The "Gay Marriage" debate? A question of semantics?

Question:

If, by law, they changed the word "marriage" to "unions" and gave it all benefits extended to marriages and all "marriages" are now called "unions" regardless of who marries who. And the term "marriage" becomes the word that is specific to religious unions only.

Essentially a marriage becomes a type on union as specified within the religion it is practiced in and follows the doctrine/belief within said religion.

Would that solve much of the "gay marriage" debate? Who, would you feel, have the most objections to this kind of change?

Just a thought. I do admit that my knowledge of what the underlying issues concerning the "gay marriage" debate is highly inadequate.

Being against Gay Marriage is the same as being against Gay people in general.

There is nothing to gain from this except stupid ****ing hardcore christian's believe that all gays are a slight against God.

Who cares, mind your own business, let the people be happy.

Screw what religion thinks of it, screw what God thinks of it too.

It's a question of right and wrong.

Is it right to make two people who love each other and JUST HAPPEN to be of the same sex not be able to get married cause religious groups will get pissed off? No.

A god who doesn't let you be who you want to be is a god not worth worshipping.

What are you worried about?

You like kids

You do realize you are literally the only one doing the whole "pedophillia shit storm" thing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Question:

If, by law, they changed the word "marriage" to "unions" and gave it all benefits extended to marriages and all "marriages" are now called "unions" regardless of who marries who. And the term "marriage" becomes the word that is specific to religious unions only.

Essentially a marriage becomes a type on union as specified within the religion it is practiced in and follows the doctrine/belief within said religion.

Would that solve much of the "gay marriage" debate? Who, would you feel, have the most objections to this kind of change?

Just a thought. I do admit that my knowledge of what the underlying issues concerning the "gay marriage" debate is highly inadequate.

You forget that just because someone's gay doesn't mean they aren't religious.

Also this: http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The issue is that if you refuse to give gay couples the word "marriage" and simply call it a "union" it seems like they're being given secondary status, and somehow their partnership isn't as sacred as heterosexual marriages.

You forget that just because someone's gay doesn't mean they aren't religious.

Also this: http://southpark.cc.com/clips/155043/butt-buddies

But this union would cover all couples, not just gays, but everyone. This makes it equal doesn't it? "Union" becomes the legal term. The term "marriage" then becomes a religious term like "prayer" or "eucharist" is.

If a religion doesn't allow/exclude gays due to doctrine, aren't they entitled to do that? Isn't thatt what freedom of choice is? If they don't allow you to be you, why not leave and find a belief that suits you? Have societal forces judge them.

I do believe in the separation of church and state and also feel like religions shouldn't be given tax/state benefits unless they do charity work for as long as these same benefits are open to all charitable organizations. But at the same time, they should be allowed to practice their beliefs according to their doctrine and allow/exclude whosoever they want. Like any club or exclusive organization would.

You can't just make 'marriage' a religious term- you can't legislate meaning like that. The word is already understood as something going far beyond a simple religiously-restricted term, instead now indicating the idea of legal union in general. You can't un-boil that egg.

That being so, equality demands gays as much as anyone else get access to the term, else it looks as if you are denying them the concept by defining them as different.

As for religions/belief systems not wanting to allow gay marriage inside their own structure- that's fair enough. I am a big advocate of removing marriage entirely from religious institutions and making it purely a state thing, onto which religious members can add their desired ceremony and in-organisation recognition if thy so wish, according to that organisation's rules. If those rules don't allow the ceremonial recognition of gays, that would indeed be a reason for gays to consider another belief system.

But that would not in any way impede gay access to marriage.

Gay people deserve the right to be united to each other and protected by the person that they are united to just as straight people do. Disapproving family members could say "Pull the plug" on a gay relative out of spite while the companion of thirty years is powerless to intervene. That is wrong and should be prevented. On the other side of the coin sexual intercourse and how you do it or who you decide to do it with is choice or rape, unlike race something that you are born with and stuck with till you die. Religious ideals aside it does seem as though when two people are traditionally married you would have a husband and a wife, the man being a husband and the woman being the wife. In these relationships the husband usually fathers the child that the woman then carries and delivers. The new family (Mother, father and child/children) grow together and the differences between the mother and father benefit their children's development. This seems to be what is understood to be an ideal "marriage" whether religious or not. The bottom line imo is that gay couples deserve protection and that's what they are after. They can already call themselves married so the term is not as important as the legalities.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Being against Gay Marriage is the same as being against Gay people in general.

There is nothing to gain from this except stupid ****ing hardcore christian's believe that all gays are a slight against God.

Who cares, mind your own business, let the people be happy.

I made a similar argument. Marriage, as a legal institution, should be abolished. No one should get married anymore. Civil contracts (CC) should be drawn up for everything. Each state could have it's own default CC for marriages. But my idea would allow friends to have CC contracts with each other and get the typical "marriage" benefits.

You can leave the semantic label "marriage" for people who choose to privately call their union a marriage.

Yes, this means that religious gay people can get married, still. It just means shit, legally.

And what's the difference between my idea and how it already works? Very little. We already do this. We just put on paper 'marriage license' and get it approved. The difference is all the rights an benefits are not really out there when you go to get married: it's hidden (not be design). Almost all people (except people like marriage/divorce lawyers) have no idea the rights and privilages that come with a marriage.

What about children being brought into a CC? AHA! The default CC should take care of that.

