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

[Ned]

Molly, it is nice to be on the same side of an issue with you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, it is nice to be on the same side of an issue with you.

I'm worried Ned- either you're coming down with a severe case of the galloping common sense, or I slipped into the twilight zone, before entering the Nedaverse.


You know this is the third time we've agreed on something?

People will say we're in lurve.

[MrFun]

So Molly and Ned -- when is the San Francisco wedding?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MrFun
So Molly and Ned -- when is the San Francisco wedding?

You need a slap, Funny Bunny.


Beware a Catholic meting out corporal punishment.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Wezil
Gay Couple:

Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Straight Couple:

Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?

edit -

Atheist Couples:

Step 1: Skip as unnecessary
Step 2: Go to government office for legal Civil Union.
Step 3: Honeymoon

You're not getting Ming's post because your example here is wrong. Try this:

COUPLE 1 (religious)
Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon

COUPLE 2 (non-religious)
Step 1: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 2: Honeymoon

RESULT:
Couple 1: "Hey everyone! WE'RE MARRIED!"
Couple 2: "Hey everyone... we, uh, just enacted a civil union."

There's your inequality. Under your arrangement, ONLY those willing to get hitched in a CHURCH can claim they are MARRIED. Anyone who can't or doesn't want to get hitched in a church can only get a civil union.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by mindseye
There's your inequality. Under your arrangement, ONLY those willing to get hitched in a CHURCH can claim they are MARRIED. Anyone who can't or doesn't want to get hitched in a church can only get a civil union.

But why would non-religious people want a religious ceremony? They can still throw a part and get blind drunk if they like.

[Elok]

Couple 2 can call get a marriage from an Elks club or something if they want. Marriage is a state of being anyway, not a certificate.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Elok
Couple 2 can call get a marriage from an Elks club or something if they want. Marriage is a state of being anyway, not a certificate.

Some people consider the certificate important.

And again, marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony, so why do people keep wanting to make it one.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom



You need a slap, Funny Bunny.


Beware a Catholic meting out corporal punishment.

[Arrian]

Ah, Ben responded to me over the weekend, I guess.

This is pure gold:

Look at it this way. We all have gender roles. It is only by some sort of example provided, that children learn to work within their own role, and with the role opposite to them.

"Gender roles." Translation: why aren't you barefoot in the kitchen, woman?! Gender rolls are ****, IMO. Relics of the past. Look, if you and your future wifey agree on the old traditional gender rolls, whereby you go out and earn the money and she stays home and plays house wife, good for the both of you. Then you will both be happy in your roles. Many, many people, however, don't fit into those roles so easily. I have no particular desire to be the primary bread-winner (and frankly, it would suck if I did, because my gf is so far out in front in that category I've little hope of catching her ), and could even see myself dropping down to part-time work and being the main child-raiser. OMG! Gender roll reversal! Cannot compute! System error! #)(&@%!PN!T*)Q)+==10101!!!

Um, no. Not a big deal. And my kids will not be traumatized if that happens, just like I wasn't traumatized that my father retired and raised me, rather than my mom.

I do not see why a gay couple cannot raise a child (via adoption, or perhaps in the case of lesbians artificial insemination) just as well as a straight couple. The only downside I see for the child of the gay couple is the bigotry of others in society.

And I guess we will just have to disagree on the question of sexual orientation being fixed or not. Sure, there is a group of people that will be wishy-washy for a time (probably bi) and then pick one. But it is my understanding that most people are one or the other and stay that way. Exceptions will always exist, but they do not constitute a firm basis for your position.

Regarding adoption, it was my understanding that there are actually lots of kids up for adoption, but they are main minorities, and the people on those long lists are waiting in nice little white children. I could be mistaken, however. Even if I am, given that I reject your hopes of "conversion" of [the vast majority of] gays into straights, again, I reject the idea that gay marriage will in any way effect the birthrate.

-Arrian

p.s. Regarding the idea that gays can be convinced to be straight, I have a story for you.

