Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Quote:I can see and understand it, but in my mind at least, it's the rights that matter, not what you call them.
Sure on that I agree. I think the problem is that this has become more than just the rights themselves. At least that is the perception of those that are effected.
Nah. I like it being called married.
"Hi, this is my wife, we've been together for 13 years, we adopted a child 10 years ago. He's a straight A student in the 4th grade, we just got civil union-ed". :yucky:
Doesn't have as nice of a ring as married does.
"Hey, I'm Kentucky Kim, this my 4th main husband Dudley Runk, we call's him DRUNK for short, we're married".
Quote:I am not sure how you can say it's not a legal issue when it surely is coupled with the social issue.
http://time.com/3656219/2016-candidates-gay-marriage/
There are a myriad of statements there to varying degrees but some follow a similar thought. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If they are all ok with it then maybe they should say it rather than constantly saying it's wrong. The position is it is wrong. Yours comes from a reasonable stance, I simply do not think they share your reasonable one. Marriage is a union between two people. A commitment. Why should it be changed because some people view it as purely a religious thing? This is the part I do not understand.
You don't see how the LGBT community sees changing the term used for what they have fought for as making a new class for them because the opposition opposed what they desire? I mean really? It seems like that much ought be obvious.
So where is the compromise in this? Should the term "marriage" be defined under law? Should people that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman have their beliefs ignored in order to appease a minority of the population?
If the
legal
term is changed to civil union, it's all inclusive (I thought that liberals were all inclusive). That's what the argument is all about as it relates to politics.
Quote:Nah. I like it being called married.
"Hi, this is my wife, we've been together for 13 years, we adopted a child 10 years ago. He's a straight A student in the 4th grade, we just got civil union-ed". :yucky:
Doesn't have as nice of a ring as married does.
"Hey, I'm Kentucky Kim, this my 4th main husband Dudley Runk, we call's him DRUNK for short, we're married".
LOL. Once again, two different things. If/when you and your girlfriend decide to enter a civil union, I fully support you. If you want to call it a marriage you are free to do so, and I personally would refer to you as married.
Again, the difference between a legal contract and a ceremony/celebration of any kind. It's legal vs. social.
Quote:So where is the compromise in this? Should the term "marriage" be defined under law? Should people that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman have their beliefs ignored in order to appease a minority of the population?
If the legal
term is changed to civil union, it's all inclusive (I thought that liberals were all inclusive). That's what the argument is all about as it relates to politics.
Yes we are about being all inclusive hence the desire for LGBT to have access to marriage.
As noted in the Time link I posted earlier, marriage has been defined under law in many states already. It was not done to be reasonable or inclusive though. It was done in an attempt to legislate religious morality. Now it has to be addressed.
The compromise should be simple. Don't make laws saying two men or two women or trans can't be married. Issue the licenses. Nobody's marriages are effected by this other than those that cannot have them. Nothing is being taken away from anyone I don't see how anyone's beliefs are being ignored.
I am going to attempt an analogy here. Non religious types or non Christmas types may say happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Some religious folk get offended and claim there is a war on Christmas but really most don't care (I think). Christmas may have started as a religious thing and then got adopted by even those that are from other religions or just non religious. Is Christmas owned by anyone? I see the term marriage as the same thing it has been adopted into common vernacular.
The only reason to change it is for religious reasons, the same reasons this is even a discussion.
Quote:Nah. I like it being called married.
"Hi, this is my wife, we've been together for 13 years, we adopted a child 10 years ago. He's a straight A student in the 4th grade, we just got civil union-ed". :yucky:
You do realize that there are many, many places, both religious and secular, that will marry same-sex couples, right? Even before same-sex marriage was legal? Don't worry, you could still get married four times if you wanted to, regardless of who you tie the knot with.
All I'm suggesting is splitting the government union apart from the social/religious union. Everyone would be "civil union-ed" as far as the government is concerned, and if they want to go out and get married on top of that, cool. Likewise, if a couple wants to get married but not acquire a civil union license, they may socially be recognized as a couple, but the government would not recognize them as such for estate and tax purposes (among any other purposes I forgot).
Quote:You do realize that there are many, many places, both religious and secular, that will marry same-sex couples, right? Even before same-sex marriage was legal? Don't worry, you could still get married four times if you wanted to, regardless of who you tie the knot with.
