Pages: 1 2

 

2009-04-24 22:07:44
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6850|San Diego, CA, USA
What if we got rid of the word 'marriage' from government and replaced it with "Civil Union"? 

Would this satisfy the religious right?

Would gay rights activists be happy if they were allowed to have a "Civil Union"?


Is this the middle ground here that both sides in the debase find reasonable.


Discuss.
2009-04-24 23:02:41
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5888

Religious right wouldn't be happy with it because they'll say it is an attack on religion.
Gays wouldn't be happy with it because they'll say they only changed it so that they still can't say they are married.
2009-04-24 23:10:21
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|6004|College Park, MD
I think it's the easiest and best solution.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-04-25 07:50:50
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

I like it because it does two things:

1. Enables couples (regardless of gender) to have the same rights across the board

2. Removes a religious element (marriage) from government

If people want to get married in a church, they still can and can still be married. But in the eyes of the government they are "united" or something similar...which has no religious overtones.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-04-25 07:53:25
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6802|so randum
South park did a great take on this.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-04-25 07:53:44
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6827|South Florida
What if people had the personal freedom to do what they want?
Hmm, good idea mitch.

If your a faggot, i dont have to agree with your views, but if you wanna marry a dude - to each his own.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2009-04-25 07:59:53
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6770

FEOS wrote:

I like it because it does two things:

1. Enables couples (regardless of gender) to have the same rights across the board

2. Removes a religious element (marriage) from government

If people want to get married in a church, they still can and can still be married. But in the eyes of the government they are "united" or something similar...which has no religious overtones.
This.

Also Mitch you can be a faggot without being gay. And likewise you can be gay without being a faggot.

You're probably both though.
2009-04-25 08:02:49
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6827|South Florida

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I like it because it does two things:

1. Enables couples (regardless of gender) to have the same rights across the board

2. Removes a religious element (marriage) from government

If people want to get married in a church, they still can and can still be married. But in the eyes of the government they are "united" or something similar...which has no religious overtones.
This.

Also Mitch you can be a faggot without being gay. And likewise you can be gay without being a faggot.

You're probably both though.
Lol'd tbh

Yeah, i like throbing cocks
15 more years! 15 more years!
2009-04-25 08:09:03
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6795|N. Ireland
I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and there should be nothing else and no other alternative. My views are really that simple.

Last edited by kylef (2009-04-25 08:09:32)

2009-04-25 08:17:07
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|6004|College Park, MD

kylef wrote:

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and there should be nothing else and no other alternative. My views are really that simple.
We ain't talking about marriage here though. We're talking about civil unions. If you're civilly united with another, then you can file taxes jointly, get hospital visitation rights for each other, etc.

If you want to go through a marriage ceremony at a church, you'll have to find one that's accepting of your lifestyle be it heterosexual or homosexual.

I like that.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2009-04-25 08:18:19
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6840|Long Island, New York

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I think it's the easiest and best solution.
2009-04-25 08:19:53
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6883|SE London

kylef wrote:

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and there should be nothing else and no other alternative. My views are really that simple.
Why?
2009-04-25 08:26:25
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6795|N. Ireland

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

[We ain't talking about marriage here though. We're talking about civil unions. If you're civilly united with another, then you can file taxes jointly, get hospital visitation rights for each other, etc ... If you want to go through a marriage ceremony at a church, you'll have to find one that's accepting of your lifestyle be it heterosexual or homosexual.

Bertster7 wrote:

Why?
I know we aren't talking about marriage, that's why I underlined marriage and didn't even mention "civil unions" in my post. I'm aware of civil union benefits, but am still very much against it. I'm one who believes in (I don't want to say 'the') God and, subsequently, the Bible. I'm hoping that you can understand where I'm getting at from there.
2009-04-25 08:30:23
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

kylef wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

[We ain't talking about marriage here though. We're talking about civil unions. If you're civilly united with another, then you can file taxes jointly, get hospital visitation rights for each other, etc ... If you want to go through a marriage ceremony at a church, you'll have to find one that's accepting of your lifestyle be it heterosexual or homosexual.

