Wrong. The laws that would apply to married couples (straight) would also apply to those who have been joined in a civil union (gay). There is just the one set of laws. They would apply to all people in a committed relationship recognized by the state.
I gotta hand it to you. You have an uncanny ability to play semantics to ridiculous lengths for no apparent benefit. Have fun fighting the world.
Fact is, once gay civil unions are allowed, whether they’re legally called marriages or civil unions or homoarriage or whatever you want, you’ve lost. People will start thinking of them as marriages and referring to them as marriages, and archaic attitudes like yours will wither and die. Do you really expect everyone to go to the trouble of using a seperate term when the institution is legally identical in every other way (“Filing status: single married civilly unionized”)? It’s not going to happen. The net effect of what you’re proposing is to simply have some inane bigotry codified into law, ignored for all practical purposes almost immediately, and then completely forgotten in 20 years. There will be no practical impact on life for you or anyone else.
Just fucking call it a marriage.
If you are sincere, you will now demand the complete separation of marriage and state, and the confinement of the state to the recognition of civil unions independent of participants’ gender.
Yes. This is an example of the stupidity of your position, which requires two sets of laws where one would do perfectly well.
No; it is a problem with the position itself, not with its adherent’s ability to sway people to it. It is obvious on its face that lack of logical support is a failing of the former, not of the latter. (Example: The fact that the position “the Jews are responsible for Germany’s post-Great-War woes” lacked logical support made the proposition unsound, but did not prevent the Nazis from effectively selling the notion.)
For the time being, I am going to assume that magellan01 actually has a consistent position behind his bloviations, and will be along to clarify that he supports the repeal of all marriage laws and the use of a single set of civil-union laws.
Of course, it’s possible that my assumption is overcharitable, but we shall see.
No, I’m not willing to allow your scenario to play out. For a couple of reasons. First, I’m almost entirely certain it won’t work. There have been far too many examples where we’ve tried similar schemes in this country to redress civil rights grievances, and they have never worked before. There’s absolutely no reason to think that this instance will be any different.
Second, I’m not willing to try it out, just to see if I might be wrong, because it will take decades to get your plan implemented, and at least another ten years after that to demonstrate that it’s failed, and then we have to start all over on getting gay marriage. I’d rather just focus on marriage right now, and not waste time on your failed diversions.
Third, granting gays marriage rights would be an infinitly easier and simpler way of achieving equality, and I am generally opposed to unnecessary complexity in the legal code. As I continue to be utterly baffled your insistence that you can have separate institutions for gays and straights, and still insist that this constitutes “one” law - a proposition that flies in the face of logic, common sense, and normal usage of the English language - I have to consider this an unnecessary redundancy in the legal code, as you would have two separate sets of statutes to cover identical legal situations. A simplified legal code, where possible and practicable, is always preferrable to pointless redundency.
Fourth, the reasoning behind your stance is absurd, and I am similarly opposed to enshrining absurdity in our legal code. Or at least, any more absurdity.
And lastly, there remains the simple fact that I do not want a civil union. I want a marriage.
And that’s what I think of your scenario: it’s unworkable, unnecessary, unintelligent, and unwanted. So you tell me, given what I think of your reasoning, why on Earth should I give it a chance to play out?
I think this is the point where we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I can’t see that there’s any innate property in mixed relationships which elevates them above same sex relationships, and with all due respect you’ve failed to clearly identify this property.
I believe it is a problem with your position because, as you’ve admitted, one plank of it is this notion that an ideal heterosexual relationship is innately superior to even an ideal homosexual relationship. This is an objective claim which demands empirical support. It’s a conclusion, not a premise, and you can’t make the argument soundly without corroborative data.
All my side is required to prove is that there exists a codified prejudice against homosexual relationships. The passage of Prop. 8 is proof enough of that. I do not need to prove that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships because, living in an egalitarian society and absent hard evidence to the contrary, this should be the default assumption. Again, it is your side’s job to provide this evidence.
You may argue that I’m also required to prove that homosexual marriage won’t somehow sully the fabric of our society, but again this should be the default assumption. Only once the harmful consequences of a practise have been recognised can one successfully argue it be banned. As you have tacitly acknowledged, those societies which have legalised gay marriage have not yet suffered tangibly as a result. I know you believe the negative effects of gay marriage won’t manifest for some time but until they do we have no coherent basis on which to enact any sort of prohibitive legislation.