All I'm suggesting is splitting the government union apart from the social/religious union. Everyone would be "civil union-ed" as far as the government is concerned, and if they want to go out and get married on top of that, cool. Likewise, if a couple wants to get married but not acquire a civil union license, they may socially be recognized as a couple, but the government would not recognize them as such for estate and tax purposes (among any other purposes I forgot).
This idea just seem so convoluted as to be bordering on silly.
All the hoops and leaps or we could just keep it as marriage and people can stop getting upset about it. One seems simpler than the other.
Quote:So where is the compromise in this? Should the term "marriage" be defined under law? Should people that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman have their beliefs ignored in order to appease a minority of the population?
If the legal
term is changed to civil union, it's all inclusive (I thought that liberals were all inclusive). That's what the argument is all about as it relates to politics.
Beliefs should have no bearing on the law.
Quote:This idea just seem so convoluted as to be bordering on silly.
All the hoops and leaps or we could just keep it as marriage and people can stop getting upset about it. One seems simpler than the other.
I don't think it's convoluted at all. Nothing changes except the government term for the word. As it is today, in the eyes of the law, a couple is legally married when they have the marriage license signed in front of an official who is able to sign it. The only real change in the process would be making the forming of a civil union even easier, as instead of an officiant, it could simply be completed in front of a notary if the couple chose.
Other than removing the need for an officiant if a civil union is all that's desired, nothing except the word for the government-recognized legal bond changes.
I should also point out that most "civil union advocates" are trumpeting the idea of separate-but-equal terminology, with civil unions for homosexuals and marriages for heterosexuals. That, imo, is an unacceptable solution because it does discriminate. The concept of making marriage an optional additional step to a civil union for everyone (and I do not care if people linked only by a civil union choose to call themselves married) takes government out of the religion business and uses a purely secular term for what should be a purely secular process.
Quote:I don't think it's convoluted at all. Nothing changes except the government term for the word. As it is today, in the eyes of the law, a couple is legally married when they have the marriage license signed in front of an official who is able to sign it. The only real change in the process would be making the forming of a civil union even easier, as instead of an officiant, it could simply be completed in front of a notary if the couple chose.
Other than removing the need for an officiant if a civil union is all that's desired, nothing except the word for the government-recognized legal bond changes.
I should also point out that most "civil union advocates" are trumpeting the idea of separate-but-equal terminology, with civil unions for homosexuals and marriages for heterosexuals. That, imo, is an unacceptable solution because it does discriminate. The concept of making marriage an optional additional step to a civil union for everyone (and I do not care if people linked only by a civil union choose to call themselves married) takes government out of the religion business and uses a purely secular term for what should be a purely secular process.
No I understand all that.
What I do not understand is WHY a separate term is needed. If it's not for appeasement of religious then what is the point? If it's a compromise than what exactly is the compromise? This is what it sounds like to me and maybe this will help us understand each other:
"Hey, we created a new thing so now you can get married but not really because we have decided to give ownership of the term marriage to religious except you can still say you are married and other people will say it also but really you are not and are technically still excluded from a term that is universally used for the new thing we created."
I combined a response to both you and JIB right there. I know you both have similar but slightly different positions so I wanted to clarify that.
Quote:You do realize that there are many, many places, both religious and secular, that will marry same-sex couples, right? Even before same-sex marriage was legal? Don't worry, you could still get married four times if you wanted to, regardless of who you tie the knot with.
All I'm suggesting is splitting the government union apart from the social/religious union. Everyone would be "civil union-ed" as far as the government is concerned, and if they want to go out and get married on top of that, cool. Likewise, if a couple wants to get married but not acquire a civil union license, they may socially be recognized as a couple, but the government would not recognize them as such for estate and tax purposes (among any other purposes I forgot).
Yes, I did realize that. My current was married in NH well before I met her, so I know it was possible. We always wanted all the same access' afforded to a man and woman.
Maybe I just not following the argument. You're talking about a compromise correct? And this is for what reason exactly? Because some are offended that gay's are now able to call something the same thing that straight people have always called it? I know this is all in fantasy world as this is a done deal, but curious about this fictitious compromise.
Quote:No I understand all that.
What I do not understand is WHY a separate term is needed. If it's not for appeasement of religious then what is the point? If it's a compromise than what exactly is the compromise? This is what it sounds like to me and maybe this will help us understand each other:
"Hey, we created a new thing so now you can get married but not really because we have decided to give ownership of the term marriage to religious except you can still say you are married and other people will say it also but really you are not and are technically still excluded from a term that is universally used for the new thing we created."