Bertster7 wrote:

Why?
I know we aren't talking about marriage, that's why I underlined marriage and didn't even mention "civil unions" in my post. I'm aware of civil union benefits, but am still very much against it. I'm one who believes in (I don't want to say 'the') God and, subsequently, the Bible. I'm hoping that you can understand where I'm getting at from there.
I used to think that marriage started as a religious thing but after doing a bit of reading it started as an agreement between families/partners about an arranged marriage or w/e.


Then religion stepped in and said we want a say. Then the govt got involved to help settle legal disputes.



So end of the day the religious bunch should fuck off, as marriage didn't come about due to religion.

Last edited by Flecco (2009-04-25 08:31:27)

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-04-25 08:39:29
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6883|SE London

kylef wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

[We ain't talking about marriage here though. We're talking about civil unions. If you're civilly united with another, then you can file taxes jointly, get hospital visitation rights for each other, etc ... If you want to go through a marriage ceremony at a church, you'll have to find one that's accepting of your lifestyle be it heterosexual or homosexual.

Bertster7 wrote:

Why?
I know we aren't talking about marriage, that's why I underlined marriage and didn't even mention "civil unions" in my post. I'm aware of civil union benefits, but am still very much against it. I'm one who believes in (I don't want to say 'the') God and, subsequently, the Bible. I'm hoping that you can understand where I'm getting at from there.
I can see the issue with calling it marriage, but I really can't see why anyone would be against some system whereby gay couples can gain the same legal benefits as married couples. Doesn't seem like fair and equal treatment which in my opinion should be classed as some sort of violation of their rights.

The only real argument here is religious and so is therefore bollocks. There are no good legal, humanitarian, economic or scientific reasons against it, so I'm all in favour.
2009-04-25 08:44:57
SealXo
Member
+309|6838

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I think it's the easiest and best solution.
2009-04-25 09:41:32
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

I like it because it does two things:

1. Enables couples (regardless of gender) to have the same rights across the board

2. Removes a religious element (marriage) from government

If people want to get married in a church, they still can and can still be married. But in the eyes of the government they are "united" or something similar...which has no religious overtones.
Agreed.

Separation of church and state FTW
2009-04-25 10:11:06
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6795|N. Ireland

Bertster7 wrote:

I can see the issue with calling it marriage, but I really can't see why anyone would be against some system whereby gay couples can gain the same legal benefits as married couples. Doesn't seem like fair and equal treatment which in my opinion should be classed as some sort of violation of their rights.

The only real argument here is religious and so is therefore bollocks. There are no good legal, humanitarian, economic or scientific reasons against it, so I'm all in favour.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for gay couples having the same legal benefits, but I don't believe that gay couples should be able to get "married".
2009-04-25 10:29:00
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6296|Truthistan
Once upon a time when fornication laws were enforced, a marriage license was a license to have sex, and if a woman wasn't married and had a kid they took the kid away and god forbid a white woman had a black kid (I'm thinking Gone with the Wind here)

Well all that has changed, we don't need a license to have sex, marriage licenses are largely irrelevant. People should be able to sign a piece of paper like a contract, have it notarized or have their priest/pastor/rabi etc sign it and it should be recognized by everyone for all purposes. The state really does not have any business licensing marriage or regulating sexual activity. If you want to enter into that marriage or union with someone of the same sex or with multiple people who really cares. 

The US is based on freedom and individual rights. If you want to join a church and live by their rules you can, you can limit yourself in anyway that you want because you are free to constrain yourself anyway you want and you can call it morality if you like, if that pleases you, you have that right as an individual. And if a group of you get together and want to excludes others from your religious club then good for you, you should be able to worship anyway you want. But what you can't do is enforce you beliefs on others who choose their own path designed on their freedoms and their individual rights.

After all, why should your rights and freedoms be protected when you choose to use them to deny others their rights and their freedoms. When the people in the US wake up and realize this, the US will be a much greater nation than it already is and it will be a lot closer to the ideals found in the constitution.


