Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Im still reading this thread and following along. I piped in a few pages back if you care to check. In some ways, I feel like "whats the point", seeing how how easily so many people on here justify obvious immorality under the guise of rationality.
I'm going to repeat what I said a moment ago, which apparently got overlooked:
They have equal rights. There is no right that I have that they do not have.
What you are attempting to do is change the meaning of the word "marriage".
Im still reading this thread and following along. I piped in a few pages back if you care to check. In some ways, I feel like "whats the point", seeing how how easily so many people on here justify obvious immorality under the guise of rationality.
It seems that more and more we're not even discussing the validity of legal same-sex civil unions under man's law, but more and more just engaging in a tug of war over the "m" word. Maybe we should ashcan the "m" word, just start referring to sacred, church-blessed unions and legal, state-approved unions and be done with it.What, to you, is the meaning of the word "marriage"? To me - and I speak as someone who's going to be getting married in a little under a month's time - the meaning of marriage is two people who are in love with each other making a commitment to stay together for the rest of their natural lives and solemnising that commitment in a ceremony in front of their families, friends, and any god(s) in whom they happen to believe.
Food for thought. You may be right.I think same-sex civil unions would be legal in a few more states if their proponents didn't insist on attaching the m-word to it, but that's just my opinion.
It seems that more and more we're not even discussing the validity of legal same-sex civil unions under man's law, but more and more just engaging in a tug of war over the "m" word. Maybe we should ashcan the "m" word, just start referring to sacred, church-blessed unions and legal, state-approved unions and be done with it.
I think same-sex civil unions would be legal in a few more states if their proponents didn't insist on attaching the m-word to it, but that's just my opinion.
It seems that more and more we're not even discussing the validity of legal same-sex civil unions under man's law, but more and more just engaging in a tug of war over the "m" word. Maybe we should ashcan the "m" word, just start referring to sacred, church-blessed unions and legal, state-approved unions and be done with it.
I think same-sex civil unions would be legal in a few more states if their proponents didn't insist on attaching the m-word to it, but that's just my opinion.
As a practical point it doesn't *matter* whether a state calls it "civil union" or "marriage." That has no bearing (currently) on whether or not another state chooses to recognize it. And it certainly doesn't change what the federal government does with respect to its recognition of civil unions vis-a-vis marriage.The problem is that, if you are married, you can move from Iowa to Massachusetts and still be considered married, even if you are a same-sex couple. If you move from California and are a gay couple, you are not married (or have a civil partnership) in Massachusetts. For all the claims that civil partnerships are equal to marry, the fact is that they are not.
But you see, if there was a distinction between LEGAL (state-recognized) civil unions and a strictly sacred one, this question would run afoul of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion.Imagine a standard form questionnaire;
Are you;
A) Single
B) Married
C) in a Civil Union
Choose "C", and you're just voluntarily making yourself an easier mark for sexual orientation discrimination by whomever is handling your paperwork...
As a practical point it doesn't *matter* whether a state calls it "civil union" or "marriage." That has no bearing (currently) on whether or not another state chooses to recognize it. And it certainly doesn't change what the federal government does with respect to its recognition of civil unions vis-a-vis marriage.
I just don't see the relevance "separate but equal" argument I've heard so many on this issue. I know of no one who supports legal same-sex civil unions who believes they should not have the exact same rights and responsibilities as what we call a same-sex married couple today. (Heck, I'd be all for getting rid of LEGAL recognition of marriage, making all of it a civil union and leaving another ceremony to be the church-blessed one. Maybe we shouldn't call that marriage either, just to agree to stop fighting over that word.)
I just think that the proponents of advancing gay rights in the secular world are doing themselves a disservice by insisting on the m-word if they prefer results over symbolism and principle. Almost all social and political movements advanced through incrementalism. Women were granted the right to vote on a state by state basis for decades until the passage of the 19th Amendment, for example. And I think the recent voter initiative in California probably passes if its proponents didn't reach for the m-word.
But you see, if there was a distinction between LEGAL (state-recognized) civil unions and a strictly sacred one, this question would run afoul of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion.
To the degree "marital" or coupled status is anyone's business, the only legal response would (or should) be "not in civil union" or "in civil union" (or some such). Asking about one's status with respect to religious union would result in a lawsuit.
But you see, if there was a distinction between LEGAL (state-recognized) civil unions and a strictly sacred one, this question would run afoul of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion.
Except there are already examples that they aren't equivalent, regardless of how you feel. I mean, suppose you moved from Vermont to Connecticut a few years ago and found your relationship with your spouse was not longer recognized -- this is exactly what happened when a lesbian couple who had a civil union in Vermont moved to Connecticut, which also had civil unions.
Further, it has been mentioned on here that some national employers in states with civil unions have refused to offer spousal benefits to those in civil unions because they are not married.
And just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist. Washington, as mentioned, is an example of this. Prior to this year Washington had civil partnerships that offered some, but not all, of the protections of marriage. This year the Washington legislature amended the law to make civil partnerships have the same rights and benefits as marriage. And this is when Christian groups started petitioning to have the law overturned, their objection is precisely because they don't believe that gays should have all the rights of marriage, even under another name. And they got roughly 150,000 signatures to put it on the ballot.
Again, I think this is a matter of perception on your part. For example, rather than fight for marriage or even civil union laws in the federal government, gay political groups have fought for things like inclusion in federal hate crime laws and, having gotten that passed, are now working toward non-discrimination laws. And the political process typically goes this way in most states. Not to mention, they are getting gay marriage laws passed on a state by state basis just like your 19th Amendment example. And I think every state that has passed gay marriage laws had some type of civil union law prior to the marriage law being passed.
Last, why have two separate volumes of law that do the same thing? This is what you are proposing when it comes to having both civil unions and marriage. Not to mention the revisions that would have to be made to existing laws to include civil unions.
As for your not seeing the problems with "separate but equal", I think you'd feel differently if you were a small minority that did fall under different statutes than the majority. It becomes too easy for a legislature to tinker with the laws in on set of statutes but to "forget" to change one set of statutes or even openly and intentionally decide that it is just a minority and we need to save money on programs. Remember, segregation was intentionally set up to be separate but equal but it was quite easy to give the minority less money for schools and other programs when money was tight. And maybe you are right, maybe gays are being paranoid about this -- but again, if you were in their shoes I think separate but equal would scare you too.
Your idea of "obvious" is interesting.Im still reading this thread and following along. I piped in a few pages back if you care to check. In some ways, I feel like "whats the point", seeing how how easily so many people on here justify obvious immorality under the guise of rationality.
Your idea of "obvious" is interesting.
Tell me, can you actually give a single logical reason against homosexuality, or is the best you can do to cvompare homosexuality to something else, and then condemn THAT, and hope to win by association?
When Bob Brown shows up to rape your children, lets see if your attitude changes.Come on, surely it should be obvious to a voter of the party containing such luminaries as Bill Heffernan that a social relationship (marriage) should be defined solely with reference to a natural process (reproduction) which only contingently has anything at all to do with the social relationship! It is only logical! I guess you are one of those that are just happy to wallow in your immorality. How irrational of you
When Bob Brown shows up to rape your children, lets see if your attitude changes.
Your idea of "obvious" is interesting.
Tell me, can you actually give a single logical reason against homosexuality, or is the best you can do to cvompare homosexuality to something else, and then condemn THAT, and hope to win by association?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?