This is what I don't get about the whole **** marriage thing...

I used to be totally against gay marriage. Now I really don't give a crap, and I'm honestly not bothered about the outcome of the whole debate.

However, the way I see it is:

1. Gay people want to get married.

2. Religious people don't want Gay people to marry, because they don't want to see an institution, that holds a high degree of religious significance, 'hijacked'.

We then address why Gay people might want to marry:

1. It's a platform to express eternal love for a chosen partner bla bla bla.

2. Marriage offers some legal benefits and convenience that they wish to be entitled to.

Religious people's response is:

1. Take 'Civil Unionships', because they offer a platform to express eternal love for a chosen partner bla bla bla.

2. And it offers the same legal benefits and convenience that Gay people wish to be entitled to.

Gay people aren't happy with this option.

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

If marriage did not exist, and instead, 'civil unionships' were the norm, would gay people be satisfied if people offered 'marriage' as an alternative?

I think everyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever they want... if a man wants to marry a pig then he should have a right tooCyleM

I wanna marry you :shock:

It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. spazzx625

If marriage did not exist, and instead, 'civil unionships' were the norm, would gay people be satisfied if people offered 'marriage' as an alternative?

Stumpt25

And thats because I dont really care for marriage (perhaps just yet). I just find the denial of religious people to be an act of discrimination.

Unfortunately.. the Christians didn't invent the concept of marriage. It's actually much older than their religion.. SO, their is really no argument to their... even though they try to make one.

Another thing is that majority of marriages practiced around the world have never had anything to do with this concept of love... that's a relatively new concept in terms of marriage.

2. Marriage offers some legal benefits and convenience that they wish to be entitled to.

Stumpt25

I don't care if gay people get married, but I don't think they should get the same, if any, legal benefits as traditional marriage.

I think a lot of those benefits are given to help for people's kids. I'd be fine giving married gays the benefits if they adopted a kid.

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

2. Marriage offers some legal benefits and convenience that they wish to be entitled to.

hi_im_dave

I don't care if gay people get married, but I don't think they should get the same, if any, legal benefits as traditional marriage.

I think a lot of those benefits are given to help for people's kids. I'd be fine giving married gays the benefits if they adopted a kid.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. LJS9502_basic

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

Stumpt25

equality, plain and simple

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

mrbojangles25

equality, plain and simple

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. spazzx625

I think everyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever they want... if a man wants to marry a pig then he should have a right tooCyleM

Actualy i kinda feal that if the church thinks that gay couples should marry, they shouldnt marry. Its the Churches thing to decide on the rules of marrige, since its ... i guess owned by them? But i agree that another option should be open to gay couples with simelar benefits to marrige.

I have nothing against gays btw.

[QUOTE="CyleM"]I think everyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever they want... if a man wants to marry a pig then he should have a right tooMercury_May2112

I wanna marry you :shock:

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

2. Marriage offers some legal benefits and convenience that they wish to be entitled to.

hi_im_dave

I don't care if gay people get married, but I don't think they should get the same, if any, legal benefits as traditional marriage.

I think a lot of those benefits are given to help for people's kids. I'd be fine giving married gays the benefits if they adopted a kid.

So by that way of thinking, do you think that married couples that are unable to have children or simply don't want to have children should not receive the benefits as well?

Considering most people in the world are religious, Gay people can't change the law, If they want to be married you should travel to a country that allows gay marriage.krazy-blazer

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

krazy-blazer

equality, plain and simple

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

mrbojangles25

equality, plain and simple

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

krazy-blazer

equality, plain and simple

not on the legal level

[QUOTE="CyleM"]I think everyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever they want... if a man wants to marry a pig then he should have a right toochaplainDMK

Actualy i kinda feal that if the church thinks that gay couples should marry, they shouldnt marry. Its the Churches thing to decide on the rules of marrige, since its ... i guess owned by them? But i agree that another option should be open to gay couples with simelar benefits to marrige.

I have nothing against gays btw.