So go ahead and join a crazy cult where you get your nuts chopped and your "wife" has the cult leader's kids, that's your right and I say good 4 U.
2009-04-25 10:29:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6883|SE London

kylef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I can see the issue with calling it marriage, but I really can't see why anyone would be against some system whereby gay couples can gain the same legal benefits as married couples. Doesn't seem like fair and equal treatment which in my opinion should be classed as some sort of violation of their rights.

The only real argument here is religious and so is therefore bollocks. There are no good legal, humanitarian, economic or scientific reasons against it, so I'm all in favour.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for gay couples having the same legal benefits, but I don't believe that gay couples should be able to get "married".
But you said there should be no alternative...

kylef wrote:

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and there should be nothing else and no other alternative. My views are really that simple.
A civil union with the same legal benefits is an alternative.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-04-25 10:44:01)

2009-04-25 10:49:47
mikkel
Member
+383|6903

kylef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I can see the issue with calling it marriage, but I really can't see why anyone would be against some system whereby gay couples can gain the same legal benefits as married couples. Doesn't seem like fair and equal treatment which in my opinion should be classed as some sort of violation of their rights.

The only real argument here is religious and so is therefore bollocks. There are no good legal, humanitarian, economic or scientific reasons against it, so I'm all in favour.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for gay couples having the same legal benefits, but I don't believe that gay couples should be able to get "married".
Why not? Do you get a kick out of projecting your religion onto others? If men can't "marry" other men, why can Muslims call Allah their "god"? I thought there was only one god, too.
2009-04-25 11:00:57
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6883|SE London

mikkel wrote:

kylef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I can see the issue with calling it marriage, but I really can't see why anyone would be against some system whereby gay couples can gain the same legal benefits as married couples. Doesn't seem like fair and equal treatment which in my opinion should be classed as some sort of violation of their rights.

The only real argument here is religious and so is therefore bollocks. There are no good legal, humanitarian, economic or scientific reasons against it, so I'm all in favour.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for gay couples having the same legal benefits, but I don't believe that gay couples should be able to get "married".
Why not? Do you get a kick out of projecting your religion onto others? If men can't "marry" other men, why can Muslims call Allah their "god"? I thought there was only one god, too.
I can see the reasoning behind not wanting to call it marriage. It doesn't even have to be religiously motivated. It is different and perhaps there should be a different word for it. Civil partnerships, as we have in the UK, is not a very catchy name though. "We're going to get civily partnered" or suchlike, doesn't have quite the same ring as "we're going to get married". Maybe they could do something about that.
2009-04-25 11:11:17
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6795|N. Ireland

Bertster7 wrote:

But you said there should be no alternative...

kylef wrote:

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and there should be nothing else and no other alternative. My views are really that simple.
A civil union with the same legal benefits is an alternative.
I meant no alternative to marriage - in that a civil union should not be considered so. Bit unclear, my bad. As in, a civil union should not give you the same binding that a marriage does. Gay couples can have the same rights, but in a "Are you married?" box it should be left unticked.

mikkel wrote:

Why not? Do you get a kick out of projecting your religion onto others? If men can't "marry" other men, why can Muslims call Allah their "god"? I thought there was only one god, too.
'Allah' is just a word for 'one God'. I'm not a Muslim and don't force my religion onto others.

Last edited by kylef (2009-04-25 11:14:04)

2009-04-25 11:18:12
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6883|SE London

kylef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But you said there should be no alternative...

kylef wrote:

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and there should be nothing else and no other alternative. My views are really that simple.
A civil union with the same legal benefits is an alternative.
I meant no alternative to marriage - in that a civil union should not be considered so. Bit unclear, my bad. As in, a civil union should not give you the same binding that a marriage does. Gay couples can have the same rights, but in a "Are you married?" box it should be left unticked.
I think the point of this thread is to suggest that there shouldn't be an "are you married?" box in the 1st place, but rather a box that applies to both civil unions and marriage and refers to them by the same name, but does not call either marriage.
2009-04-25 11:33:47
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6987|United States of America
I'm all for this plan. I might have even suggested it back earlier in one of the gay topics that were so very gay.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard