Same right for every couple!

[Freodin]

Sadly, I don´t have any influence on american politics - I don´t even have a clear idea of how this topic is handled in the USA. But perhaps some of you can work on that proposal.

Let´s take a look at the two sides: homosexual couples want the same rights (and duties) and benefits as heterosexual couples. They want to have their union officially accepted.

Their opponents want to deny them the term "marriage", because they think this concept would somehow be damaged by the inclusion of gays.


So where is the problem? Simply drop the concept of "marriage" from the list of rights and duties that the secular authority has for these unions. Have the state provide a concept of "civil union", that is open to any two (or possible more) interested persons, and leave it at that - FOR ALL CITIZENS.

If the new couple now wants to get "married" as well, they have to ask for that at their respecive churches, synagogues, mosques or whatever - and deal with their rules.


Wouldn´t that be the solution? Give the gays the rights they ask for, and give the rest their sacredness of marriage.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

There is secualar marriage and religious marriage, they are not the same and yet the Christians want to control both.

 

[keith99]

It would not satisfy those who created prop 8. After all a gay couple could get a civil union and then go the the local MCC and get married. Some gays won't be happy until they get the same term 'marriage' some christians won;t be happy if gays do get the term.

At this point in time if I were gay I would not be 100% happy with a 'civil union' because I would not be sure how it woul dtravel over state lines or out of the country. (I wouldn't be sure even with marriage, but I'd at least hope that it would work well enough for visitation of an injured spouse).

The brighter anti gay-marriage christians realize that granting a civil union is just a slow defeat, as in a few years many of the non-polarized population will start asking just how are civil unions different than marriages. Why have 2 different names for the same thing? And at that point it is an easy push to get gay marriage recognized.

 

[Freodin]

Why have 2 different names for the same thing?

That is what I was thinking! Why have two different names? Just drop the one that is so loaded with prejudice: marriage.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Marriage is a legal term.

You get a wedding if you want to be religiously joined.

You get a MARRIAGE license if you want the state benefits.

Marriage has never been a religious standing. Even in Biblical days (and I've had a Yes on 8 person tell me this) marriage wasn't about relationships at all - it was about procreation. God didn't create marriage. It's the states way of keeping track of joined couples for statistics, tax, inheritances, etc. God created relationships...that's it.

 

[Verv]

You know this guy has a great point and one that I have fundamentally agreed with before; if there is such a problem in the nominal recognition of these things it might even be best to no longer even recognize it s it is a mere title and other agreements can be made which would do the same thing, essentially.

Great original post in this one, guys.

 

[billwald]

Homosexuals don't want equal rights any more than hetrosexuals do. Follow the money. I want equal pay for equal work and the medical benefits are a big part of one's compensation package. Each worker should be alloted the same dollar amount for medical benefits. If a guy wants to split his medical benefits with his mother, his girlfriend, or his bar keep, no business of mine.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Sadly, I don´t have any influence on american politics - I don´t even have a clear idea of how this topic is handled in the USA. But perhaps some of you can work on that proposal.

Let´s take a look at the two sides: homosexual couples want the same rights (and duties) and benefits as heterosexual couples. They want to have their union officially accepted.

Their opponents want to deny them the term "marriage", because they think this concept would somehow be damaged by the inclusion of gays.

So where is the problem? Simply drop the concept of "marriage" from the list of rights and duties that the secular authority has for these unions. Have the state provide a concept of "civil union", that is open to any two (or possible more) interested persons, and leave it at that - FOR ALL CITIZENS.

If the new couple now wants to get "married" as well, they have to ask for that at their respecive churches, synagogues, mosques or whatever - and deal with their rules.

Wouldn´t that be the solution? Give the gays the rights they ask for, and give the rest their sacredness of marriage.

No. "Gays" don't have any more rights to anything as "straights" do. Drop the neologisms: Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered from society and allow any two adults to form a civil union of shared life-long commitment. And give no option for dissolution. Once you go to the state for a civil union, you are bound to it until you die or the associate in the commitment dies.

"Gay" denotes a group looking for members and supporters. "Adults," are people over the age of 17.

Adult Civil Unions.

And that ends the strife.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Marriage is a legal term.

You get a wedding if you want to be religiously joined.

You get a MARRIAGE license if you want the state benefits.

Marriage has never been a religious standing. Even in Biblical days (and I've had a Yes on 8 person tell me this) marriage wasn't about relationships at all - it was about procreation. God didn't create marriage. It's the states way of keeping track of joined couples for statistics, tax, inheritances, etc. God created relationships...that's it.

I hope you do realize that this is far from a universal Christian opinion. And I'm not just saying "people have a knee-jerk reaction against it."

In Catholicism, for instance, marriage is seen as a sacrament. And that's far more than a bookkeeping convenience.

Not to say that you wouldn't be able to find support for your position within the history of Christianity either... at least viewing your statement as "in actuality marriage is a human convenience." If you meant "in Christian tradition, marriage has not been viewed as something sacred or religious" than that is incorrect.

 

[MoonlessNight]

As for the original post, I do agree that something like this is probably the optimal solution for the current world that we live in, but for different reasons. I think that the main thing that all of this debate has done in the end is suggest to everyone involved that the state is the power that can define marriage. So even when things like Prop 8 pass I wonder how much it really does for marriage, since if a law can protect the definition of marriage a law can also destroy it.

What I mean is, if the state were to do something like define what constitutes a valid Eucharist, I doubt many people would respond by trying to change the definition to what their religion preaches. The reaction would instead be "what business is this of the state's anyway?" Obviously marriage isn't the same situation because it does have secular aspects, but that's kind of how these laws and reversals make me feel.

 

[Washington]

Well, according to the pro-8 forces the issue was about more than just the word itself.

Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

• It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.
• It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.
• It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

source

Gee ain't that cute; it stops Californians from having to be tolerant of gay lifestyles. And it will keep kids from understanding what would be the law of the land, which would say that same-sex marriages have equal standing with opposite-sex marriages. Something that would no doubt make every kid in the state upchuck his breakfast and go into a catatonic state upon learning such a fact.

The silliness of it all certainly points up the addle-mined brains of the amendment's creators.

So a mere change in terminology just isn't going to cut it. You'll also have to find a way to keep the kids ignorant of the fact, and find a way to appease the bigots' need to be intolerant.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

No. "Gays" don't have any more rights to anything as "straights" do. Drop the neologisms: Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered from society and allow any two adults to form a civil union of shared life-long commitment. And give no option for dissolution. Once you go to the state for a civil union, you are bound to it until you die or the associate in the commitment dies.

"Gay" denotes a group looking for members and supporters. "Adults," are people over the age of 17.

Adult Civil Unions.

And that ends the strife.

You do that and I will personally sue every church (not really but I would donate to any group that does) that adopts that principle. Any two people that are of legal age that want to get married should be able to and I am sick and tired of people using a book of fairy tales to promote ignorance and hatred.


Giving gay people the right to marry does not afford them more right it affirms the same right they should have already had. And the idea of a law that would make people stay married is ridiculous, people end up in abusive relationships, fall out of love and there a re myriad of reasons they get divorced, live with and quit forcing your outdated ideas on a modern society.

 

[WatersMoon110]

[A]llow any two adults to form a civil union of shared life-long commitment. And give no option for dissolution. Once you go to the state for a civil union, you are bound to it until you die or the associate in the commitment dies.

I know this isn't the place for a debate about Divorce, but I am interested to hear why you think that Civil Unions should be an unbreakable contract? There isn't any other legal contract that I know that can't be amended if the people involved in it so desire.

Also, your proposal would put Divorce Lawyers out of business, and I really don't want to have ex-Lawyers serving me fast food. *wink*

And, I must admit, you have a larger vocabulary than I knew. Thank you for teaching me the word: "neologisms" it seems like a very useful term!

neologism

(nē-ŏl'ə-jĭz'əm)

n.

1. A new word, expression, or usage.
2. The creation or use of new words or senses.
3. Psychology.
   1. The invention of new words regarded as a symptom of certain psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia.
   2. A word so invented.
4. Theology. A new doctrine or a new interpretation of scripture.

 

[WatersMoon110]

And the idea of a law that would make people stay married is ridiculous, people end up in abusive relationships, fall out of love and there a re myriad of reasons they get divorced, live with and quit forcing your outdated ideas on a modern society.

I understand your anger at what I also see as non-legal reasons for passing a law that removes rights from a given minority.

But, as my sister told me, I don't really care WHAT they call it, so long as legally joined Same Sex Couples are granted all the legal benefits currently granted to legally joined Opposite Sex Couples.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I understand your anger at what I also see as non-legal reasons for passing a law that removes rights from a given minority.

But, as my sister told me, I don't really care WHAT they call it, so long as legally joined Same Sex Couples are granted all the legal benefits currently granted to legally joined Opposite Sex Couples.

I wish the Christians that oppose it would just out and say what they really mean which is we are better than they are so you can't have what we do.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I wish the Christians that oppose it would just out and say what they really mean which is we are better than they are so you can't have what we do.

Well, yes. I understand being upset about that. I mean, I'm certainly upset about it. All of my loved ones are upset about it. It's a very upsetting matter. And, as I'm sure you've guessed, I get every bit as upset at RWAer posts as anyone else on "our side".

But if I can gain couples like my sister and sister-in-law that same legal rights that my husband and I share (if they ever choose to legally join) by calling their union "Civil Union" I don't care so long as it passes.