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

mrbojangles25

equality, plain and simple

Well my question is if the two were the same in everything but name...does it matter? Let's say the federal government decides it will allow civil unions. Not marriage but civil unions, however, they will have all the same legal benefits of marriage. Does the name still matter? I can't see why it should. Though to be honest.....anyone marrying for benefits isn't going to have a long marriage. It should be about love and more importantly commitment.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

LJS9502_basic

equality, plain and simple

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

equality, plain and simple

Teenaged

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

Stumpt25

equality, plain and simple

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

equality, plain and simple

Teenaged

I used to be totally against gay marriage. Now I really don't give a crap, and I'm honestly not bothered about the outcome of the whole debate.

However, the way I see it is:

1. Gay people want to get married.

2. Religious people don't want Gay people to marry, because they don't want to see an institution, that holds a high degree of religious significance, 'hijacked'.

We then address why Gay people might want to marry:

1. It's a platform to express eternal love for a chosen partner bla bla bla.

2. Marriage offers some legal benefits and convenience that they wish to be entitled to.

Religious people's response is:

1. Take 'Civil Unionships', because they offer a platform to express eternal love for a chosen partner bla bla bla.

2. And it offers the same legal benefits and convenience that Gay people wish to be entitled to.

Gay people aren't happy with this option.

Now, I'm not arguing that I think Gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I just want to know what arguments there are for preferring 'marriage' over 'civil unionships'.

If marriage did not exist, and instead, 'civil unionships' were the norm, would gay people be satisfied if people offered 'marriage' as an alternative?

Stumpt25

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Technically it is equal.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Stumpt25"] The thing is, there technically IS equality. Gay people can marry into a heterosexual relationship, and straight people could marry into a civil unionship.LJS9502_basic

Civil unions are not on equal footing with marriage. For one, many states don't even recognize them, and neither does the federal government.

Also, the notion of separate but equal was thrown out a long time ago. That being said, if religious people want exclusive access to marriage I have no problem with that, as long as marriage is stripped of any legal benefits and all legal unions gay or straight) are referred to as civil unions.

LJ, I think you are talking more about domesticated partnership than civil unions.spazzx625

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]LJ, I think you are talking more about domesticated partnership than civil unions.LJS9502_basic

Civil unions are not on equal footing with marriage. For one, many states don't even recognize them, and neither does the federal government.

Also, the notion of separate but equal was thrown out a long time ago. That being said, if religious people want exclusive access to marriage I have no problem with that, as long as marriage is stripped of any legal benefits and all legal unions gay or straight) are referred to as civil unions.

metroidfood

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]LJ, I think you are talking more about domesticated partnership than civil unions.spazzx625

Small steps. Anyway I was referring to a federal government sanction of civil unions with all the legal benefits etc of marriage in the country...not just participating states. I know it's not widely available right now.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Small steps. Anyway I was referring to a federal government sanction of civil unions with all the legal benefits etc of marriage in the country...not just participating states. I know it's not widely available right now.spazzx625

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Small steps. Anyway I was referring to a federal government sanction of civil unions with all the legal benefits etc of marriage in the country...not just participating states. I know it's not widely available right now.spazzx625

[QUOTE="spazzx625"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Small steps. Anyway I was referring to a federal government sanction of civil unions with all the legal benefits etc of marriage in the country...not just participating states. I know it's not widely available right now.Ontain

[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]Yeah, I don't really know how the whole 'horse by a different color' thing would fly with groups on both sides of the issue, but I think the very least should be recognizing domestic partnership. I fully support gay marriage, though.LJS9502_basic

People are against that system because it's a form of segregation. "Separate but equal" is not acceptable in a democracy.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. LJS9502_basic

2. Religious people don't want Gay people to marry, because they don't want to see an institution, that holds a high degree of religious significance, 'hijacked'.Stumpt25

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="spazzx625"]It's all about equality. "Civil union" sounds so sterile and forced to me. comp_atkins

Like segregated schools. . .same education, same benefits, but if the black guy steps into a white school then there'll be hell to pay. The name isn't the issue; it's the "separate but equal" connotations behind the name.