More like, "we created this new thing for everyone since we shouldn't have been involved in regulating the other thing."
Quote:More like, "we created this new thing for everyone since we shouldn't have been involved in regulating the other thing."
The people that are against this are the ones that initially regulated it in a newly ruled unconstitutional way.
Quote:So where is the compromise in this? Should the term "marriage" be defined under law? Should people that believe that marriage is between a man and a woman have their beliefs ignored in order to appease a minority of the population?
If the legal
term is changed to civil union, it's all inclusive (I thought that liberals were all inclusive). That's what the argument is all about as it relates to politics.
Marriage is all inclusive too.
Yes, the people that are against equal rights, in my opinion, should have their beliefs ignored in this particular case and according to the law.
They can certainly still dislike and be grossed out by it all they want. They can still wear denim dresses, etc. They can still talk family values and then cheat on their wives via an "anonymous" cheater website, molestation, etc, etc...... They can still have all those things they desire, but they cannot re-write what is now the law.
Quote:Yes, I did realize that. My current was married in NH well before I met her, so I know it was possible. We always wanted all the same access' afforded to a man and woman.
Maybe I just not following the argument. You're talking about a compromise correct? And this is for what reason exactly? Because some are offended that gay's are now able to call something the same thing that straight people have always called it? I know this is all in fantasy world as this is a done deal, but curious about this fictitious compromise.
It's as simple as changing the
legal
terminology from "marriage" to "civil union". After all, you said that you wanted the same access' afforded to a man and a woman. If the legal document says that your civil union is legal, you get that (your rights). After that, you can call it whatever you want up to and including a marriage.
Huckabee, GOP presidential candidate, on bass...Hit it
Kentucky Woman She shines in her own kind of light She looks at you once in a day And what's wrong is alright And I love her, God knows I love her Kentucky Woman She gets to know you She gets to hold you Kentucky Woman She ain't the kind to turn at the drop of her name Well all the things she does they turn you on just the same And I love her, God knows I love her Kentucky Woman She gets to know you She gets to hold you Kentucky Woman
Quote:It's as simple as changing the legal
terminology from "marriage" to "civil union". After all, you said that you wanted the same access' afforded to a man and a woman. If the legal document says that your civil union is legal, you get that (your rights). After that, you can call it whatever you want up to and including a marriage.
There's simply no need to do this. It's silly actually and to me, just a way to take away a small smidgeon of the priveldge of what was given as some sort of strange "straight people are still better guys, wink wink". No. This is really ridiculous.
You can drink out of the water fountain, buuuuut, when you do it, we're going to call it a liquid-servicing-station, so it's not really the same, but just be happy your're getting water.
Quote:Marriage civil unions is all inclusive too.
Yes, the people that are against equal rights, in my opinion, should have their beliefs ignored in this particular case and according to the law.
They can certainly still dislike and be grossed out by it all they want. They can still wear denim dresses, etc. They can still talk family values and then cheat on their wives via an "anonymous" cheater website, molestation, etc, etc...... They can still have all those things they desire, but they cannot re-write what is now the law.
I fixed your quote for you. My argument is about
legal
rights not social rights.
Under the law, my relationship with my wife would be a civil union, just the same as your relationship with your partner.
We would all have equal rights and we are all free to call our respective civil union whatever we want, including a marriage. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
Quote:I fixed your quote for you. My argument is about legal
rights not social rights. Under the law, my relationship with my wife would be a civil union, just the same as your relationship with your partner.
We would all have equal rights and we are all free to call our respective civil union whatever we want, including a marriage. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
I comprehend it, I just completely disagree. To change the term NOW, Because some have an issue with a term is, to me, completely ridiculous. Why now? Why change it all of a sudden now? Never before has the terminology been an issue. Also, it's not the term that's a problem, it's the act.
Where were all these advocates against the government using the term marriage prior to gay marriage being a thing? If marriage should never have been used but always has been, why are people just deciding to take issue with it now?
Let's be honest and admit that no one cared that the term has been used until it might be used by THEM...and OMG! We can't have them using OUR word!! My marriage won't be special anymore if they'll just let anyone get married!! What's next? Dogs and cats? A man and his car?? Oh the humanity!!!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16