My favorite teacher in highschool was a married man, with several kids. He was a fantastic teacher, and also just happened to be the only teacher in the school with a shred of fashion sense. Some of us always did wonder a little bit about him. Anyway, he ended up becoming Assistant Principle, and I was glad. He was a good guy.

Not too long after I graduated from college, I got the news: that teacher had come to the realization that he was gay. This realization tore apart his family, and he ended up committing suicide. The man hung himself.

I do not know the specifics of what was going on inside his head. It could be that he was gay from the get-go, but because society is so homophobic he somehow convinced himself to be "normal" and only finally snapped in his 40s. Or it could be he actually "converted." Note, however, Ben that this "conversion" if that's indeed what happened, went the opposite direction than what you're looking for. So if you think "conversion" is possible, consider that it can run both ways, which will likely cancel out.

Frankly, I'd rather live in a society where that old teacher of mine wouldn't have felt massive societal pressure to be straight, in case my hunch is correct and he was gay from the start and supressed it (I consider this more likely than "conversion").

[MrFun]

Gender roles, huh?

Even in the 19th century, Americans had this ideal of "separate spheres." Guess what? The "separate spheres" even in the 19th century, was an ideal, and not the reality.

[Arrian]

I think people do tend to crave defined roles. It's just that I think individuals should define their roles for themselves, and not have them thrust upon them by society at large (or worse yet, the gummint).

There are people who like the old "traditional" roles of stay-at-home-mom and working dad. Good for them. But I see no reason to push that as preferable to the inverse.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, while I agree with you about homosexuality being "inherent," I must admit that I was highly offended by your post.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Elok
Cullions. I have a fair amount of liqueur in me, FF; are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Be less subtle!

I'm not talking so much about the absolutely rigid separation of church and state so much as I am about the danger of a religiously-oriented state becoming a religion itself. There's no doctrine in government, and in ours there's nothing but one guy put up there by the fickle moods of mob mentality (I'm in an anti-democratic mood tonight, I guess). The government is worthy of no more or less reverence than humanity itself.

EDIT: smiley maintenance.

Subtlety is an art form.

Er... the rest is rather anti-democratic... How is there no doctrine in government?

Originally posted by Ming
Would somebody please explain why religions should hold a monopoly on the term marriage.

People seem to be arguing that govenment should do civil "unions" while marriages only be performed by some relgion... I see this as just rolling over and playing dead for the relgion crowd... Why should any single religion be able to dictate who can get married if they aren't even members of the religion. Why should they have that right to impose their moral point of view on others... By saying governments can't marry people... you are giving religion the power over the state... which is not seperation of church and state.

I could easily reverse the question though: Why should various religions be forced to marry couples that would be going completly counter of their mission statements? That is what the seperation of church and state clause is all about, all the federal government should do is get rid of the defense of marriage act and instead say that any marriage or civil union performed in one state must be recognized by others and that if it is recognized in a state it is thusly recognized under the marriage definition on the federal level.

Originally posted by Giancarlo
To the religionists on this forum: What about heterosexual atheists that want to get married? Should they also be barred from getting married?

While my wife and are I hardly that extreme (actually very far from that extreme) we're still 'married' under federal and state law, though my limited understanding of Catholocism states that we wouldn't be recognized there but would be as Methodists (if we were).

Originally posted by Elok
By saying governments should marry at all you are stepping outside the proper bounds of government, which is to impose order on society, not to decide morals or profound spiritual truths. The Gov't. shouldn't "marry" couples in the traditional, sacramental sense of the word, any more than legal contracts should include provisions for the signers dying and being reincarnated. So far as the Federal Government is concerned, marriage should be nothing more than a set of legal rights granted within the context of a legally binding agreement. If you think it goes further than that, well, that's for you to decide. If you don't want to be "religious," in case of, Idunno, buddha-cooties or something, you can form a philosophical society of Ain't Married Life Swell. There's no restriction of rights involved, it's just not the government's job to perform.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Elok
GC, if I qualify as a "religionist," I say sure, if you mean "marry" in the same sense as the US is now debating gay marriage. Ultimately the government has no right to make religions perform sacraments against their will, but it has no reason to deny equal rights based on an opinion that is not the slightest bit relevant to civic duty.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Ned


The major problem I have with government being invovled in this issue is that by issuing licenses it implicitly has the power to deny licenses. I think the government must stay completely out of the issue as relationships between people are private matters, none of the government's business.

Except that if there isn't a license on file I could say I was married to... Martha Stewart and demand part of her tax refund during that time of the year. There have to be public records, for the public's sake.

The government may properly define law, rules and regulations concerning property, support, privileges, etc., for people who claim to be married. But the marriage is, in the final analysis, nothing more than a private contract between two people who intend to be married.

Agreed. Isn't it for heterosexual couples currently?

Religious and civil ceremonies are just that -- ceremonies. They change nothing about the underlying fundamentals and truly are not required (unless one believes one needs a priest to be validly married) in order for people to be validly married.

Agreed, because even that belief is a religous belief, which everyone is entitled to have or not have.

Originally posted by skywalker

In addition to what Ming said, I think that this means you are basically encouraging poorer people to have more kids and richer people to have fewer. That's not a good idea.

Can't argue there...

Originally posted by Ming

First... whether you like it or not... they are involved. And that's a FACT! Governments (or society, because that's all a government really is) has been involved in marriages for a long time. The box has already been opened. And what I don't like is the fact that some want to take that power away and hand it off to religion.

Likewise it shouldn't be taken out of the hands of the various religions if they want to marry a couple or not, however.

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
The power to govern marraige should be governed by religion. That's part of the reason that the Federal Government should recognize Civil Unions. Civil Unions are non-religious. They can and should be initiated by religions when called for by members of that faith. However, Civil Unions should carry the weight of federal benefits, and marraiges should be strictly limited to the religion in which they are performed. If I want to be married, I should have the ability to do that in my faith; the benefits I receive from that marraige should also be given if a person chooses to marry without any faith. It just makes sense.

Why mess with the lingo like that though? Just 'divorce' the term (liked that when I read it earlier ) from religion.

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Civil unions are again inadequate as they do not have the same benefits as marriages do and to deny gays the same benefits because they have to do civil unions is a gross violation of the constitution. There must be gay marriage where it would recognized in every state, not just some.

Err... I think Emperor Fabulous was basically calling for them to have the same benefits, they'd just be called different things, as seems to be part of the problem.

Originally posted by Ned


Anyone can perform ceremonies. The essence of a marriage is a contract that is bilateral in nature. A third party with some power is not necessary to form a marriage.

To make them legally binding in the US you need one... (third party with power, that is).

Heh, don't really want to copy-paste Kenobi, but going to go out on a limb and agree that divorce is an easy-out. I know I don't believe in divorce... I've made a vow, given my word, and if my wife gets tired of me, she's certainly free to leave, but she'll have to have be killed if she no longer wants to be married to me.

Ming:

Divorce gave them an out... the marriage was breaking up anyway. Maybe you believe that people should stay in hopeless and dead relationships... I don't.

And if they knew, going in, that they wouldn't have the option they might not have ever gotten married in the first place.

Yes... all divorces happen BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES... People don't get divorced when there are no difficulities.
You seem to be indicating that people get divorced simply because the option is there... NO... people get divorced because they see no other option.

Or because it's easier than putting work into making the relaionship back to what it was prior to and at the start of the marriage.

When people see hope... they can stick it out. And they do come out stronger for it. But many relationships have NO HOPE. And it's a good thing divorce gives them an option.

And if there wasn't any hope at the end, why was there some at the beginning, where'd it go?

You seem to be implying that divorce is easy... and many people with minor problems do it instead of trying to work things out. Divorce is NOT an easy decision to make... it is the last resort, not the first.

So that's why we see marriage councelor jobs opening up around the country?

Again... you seem to be implying that letting gays get married will make people change their own relationships.
ONE LAST TIME... ANYBODY THAT CHANGES THEIR OWN RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING, PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE MARRIED ANYWAY.

Agreed.

