the same benefit, but remove the requirement to consommate the marrage (in the letters of our existing laws, consommation is between a man and a woman, so gay people would be incapable of consommating a marriage, but so too can couples incapable of having sex take this option, since it's legitimate to divorce in marriage if it's unconsommated).
In the Netherlands 40% of all civil unions are straight!
To all of the religious people above who've posted `omg no, god says no`, get the f**k off your high horse and preach `judge not that ye be not judged`. Live and let live, Jesus told you to.
2006-12-24 01:54:03 · answer #6 · answered by Modern Jesus 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The term civil union is insulting.
I'm also tired of you bible thumpers claiming you own marriage. You did not invent the concept. Marriage was created long before Christianity. Research the ancient Roman Empire. Marriage and gay marriage were recognized by the ancient Roman and Greek societies. Maybe you'd learn something for a change.
By the way, the separate bathroom example has no relation to legalizing gay marriage. A man using a woman's bathroom would violate another persons privacy whereas gay marriage harms no one.
2006-12-24 02:18:21 · answer #7 · answered by girl with a gun 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Here is the question: If you allow same sex “Civil Union” and give the people who enter into such unions all the rights and privileges as opposite sex marriages (as Shakespeare asked: does not a rose smell the same by any other name?) who get to enter into such an union? Would you allow any same sex couple? Would you allow two brother or two sisters to have such a union? Why not? How about a man and his daughter, or a woman and her son? Also why does is have to be just two people? Why not three? Ten? A hundred? As far as that goes why could not opposite sex people enter into such a union and have as many partner in the union as they wished as long as all were willing? As it is now all of these arrangements are allowed under the freedom of association but it is just the union of two opposite sexed people that is sanctified by government to receive certain benefits not afforded to other arrangements that people may inter into. Just how much of this would you change? And once you start how will you be able to stop? What justification could you give for allowing same sexed union but not many sexed unions, or all the other iterations possible?
2006-12-24 02:39:45 · answer #8 · answered by thecarolinacowboy 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm straight.
Why don't we just call them Hetrosexual Marriage and Homosexual marriage.
This would make everybody happy because it would designate which type of marriage you are in, of course it would only apply to the license itself and also to the place where it is recorded.
Churches or any instution that feels that Homosexual marriages are a sin, would not have to perform them because I am sure that there are plenty of justices of the peace or others that are licensed to perfom marriages that would be willing to take the $50.00 or whatever is being charged nowadays to join two people that love each other in marriage.
I am for this type of wording on all marriage licenses and think that there should be one law for the entire nation. In some states it is legal to marry your first cousin and in others it is legal to be married at 14 years old, but not in all states, so those marriages would not be allowed if those persons moved.
Lets stop the fighting about not letting people get married and spread some love and happiness.
2006-12-24 06:30:17 · answer #9 · answered by Joel 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, YES! There is such an ingrained idea and mystique surrounding "marriage" that it is better to avoid the issue and use the less inflammatory term "civil unions"
Actually, the important thing is that "civil unions" should convey the same legal rights that "marriage" does. Leave it up to the religious institutions to provide the religious aspects to the joining of two persons for life.
What is important is that legal rights that flow from being "married" are conveyed and given to same sex couples.
2006-12-24 03:00:36 · answer #10 · answered by morahastits 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered) people get asked this type of question a lot. Why do we want to get married? Why do we want to 'call' it marriage. One main reason is because separate (or different) is not equal. My family may not look like yours, but your family probably doesn't look like mine. So, why should either of us have different rules that apply? Different does not translate to 'bad'.
When my daughter talks about her family in school, she shouldn't have to feel that her family is somehow different (worse) because hers is different. She wants to be able to wear a flower girl dress and be there when her mommies get married, not 'civil unioned'. When is the last time you saw a congratualtions on your civil union card at Hallmark- it isn't there. And if it is, it certainly isn't as prominent and as celebrated as a wedding/marriage section is.
Marriages are something sacred in our culture. Well, ok maybe sacred is too strong of a word, because divorces are rampant. But marriage is celebrated- think of when someone gets married, people buy a new outfit, buy gifts, attend a party, take photos, etc., It's a huge cultural celebration and honoring of the couple. Why should we call it something different just because of the sex of the couple?
2006-12-24 03:34:33 · answer #11 · answered by Darcy R 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