Fags are the new ******s.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


So you aren't only interested in Equal Rights, Benefits and Privileges you are hung up on the legal term?

If so thats what I still don't get (as long as the term isn't derogatory or offensive, which I don't think Civil Union is) why do you care?

It is not just the legal term. It is the mentality. Gays are still considered second-class social citizens, I get weird looks all the time every time I mention my long-term partner.

Having equal terminology goes a long way to equalizing the social status.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Asher

It is not just the legal term. It is the mentality. Gays are still considered second-class social citizens, I get weird looks all the time every time I mention my long-term partner.

Having equal terminology goes a long way to equalizing the social status.

But you freely accept and embrace different terminology. You aren't offended by the term Gay. That is different terminology based soley on your sexual preference.

What if the state used the following definitions

Civil Union: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the same sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Marriage: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the opposite sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Just as you don't mind these terms:

Gay: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the same sex.

Straight: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the opposite sex.

Asher, I realize life isn't always fair and it is less fair for certain people. But demanding that your betrothal be called a Marriage as opposed to a Civil Union isn't going to make the people that are offended by your lifestyle (the stairers) any more sympathetic or accepting. The real key is that your betrothal be given the same legal status not the same name.

[MrFun]

Some people are forgetting somethng. You can implement full gay marriage protection without churches ever being forced to marry gay couples.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
So you aren't only interested in Equal Rights, Benefits and Privileges you are hung up on the legal term?

If the proposed solution to ending anti-miscegenation laws had been calling it "black/white unions" instead of marriage, do you think that would have been acceptable?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


But you freely accept and embrace different terminology. You aren't offended by the term Gay. That is different terminology based soley on your sexual preference.

Because it describes the sexual orientation (not preference, huge semantical difference).

What if the state used the following definitions

Civil Union: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the same sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Marriage: a legally binding contractual betrothal between 2 persons of the opposite sex having equal status benefits, rights and privileges as all other state sanctioned betrothals.

Just as you don't mind these terms:

Gay: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the same sex.

Straight: a person who's sexual preference is with someone of the opposite sex.

I have already addressed this.

I'd be ****ing ecstatic not to have to identify as gay. I don't like having the label but it is necessary because it discerns who you will be interested in.

The problem with "marriage" and "civil union" is they both describe the same thing: a union of two people with all of the same associated rights. The gender shouldn't matter at all. So why have two different names from it?

The answer is in societal values. Right now, society values "marriage" over "civil unions". Marriage is the real deal, "civil unions" are silly people trying to play house. The key to true equality is to have the same term and the same rights applied to a loving couple, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Why do you care so much? Do you resent having heterosexual marriage being compared to a homosexual marriage? Or do you think it's because marriage is religious? Either way you have problems:
1) You are admitting to inequality in the status of the two you are claiming to be equal
2) You are admitting to mixing church with state, which is a no-no in your country

Is it 1, or 2

[MrFun]

I want the final goal of respect for the word "marriage" when referring to committed gay couples but the civil union approach is a way to move toward that end.

[SlowwHand]

I'll back Civil Union and all the benefits due.

[Japher]

Tolerance generally comes before acceptance. If you are going to push acceptance without acheiving tolerance it will be more likely to blow up in your face; as has happened in CA.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It was in California until yesterday night.

I can't believe Prop 8 passed. Even in my county.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
Tolerance generally comes before acceptance. If you are going to push acceptance without acheiving tolerance it will be more likely to blow up in your face; as has happened in CA.

Counter-example: Canada

[Japher]

So before 2005 Canada didn't tolerate Gays? It wasn't until an Act forced on it's citizens that everyone decided that it would be fine?

[Arrian]

Some people are forgetting somethng. You can implement full gay marriage protection without churches ever being forced to marry gay couples.

Who is forgetting this? Nobody in this thread, as far as I can tell.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Japher
So before 2005 Canada didn't tolerate Gays?

Before 2008 California didn't tolerate gays?

It wasn't until an Act forced on it's citizens that everyone decided that it would be fine?

For gay marriage, yep.

Our good friend Ben will find all kinds of examples of pre-2005 polls showing how unpopular gay marriage was. The supreme court forced it on Canada in 2005 and nobody cared ever since, except Ben. Not even our conservative party has tried to get rid of it. People shrugged and moved on, despite initial opposition. Once the world still existed, the panic faded.

[Swissy]

Has any state legislature ever tried to define marriage as a form of civil union? Wouldn't that take the equal treatment arguement out of the overturning of CU laws?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think some people are missing an important point. Even if civil union is equivilent to marriage as far as benefits go it doesn't make it equal. If gays can't get married and call it marriage then they are second class citizens the same way that black children in the 50s were second class citizens in segregated schools.

This sort of segregation has a very negative impact on society.

I must agree with my commie friend. Even if you grant them all the same rights, you are singling out a group and saying they don't deserve to be included in the whole.