And, frankly, I think we would be better off to just completely do away with "legal marriage" and giving everyone "Civil Unions". Of course, everyone will still refer to them as "marriages" and thus still upset the RWAers, but it would make me laugh.

 

[cantata]

So suppose children are taught in schools that same-sex couples exist and that two people of the same sex can love one another.

What will be the negative consequences of this? Will the children all turn gay?

 

[stan1980]

So suppose children are taught in schools that same-sex couples exist and that two people of the same sex can love one another.

What will be the negative consequences of this? Will the children all turn gay?

It's silly for schools to ignore, as I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure I was aware of the existence of gay people for as long as I can remember.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Let's see if atheism can deal with logic.

You do that and I will personally sue every church that adopts that principle.

We are ready for your organized, homogenized humanist campaign to wipe us away and to subjugate us. Prop 8 is more about drawing lines and protecting our families from your hedonistic goals than it is to stop gays from doing what they do. We just don't want to be forced to celebrate their sex lives.

Any two people that are of legal age that want to get married should be able to and I am sick and tired of people using a book of fairy tales to promote ignorance and hatred.

Spare me the fairy tale rote response. And who made your arbiter of morality? The 0, or the 0, that fuels your belief system? When you atheists can prove somethig can come from nothing get back to us with some logic, chaos peddler. We are not subscribing to the Humanist Manifesto either. That's your by-laws not ours. If you puff up about equality, tolerance and diversity than expect it coming back at you. Freedom of choice right? Or is that too an outdated old mythological concept? Let me know what you decide and how to rule us by. We have plenty of lawyers too.

And we are finally sick and tired of your hysterical emotionalism and threatening anger outbursts being called rational and ruling us everywhere we live, work and gain an education. Who made atheism and homosexuality so powerful? Obviously not the majority of people that reject both. It was activists in your camp that gained power to control the masses. Good for you, but your time is coming to an end. We can see through your facade now. Even the youth falling for gay activism are rejecting your atheism uber alles.

Go live your 0 x 0 = everything life in your own private clubs and in your own homes. We're tired of it subjugating us, and making our children ill. You're no longer the big bad wolf.

Giving gay people the right to marry does not afford them more right it affirms the same right they should have already had.

Marriage has never been anything other than man and woman in the "modern" western world. So nothing is being taken away from people that enjoy gay sex. In fact thy have sodomy "legalized" now.

Civil unions are for the secular. You secularists love to demand that secularism rules all. We prefer a Democracy based on freedom from oppression. Stop forcing your personal beliefs on us and our children.

And the idea of a law that would make people stay married is ridiculous, people end up in abusive relationships, fall out of love and there a re myriad of reasons they get divorced, live with and quit forcing your outdated ideas on a modern society.

Homosexuals want the state to empower their life-long commitments. Then, make them life-long. It is what THEY are demanding. If that's what they want, that's what they should get.

Secular power isn't as effective as it used to be.




-----Where is it written "Speration of Church and State" in the Constitution? Talk about a myth. These people think a letter written by Jefferson is somehow a law!

 

[OphidiaPhile]

We are ready for your organized, homogenized humanist campaign to wipe us away and to subjugate us. Prop 8 is more about drawing lines and protecting our families from your hedonistic goals than it is to stop gays from doing what they do. We just don't want to be forced to celebrate their sex lives.

In fact they have sodomy "legalized" now.


Where is it written "Speration of Church and State" in the Constitution? Talk about a myth. These people think a letter written by Jefferson is somehow a law!

Prop 8 does not change anything that is taught in schools all it does is define what marriage is in your antiquated world. We are sick of ignorant bible thumpers trying to control social and scientific progress and with our new presidential administration the science part will be allowed to flourish once again since every repub president constrains scientific progress and now the only thing left is social progress which will not be far behind especially since your precious prop 8 is due to be overturned just as the CA Supreme Court has previously alluded to.


Sodomy is practiced by heterosexual couples as much or more than homosexual couples and if you are not one of them then you have my sympathy, I happen to love two of the three definitions of sodomy as has every woman I have dated.


Separation of Church and State was written about by every one of the Founding Fathers and it was of prime importance to them. We are sick of you attempting to control the masses by a book that is beyond laughable, yes there are obviously stupid people that require control in their lives which is a prime example of needing more chlorine in the gene pool.



You remind me allot of my future father-in-law who refuses to associate with his own daughter because she wants to marry an atheist.


And we have won every battle we have had against your kind in the states that have tried to keep the alcohol percentage of beer at 6% or below as have we won every one to sell labels that you have deemed offensive like Arrogant Bastard, Satan, Lucifer and quite a few others. Seeing as it was churches in the south that fought these laws and have lost in every instance I would say we are definitely ahead, Alabama and Utah are the last two states to go.

http://www.freethehops.org/