Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2008, 08:42 PM
 
972 posts, read 1,331,444 times
Reputation: 184

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
I agree with this and I would do the same for straights. The government should not be handing out a "marriage license" to anybody. All the government should do is give them a "civil union agreement" to sign and notarize. That, in effect, makes a LEGAL agreement between the 2 parties that is registered with the government.
Marriage is a religious thing and should be left to the church. If 2 people- whether gay or straight- get a legal Civil Union Contract and then choose to go through a religious or non religious marriage ceremony, that is up to them. The government should no longer be involved past the signing of the Civil Union Contract.
Conversely, if 2 people feel the need for religious reasons to be married "in the eyes of God" but for financial or other reasons choose not to be in a Civil Union, they could be married in a church without being legally united in a Civil Union. Of course, even though they are married, they would not be afforded the legal rights and protections of those with a Civil Union nor would they be allowed to file as a married couple on tax returns.
This would solve 2 problems- it would put gays and straights on an equal footing and it would get the government out of what is largely a religious domain.
I actually agree with this. But it should be taken farther and make sure that the insurance companys, benefits and adoptions agencys, taxes only see civil unions and not marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2008, 08:45 PM
 
972 posts, read 1,331,444 times
Reputation: 184
In Arkansas they just pasted a law that non married couples can not adopt. But single people can. WOW!! Some people don't believe in marriage but have perfectly loving normal homes... this whole marriage thing and the government sticking their nose into it is ridiculous!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 01:30 PM
 
1,555 posts, read 1,979,664 times
Reputation: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Leave marriage alone the way it is, and civil unions for homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, etc.
Why?? Why does it matter if you call it "marriage" or "Civil union." This is all a ridiculous semantics game! If it essentially means the same thing, why not just call it ALL marriage and be done with it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 03:21 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,414 posts, read 10,495,242 times
Reputation: 4305
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Leave marriage alone the way it is, and civil unions for homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, etc.
That is not equal. I would accept only having a civil union or domestic partnership, if they had all the exact rights as marriage, but they do not. I am going to fight tooth and nail to keep my marriage, but I will give it up for civil union or domestic partnership when I see all the straight people flock to the courthouse and turn over their marriage license for a civil union or domestic partnership. Equal marriage or civil unions for all, or none for everyone. I will not accept a separate set of rules, it only creates a second set of citizens, that may as well be second class citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 04:11 PM
 
3,282 posts, read 5,203,513 times
Reputation: 1935
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Leave marriage alone the way it is, and civil unions for homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, etc.
Marriage should be left alone. What needs to be changed is the gov't policy for how couples are recognized. There needs to be one universal, objective standard for how our secular government doles out rights to these couples. And any extra social or religious recognition couples may want can easily be recognized by their respective social and religious groups.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,935,593 times
Reputation: 10028
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer View Post
That is not equal. I would accept only having a civil union or domestic partnership, if they had all the exact rights as marriage, but they do not.
Where, exactly, are the differences between a Civil Union and a marriage? I am asking because I don't know and would like to know. As for being 'equal'. All I see here is the potential for anarchy. There are many gay people who have a very freewheeling determination of monogamy. A long-term gay couple I know are regularly in the habit of picking up extra's to 'play' with. They would like to be 'married'. Actually I shouldn't say 'they' because only one of them really wants to be married. Isn't that the way it is with many straight couples. The woman usually is the one with the most to lose and gain from a marriage contract and is usually the one for whom the institution makes the most provisions. Gay couples patterned after a traditional male/female union where the female is a homemaker with a male spouse traditionally employed need some kind of 'protection' for the non-traditionally employed partner. Gay AND straight couples where there are no children and both partners are traditionally employed IMO do not. Does that stop celebrity couples from getting hitched all the time? No. Are the divorce fireworks spectacular? You betcha. Does any of it make sense? Not to me. But thats me. But IMO gay people, at least, a vocal segment of the gay community are guilty of thinking that everything is about them. There are a LOT of different ways to hook up beyond gay and straight. Most are so outright illegal that their devotees consider themselves lucky simply to be ignored by law enforcement. Many aren't much 'worse' (for want of a better word) than being gay but I don't see those populations agitating to have those lifestyles accepted by mainstream society as 'normal'. With the success of a general definition of marriage to include gays would eventually come further attacks on the institution of marriage. It doesn't require too much imagination to see that marriage would not stand up under too much close scrutiny and we would have true social anarchy. Desirable to some, not desirable to many. Remember Spock's words: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 12:36 AM
 
Location: Mountains of middle TN
5,245 posts, read 16,433,152 times
Reputation: 6132
Quote:
Where, exactly, are the differences between a Civil Union and a marriage?
The answer is in your question. You can get married and say 'this is my husband / wife'. But for civil unions it's 'this is my partner'. Why? If they have a husband / wife, what's it to you?

For the record, I love the idea the OP suggested! I think it solves all the problems and levels the playing field. We'll call a certificate from the state a civil union certificate. It entitles you to what married couples now have. If they want to be 'married' they can go see their church and still have their ceremony to unite them in God's eyes, or whatever diety they pray to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 10:45 AM
 
3,255 posts, read 5,081,070 times
Reputation: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK View Post
I agree with this and I would do the same for straights. The government should not be handing out a "marriage license" to anybody. All the government should do is give them a "civil union agreement" to sign and notarize. That, in effect, makes a LEGAL agreement between the 2 parties that is registered with the government.
Marriage is a religious thing and should be left to the church. If 2 people- whether gay or straight- get a legal Civil Union Contract and then choose to go through a religious or non religious marriage ceremony, that is up to them. The government should no longer be involved past the signing of the Civil Union Contract.
Conversely, if 2 people feel the need for religious reasons to be married "in the eyes of God" but for financial or other reasons choose not to be in a Civil Union, they could be married in a church without being legally united in a Civil Union. Of course, even though they are married, they would not be afforded the legal rights and protections of those with a Civil Union nor would they be allowed to file as a married couple on tax returns.
This would solve 2 problems- it would put gays and straights on an equal footing and it would get the government out of what is largely a religious domain.
I have been saying this for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 10:54 AM
 
3,255 posts, read 5,081,070 times
Reputation: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrs1885 View Post
The answer is in your question. You can get married and say 'this is my husband / wife'. But for civil unions it's 'this is my partner'. Why? If they have a husband / wife, what's it to you?

For the record, I love the idea the OP suggested! I think it solves all the problems and levels the playing field. We'll call a certificate from the state a civil union certificate. It entitles you to what married couples now have. If they want to be 'married' they can go see their church and still have their ceremony to unite them in God's eyes, or whatever diety they pray to.
I think any adults should be able to set up a "contract" that is recognized by the government as a definition of family. So four people who want to live as a family (I am not assigning sexual roles as this could be four siblings, four neighbors who want to live in one household together, four single men, etc) and be afforded the rights and responsibilities of a household, such as mutual support, common interest in property, family rights of visitation) If anyone would like to change the contract, they petition the court to make the changes, just like any other contract. Marriage on the other hand is a religious commitment to live as a committed couple sexually and spiritually and is signified by vows before a deity. The whole idea that our tax structure, real estate law, and hospital visitation is somehow decided by our sexual practices is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2008, 11:10 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,558,564 times
Reputation: 3602
Just a quick thought here. For many years there was, and still may be, a system termed common law marriage. Essentially people living together and declaring themselves to be married. This was/is legally accepted. Why change now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top