"civil union" vs "gay marriage"...which do you like better?

  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jun 29, 2011 2:17 PM GMT
    and why icon_question.gif
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jun 29, 2011 2:37 PM GMT
    I just go with marriage, or marriage equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 2:49 PM GMT
    Marriage...no discriminatory words preceding it.
  • baldone

    Posts: 826

    Jun 29, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    marriage...def want to be married.....its our right!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 2:59 PM GMT
    Marriage.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jun 29, 2011 4:06 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 6:08 PM GMT
    I would like it best if ALL state-sanctioned unions were called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" were reserved for religious rituals only. After all, that's what it is - a civilly recognized contract between two people. That way, the religious zealots wouldn't have to worry about the M-word being "tainted." However, this idea has often met enormous resistance when floated in public debate, leading one to conclude that what the zealots really want is a theocracy in which their ideas are endorsed by the state, hence their being completely unwilling to take the word "marriage" out of the civil sphere. icon_mad.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 29, 2011 6:11 PM GMT
    ideally, because marriage is steeped in religious ideology, there should be none and everyone should have to get a civil union, but seeing as that's not realistic, then everyone deserves a chance at marriage
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 6:19 PM GMT
    Idealistically everyone should be a civil union and "marriage" should be left up to the individual or a church.

    Since we know that will never happen, it's important that we have marriage equality otherwise there is too much room for concluding that it is yet another "separate but equal" scenario.

    However, if someone truly believes that "marriage" simply defines a union between a man and woman based on some religious beliefs they have that is fine, as long as they support full and equal benefits for the gay community. I wouldn't consider them anti-gay at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 6:22 PM GMT
    Marriage. It doesn't matter if you want to get married yourself, it's all about equality pure and simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 6:23 PM GMT
    EliStark saidI would like it best if ALL state-sanctioned unions were called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" were reserved for religious rituals only. After all, that's what it is - a civilly recognized contract between two people. That way, the religious zealots wouldn't have to worry about the M-word being "tainted." However, this idea has often met enormous resistance when floated in public debate, leading one to conclude that what the zealots really want is a theocracy in which their ideas are endorsed by the state, hence their being completely unwilling to take the word "marriage" out of the civil sphere. icon_mad.gif


    Isn't this what is done in Mexico? If you want to be "married" you have a civil ceremony. If you want a religious ceremony too it is done after the civil ceremony takes place. The religious ceremony/ritual does not carry any recognition beyond the church. If I am wrong...this would be my vote!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 6:31 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidMarriage...no discriminatory words preceding it.


    This
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Jun 29, 2011 6:33 PM GMT
    Which ever is the quickest path to all the same rights and privileges and benefits that straight couples have would be my choice. If the word "marriage" is going to keep that from happening for years and years, then "Civil Unions" is, in my mind, an acceptable compromise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 6:34 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidWhich ever is the quickest path to all the same rights and privileges and benefits that straight couples have would be my choice. If the word "marriage" is going to keep that from happening for years and years, then "Civil Unions" is, in my mind, an acceptable compromise.


    And the word "marriage" would ensure at some point anyway.
  • BIG_N_TALL

    Posts: 2190

    Jun 29, 2011 6:54 PM GMT
    Marriage.

    Let's spare each other the pretense. Marriage and civil unions are not the same in context to gay/bi people - there is no over-arching definition of what constitutes a civil union from one state to the next in way marriage is universally perceived and executed.

    When we talk about heterosexuals, oh yes, marriage and civil unions are the same thing (sarcasm)... you get the same benefits, entitlements, and rights that are NOT bestowed upon gay partners in a similar context. The hell with all that. The older I get, the less patience I have for stupid and nonsensical crap like the marriage vs. civil union debate.

    It's nothing more than a word game. A game that makes a huge hell of a difference to someone's life.
  • kolkii

    Posts: 147

    Jun 29, 2011 7:17 PM GMT
    civilized gay divorce?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 7:19 PM GMT
    Marriage. Said before and needs saying again: Separate but equal has never, will not now nor ever work and mean equality.
  • Abe13

    Posts: 155

    Jun 29, 2011 7:29 PM GMT
    EliStark saidI would like it best if ALL state-sanctioned unions were called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" were reserved for religious rituals only. After all, that's what it is - a civilly recognized contract between two people. That way, the religious zealots wouldn't have to worry about the M-word being "tainted." However, this idea has often met enormous resistance when floated in public debate, leading one to conclude that what the zealots really want is a theocracy in which their ideas are endorsed by the state, hence their being completely unwilling to take the word "marriage" out of the civil sphere. icon_mad.gif