So employers would no longer ask, "Married, Separated, Same-sex Partnership?" They'd just as "CC"?

And for taxes, it would just be "CC?"

The only problem with this would be abuse. Some people would commit fraud and sign up for CCs with tons of different people and defraud their employees out of partnership benefits. Employers could easily mitigate this by limiting CC benefits to 1 adult.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
But this union would cover all couples, not just gays, but everyone. This makes it equal doesn't it? "Union" becomes the legal term. The term "marriage" then becomes a religious term like "prayer" or "eucharist" is.

If a religion doesn't allow/exclude gays due to doctrine, aren't they entitled to do that? Isn't thatt what freedom of choice is? If they don't allow you to be you, why not leave and find a belief that suits you? Have societal forces judge them.

I do believe in the separation of church and state and also feel like religions shouldn't be given tax/state benefits unless they do charity work for as long as these same benefits are open to all charitable organizations. But at the same time, they should be allowed to practice their beliefs according to their doctrine and allow/exclude whosoever they want. Like any club or exclusive organization would.

Marriage is not a civil right.

I really do think a plebiscite would be very useful. It would end all arguments, provide the unambiguous affirmation that same-sex marriage advocates say they want, and reassure opponents that this isn’t another stitch-up by the media and political class. The power of the Irish decision lay precisely in the fact that it was made by a referendum.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Screw what religion thinks of it, screw what God thinks of it too.

It's a question of right and wrong.

Is it right to make two people who love each other and JUST HAPPEN to be of the same sex not be able to get married cause religious groups will get pissed off? No.

A god who doesn't let you be who you want to be is a god not worth worshipping.

Wow....Just wow.

"Separate but equal," isn't.

As long as it's either all-unions or all-marriages, that's fine. Putting one into a separate class than another is just asking for discrimination.

Plus, a lot of the opposition likes to handily brush under the table that there are religions and churches who have no problem with gay marriage, so trying to present it as a religious argument is a no-fly either. It's one thing to say, "Well, my church specifically won't do it," and quite another to say, "I don't want other churches to do it either!".

--

Also, on marriage being a civil right- The Supreme Court's ruling on prior marriage cases, most specifically on interracial marriage, disagrees.

Interracial marriage got pretty much all the arguments against it that gay marriage does, btw.

So here is what I find hilarious and why I just love some religious people and their mindset. So I'm sure we've all heard about this female clerk refusing to give out gay marriage licenses. She even went to jail over it and is sticking by her views.

Sounds lovely, right? Like the pinnacle Christian? Yeah...chick has been married multiple times and had kids out of wedlock.

Originally posted by Surtur
So here is what I find hilarious and why I just love some religious people and their mindset. So I'm sure we've all heard about this female clerk refusing to give out gay marriage licenses. She even went to jail over it and is sticking by her views.

Sounds lovely, right? Like the pinnacle Christian? Yeah...chick has been married multiple times and had kids out of wedlock.

What an idiotic post. A religious person refusing to participate in something that goes against her view, imagine that. I'm not sure about the legal ramifications but criticizing this is quite ignorant.

What I hate about the gay marriage debate is that it is directly violating the separation of church and state. Marriage isn't a religious right. It's a state right. That means, under the principles this country was based on, all should have access to it. If this woman was disagreeing with what the state was doing, she could have quit or something. But she was using her state position to enforce her religious beliefs, aka the very definition of trying to combine state and church.

Originally posted by psmith81992
What an idiotic post. A religious person refusing to participate in something that goes against her view, imagine that. I'm not sure about the legal ramifications but criticizing this is quite ignorant.

Uh, it's not about her refusing, it's about being hypocritical. Gay marriage? My religion is against it! Kids out of wedlock? Cool.

So holy shit before you call others idiotic and ignorant READ. Since you see if this was just solely about the gay marriage think I wouldn't of mentioned the other shit, you kinda sorta get that, right?

I'm calling her hypocritical, and there is nothing idiotic or ignorant about labeling a hypocrite a hypocrite, did we enter the god damn Twilight Zone?

Originally posted by Lestov16
What I hate about the gay marriage debate is that it is directly violating the separation of church and state. Marriage isn't a religious right. It's a state right. That means, under the principles this country was based on, all should have access to it. If this woman was disagreeing with what the state was doing, she could have quit or something. But she was using her [b]state position to enforce her religious beliefs, aka the very definition of trying to combine state and church. [/B]

You see the religious folk pulled one over on us with that separation of church and state BS. Since others on this board have said before..it's not meant to keep religion out of state affairs, but to keep the state out of religious affairs.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Since it comes off like essentially saying "I want to be able to butt into your life, but you totally can't butt into mine".

To answer your question about why the woman wouldn't just quit? She doesn't get any real attention that way.

Originally posted by Surtur
You see the religious folk pulled one over on us with that separation of church and state BS. Since others on this board have said before..it's not meant to keep religion out of state affairs, but to keep the state out of religious affairs.

Funny how that works, isn't it? Since it comes off like essentially saying "I want to be able to butt into your life, but you totally can't butt into mine".

It's actually supposed to be both but the atheist crowd makes this kind of nonsense up like religious folk "pulling one over" them. It's pure nonsense. Also, where is the hypocrisy regarding "kids out of wedlock"? I don't know what you mean by this.

It appears her only fault is not following the law. Hence the necessity for separation of church and state.