Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[Sava]

I think what Wezil means is that from a government standpoint, only civil unions should exist. Marriage is something people can do on their own... religious or otherwise.

[Wezil]

Again Ming. "Marriage" is just a word. Put all the symbolic meaning crap you want to it but it is just that - symbolism. Legally it bears no weight.

If someone comes to the Church of Wezil to obtain a blessing in a 'gitmoot' ceremony, they can then proceed to the government to get a civil union like anyone else. What I call the ceremony and what it 'means' to me are irrelevant.

Ming - would the organised religions in your country like this proposal? I doubt it. Strange they would turn down this increase in power you seem to feel they are getting. I suspect what you are really arguing for is to strip the rights of Churches to decide for themselves who should be entitled to their symbolic services - ie you would like to see the Catholics forced to marry gay couples against their will. I'm not religious, and quite frankly wish ALL religion would bugger off. That being said I wouldn't begin to try to impose my values on their 'clubs'.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wezil
Again Ming. "Marriage" is just a word. Put all the symbolic meaning crap you want to it but it is just that - symbolism. Legally it bears no weight.

Then WHY do you want the Government out of the Marriage business... Why change what the government does to civil unions then... what difference does it make.
And YES, the word DOES have legal weight right now.
You seem to want to change the wording for no real reason at all.

And since the word does have significance for some, why should they have to go to a religion to get married, since the Government is ALREADY DOING SO and recogonizes that wedding under the eyes of the law?

Why change the words now. What purpose does it serve.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Wezil
I suspect what you are really arguing for is to strip the rights of Churches to decide for themselves who should be entitled to their symbolic services - ie you would like to see the Catholics forced to marry gay couples against their will.

Then you haven't been reading any of my posts. I have stated repeatedly that the churches can marry whomever they want... and I have no problem with that, and consider it their right to do so.

My whole point is that Governments have been doing marriages for ages, and should continue doing so. And that the exclusive right to perform a marriage (not a civil union) should not reside with religions.

So next time... read before you make assumptions that aren't even close.

[Wezil]

I want gov out of the 'marriage' business b/c it is too rife with religious symbolism. If you want a consensus to move forward you will have to replace the current religiously loaded concept of marriage with a secular one of civil union. Big change? You bet. That is why I would change the word. Everyone is equal under our new civil institution. So what if some churches won't marry gay couples. It will make no difference, as many will.

I understand your point - we are accomplishing the same goal, therefore why make it harder by changing the terminology? Because I suspect changing the terminology will be easier than getting hardcore fundies (of which the US is chock-a-block) to accept gay 'marriage'.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ming


Yep... both get screwed, because they HAVE to go to a church to get married And that's what I'm arguing against... giving churches the exclusive rights to Marriages.

Some people seem to want to remove the government from performing marriages... Whether you agree that they should have the power or not... THEY ALREADY DO... and have had so for a very long time.

So to take that power away, YES, You are giving more power to religions.

There is a big difference in most peoples minds on the terms Civil Unions and Marriages. While you may argue that both will have the same rights and be the same, they aren't the same. PEOPLE WANT TO GET MARRIED, not have a "civil union". The word MEANS SOMETHING to people...

And PEOPLE WANT TO GET BAPTISED, but they can only do it at a church. Such injustice!

[Wezil]

Frustrating as can be, I enjoy your debate Ming. I think we really aren't that far apart on goals - just means. Anyway my time is done for this week.

Good day all, see you next weekend.

[Elok]

The "symbolism" is undesirable because people are taking it too seriously. Looking to the government for emotional validation is absurd. Even if there were no big scary gays-marry crisis I'd think it best to leave it as a codependency contract, which is more flexible anyway.

But then, you haven't responded to my posts for the past page and a half (which is somewhat irritating, BTW), so...

[Ming]

Originally posted by skywalker
And PEOPLE WANT TO GET BAPTISED, but they can only do it at a church. Such injustice!

Baptism is a religious ceremony... Marriage is not soley a religious ceremonsy... and that's the whole point

To just change the term marriage to civil union just because some of the fundies can't deal with it shows that it is indeed a case of discrimination. Gays deserve the same rights when it comes to marriage as straights.
Changing the term to make it exceptable is totally unexecptable.

[Kuciwalker]

Marriage is, currently, a combination of a religious ceremony and a contract that the government recognizes and provides certain rights and privileges based on. Seperate the contract from the religious ceremony, and it becomes solely a religious ceremony.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by skywalker
Marriage is, currently, a combination of a religious ceremony and a contract that the government recognizes and provides certain rights and privileges based on. Seperate the contract from the religious ceremony, and it becomes solely a religious ceremony.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09691b.htm

No, it ain't.

[Kuciwalker]

Huh? What's your point?

[molly bloom]

What is the religious quotient of a civil marriage?

If we already have non-religious marriages, we do not need separate categories of 'marriage' for the religious and the non-religious, the gay/lesbian and the heterosexual.

[Kuciwalker]

There isn't a seperate category. You have "marriage" and then "contract-thingy". However, "contract-thingy" sounds stupid so we say "civil union".

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by skywalker
There isn't a seperate category. You have "marriage" and then "contract-thingy". However, "contract-thingy" sounds stupid so we say "civil union".

Why?

Since 'marriage' does not apply solely to religious ceremonies, this is unnecessary.

Religious groups don't own 'marriage'- you can be married in the eyes of the law and the state in non-religious ceremonies.

Ergo, there is no need to award the ownership of 'marriage' to religious groups and leave everyone else with civil unions.