    This has been my arguement from the get go with friends and family. The government should not involve itself in spiritual matters...marriage. but to protect the rights of couples they should offer civil unions, and all rights that go with them. But no gender bias!! Leave that to the zealots who have nothing to do but not read the Bible. You know those parts about not judging others or loving your neighbor as yourself. The parts they ignore to apparently hurt others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 7:40 PM GMT
    Abe13 said
    EliStark saidI would like it best if ALL state-sanctioned unions were called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" were reserved for religious rituals only. After all, that's what it is - a civilly recognized contract between two people. That way, the religious zealots wouldn't have to worry about the M-word being "tainted." However, this idea has often met enormous resistance when floated in public debate, leading one to conclude that what the zealots really want is a theocracy in which their ideas are endorsed by the state, hence their being completely unwilling to take the word "marriage" out of the civil sphere. icon_mad.gif


    This has been my arguement from the get go with friends and family. The government should not involve itself in spiritual matters...marriage. but to protect the rights of couples they should offer civil unions, and all rights that go with them. But no gender bias!! Leave that to the zealots who have nothing to do but not read the Bible. You know those parts about not judging others or loving your neighbor as yourself. The parts they ignore to apparently hurt others.


    I agree with the above. The problem is that there are so few who see the separation of church and state in this matter. That is the kicker.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 7:43 PM GMT
    Marriage, but I don't think it will ever happen in Romania so I hope for at least a civil union.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 7:46 PM GMT
    "Marriage" rolls off the tongue just right.

    No other qualifiers or hyphenations needed. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 7:54 PM GMT
    EliStark saidI would like it best if ALL state-sanctioned unions were called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" were reserved for religious rituals only. After all, that's what it is - a civilly recognized contract between two people. That way, the religious zealots wouldn't have to worry about the M-word being "tainted." However, this idea has often met enormous resistance when floated in public debate, leading one to conclude that what the zealots really want is a theocracy in which their ideas are endorsed by the state, hence their being completely unwilling to take the word "marriage" out of the civil sphere. icon_mad.gif
    The problem with changing all of this would be that the government has already sanctioned 'marriage' as a civil union when they started issuing 'marriage' licenses and marital status on tons of government forms. The church was fine with the government's role in 'their sacramental union' as long as it fit into their doctrine but now that it is to include those without their shared beliefs, they don't want it changed. If they feel so strongly then they should start referring to their ceremonial union as the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and leave marriage to the civil union between two consenting and legal adults of any sex as governed by the state. Anything less will be viewed by the general populous and government as an inferior right.
  • milleniumguy

    Posts: 1

    Jun 29, 2011 7:59 PM GMT

    MARRIAGE is not an Institution.. It's a NECESSITY....

    " The State has no business in BEDROOMS of the nation" --- Pierre Elliott Trudeau
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 8:15 PM GMT
    EliStark saidI would like it best if ALL state-sanctioned unions were called "civil unions" and the word "marriage" were reserved for religious rituals only. After all, that's what it is - a civilly recognized contract between two people. That way, the religious zealots wouldn't have to worry about the M-word being "tainted." However, this idea has often met enormous resistance when floated in public debate, leading one to conclude that what the zealots really want is a theocracy in which their ideas are endorsed by the state, hence their being completely unwilling to take the word "marriage" out of the civil sphere. icon_mad.gif


    QFT. I was going to say exactly this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2011 8:34 PM GMT
    For one like here at RJ we have guys who have already had a wife or 2, or maybe 3. Lived the life of a hetrosexual and received it's rewards to the foolist. For what ever reason, their career was over and they no longer needed a wife, by their side as they had reached their used by day, or outed, and the wife did not and never would of wanted to be apart of a bisexual marriage. They decide to come and stand under our banner of gay when they are not, and never have been one of us. I don't think they should have a right to a thing called gay marrage, because thats for us homosexuals, and they have always had more rights than us, they just gave them up; rights we homosexuals have never had.

    But............Civil Unions could be all inclusive. We would also face less resistance, from strong lobby groups who have prevented gay marriage, and even had it it turned around, and the Status Que put back into place.

    To many gay people want to point out shove down others throats how diffrent they are, and when it comes to things like this, they suddenly want to be the sameicon_rolleyes.gif