Sometimes the world needs big changes... - Page 2

B-Line · #11 09-03-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL

But that is the exact problem, they are fighting out the definition of the word, because both communities have a stake in the outcome. Unions are fine for some, but many homosexual couples want a marriage because they feel slighted by being part of a union, but not being married. Many churches don't care what the individuals involved do themselves, but they are fighting to protect the concept of marriage as they each define it.

Yes JCL, you are correct, and I agree with you. The problem is the word MARRIAGE. So if you say that GOVERNMENT no longer recognizes the word MARRIAGE for any couple, gay or straight, and that EVERYONE is a CIVIL UNION.. Then there is no concept or word to protect, under the eyes of GOVERNMENT.

Sponsored Links

B-Line · #12 09-03-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motordavid

My vows and commitment to my CEO are based on human loyalty,
dedication, altruism, love and caring. I understand the common thread
of where ethics/morals "comes from" in most religions, but a marriage
does not need to be "religous" based per se, imo...

I completely agree MD.

Again, I don't think that the word marriage be "religious" based per se, either.
But the rhetoric I keep hearing from the church crowd is that a "marriage" is a religious institution and gay marriage, as perceived by them is some sort of blasphemy. And that gay marriage should not be legal because it goes against the bible and some peoples interpretation of god's word.

But since there is also a LEGAL and COMMUNITY based, non religious definition of the word Marriage as it applies to LAW, wouldn't it be fair to just use a new word for EVERYONE. Everyone across all states. A word that didn't have religious affiliations but would treat everyone equally.

So basically, the word marriage could still be used, just not by government institutions, bodies of law, etc. UNIONS for everyone, with the same rights for everybody regardless of gender.

Wagner · #13 09-03-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Good point Wagner. But I think a lot of the controversy actually comes from the word MARRIAGE.

The gay community feels it has the right to share that word with heterosexual couples, legally. Personally, I could care less about the word itself. If by eliminating the word as it is used by the STATE, both heterosexual couples and gay couples can then be treated equally, so be it..

Almost like two kids fighting over a toy and a parent taking it away. It is equal if neither gets to use it, as defined by our governing bodies of law and contracts.

Also, in this manner, neither side of the issue wins and neither losses. The gay community gets UNION rights and the church community can put whatever value they choose on the word Marriage.

And if the gay community wants to define their own, ceremonial definition around the word, that would be okay also.

As far as the gay community and the church community fighting out the definition of the word marriage, I could care less. As long as everyone is treated equally under the eyes of the state.

My question then is simple, do they want equal rights or equal verbiage? And if the verbiage is the important part...doesn't the devalue the rights? Can't have it both ways.

B-Line · #14 09-03-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

My question then is simple, do they want equal rights or equal verbiage? And if the verbiage is the important part...doesn't the devalue the rights? Can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately I can't answer that question. I don't know.

But I would think they probably want both, rights and verbiage. Otherwise, it would be, separate but equal.

And that is why my suggestion is to change the verbiage for EVERYONE.
The gay community doesn't get to use the word under LAW and the heterosexual community doesn't get to use it either.
(If the two groups can't play nice in the sand box together, then the sand box needs to change.)

I don't think change always means giving Group A what Group B already has. Sometimes the best way to change things is to, TAKE AWAY. Clearly there will be a never ending debate about the word MARRIAGE, so why bother using it? TAKE IT AWAY from everyone, as it applies to two couples and their rights.

Why not just come up with a new word for EVERYONE as it applies to equality under GOVERNMENT.

statdoc · #15 09-03-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Why not just come up with a new word for EVERYONE as it applies to equality under GOVERNMENT.

Because then EVERYONE will be equally pissed off! Not a solution that most politicians would be happy to push.

Wagner · #16 09-03-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Unfortunately I can't answer that question. I don't know.

But I would think they probably want both, rights and verbiage. Otherwise, it would be, separate but equal.

And that is why my suggestion is to change the verbiage for EVERYONE.
The gay community doesn't get to use the word under LAW and the heterosexual community doesn't get to use it either.
(If the two groups can't play nice in the sand box together, then the sand box needs to change.)

I don't think change always means giving Group A what Group B already has. Sometimes the best way to change things is to, TAKE AWAY. Clearly there will be a never ending debate about the word MARRIAGE, so why bother using it? TAKE IT AWAY from everyone, as it applies to two couples and their rights.

Why not just come up with a new word for EVERYONE as it applies to equality under GOVERNMENT.

It only separate but equal if GOVERNMENT was the designer of marriage, which it isn't.

mwares212 · #17 09-03-2008, 06:30 PM

This is strange. I just had the SAME conversion with a liberal colleague of mine at work today. I personally support civil unions giving all the same legal rights as marriage. He supports giving everyone the right to "marry". The compromise he came up with was using the word civil union to apply to heterosexual marriage in legal matters. This got me thinking, and I think this could be a good compromise.

Quicksilver · #18 09-03-2008, 07:25 PM

Hey don't hold my feet to the fire for someone elses opinion.

#1 According to the writer Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse.
It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions. So it not just a USA thing, a federal thing.

#2 The way the word marriage is used is fine within the Gay community.
All they want is to have that definition apply to their relationship just
like anyone else who is married.

It appears that the meaning of the word provides substance to a joined relationship and because of that Civil unions by concept does not provide equal recognition.

The Article sites this example "A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege"

So the article concludes by saying "As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike"

So it is evident that the gay community in not interested in the idea of
a BIG CHANGE.

Finally you use the example of laws that prohibited women and people of color from voting or having full voting rights Which was inherently wrong to begin with and sparked an all out war to change it.

There has never been anything wrong with the term "marriage" and it's usage that would warrant an all out battle by anyone to neuter the term
or it's implication regarding the institution it represents.

You would need a lot more people beating drums in the streets before the change you suggest would even have a glimmer of hope. Besides; as has been shown that's not what the gay community wants anywho........

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Come on Barry, you and I both know that the legal issues on state and federal could be updated and changed. NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE. Especially if we are talking about the change on a federal level.
If there were once laws that prohibited women and people of color from voting or having full voting rights, certainly if that could be changed, so too could the definition of CIVIL UNION.

#2, YES, but that is because of the way the word marriage is used, which could be changed so no one can use the word Marriage.

It would be Civil Unions for ALL couples, in all states, with all the same benefits... No more word Marriage as it applies to STATE (and when I say STATE, I mean GOVERNMENT, not California and New York..)

Wagner · #19 09-03-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwares212

This is strange. I just had the SAME conversion with a liberal colleague of mine at work today. I personally support civil unions giving all the same legal rights as marriage. He supports giving everyone the right to "marry". The compromise he came up with was using the word civil union to apply to heterosexual marriage in legal matters. This got me thinking, and I think this could be a good compromise.

Not sure why married people should have to compromise. Marriage has been around since the written word.