Marriage has been demeaned. High divorce rates (even in presidential candidates), adultery, and spousal abuse does not make marriage attractive. For some reason, Christians embrace this term like a golden idol. Don't you agree that it should be dropped from our vocabulary?
2007-07-10 16:44:30 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I would not have a problem changing my 36 year marriage to a 36 year civil union. It wouldn't have any different meaning. It's only what YOU assign to it.
2007-07-10 16:55:18 · update #1
Some of you have some twisted logic - I must say.
2007-07-10 16:56:57 · update #2
yupchagee - then why have marriages at all? Thx for making my point.
2007-07-10 16:58:28 · update #3
The institution of marraige is already obsolete and so the word can be relegated to the backwaters of the English language, like all of those old Middle English words like zounds and welkin.
2007-07-10 16:52:37 · answer #1 · answered by jhartmann21 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Alright, let's ignore the differences between civil unions and marriages (there are many, an example is that there is no divorce for civil unions). Let's just talk about your point here. Your point is that "civil union" is a different term than "marriage," but provides the same things. So, basically, you would rather that they used that instead of marriage. You would rather that they used a separate term, even though the term is equivalent. Separate but equal. Interesting. Odd that we argued against the concept of "separate but equal" back during the civil rights movement. Would the situation have been better for African Americans if they had an equal number of places to go to whites? How about if they had the same quality water fountains and bathrooms? If they got better seats on the bus? Would that "separate but equal" have been alright? The point I'm making is that when you validate the idea of "separate but equal," you basically say that it's alright for them to have something, so long as it's not already ours. WE don't want to change, so THEY must get something new. THEY must be separate from us, even if we want them to have the same rights. That's otherism. That's basically saying that these people are not deserving of the word we've used for so long to describe our unions, so we made up a new one to make them complacent. That's the same reason we created new bathrooms and water fountains for African Americans. We didn't want them contaminating our bathrooms and water fountains. We don't want gays contaminating our word. What's the difference? I fail to see it. But I suppose the aspect of this question that rattles me the most is that last sentence: "Being confrontational just makes more people despise them." The Revolutionary War was confrontational, a lot of people hated us for it, should we not have done it? How about the Civil Rights movement? Most people called for them just to accept their current circumstances, should they have done so? How about the women's rights movement? Would they have gotten suffrage if they weren't confrontational about it? Since when is being confrontational bad? And since when do rights become subservient to what people think of your being confrontational?
2016-05-19 01:30:51 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The word "Marriage: is not the problem. There are 50% of marriages that DO work. Adulterer's, Liars, Spousal Abuser's, etc., are what makes the divorce rate so high. A possibibility is to ban divorce and then people may begin to take marriage more seriously.
2007-07-10 16:49:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I have no problem with changing the title. However, I doubt it would change much. Furthermore, I am a supporter of gay marriage because I believe you shouldn't deny someone of their rights. I support separation of church and state. Don't bring your religious beliefs into politics. After all, this is supposed to be a democracy and not a theocracy.
2007-07-10 17:04:54 · answer #4 · answered by Brandon 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
how would the term "civil union" prevent adultery, spousal abuse, and divorce??? How about we just make civil unions illegal and leave marriage to the Church, and not the government...
2007-07-10 16:54:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Marriage still means something to some people, I hold it sacred and essential to US society. By the way, it is ironic that the only GOP candidate to still be Married to his first and only wife is Mitt Romney.
http://www.dryflypolitics.com
2007-07-10 16:51:17 · answer #6 · answered by sbay311 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that would be a bad idea. Leave the 'marriage' term to religions, use. Adopt 'Civil Union' or some similar term for legal purposes. 'Mariage' can thus be defined however each sect wishes too.
2007-07-10 16:48:28 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No. Many marriages are far from civil.
2007-07-10 16:56:06 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm still uncertain how the label "civil union" makes other gays feel like second class citizens. The "second class citizen" argument is weak.
2007-07-10 16:48:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
couldn't you use the term "civil union" to describe a person with a 42 pound tumor?
2007-07-10 16:50:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