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

[chequita guevara]

Nor do I think people should be trapped in bad mariages for five years, especially if your hubby is a psycho stalker freak.

[Ned]

Why don't we simply eliminate civil unions and civle marriage altogether? Keep the government entirely out of the matter?

All the so-called rights gays want can be granted by contract or deed. There is no need for any government involvement whatsoever.

We could also recognize certain survivor/divorce rights for long term cohabitors - ala the Lee Marvin case in California.

We could also legislate in favor of children as we always seem to do. Such legislation could be entirely independent of the social relationship of the "parents."

Just get the government out of this!!!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nor do I think people should be trapped in bad mariages for five years, especially if your hubby is a psycho stalker freak.

I don't recommend marrying psycho stalker freaks. but of course there is legal separation before a divorce. and psycho stalker freaking is a crime.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Nor do I think people should be trapped in bad mariages for five years, especially if your hubby is a psycho stalker freak.

Awww... but why not?

Though I agree...


Now I'm reminded of the NationStates marriage options where you can make divorce illegal or make gay-marriage legal to up the marriage rate or something like that...

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Ned

Just get the government out of this!!!

I think that sums it up...

[Sava]

Why don't we simply eliminate civil unions and civle marriage altogether? Keep the government entirely out of the matter?

ask the religionists!

Just get the government out of this!!!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned
Why don't we simply eliminate civil unions and civle marriage altogether? Keep the government entirely out of the matter?

So only churches can do marriages? What about heterosexual atheists, there seem to be plenty on this forum... would you deny them the right to marriage that is not endorsed by some church?

All we demand is equal rights, and by being denied marriage we are being denied an inalienable right. The right to live happily with the special someone we love and the right to marry.

Check out my avatar. Just showing my support.

[Elok]

Uh, Che? I'm a "religionist," remember? And you call people homophobes for a reason. People who oppose homosexuality don't do it as part of some vast conspiracy. They don't get together on moonless nights to decide how best to abuse and denigrate gays just for kicks. There's a genuine component of fear, rational or not, that their own way of life is being threatened, and they fight back for their perceived survival. Your antagonism isn't going to make them go away or change their minds. My proposal is to eliminate the cause for phobia at all.

I'd actually prefer that legal "unions" be as legalistic and unromantic as possible, Spiffor. I think a great deal of the divorce rate in this country has at least a little to do with the glamorization of marriage as a magical paradise that makes all troubles go away. People need to be more aware-viscerally aware, not just "sure, whatever"-that they are signing up for a tremendous act of self-sacrifice. Put it there, on paper, in clear terms, to be signed. No "love." Why should the government care who you love? It's a declaration of commitment to each other's best interests that you're signing up for. If there will be any love exchanged, it will not be because of your guarantee. Love will enter only as a cause or consequence of your commitment, and should be thought of as it relates to the sacrifice you are making.

I think regulation is still necessary just to avoid people getting treated like family and then dumped, unsupported, when the partner/spouse gets fed up. The government ought to be concerned with the ways its constituents try to hurt each other, I think. It's the metaphysical nature of their commitment that's not Uncle Sam's business. So Ned, I think I'm just talking about a different kind of "contract or deed" to streamline it. Stuff about being "off the market" for dating, as FlameFlash mentioned, could be integrated as a stipulation of the contract itself if desired. Like a prenup. Yes, it makes things more complicated than our current J.P, five minutes and two witnesses deal, but I say, the more aware people are of the significance of the contract they're entering, the better. Divorce lawyers could take up the slack as Union lawyers, and as an added bonus they'd stop looking like the epitome of social parasitism...

[FlameFlash]

They more hoops that two people would have to jump through the better, I say... I certainly see your point there Elok.

It currently is too easy in that sense, and that's probably the reason, you're right, that there are so many divorces or just bad couplings.

My idiot sister-in-law is a perfect example.

1. Meet guy.
2. Guy move in.
3. Accept proposal after 3 months with guy
4. Marry guy soon after
5. find out guy is felon and abusive after 'wedding' in front of judge.
6. Have baby.
7. become pregnant with second baby

[Elok]

GC: You're a reincarnated Fez, right? Just checking. What I'm saying is that ANY spiritual significance of marriage is moot as far as the government is concerned. Oh, wait, you're talking to Ned.

Anyway, the point/clarification stands. I oppose treating a legal contract differently from other legal contracts just because of old stereotypes about it. You old-fashioned bigots.

Even if you don't think gays have the same level or type of bond as straights (and I'm not touching that issue), it's pretty hard to deny that they really care about their partners on some level, and want to be fully integrated into each other's lives. If such feelings were purely platonic, they would still be worthy of honor by the law. Which is all I'm saying.

[Sava]

I think the anti-gay stance is primarily based on fear...

"I sense much fear in you..."
"fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering"

--YODA!

anti-gays fear gay ppl... hence, homophobia... irrational fear of homosexuality

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Elok
GC: You're a reincarnated Fez, right? Just checking. What I'm saying is that ANY spiritual significance of marriage is moot as far as the government is concerned. Oh, wait, you're talking to Ned.

Yeah all I was saying if you want a religious marriage you can have it. The government will just see it as a marriage. And nothing more than that.

Even if you don't think gays have the same level or type of bond as straights (and I'm not touching that issue)

Well this is a little food for thought:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNG1H59R5Q1.DTL

Just as stable...

"But Bill Maier, vice president of the conservative evangelical organization Focus on the Family, said "the research seems to indicate that (long-term relationships) are very rare and that promiscuity is still very common. ... Men tend to be less into commitment."

Not so fast, said Darren Spedale, a law and business student at Stanford University, who studied divorce rates in Denmark in 1996-97, seven years after same-sex registered partnerships were legalized. He found that 17 percent of gay partnerships ended in divorce compared with 46 percent of the straight relationships."

I'm not discrediting straight relationships as unstable. I am just saying these striking statistics won't cause us gay folk to somehow destroy the santity of marriage.

it's pretty hard to deny that they really care about their partners on some level, and want to be fully integrated into each other's lives. If such feelings were purely platonic, they would still be worthy of honor by the law. Which is all I'm saying.

Yeah I totally see what you are saying.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
GC: You're a reincarnated Fez, right?

Giancarlo was called like that before changing his name to Fez in the past. He only reverted back to his old handle

[FlameFlash]

Not so fast, said Darren Spedale, a law and business student at Stanford University, who studied divorce rates in Denmark in 1996-97, seven years after same-sex registered partnerships were legalized. He found that 17 percent of gay partnerships ended in divorce compared with 46 percent of the straight relationships."

How is the divorce rate figured though? I know in the US the divorce rate is stupidly calculated by how many divorces are registered in any given year vs how many marriages are. If that was the way it was done, in seven years, of course there would only be a 17% divorce rate for gays.

We'll have to wait until twenty or so years have passed prior to making a good judgement on stability, I wager it'll be about the same in the end.

[MrFun]

How many threads about the issues concerning gays have been created the past two months or so??