Nothing is stopping them from being married. As you say, marriage brings benefits to society. Stable relationships make for happier and better people. You just don't want to give gays that right. Remember, stable relationships are good for EVERYBODY, not just people of your faith and beliefs.

True.

Originally posted by Ming
No it's not the same. You are both giving the "exclusive" right to perform "marriages" over to religion. Why should non religious people not be allowed to be "married". You are both ignoring the important significance of the term "married".

I'm 'married' and had a non-religious ceremony.

Right now... the government does perform marriages, and has had that power for ages... and you want to take that right away and let them perform "civil unions" while allowing religions to be the only groups that can actually perform a marriage.

Err... that's what they are it's just that society accepts them as 'marriages' as well.

So no... it's NOT the same for everybody... non religious people (and not just gays) are being discriminated against. They would have to "settle" for a civil union. Why should they?

Didn't. Just because the media are calling these things 'civil unions' doesn't at all cheapen it, and if the public at large want to say, 'husband' and 'husband' via a 'marriage' and say to people, 'we're married' they have every right to and it's society's job to accept or deny them the right to call it a 'marriage' to themselves, not government's or religion's.

Originally posted by Wezil
Cut and paste and wait for an answer....

Gay Couple:

Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Straight Couple:

Step 1: Go church of their choice - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon


Please tell me where the inequalities are in this arrangement?

/me shrugs.

Liked especially the earlier post it was cut and pasted from where couples have the option to just skip the church.

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 what makes it so that these people, after they've gone through all the 'civil union' etc steps have to call their relationship a 'civil union'? We're using the quotes here because the words themselves don't really matter in the end as I say to people, "I'm married" because it's just as acceptable and I don't have to give them a long story as opposed to if I say "I'm civilly unioned".

Same thing, just different words, everybody can speak them if they want.

Originally posted by Ming




A civil union is NOT considered a "marriage" by many people. You are the one missing the point and are wrong.

Who? How will they know? Why should they care about another couple's legal status as long as the practice in the end is the same?

Your whole point is that Governments should do ONLY civil unions, and that religions should do "marriages".

It's the same difference!

Again... The state ALREADY had the power to perform marriages... and you want to TAKE THAT AWAY and hand it ONLY to the religions... So YES, you are GIVING POWER TO THE RELIGIONS... what don't you understand about this. Seems you are the one that can't admit they are wrong

They're still 'civil unions' just as much as they are 'marriages' just as my 'driver's licsense' is just as much an 'operator's liscense.'

Originally posted by skywalker


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

I'll happily baptise you...

Originally posted by mindseye


You're not getting Ming's post because your example here is wrong. Try this:

COUPLE 1 (religious)
Step 1: Go to church of their choosing - get 'married'
Step 2: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 3: Honeymoon

COUPLE 2 (non-religious)
Step 1: Go to government office for their legal Civil Union
Step 2: Honeymoon

RESULT:
Couple 1: "Hey everyone! WE'RE MARRIED!"
Couple 2: "Hey everyone... we, uh, just enacted a civil union."

There's your inequality. Under your arrangement, ONLY those willing to get hitched in a CHURCH can claim they are MARRIED. Anyone who can't or doesn't want to get hitched in a church can only get a civil union.

But you see, that's not a problem since no matter if you're 'married' or have a 'civil union' you get the same benefits: which makes them the same thing for strights

The problem is extending this into a realm that it should already logically be if it wasn't for the DoMA: gay couples.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


But why would non-religious people want a religious ceremony? They can still throw a part and get blind drunk if they like.

Didn't happen, though my best man ate all the shrimp...

Originally posted by Elok
Couple 2 can call get a marriage from an Elks club or something if they want. Marriage is a state of being anyway, not a certificate.

Originally posted by Ming


Some people consider the certificate important.

And again, marriage is not exclusively a religious ceremony, so why do people keep wanting to make it one.

Yep, it's that thing that a judge and two witnesses signed that's in our fireproof box in the closet.

It's important, sure, but that's all it is, a piece of paper... the actual 'union' is what's important.

[Arrian]

Ned,

Terribly sorry, old chap. Care to mention what offended you?

-Arrian